why I have been sucking lately

In the last 9 days, I am down $262.25. I'm trying to figure out why I'm on this bad run. I'd say it's 20% cards and 80% bad play.

I think I've turned into a losing, bad player. Believe it or not, I think it comes a lot from watching more poker on tv. Players are raising with marginal hands and calling with marginal hands to set up bluffs and make moves later. These things don't work at low limit tables. I can be semi-loose before the flop, but I have to be tighter after the flop. They WILL NOT lay down top pair or often second pair. A continuation bet, yes, bluff raise no. I also think a lot of this came from reading Paul Wasicka's blog. Same idea - over aggression before the flop, putting reads on people after the flop and trying to take pots away without the best hand. This does not work where I play.

So - how do I fix it?

Play fewer hands. Do not play loose aggressive. Play tight aggressive. Don't get bored and don't try to outplay people with marginal hands. Believe it or not, I should play LESS attention to whatever S&G I'm playing in. By watching the games, I'm getting bored and trying to beat the game irrespective of the cards. So that's the solution - PLAY TIGHTER. WAIT FOR THE CARDS.

Jennifear's thoughts on how to beat low limit S&G players

I'm taking a couple days off. I've had a small cold streak where I've lost $250 or so in a row, which is 50% of my Pokerstars bankroll. I'd say it's mostly bad play has been the reason. But the problem is that I'm giving the players too much credit. Too much credit for a hand, too much credit to think my smooth call on the flop is a danger sign. Instead of trying to outplay the weak players, I should be pushing them around with hands and folding shit.

Raise or fold. No calling. - that should be my mantra.

With that being said, here are Jennifear's tips on adjusting play to beat low limit S&Gs:

If they call too much, you bet more chips with a hand, and don't bluff much.
If they fold too much, you bet more often and bluff more.
If they chase bad draws, you bet more, so that they pay more.
If they call allin reraises preflop with ace-ten, you shove allin with ace-king!
If they play two pair like the nuts, you shove allin with a set.
If they play top pair like it's the nuts, you play your top two HARD!


This is taken from here:
http://www.pocketfives.com/7B79D94A-D0A2-4E99-83E6-CD2894BDA205.aspx

playing better poker

I've been reading Paul Wasicka's blog:

http://www.bluffmagazine.com/blog/blogdetail.asp?aid=81&bcatid=4

I looked for things on Wasicka after I heard Matusow saw that he was impressed by some of the things he had read about Wasicka, how Wasicka knows he has to play perfect poker and how he's been running lucky. What I've been reading is fascinating. Reading his analysis of hands during the LA Poker Classic is great learning material. He plays close attention to other players' styles and behavior and will outplay them in select spots.

But back to me . . .

My focus is waining. I'm making sub-optimal plays. I also need to be tighter. Same stuff that I've been saying. Play tighter, less bluffing, more value betting. I do need to be in a better mood when playing, though. I can't underestimate that aspect. I played two S&Gs yesterday, lost in them both and then played too fast in another and busted out after 13 hands. I was not playing my best - I was tired and frustrated. Maybe I can play better today.

my own interpretation of ICM

I re-read Jennifear's article on ICM. If you're concentrating on the math, it seems difficult, but it's basically just what Dan Harrington called "first in vigorish"

When you're on the bubble, push a lot with just about any two cards. Don't call without premium hands. The way she talks about a call that may have positive cEV (positive chip expected value) but not necessarily positive $EV (positive equity expected value) is interesting. It makes you awfully tight in terms of calling when on the bubble. If it ever becomes an all-in fest for all players as this theory prescribes, then you have to loosen your calling requirements. Of course each situation is different and it seems most of the donkeys I play with don't do this.

I found myself at a 12+1 6 handed STT on Stars today and tried it out twice. One worked, one didn't (actually had A9o and got called by KQs and lost). On the other, I never got called.

My basic philosophy has always been - get your money in good, that's all you can do.

Being a knowledgeable player, I know the quandry I'm in when someone pushes in to me and I have A6s. I could be dominated. I could be 55/45. This posting has been a little but of stream of consciousness.

One of the things I have trouble with is the luck factor. I know that when I'm pushing with 92, I'm only going to get called by a better hand. And it kills me and goes against my own theory
(get your money in good) - but I guess that's the thing, it's a +$ev value if not necessarily a +cEV play. But I guess you have to get called for it to be a -cEV play.

