Charles Town Session 20: Variance at its worst and finest

Charles Town Session 20 (December 22, 2012):
Crazy session yesterday, first at 1-2 and then at 2-5.  At 1-2, I first won an early 600 pot with a flopped flush against a supposed set of aces.  Then I lost a 250 dollar pot after hitting an A-Q-7 flop with A7, getting it all in on the flop against AT, only to have a Q hit the river.  Finally, I lost a 1000 pot with 6-2 clubs on a 5-4-3 rainbow (with 1 club) board against 4-4 that rivered a boat (6-7 was in for the main pot of 200).  At 2-5, the table was extremely loose and aggressive, with one extremely maniacal degenerate.  I lost 500 early, 250 of it barreling twice with AK, and another 300 of it on a coin flip with QJ spades against AK on a flop of K98 with 2 spades.  Once I realized that everyone at the table was fairly loose and very aggressive, and there were was the one guy who over-bet everything, I decided to just shut down and play extremely nitty and passive poker.  First I won 300 from him with AA against QQ and then I won 600 from him with JJ against 88.  Anyways, here are the most interesting hands of the day/night.

-Hand #1-
58 spades UTG+2, Villain 1 in late position, Villain 2 on button.
Lots of limps, Villain 1 raises 10, 5 people see flop.
Flop is Axx all spades, I check, Villain 1 bets 30, Villain 2 calls, I call.
Turn is a blank, I check Villain 1 bets 50, Villain 2 calls, I raise 150, Villain 1 jams for 100 more, Villain 2 tank folds, I call.
River is another spade, I show my flopped flush, Villain 1 mucks and claims to have had AA, Villain 2 claims to have had the K of spades.
Analysis:
Nothing to really say here, as everything is consistent with my style.  Let the draws get an inexpensive turn, and punish them on the turn.

-Hand #2-
A7o middle position, Villain straddle.
I raise 15, Villain calls.
Flop is AQ7 rainbow, Villain bets 20, I raise 50, Villain re-raises allin for 60 more.
Turn is a blank, river is a Q, Villain shows AT and I'm counterfeited.
Analysis:
Again, nothing to really say here.  Villain was horrible (top pair for him was always the nuts), and I was able to get another all-in as a 70% favorite.

-Hand #3-
62 clubs middle position, Villain 1 one seat after me, Villain 2 UTG.
Villain 1 limps, I limp, Villain 2 limps, someone else raises 12, 6 people see flop.
Flop is 543 rainbow (with 1 club).  Villain 2 checks, I check, Villain 1 checks, pre-flop raiser bets 25, Villain 2 raises 75, I re-raise 150, Villain 1 all-in for 70, Villain 2 re-raises all-in for 425, I tank call.
Turn is a blank, river is a 5, Villain 2 shows 44 for the rivered boat.
Analysis:
The decision of whether to call the additional 300 all-in from Villain 2 is based on the chances he's a bad player.  I would be calling 300 to win ~600 (I'm excluding Villain 1 from the hand, which is actually conservative, because small stacks more often than usual don't have the nuts in this scenario, meaning I should expect there to be a smaller than 33% chance he has 67).  Granted, if Villain 2 does have 67, I'm destroyed, as I have only a 12% to chop and 5% to win, for a total of 10% equity.  If Villain 2 has A2, it's the total opposite of 67, and I have 90% equity.  If Villain 2 has a set, I have 65% equity.  So basically, if there's any chance that Villain 2 is going to play this way with A2 or a set, I have more than enough odds.  Furthermore, I usually wouldn't expect 67 to play this way, as he really shouldn't be afraid of anything.  There's no flush draw, 2 pairs/sets have very few outs, and all reasonable straight draws are draws to chop.  As a result, I would expect Villain 2 to often call the flop bet with 67.

After playing a couple more hands and losing around 50, I realize I'm tilting a little and decide to go eat.  After coming back, I play 1-2 for about 30 minutes more, and eventually make it back above even for the day.  Still, I'm afraid of some additional tilting, so I decide to play 2-5, which helps keep me in check.
-Hand #4-
AKs middle position, Villain right before me.
Villain raises 15, I re-raise 50, Villain calls.
Flop is 954 with two hearts, Villain checks, I bet 75, Villain calls.
Turn is a 5, Villain checks, I bet 125, Villain calls.
River is 3 of hearts, Villain checks, I check, Villain shows 43.
Analysis:
I'd realized before the hand that Villain was very loose with his pre-hands, but I didn't expect 43.  Still, my 2 barrel bluff was probably the worst of both worlds.  I could have gotten free/cheap turns/rivers by checking behind, and given Villain's looseness, I would expect the flop and turn calls to be easiest for him (assuming he hits any part of the board, he could call both with showdown value and to chase two pair/trips).  However, if I do want to represent a hand, I would be repping either AA/KK or AK of hearts, and in both cases, I would value the river after a check.  Although to be honest, after learning even more about Villain after the hand, I'd expect him to call there (he called off all of his money later basically to catch a bluff).  Still, many bad LAG players still fold there, and given my information, I probably should have fired a third barrel.

