I’ve been talking to a number of my friends who are highly successful tournament grinders lately such as Seabeast, Psyduck, and StevoL about the ‘bigger picture’. What we’re trying to accomplish through poker, what we want to do outside of that, how much money we think we need to accomplish these goals, life style choices, etc. We’ve especially been talking a lot about money management.

The thing that never stops startling me about the poker community, and especially the multi table tournament community, is just how many guys are reckless with their bankroll and general money management. I’m not necessarily a master of either, but I know crazy when I see it. A surprising amount of guys I talk to who are winning regulars have much smaller bankrolls than I’d imagine, especially some of the guys who directly buy themselves into major live events, sometimes with less than 10 buy ins for that event.

The more I think about not only this game but life in general it becomes so clear how the removal of ego is integral to success. There’s so many MTT guys who make awful bankroll decisions, and my best guess as to why is that it’s ego driven. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be confident, I’ve stated before that when you’re playing at the table you should have, as Tucker Max put it, ‘confidence bordering on delusional hubris’.

What is important at this game of ours is a willingness to put in volume with the removal of ego. A lot of guys I know will only play the biggest buy in tournaments. For a few of the sickest guys like Menlo, Andy Mcleod, Randallin who do this, that’s all fine and good. However, there’s a ton of guys who don’t have these players skills or their bankrolls that only bother with the largest buy ins. The problem with this is that leads to massive variance and probably a smaller overall earn than guys who are willing to put in the volume. I understand for some guys that 12 tabling simply doesn’t mesh with their playing style, but for guys who want to make the ascent through the ranks its pretty God damn important that you’re willing to grind your ass off.

Let’s look at some of the math here. Say you’re a good but not great MTT player with an average buy in of $100. That means you’re playing most large tournaments, but now and then you pass up the toughest fields like the weekly 1k’s and the 100 rebuys. Now let’s say you have an ROI of 50%, which is entirely reasonable at that average buy in playing pretty high volume and very attainable with enough work if you’re a guy who’s learning. It’s easy to confirm this because you can look up just about any player on www.officialpokerrankings.com and check their ROI over their entire sample size. In fact, were you curious enough you could basically figure out how much every serious MTT grinder makes, though you couldn’t be exact cause many of them play on European sites that aren’t tracked and OPR isn’t perfect, but let’s get back to our example.

So you play an average buy in of $100, at 50% ROI and play 20 tournaments a day, which can be accomplished in a 7-9 hour work day. Now let’s say you play six days a week because it’s pretty easy and there’s no commute and no homework (although you should study you don’t have to if you don’t want to.) Your average week is worth $6,000. In a fucking week dude. Now let’s say you put in 45 weeks a year, how much do you make assuming all these variables hold roughly true? $270,000. Obviously bad runs happen, good runs happen, etc, but this is in fact your expectation.

Now let’s say you need to spend some, and have to pay taxes of course (if you’re an Australian reading this, go fuck yourself you lucky tax free bastards.) By the end of the year you should still be able to pocket well over $150,000. If you’re careful with your money and put in two years of work like this you can have a large enough savings to never have to worry too much about money for the rest of your life. Sure you’re not rich, but you won’t be eating Ramen noodles three meals a day any time soon.

So when I look at math like this it completely blows my mind that so many MTT regulars don’t have a bankroll worth one years worth of pretty low stress work. Most of these guys probably have a slightly higher ROI at an even higher average buy in. I guess it’s because you have to drop the ego and the chase of the ‘big score’ in order to think along these lines. There’s a bunch of MTT guys I know who have the skills to do this and bank a ton, but instead take a staking deal which includes both online and live play and end up suffering the horrendous variance of live poker while all their online efforts go back to the backer, turning their backing arrangement more into a long term money loan to play live poker at a FUCKING GIGANTIC vig.

See I’ve thought about and discussed all this shit more times than I can count. That’s why you’ll see me in every tournament I can cram in and play comfortable. That’s why you’ll see me in $11 buy ins with a single rebuy add on. You’ll see me in $25 freeze outs. That’s why I work seven days a week and greet anything that derails this with the utmost disgust and annoyance.
“Please Tony, take me to the hospital, I’m bleeding to death. HELP ME.”
“GOD DAMN IT!! Do you have any idea what this is going to cost me in expectation!? FUCK.”

And that’s why I should see all your asses grinding with me. Think long term people. Drop the ego. It’s not about just the money, it’s about the security. You won’t be 23 forever. I should know, my ass get’s older in two weeks, and I’m thinking about it.