I guess I need to adjust my thinking. People who have thought this through more than I have are coming up with this conclusion, so I don't see why I can't change my line of thinking to incorporate it into my game.

dealing with the luck factor

I can play this game, I can beat these players. I'm beginning to think my real advantage is style. I play a better style - kind of a semi-loose aggressive style, but not moronic like most of the players I play with at these levels. But here's the issue - the damn luck factor. I play my ass off only to get outdrawn by a donkey who doesn't know what he's doing. I guess that's the nature of S&Gs.

So to wind down, I'm taking a stab at 6 handed $.10/.25 Pot Limit Hi/Lo Omaha.

where is my focus?

I didn't even read the book (I only read its description on Amazon), but I know what it's talking about. "Your Worst Poker Enemy" is about how your own emotions and thoughts make you bad. I know I'm better than everyone I play against, but I make sub-optimal plays OVER AND OVER because I see others doing it and benefiting from it. And for some reason, I think that because I'm better than the others around me, the pots will just come to me. It's not true. I have to be patient and outplay these donkeys. I'm a little tired and I know that lowers my level of play.

I play too fast. I'm not disciplined enough. I know to stop multi-tabling and get back to one table and make it so that +EV decisions are the only decisions I am making.

what the hell is ICM?

I haven't played a lot lately, but in some reading I've done, I've come across a concept called ICM (The Independent Chip Model). It seems I'm late to the party on this. From the beginning of what I've read, it's about making decisions based on math and position relative to the money. I read through someone named Jennifear's $55 STT which had some interesting plays and thoughts:

http://www.pocketfives.com/0DBF774F-1FC9-4349-825D-9BE7645FCF20.aspx

I want to do some reading on ICM and see if it can help me short handed STT bubble game.

I also want to focus more when playing - my play was not tight today, too many loose plays. I'm better than this.

against donkeys with a flush draw, don't always be so aggressive

Here is the third hand of this S&G. Jesus, I played this badly. I don't mind the call on the button with KQs. I flop a flush draw with two overs. I don't hate the call on the flop. I easily have pot odds on the chance that I hit my draw. Could I get much value if I did hit? Maybe, maybe not. But the turn is where this hand went wrong. Two players check to me, and I think I can take this pot away on the turn, so I bet big. One caller. Why didn't I take the free card? I didn't spend enough time thinking about it, but my general thought was that I'm building the pot if I hit and I also might take the pot away. He checks to me again on the river. Now, I'm dead. Surrender? I could have, but the pot was so big. I didn't really think about this too much. I didn't really put him on a hand. Looking back, the check call and relatively weak play puts him on QJ to me. And considering the call on the turn, I doubt I could have gotten him to lay it down on the river. He told me later he had JJ, which is a bad play on the river to me, he should have bet into me. Either way, the real fault is mine.

This was a weak player. In a step 3 PCA qualifier, it's pretty safe to assume that I'm better than everyone at my table, but I didn't follow my own rules on beating weak players. Play closer to the vest, bluff less, and push with the nuts. And yes, after I blew this hand, I finished 9th on a 9 person table.

The hand:
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1608327

taking advantage of weaker players

Keeping this blog has helped my game because it requires me to critically analyze my play. It's one thing to think you're keeping track of what you're doing, but when you write it down and think about how you explain it, you have to analyze it more critically.

With that being said, my analysis of beating weaker players has been correct for the most part. I'm making more value bets when I think I'm good on the river. I'm doing less bluffing for the most part. And my favorite play that I've been making a lot is the overbet. Donkeys have a really tough time laying down top pair. Here's a great example that didn't work out for me.

http://www.pokerhand.org/?1583330

The raise I made was too large, but I knew that your average donkey couldn't lay down an overpair or top/top. It didn't work out, but there are plenty of examples where it has worked for me. I can't find the hands, but I have examples, where I have an overpair on a board that comes queen high or king high, and I check raise all in.

So what I am still doing wrong? Still bluffing too much. Fire one shell - but don't push too much. These donkeys will call you down with second pair or even third pair BECAUSE they are donkeys. They don't know any better. I still need to be tighter after the flop. And I also need to be looser when firing bullets at orphaned pots. In a heads up pot that goes check/check, I need to fire more on the turn. Especially if an undercard comes on the turn.

