I was just reading about Bill Belichick of the New England Patriots in the Boston Herald. The term "situational awareness and aggression" came up as two of his strong attributes. He'd make a good poker player.

In Kennyg's journal, Dumb Snowman said, "Fold 79s otb to a raise is more or less impossible to me."

We often hear the phrase "it depends." In DS's example, it depends would be better defined as "situational awareness and aggression." Who's doing the raising? From what position? Anyone call the raise cold? Are the blinds likely to call? Are the blinds aggressive or passive? What is your table image? Have you been caught stealing lately? Would you be seen as stealing if you re-raised? How much would it take to steal it? Could you take it on the flop or turn? On and on and on. When we say "it depends," we're really saying what is the situation and can aggression take it?

At the games I'm playing, you wouldn't really fold 79s for two bets, if you have a limper before the raiser or a caller after, since most likely the blinds will call and you'll have position and a hand that can win a lot but still be easy to fold. Unless you can't fold it when an comes on the flop.

In small stakes hold 'em, aggression combined with situational awareness is the most important factor in whether one wins or loses, because with such small stakes, losing a number of bets because you aren't reading the situation properly but are still aggressive, can put you in a hole from which you're going to take a long time to climb out of. Saving a bet is worth 30 of playing. Imagine how that goes up as the stakes climb. A bet saved or made extra here and there makes an enormous difference in the profitability of any limit game. It's easy to forget when the stakes are so low.

As I've discussed before, I'm not a natural gambler. I am, however, fairly naturally aggressive. Finding the time and place to be aggressive has been a big challenge. Situational awareness is the key.

Now, I've got a name for it.

great concept for the journal, CJ. keep up the good work.


i just read the comments on earn rates. some comments:

- $17/hr at 1/2nlhe is about 10ptbb/100 at 40 hands/hr -- bump that up a bit if the hands/hr is 30-35. this is a really good winrate for nlhe players.

- as piers alluded to, i think 2bb/hr at 4/8 LHE is expert play. maybe you're an expert at LHE... i don't know.

- the variance may be lower at LHE, but so is the winrate in terms of bb/100. as such, a winning player -- even one killing the game -- will have many more losing sessions than a similarly skilled NLHE player.

- regardless, if you are most comfortable with LHE, stick with that.

regarding the demise of nlhe:

- i think this is a pipe dream from the the successful lhe players.

- imo, a lot of these people who claim the demise of nlhe is nigh don't realize that there is a very healthy nlhe ecology that will only "die" if/when poker's popularity dies or when there are no capped games. specifically, you have tourists who donate to TAG players who've read a few books. then these players donate to players like xas, BUT they are completely convinced he's a donkey and will play against him forever. players like xas will make plays that convice the tourists that they're geniuses ("i KNEW middle pair was good!" vs. xas bottom pair, gutshot, and flush draw). this is a very simple example -- i think people with more experience with the live games could probably elaborate more.

- people love to gamble (the success of LV is proof of this, imo), and i don't think this will ever stop being so. the nlhe games can give a lot of action to people who are willing to lose a few buy-ins and chalk it up to entertainment. not only that, but they will occassionally walk away decent winners.

- i'm not convinced a tourist is as big of a dog at nlhe as a lot of people make out. first, bluffing (even stupidly) can win them big pots they don't deserve. second, "expert" players will try to outplay them and end up donating via FPS when the tourist doesn't realize that he should fold. finally, they can call off their chips with draws and actually hit.

- all of this is moot if capped buy-in games go to the wayside.


just some thoughts.

CJ, did you die?

NLHE isnt dying, sure there are fewer people just giving away money but that doesnt mean the games still aren't beatable. I haven't been to Vegas in a few months but the last couple times I was there there was a ton of easy money to be had by playing solid. Limit is a good way to make money especially at the lower levels but from what I have heard the games get tougher much faster in limit where as in NL the 5/10 game at the bellagio is almost as juicy as the 1/2 games.

I was on your left...

Dyslexic directionally.