So it’s about time that I got back into the habit of regularly updating my blog. After having done so much writing for the Around the World in 90 Days blog plus an enormous sum of live poker I was pretty worn out and didn’t feel up to writing anything for a while. Over the last few days I’ve felt my desire to write to grow again, so here we are.

Not only has my drive to write increased, so has my drive to do a lot of things. To put it bluntly, I’m pretty fucking bored with myself. Yesterday I had a golf lesson. The day before I had a boxing lesson. I’m playing a ton of tennis. I’m thinking about writing some material and going to perform it at an open mic night at a comedy club. I’ve been working out and dieting religiously.

Celina is currently away in Korea at the APPT Seoul. I didn’t go for a couple of reasons which I’ll talk about in a future entry, nothing major, just a business detail that meant I probably shouldn’t go to Korea. That and I’m really exhausted from all my recent travel, so another 14 hours in planes not to mention God knows how much time in airports seemed a bit too much for me. That and I’ve been killing online.

As most people reading this blog would know, last week was PokerStars WCOOP. The tournaments started at what’s 4:30am Melbourne time so I was up at 4:25am every morning and playing as many tables as possible for the next 12 hours. I didn’t have any major results in the WCOOP itself, but over the last 10 or so days (the last few I’ve gone back to my 8 hour schedule starting at 9am) my results have been:
1st on Titan for $15,000.
3rd on Stars for $12,000.
1st on Stars for $6000 New Zealand APPT package.
1st on Full Tilt for $9,900.
2nd on Stars for $16,500.
1st on UB for $7,500 Aruba package (I think that’s the value?)
1st on Stars for $5,800.
Not to mention a bunch of other random final table appearances for like $500-$2000 or something. It feels really good to be back grinding online and making money at a consistent rate. I’ve also continued my Midas touch of swapping, swapping with a friend at the final two tables of the 100r which he won and had to send me $1500, and swapping with Luckychewy with 10 left in the Tilt winners choice, which he won and had to send me $1200 for.

Today is Grand Final day in Melbourne so I’m going to take the day off and get outside. First going out to breakfast, then playing some tennis, then throwing some money on the game and watching the mayhem. If we go to the right spot for the game and get a couple beers in me (yea, I’m going to take a one day break from my strict diet) perhaps there’s potential for an epic day. We’ll see.

Hey people, it’s been a while since I’ve done any strategy writing but I assure you I was very busy rotating between grinding long days of live poker and considering suicide. Now that I’ve got some more free time I’m hoping to get back to productive writing and getting some articles done. Today I want to talk about a concept I’ve been mulling over in my head for a while now, manipulative vs deceptive play.
Alternating between manipulative and deceptive play is a concept I’ve struggled finding a balance with for some time. First let’s define what I mean by both manipulative and deceptive play.
Manipulative play: I alternate between calling ‘manipulative play’ manipulative and ‘obvious play’, or on the days a regular tries something obvious on me “Do you think I’d fall for that obvious fucking shit?!” Most manipulative plays are just that, rather obvious, at least to those of us who are thinking players. A good example of manipulative play is min raising or (tiny reraising) with AA/KK pre. You lower the cost for players in the blinds to see the flop (or the original raiser), hoping to manipulate them into getting married to their hand post flop against your over pair, or perhaps interpreting your pre flop min raise as weak and coming over the top. The problem is that many people don’t have anything besides AA/KK in their pre flop min raising/reraising range, so when you see it from them it becomes very obvious.
Deceptive play: Deceptive play is a way of describing a play that consists of making the same move with the majority or your entire range, making your hand very difficult to read. The major benefit of deceptive play is that it makes your hand much more difficult to read, but as a consequence it can sometimes discourage the action that you want. A good example of deceptive play is when it folds to you on the button with 13 BB’s and you shove your entire range of playable hands into the two blinds on your left. In order for this to be better than the manipulative play here though (which would be shoving hands that don’t want action and 2.5X’ing hands that want to get shoved on so you can snap call) you need the players on your left to be thinking or regular players. We’ll elaborate on that example a bit further in.