I'm going back to my theory of finding games you can beat and beating them. I'm going to try to play a couple hundred 12+1 six handed STTs. I can beat them relatively regularly, and I'd like to build my bankroll to a couple thousand before I move up.

more of tight is right

I wrote a previous post about tight being right. The interesting thing about coming to that reasoning is that I figured it out from playing turbo tournaments. The blinds are moving up quickly, so the number of hands you can actually play goes down so it's more important to play premium hands when you actually do play. Logic says you should play looser and lighten up your entrance requirements, but that's reasoning for a short handed table with large blinds. At a full table, you still need to be tight. Start strong and take the lead.

too many mistakes

I'm still making bad plays. I want to get to a spot where I'm getting outplayed and not rethinking my decisions and regretting them. In this particular hand, I was obviously trying to slow play. After the flop, I was hoping to trap him. I figured I could get him for all his chips if he was playing AJ, QQ, or KK. It was the 4th hand of the S&G, so I had no read on him at all. When he check raised me on the turn, I thought about it - can I be beat here? I came up with yes, but probably not. A weak player might make the same move with AJ, and a lot of players might make that move with QQ or KK. So I call and I'm on the rail. I should have been more conservative.

Before the flop, I doubt there was much I could have done. Everybody online plays every pair before the flop. I could have raised to 300 and still gotten a call, but I would have only gone to 180 or so to keep him in the hand. Oh well.

http://www.pokerhand.org/?1534912

let your read go

Here's a quick hand that I played terribly. The button had been raising and raising my blind. KQ is certainly a callable hand here - but if I think I'm ahead here, I should have raised. I contemplated that, but wanted to outplay him after the flop. That was dumb. In retrospect, I would like to have reraised. I bet into him - hoping to taking it right there. He raised, and I should have been done with the hand right there - but no, I wanted to outplay this guy who had been taking my blind and I put him on trying to outplay me. So I call. Then I bet into him again on the turn. He flat calls. I finally make top pair on the river and check hoping for a cheap showdown. Instead, he puts me in - and I call without a lot of thought. I'm not sure what I thought I could beat there, but perhaps I wasn't thinking.

http://www.pokerhand.org/?1534105

tight is right

I spend a lot of time talking about style since I'm trying to perfect my own style. Of course everything is situational - but I'm beginning to wonder if I've been playing too loose.

Most of the ass bags I play against don't pay enough attention to keep track of how tight I am, but it's more about me. I get into trouble when playing so many hands. In his awful book, Play Poker Like the Pros, Hellmuth said "Tight is right." I think I need to tighten up my starting hand requirements, especially out of position and especially calling reraises out of position. If I raise to

But there's more. I need to be more patient on my semi-bluffs. I'm always trying to be aggressive and bet my semi-bluffs, but if you have a draw, why not try to draw at it for cheap or free?

playing in turbo tournaments

In the levels at which I play, there are lots of turbo tournaments - especially as satellites to the larger tournaments that I want to play it. They always seems popular - an $11+1 turbo regular tournament always fills up before a $10+1 non-turbo tournament.

But the point is - what is the right strategy? Levels increasing faster of course means I need to play faster. I guess you need to adjust on the fly, just like in a regular tournament. Do your standards go down for raising hands? These are the same weak donkeys I play in other tournaments. So my standards still have to be relatively high. I can't push them around with bluffs. They don't get it.

So I'm playing in a turbo tournament now. 10 player table, 9 players still left at 25/50. These players are seem to be playing tight/aggressive, or at least doing their impression of tight/aggressive. Maybe what I need is to take advantage of these players who are too tight as they blinds get higher. It goes without saying that value betting and pushing when I think I'm best is still right.

I finished 2nd at my freeze out single table. As the game got short handed, I could see that the players really knew what they were doing. But these donkeys continuously raise and then call any reraise. Christ.

the worst hand I ever played

I could probably post a new "worst hand I ever played" every day, but this is one of the worst. The player who beat me here had been super aggressive, raising every pot. He was using the style that I really love, push, push, push - make other people react to you and guess what you have. And there I was, guessing. I suck.

http://www.pokerhand.org/?1507323

Beating weak players

One of the truly great ironies of poker is that it can often be easier to beat a semi-good player than a bad player. This is a struggle I find myself having. I know how to beat good players. Play the opposite of them - if they're tight, play loose. If they're loose, play tight. If they're aggressive, let them hang themselves and play back at them intermittently. Bluffs work. You can figure out where you are in a hand.

