Back to another horrible run this evening, down 100 after 200+ hands.

Couldn't hit any draws despite betting them, was up for a while, but I think the whole session was about break-even except for these hands:

I raise to 1.5 on AQ. $10 shorty pushes, and I call. He has 88 as expected. I miss and he rivers an 8. I just cannot for the life of me hit any coinflip at the moment. So, that's -10.

Then I limp in SB with A9 after several limpers. Flop AJ9. I bet, LP calls. Turn something like a 6. I check, he bets 4.50 (pot 6), and I make it 16. He calls. River 5. Well, possible straight but that's no worry after this action. He bets 6, and I just mini-raise. He calls (!!!) with 99 Nice was the fact that he only let me lose 30 here. Thanks, whoever you are!

Then a hand where I'd be interested in opinions. I have KK and have indeed been raising fairly loose by the standards of the table (although in tight mode). Basically, the table seems to like to limp all kinds of stuff, such as the 99 of the previous hand.

I make it 1.5 in EP and get 3 callers. Flop 862r. Checked to me, I bet 4 into the pot of 6. Folds to BB, who hasn't done anything rash as of yet, and he CRs to 12. Hmmmm... I really feel like this can be a lot of stuff. Overpair, doesn't smell quite like set, although possible, A8, 2 pair or even pretty much any 8. I suppose it is a 4-way pot, so there should be some strength. Also, semi-bluffs seem pretty rare at the 50s, so I have my doubts about its being a draw, particularly with no flush draw on the flop.

In any case, I call. Turn comes Qd making a flush draw. He now pushes for 36.50. I call, and he has 86 for 2 pair. I don't improve (of course--and I do have 8 outs).

Is this just an obvious laydown against someone who hasn't made big bluffs? I felt here like he could be trying to push me off of a winner with this big bet--but was obviously wrong.

to MVP: a CB means you bet because you raised. So, what I mean is that the raise doesn't influence whether or not to bet--rather how you hit your hand and read on opponent(s).

to bk: I disagree with 70% at these levels on most tables.

What I really prefer to CBing frivolously on a lot of boards that you miss is to CR or CC on flops that I like if opponents are consistently betting to checks.

Having lost 600 at the 100s and 400 now at the 50s, my online br is down to near nill, so I'm playing the 25s for a moment. They seem enormously profitable as long as you never bluff.

I made the mistake of trying that in the following case:

MP raises to .75, and I call in LP with 22. Flop comes T97, and MP bets 1. I call. I figure I may be ahead here anyway, since he raises plenty of hands.

Turn 6. He bets 2.25, so I figure he does have something--but I'm not seeing an 8 here very often, possibly overpair, possibly AT. So, I make a moderate raise to 7. I figure I need to raise to allow a river bluff and to find out for sure whether he has his 8.

River 5. He checks. Pot something like 18, and I fire 10. He calls with KK on this board!

Isn't this a decent bluffing spot objectively?? It just seems like I get called every single time when I play like that. But I think I often play 98, 86, all kinds of things that win just about the same. I would be likely to check the river with 2 pair or set, but I definitely bet straight.

I post this mainly as an example of why I've almost never in the past made these naked bluffs. And probably the 25 is no place to start them, but I don't know why I get called so often as to make it clearly unprofitable for me with this "playing your opponent's hand" as Kenny and ice have at various times criticized me for not doing. This is just what happens to me every single time I do it, it seems like. And it's not that I was playing like a maniac at this table. Instead I made several big folds (like AK on a board of KQ9 to a raise after betting) and otherwise had bet mainly monsters like set and nut straight (both of which got folds btw). Moreover, after this had in theory "set the table" for some good value bets, I couldn't pick up a hand until the table basically broke up.