Basically, you want to use the manipulative play when appropriate to encourage the action you want against non thinking players, and use deceptive play against good/thinking ones who will see through your manipulative play. Manipulative play can be used both to encourage getting action on a hand and to discourage. Figuring out when to use which is a combination of hand reading, board reading, and being image and history conscious. Let’s look at some examples:

Example 1: Effective stacks 8,500. Blinds 100/200 with 25 ante 9 handed. You hold 8h8d on the button.
Preflop: Folds to MP2, MP2 raises to 550, folds to you on the button, you call on the button, both blinds fold.
Flop: Jc 8c 4d (Pot 1325)
MP2 bets 1000, you…

Many players would either flat here, or perhaps min raise. Some might raise 3X, some may even shove. Often though, people take the flat call or min raise option, hoping to keep the other player putting chips in the pot. Against a non thinking player you should take the route which you feel best manipulates that specific player to get a lot of chips in the pot, and whichever play that is depends on what kind of non thinking player you’re against. Many go with the min raise.

Against a thinking player you want to make the play that he expects you to make with the full range of hands that get a lot of chips in the middle, which is mostly draws and good jacks. If the thinking player perceives you as the type to shove your draws, then you should consider shoving your set. What you don’t want to do against a thinking player is alter your play solely based on the strength of your hand, since many have seen the same pattern before and know how to react to it.

Example 2: Your stack: 20,000. SB stack: 4800. BB stack: 5000. Blinds 200/400 with 50 ante. You hold QQ on the button.
Preflop: The action folds around to you…

Now, against non thinking players the optimal play here is to go with the manipulative play; make either a min raise or your standard open to like 2.5X (or whatever it may be.) This affords them the chance to resteal on you thinking they have fold equity, when in fact because you are aware of stack sizes that was never possible.

Against thinking players you need to just shove. This is because you would be shoving a huge range of hands on the button against these stacks, and they know that, and if you only make a nominal raise with you’re strongest hands they’re going to take note of that and you lose action from hands which would have called a shove but know to fold to your nominal raise.

Example 3: It may seem like every example of manipulative play needs to be done against a non thinking player, but there are in fact situations where using the manipulative play (especially if you are an unknown) can be better than the deceptive one.
Your stack: 10,000. HJ’s stack: 25,000. Blinds 300/600 with a 75 ante. You hold AdQc on the button. HJ is a good thinking regular.
Preflop: Folds to the HJ, HJ raises to 1600, CO folds, you…
Now, here’s a spot where against a good player the correct thing to do (particularly as an unknown) is to raise small, to something like 4000. This makes your hand look much bigger than it actually is and against some players will force folds from hands you’d really like to fold out (such as mid pairs and AQ, although AQ won’t fold that much.) It’s a useful play since against the hands that will never fold it’s effectively the same thing as shoving, but gives you one extra opportunity to take the chips in the pot without having to flip and be behind against some hands that will snap call a shove but occasionally fold to the scary looking raise.

As a rule, you should go with the deceptive play against anyone you consider to be a regular or good, and go with the manipulative play against players who seem bad or are totally unknown. If an unknown seems to be playing very well and thinking through his decisions, then opt for the deceptive play. However, be aware of situations where you can manipulate thinking players based on the tendencies they expect.

You should also give consideration to what site and stakes you’re playing on. On some sites way more players are ‘in the know’ and aware of the most obvious manipulative plays (such as Stars) whereas on sites with almost no regulars and are blocked to the US the manipulative plays work at a much higher frequency. Your choice in play should be different between a $50 freeze out and the $100 rebuys. Also, when it comes to playing unknowns in live poker you should pretty much always take the manipulative route, because well, unknown players in live tournaments rarely have a clue.

Hey guys,

My Around the World in 90 Days blog is nearly finished in it's writing so this one will get some more attention upcoming. As for the moment I did the 2+2 pokercast last week which can be heard here:

http://odeo.com/episodes/23243468-38-Pokercast-Episode-38-LIVE-from-the-APPT-in-Maccau-with-Tony-Dunst-aka-Bond-18

I come into the fray about 25 minutes into the fun. Had a great time and big thanks to Adam and Terrence for having me on.

I wrote this article with Nath a while ago, then while browsing Tworags today in preparation for my soon return I realized this one had yet to be uploaded. So here it is:

Every now and then you'll see someone make a play that looks very much out of the ordinary. Whether it's a sick call, a massive fold, or a bluff that seems almost illogical, you'll see thinking players make moves that are entirely unusual, but surprisingly sensible when they give you their thought process and everything is put together.

Many poker hands are close to automatic, and even putting in a large session of MTT play I probably encounter less than a dozen hands that require considerable thought. Of those, the majority will end with an ordinary or regular conclusion, I just needed some time to think all the angles through. Now and then though, you'll find yourself in a very difficult, strange, or unexpected spot where the best option may not be the most obvious.