All that is out the window against a weak player. But what is a weak player? I won't go into the definitions of a weak player (calling station, weak/tight, supertight, etc), but I'll cover the type I hate the most and why I have trouble beating him. He is the guesser who has no vision outside of his own hand.

He's the kind of player that will call bets with second pair wondering if it's good. Or he will reraise you before the flop with pocket 7s. He doesn't understand the strength of his own hand so he often overvalues it - but that's what creates so much confusion. I can't put these people on hands because THEY don't know what they have.

I guess the answer is to identify these players and play closer to the vest. Less semi-bluffing and bluffing. More value betting and raising when you feel your hand is good.

I guess it's easier to handle these players at a full table. I've been playing so much heads up recently that when I'm at a table with one of these players, and they have no idea what they're doing, it drives my insane. You have to do so much more bluffing and semi-bluffing that it becomes more apparent that it's a bad strategy against these types of players.

better structure allows for more patience and reraising

Of course this is restating the obvious, but a better structure allows for more patient play. I'm watching the final table of the $500+30 I played in yesterday. None of these people were among the chip leaders when I got knocked out yesterday. The guy who was chip leader finished around 430th. Did I push too hard yesterday without the nuts? Maybe. But I was trying to get a call from a weaker hand like an overpair. That was my goal. I'm going to try hard to play in the $1000+50 event that's on Sept 23.

The one thing I've noticed watching this table is how aggressive everyone is being. Lots of reraising which leads the original raiser to lay down his hand. But there's a caveat to that. The original raiser needs to be a good enough player that he can understand what is happening. I played with so many donkeys who then call or even reraise with AJ in that spot, it's hard to make that part of my game. Just a thought for future reference.

Poker is brutal

I told myself I wanted to play in some of the WCOOP events this year. I just played in my second. I had to get in though satellites because my bankroll doesn't support buying in directly. On Friday, I played in the 6 handed $200+15 tournament. I played passive, weak poker. Here is a typical example and probably the worst hand I ever played since I really realized how to play.

http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489759

Yes, I really played like that.

Then I analyzed my awful play and got my junk together. On Saturday, I won a double shootout for event #5, a $500+30 NL tourney. I played great. Then this hand came up. My broke friend said there was no way I could get away from this. I guess I could have been up against a set, but I never would have guessed I was up against the nuts. I lost nearly all my chips here and then lost them all shortly thereafter when I got outplayed with my short stack.

http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489725

So for now, I'm done. Finishing in 2660th place out of 6000+. Normally, I'm pissed after I bust out of a big tournament, but I think I'm ok here because I don't feel like I was outdrawn or could have done anything about it. I like my call from the BB with 3.5 to 1 pot odds. I was just in a spot where I was going to lose all my chips like set over set. More commentary to come about my style adjustments.

Win rates

Last week, I read sbrugby's blog and he referenced his win rate at about 58% and saying that was a good rate considering the stakes he plays. I need to think in longer term like he does. I get so caught up in individual sessions and not looking at the long term. Recently, I've been playing $5 + 0.25 heads up NL games on FTP. They are a joke. I won two and then lost one. I was furious. Since then, I've won three more. So I'm 5 of 6. That's 83%. But that sample size is too small to come to any conclusions, but I know it's a game I'll win consistently against these opponents.

The numbers are so small though that it feels like a grind. Let's say it takes me 20 minutes to beat each opponent and my win rate drops to 75% which is pretty reasonable. At that rate, I make $6.75 per hour and it would take me almost 15 hours to make $100. Given my real world income, these numbers are insane. I need to play higher stakes with a solid win ratio.

Am I just building my bankroll? Maybe, but that's building it pretty slowly.

Find a game you can beat and BEAT IT

I wasted some time in a previous post talking about which venue was the best to make money in. The answer is - it varies for each person. I once advised my friend (who has since gone broke) to find a game that he can beat consistently and then beat it. That's how you make money. I played some NL ring games on Party, and they were juicy. The players were all weak and super loose. But on FTP and Stars, I find the ring game players much tighter. In my limited time watching, I'd say they are too tight. That is exploitable, but not as easy to do.

After my limited experience in ring games, I went back to my old friend, the sit and go. The players there are so much weaker. Great example, I see a flop in the BB for free with 32o. Flop comes 45J. I check-call. Turn is a 6. I check raise all in. Of course I could be beat, but highly unlikely. He calls with KJ. The check raise was a huge overbet, but the weak players make that play because they are WEAK players. But these are low limit tables, and I'm light years ahead of these players.

So that's my new theory, find a game I can beat and beat it. I love 6 handed S&Gs. That's what I'll be playing for a while.

Poker sucks

So I did some thinking after my last post. My thought was to find the best way to make money over the long run. Given my small FTP bankroll ($50), I decided to start with the smallest limits that FTP had - NL with $0.05 and $0.10. The players weren't as terrible as one would think. If anything, I'd say that players were generally tighter than they should have been. In terms of making money, I'd rather see them be too loose. So I was unimpressed with my money making prospects at these micro limits. Could I make it over the long term? Yes, if I kept focused. But I hate sitting there and waiting for the nuts. Yes, I could be loose aggressive - but the weird part about these players is that they're tight before the flop and loose after the flop, with trouble letting go of second pair and so forth. I'm stereotyping all players at this level after 250 or so hands. I think my analysis is valid - and it'll become more apparent where I'm going with this.

Then I played some $0.25 / $0.50 limit. I think I could beat this game over time as well. The players are not as weak as the old times when I used to play limit on Party. The donkeys there were ubiquitous. All those donkeys must have gone broke. I found the play similar to NL. Tight play, probably too tight. I could probably beat this game over the long term, too - but it was soooo boring.

Then I went back to my bread and butter - a S&G. I played a 90 player $5 + $0.50. I finished 13th for a small cash, but the point is that it's so much more fun than ring games. I think the 6 minute levels on the FTP S&Gs are bullshit. People can make money on S&Gs. Supposedly that's how Jennicide started. And Zeejustin almost exclusively played high level S&Gs. On Stars, I used to have a pretty good record on 6 handed one table $13+1 S&Gs.

Later, I'll discuss my theories on handling weak players. Perhaps there is some flaw with how I think I should be handling those players. Hopefully, by blogging it out - I'll see what (if anything) is a problem in my approach.

S&Gs vs ring games

My wife says I can play more poker if I can turn a good profit and bring it in to the house - basically become a semi-pro where I earn some income from poker. It's not easy having a full time job and playing poker in your off hours.

So now the question is - what is the best way to make money. Ring games (limit and/or no-limit) vs sit and gos?

I know for a fact I don't enjoy playing limit poker. I feel like it's donkeys abound and there is less room for creative play and so many decisions are driven by pot odds. For example, I'm getting 9 to 1 on this call on the river. I think there's at least a 10% chance I have the best hand, so I have to call. Perhaps, I can find better play at higher limit games, but my experiences at $2/4 (and yes, I'm talking about 2 dollars and 4 dollars) on Stars are finding super tight players. So what's the solution there? Play loose aggressive. Then I get punished when I try to push people out by the few who inevitably get a hand. Anyway, I hate limit.

So then we have no-limit ring games. Here, there are generally much looser players. There are also many bad players here. You can sit around and wait for the near nuts. My downside here is that the chips have real world value and I have trouble separating the chips from that real world value. In a tournament setting, it's just so much easier to disconnect yourself from the money you're playing with because of course you're not playing with real money. I just have more trouble taking a beat for $50 or whatever because I really feel it. But I do feel like I can beat these games regularly. I actually only ever did NL games on Party, but for some reason, I don't think the Stars games are so different. I also hear that the FTP games are juicy as well.

And then there are sit and gos - which to this point have been my game of choice. I like the fact that they have a defined end point. I like the fact that I can limit my losses by playing in S&Gs that have comfortable buy-ins for me. The players are generally weak (though as in my previous posts, I'm having some trouble consistently beating weak players). But the nature of rising blinds leads to more gambling. And that leads to tough beats. I feel like that in the later rounds there are more all-ins before the flop, and I find myself in 55/45 situations or something similar. You have to gamble, but for someone as unlucky as I feel I am - that's not appealing.