Learning to put all the pieces together in a poker hand is integral to your advancement as a player. In order to be able to gain maximum equity from the hands you play you need to be thinking about everything that goes into the hand and how it affects what your decision should be. What kind of factors should you be including in your thought process during a hand? A brief (but likely incomplete) list would include:


1. Stack sizes: Always be considering stack sizes and what they implicate, allow, and restrict.


2. Position: How it gives an advantage to one player in a hand and takes it from the other (being out of position, while normally a disadvantage, can sometimes be reversed when you want to do something like check shove a draw.)


3. Previous streets: When making a decision on later streets you need to consider how previous streets actions have affected the hand. Think about how they narrow your opponents range, how it narrows his perception of your range, and what your opponent was trying to accomplish in them.


4. History/metagame: Unless your brand new to an online poker table as a total unknown and your villain is a total unknown, you need to consider how history and metagame affect the hand. Almost no poker hand is a complete vacuum, and especially in live hands you have all kinds of information available to you, even if that means making broad generalizations (about people’s age, gender, race, clothing, nationality). When you don't have anything else to go on, start using stereotypes. They might not be PC, but they're definitely +EV. In terms of history, think about previous lines the villain has taken both against you and in similar situations against others.


5. How each card affects the hand: On later streets you need to think about how each card that rolls off affects the hand and the options available to you. Obvious examples include: A 2 hitting a AJ8 flop being totally unimportant. An ace hitting a T54 flop being a great scare card to bluff. A heart hitting a J52 two heart board reducing the range your top pair beats, etc.


6. Levels: What level are you thinking on? What level is the villain thinking on? What level does he think your thinking on? Sounds complicated, doesn't it? In order the levels go: What do I think he has? What do I think he thinks I have? What do I think he thinks I think he has? Don't just think about the level itself though, think about how the knowledge you believe your opponent has (or thinks he has) will change his action.


7. What stage of the tournament it is: Many opponents simply won't attempt large bluffs in the first few levels because they don't want to bust early. Same goes with bubble situations. Some opponents will use bubble periods to go ballistic and attempt all kinds of aggressive plays. Know your opponent and whether he cares what stage of the tournament it is.


8. Other external factors: Who have you seen your opponent talking to? Has he been talking strategy? How is he dressed? Anything else you can incorporate to get your opponents range more precise.
It's difficult to explain how to put a hand together simply with lists and advice. I think the best way to impart what I'm talking about here is through examples. The first comes from a hand I played in the 2008 WSOP $5000 full ring no limit event:



History/Reads: We are in the money with about 45 players left. Villain is a young guy moved to the table about half an hour ago. I saw him talking to online players “gunning4you” and Ike Haxton, so I assume he's online. I saw him raise the button with 92o into the BB of a nit with a very short stack who shoved. Button made the standard pot odds call and lost the hand. Overall he seems pretty aggressive and thinking. We don't have any history in hands played between each other, and he hasn't seen me play any interesting or relevant pots on the table.


My stack: ~160,000
Young guy: ~200,000

Blinds 2000/4000 with 500 ante.

I hold Qc Jc in the BB.

Preflop: Folds to the CO, Co raises to 11000, folds to me in the BB, I call.


So far things are pretty standard here. We know the villain is aggressive and he raises in late position, and we make the call with a hand that is a pretty clear blind defense at these stack sizes.


Flop: 4h 7s Td

I check, the CO checks.

His flop check is a bit strange. I would expect him to bet with every over pair, top pair, and the vast majority of overcard hands. I also think he normally bets second or third pair, though checking behind for pot control is certainly possible. I also think he would normally bet if he flopped a draw, such as 98 (the only realistic draw out.)


Turn: Qh

I bet 16,000, the CO thinks briefly and shoves, I call.

Leading here seems pretty standard, though we can also make an argument for check/calling. However, given the somewhat drawy board, I felt like betting was better, especially since he might call down a little light since he might think I'm just firing because he checked behind.

When the CO shoves we need to start thinking about his range for making this play with. Would he play a set or two pair like this? Certainly not, if he checked back the flop with a hand that strong he would almost never just shove the turn (at least with no history) and I would expect him to do something like raise to 46,000 instead. Would he play an overpair like this? The overpair is similar to the set, except there's even less chance he checked behind on the flop with the overpair. Would he play KQ or AQ this way? KQ is certainly unlikely from a thinking player because he knows it's very hard to get value this way. AQ is possible, but even still I think it's much more likely he calls or raises a nominal amount, since the only realistic thing for me to call him with (that doesn't beat him) is KQ or perhaps QJ.