So those are my thoughts. Perhaps I'll try some of the NL ring games on FTP. I only have $50 or so in there, but that should be plenty to start with as long as I follow Chris Ferguson's rules on bankroll management, which I think are excellent. Too bad, my friend who recently went broke is so terrible at bankroll management:

• He never buys into a cash game or a Sit & Go with more than 5 percent of his total bankroll (there is an exception for the lowest limits: he is allowed to buy into any game with a buy-in of $2.50 or less).
• He doesn’t buy into a multi-table tournament for more than 2 percent of his total bankroll, but he’s allowed to buy into any multi-table tournament that costs $1.
• If at any time during a No-Limit or Pot-Limit cash-game session the money on the table represents more than 10 percent of his total bankroll, he must leave the game when the blinds reach him.

need less whining and better playing

The nice thing about putting my thoughts into written form is that it forces me to think more seriously about my previous session and because I'm thinking more about my previous session, I think about my play more outside of the table and outside of the blog. I'm still better than the players I'm playing against. At any of the stakes I play in, that's a fact. I can't blame bad players for me losing - I have no one to blame but myself. This isn't a game about individual results in a single S&G but results over the long term. Luck will even out. But outplaying the players is what I need to work on. I want to play more solidly. That's what I need to do. And I'm going to do it.

handling donkeys - defining player abilities

I've wasted several hours and about a hundred dollars trying to qualify for the million dollar guaranteed on stars today. I'm trying to analyze why. When I'm playing in lower stakes, you end up playing with these donkeys who are calling raises out of position with weak hands and staying in hands too long. As I'm writing this, perhaps I'm not categorizing them correctly. Could they be super aggressive players? Players who come over the top of me see through my aggressive steal attempts. Then they bet into me.

It's hard - I try to play tight and even still I don't get respect. I play aggressive and people come over the top of me or call me from the blinds, I miss the flop (no matter if I hold AK or 86 or JT) and outplay me after the flop. My general idea is that a lot of these players are weak and just guessing instead of skilled players trying to outplay me.

So what is the conclusion? Catch cards? I can't do that. My general philosophy is play loose early, accumulate chips, while the weaker players are there - but then tighten up some when the better players are in but become more aggressive since the better players CAN fold a hand. Maybe I'm just running bad. I hate poker.

a small good run

Sometimes poker seems so easy when you're running good. I won a 27 player 20+2 tourney on stars and finished 6th in 180 player 20+2 on stars. It's hard for me to pinpoint what I was doing differently. On the 27 player, I was definitely catching cards. On the 180, I was being semi-loose aggressive, I'd like to think. But more than anything, it was about my hands holding up. I remember one hand where I was in for most of my chips. I was in EP with KK and decided to go for a limp reraise since it seemed like a lot of people were coming over the top of me. Well, not this time. We see a flop for the minimum. All undercards - the BB bets out, I reraise all in hoping to catch him with top pair. He had a flush draw and a gut shot. I feel like I lose that all time. It seems like everyone online always goes after a flush draw. This guy was no exception, but my hand held up. I felt more comfortable as the tournaments wore on since I knew I was against better players, players who could lay down a hand and actually respect someone for having a hand. Maybe that's what gets me - that when I'm playing with weaker players, I need to adjust my style more. Continuation bets, yes. Second and third shells? Maybe not.

I think I also need to adjust my thinking. Even if I get my money in good, which of course is the goal, I still get upset when I get drawn out on. It's like my own Phil Hellmuth show at my house whenever I lost a pot I shouldn't have. The irony is I take those beats just like I should when I'm live. When I was in New Orleans, I got it all in with my aces vs this guy's tens before the flop. He hits a ten. I just ship my chips to him. If that happens online, I start cussing and whining about how it always happens to me. I wish PokerTracker had some facility to see how often I lose with an overpair against an underpair vs me sucking out. Hard statistics would be the only way to show me that it doesn't happen to me more often. I swear to god, I lose those all the time.

lack of focus

I ended up playing a lot on Sunday after I wrote that last post. I think my weakness is a lack of focus and an inability to let bad beats go. I need to sit, make good decisions, and have faith in my decisions and not let it get to me when these sons of bitches get lucky on me.

Do I suck or not?

In my first post, I'd like to think aloud about whether or not I'm a good poker player. Since I've been keeping my own spreadsheet of online poker (about 4 years), I'm basically even. Why don't I win? Why don't I lose less? I want to blame luck, but that's not fair. It sure as hell feels like I take more bad beats than I give out, but I guess everyone feels like that.

As I'm playing now in another window, I double a guy up with a board of KJ2, I have KQ and he has KJ. He limped in and I checked from the BB. It's one hand. I bet into him and he raises me, I guess given the stack sizes that I won't bore you with here made my decision correct.

In the end, I know I can play. I need to to tighten up the weak plays I make. I need to fix the leaks in my play. I just wish it was easier.