So what would he shove? Well with the heart hits that puts a flush draw out, so him checking back over cards with a heart draw on the flop would make sense. KJ checking the flop and cramming would also make sense. He could also have some form of combo draw, such as a small pair with a flush draw like 7h 6h, that decided to check the flop to induce bluffs but now decides I can't call with one pair hands and shoves instead.

Overall though, we can't seem to find many (if any) hands in his range that make sense for him to shove for value, and numerous hands make sense for him to shove as a semi bluff.

We also know villain is young and talked to online players, and online players aren't normally the type to be very risk averse and scared for their tournament life.

After I called the CO tapped the table and turned over Jh 7h for a combo draw semi bluff.

For a second example on this matter I've asked my friend and well known forum contributor Nath capnjackpot Pizzolatto to include a hand he posted on his blog some time ago that I thought was an excellent example of adapting to the changes in a hand and putting the pieces together in it. The hand comes from the Sunday Million about a year ago:


SB (t31052)
BB (t35813)
UTG (t29700)
UTG+1 (t19400)
MP1 (t28360)
Hero (t27246)
MP3 (t12775)
CO (t7727)
Button (t11100)

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with 9s 9c

UTG raises to t1200, 2 folds, Hero calls t1200, 4 folds, BB calls t600.

Flop: (t3900) 5h 4c 2d(3 players)

BB checks, UTG bets t3600, Hero calls t3600, BB folds.

Turn: (t11100) 2d(2 players)

UTG bets t4800, Hero calls t4800.

River: (t20700) Ad(2 players)

UTG checks, Hero bets t17646 (All-In), UTG folds.

Final Pot: t20700


OK... now you're probably wondering why I took a line that seems really weird and determined to get as much of my money in the pot as possible while behind. And I'm going to show you why it works here. Let's look street by street.

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with 9s 9c.

UTG raises to t1200, 2 folds, Hero calls t1200, 4 folds, BB calls t600.

So this is the most straightforward street in the whole hand. A min-raise is indicative of everything and nothing; mostly, it tells me my opponent is probably a clown. It doesn't do a whole lot to define his hand, though. Some players love to min-raise their big hands to try to induce action on them. Some like to min-raise hands they want to see cheap flops with, in hopes the min-raise discourages a re-raise. FWIW, I think both are pretty terrible, and if you consistently do one or the other you have a huge hole in your game. I try to blend my raise sizes so as to make my hand difficult to read.

Anyway, having said all that, I elect to just call with 99 because I have no idea what my opponent has; if I re-raise and he folds, I win a relatively small pot, but if he 4-bets me, I have to fold, and I've wasted a chance to win a big pot. So I decide to call and proceed post flop. The BB comes along because he's getting 5.5:1 and closing the action, not because he necessarily has much.

Flop: (t3900) 5h 4c 2s (3 players)

BB checks, UTG bets t3600, Hero calls t3600, BB folds.

Here's where it starts to get interesting. Making a pot size bet here is often indicative of an overpair. Here's the catch: I still beat a few of the overpairs. In addition, some people panic with their AK/AQ hands when they miss here and just start firing big bets in hopes of scaring away an opponent. On this board, AK/AQ has an additional four outs against underpairs. This increased equity makes betting and getting it in with AK here really not that bad a play.

It's also the big reason I don't make a move at the pot now. Some people see "overpair" and think "I have to protect my hand". Having seen him make a big bet at the pot now, I know my opponent likes his hand, but I don't know exactly what he has. It's too likely my hand is good to fold here, but he also has an overpair far too often to make raising and getting the money in profitable. I feel as if I get it in, it's going to be as a 60-40 favorite or a 90-10 dog. I don't mind getting it in as a 60-40 favorite, especially in a tournament like the Million, whose field size I feel dictates a faster style of play, a more "race to the finish line" approach-- but I get it in drawing to the two nines way too often to want to push now. So I call and decide to reevaluate based on the turn. The BB folds, and I never considered him to be much of a factor anyway.

Turn: (t11100) 2d (2 players)

UTG bets t4800, Hero calls t4800.

The deuce doesn't change anything. Neither of us has a deuce and we both know that. Now, his turn bet is interesting-- he bets just under 1/2 pot, which seems weak, but which also sets him up for a pot-sized river shove if I call. (By the way, if you aren't thinking about manipulating pot and stack sizes like this when you size your bets, you are making a mistake.) For my part, the price is too good to fold an overpair-- but still, my hand is not good enough to raise. I suspect some time he has an overpair to mine, some time he still has AK/AQ (the bet size is actually an effective size to block-bet a draw and see if he hits it), and rarely, he has a worse overpair than mine. So considering most of his range as TT-KK and the other major part of it as AK/AQ*, I call again.

* - I don't include AA here, not because it's impossible, but because it's a special case. He has the best of both worlds, and I'm screwed; the river is basically irrelevant because he's shoving all of them. I also considered 66-88 unlikely, though not impossible.

River: (t20700) Ad (2 players)

UTG checks, Hero bets t17646 (All-In), UTG folds.

Wow. This is such an interesting card. All his ace hands got there, and all his overpair hands just got scared shitless. This is the beauty of position-- I can use his action to judge what he has. Since he has a pot-sized bet left, he's going to have to shove for value if he hit his ace (or his 33, or if he was already full, or what have you).

He checks.

Now, many, many players' immediate reaction would be to check, thinking that "Oh, either he had me already, or he hit that ace. And he's not calling with a worse hand, and we have a pair, so let's check and hope we win the showdown."

They're wrong.

When he checks, he's completely vulnerable. We each have less than the size of the pot left (he has me barely covered), and if we have anything reasonable, we're pot committed. The only reason not to put in the rest of the money here is if we think, for some specific reason, that a scare card has helped so much of our opponents' range, that we should give up. Trapping would be absurd at this point for villain, given that I should be calling his push with anything reasonable, having gotten this far.
So when he checks, it's not to trap, it's because that ace scares the crap out of him and he will fold to a shove.

And -- this is important -- we should realize that this swings all the Ax hands and 33/44/55 out of his range, and makes his range overwhelmingly overpairs. So his range consists primarily of hands that will beat ours at showdown, but cannot call all-in.

Knowing this, we should move in as a bluff. The fact that he didn't move in already gives us all the reason in the world to. He's announced to us that he is scared of the ace, and he is hoping we will let him show down his hand. So we have to disappoint him.

On a side note, the stack sizes are really excellent for this move. We each have slightly less than the pot left (I have 17.5k and he has 20k in a 20k pot). Which means that an all-in bet can be interpreted as a "normal" bet size. (Moving all-in here for, say, four times the pot would be considered "abnormal".) Because of that, it makes our opponent less likely to suspect that we are bluffing; we could simply be trying to get every dollar possible out of our hand. It puts him in a pretty terrible spot, since from his perspective we could easily have the AK/AQ/33. We certainly wouldn't check those behind on the river. So it's very unlikely that villain is good one time in three, and he folds.

Now, at the table, this process is much quicker, and is occasionally guided by intuition-- you don't always have the time to think out, in words, why a move will work; you "know" it. While it's good to have sound, logical reasons for your moves, it's more important to trust your intuition-- it's a part of you, and it works on what you have learned, too. In the heat of the moment, it's taking all your experience and skill and training and leading you to the right decision. If you have prepared it for the moments you need it, it will not let you down. Work on your logic away from the tables, and study and review and prepare your theory, so that your instincts have the background they need to make the right decision. Trust yourself to learn the game.

I will say that bluff-shoving the river hadn't entered my thought process until the river hit, and the villain thought for a bit and checked. Then it occurred to me that he couldn't call a push, so I pushed-- it wouldn't have really mattered what I had, but I was definitely swayed by the relative weakness of my hand. (If I had, say, KK, I might have checked behind-- or pushed for value.)

But that's another point of this hand-- you have to be able to adapt your decision-making process each time new information comes to light. Even though you have a plan for a hand, something may change which will cause you to abandon that, because you realize an alternate line is more profitable. Online, the pace is fast, so you need to be quick mentally. Live, you always have an opportunity to think through a hand. Online, you have much shorter time limits and may be multi-tabling as well, so being quick on your feet is just as important as being sound on your feet.

So to recap today's lesson:

a) Be alert to your hand strength relative to your opponent's range, not just to the board, or in the absolute sense

b) Don’t be afraid to turn a made hand into a bluff

c) Don't be afraid to change plans in the middle of the hand, as you gather information

d) Be a quick thinker

e)Trust yourself


---

Thanks very much to capnjackpot (Nath) for his input and that's all I have for now. As always if there are questions or comments, I'm happy to field them.