-Hand #5-
QJ spades BB, Villain on button.
Villain raises 35, I call.
Flop is K98 with 2 spades, I check, Villain bets 70, I jam for 150 more, Villain calls.
Turn is a blank, river is a blank, Villain shows AK.
Analysis:
I probably shouldn't have called the 35 preflop bet from Villain, because he was one of the solid players at the table, and at best, I'm against a pocket pair TT and under or AK, and even then, I'm still OOP.  I was just so excited to see a good hand (I'd been mostly card dead up until that point) that I wanted to see a flop at any cost.

-Hand #6-
AA UTG+2, Villain middle position.
UTG raises 20, I re-raise 60, Villain re-raises 160, I re-raise 260, Villain calls.
Flop is Kxx, I play with my chips, Villain folds disgustedly, showing QQ and saying he was trying to chase a Q.
Analysis:
In hindsight, I probably could have gotten more from Villain, given that he was the maniac.  Given that he has me on AA/KK and still called 100 to chase his Q on the flop (he has a 10% chance of flopping a Q (I only had 450 to start the hand, so he's not getting great odds to chase his Q, assuming max implied odds for him), I probably could have gotten an additional 50-100 out of him, if not my entire stack (although in the final case, I would have to fade two additional streets, so actually, it's not horrible that I didn't go all-in).  Still, the ideal amount probably would have been to raise to 300-350 and leave myself with 100 to bet the flop.  The same action probably would have occurred in that case.

-Hand #7-
88 middle position, Villain 1 button, Villain 2 SB.
I limp, Villain 1 raises 20, 5 people see flop.
Flop is 874 with 2 spades, I check, Villain 1 bets 45, Villain 2 calls, I call.
Turn is 5 of spades, Villain 2 checks, I check, Villain 1 checks.
River is a blank, Villain 2 bets 65, I call, Villain 1 folds, Villain 2 shows KT spades.
Analysis:
Obviously, the river call is horrendous.  3-handed, you can't expect a 65 bluff into a pot of 200 won't get called.  I was just frustrated by how the hand turned out, and perhaps frustrated with my own play at the time.  In hindsight, outside of the river call, I'm fine with how I played that hand.  The flop has a very possible 65 straight, and given that I'm 700 deep at this point (and both Villains and 1 of the other players to see the flop have me covered), I don't want to raise and both possibly have to fold a re-raise and increase the pot when the flush draw/open-ender inevitably call.  The turn check is obviously easy, but assuming Villain 1 was the one who had the flush and bet again, I can call there repping a number of hands (straight, baby flush, A of spades) in addition to what I actually had.  Granted, I'd established a nitty image by that point, so if I did river the boat, it's possible I wouldn't have gotten paid off very much.

-Hand #8-
JJ UTG+1, Villain 1 middle position, Villain 2 BB.
I limp, Villain 1 raises 25, 6 people see flop.
Flop is 444, Villain 2 bets 50, I call, Villain 1 raises 150, Villain 2 folds, I call.
Turn is a 2, I check, Villain 1 bets 250, I tank shove for 200 more, Villain 1 snap calls.
River is a T, I show JJ and Villain 1 shows 88.
Analysis:
Villain again was the maniac, and after his flop raise, I'd already made up my mind that I was going to eventually go all-in, given that I know he's going to keep firing regardless of what he has (so I'm not actually getting any more information, so making up my mind there isn't horrible).  First, I had to consider the likelihood he would play this way with a lower pocket than JJ, and I'd guessed that 88/99/TT wasn't any less likely than QQ/KK/AA.  Furthermore, he'd exhibited a pretty consistent pattern of basing his pre-flop raise size on the strength of his hand, so a 25 raise didn't scream QQ/KK/AA.  This hand ended up being one of my adjustments to the maniac at the table, as I would never play this way against normal players (calling off/re-raising all-in for 600 with JJ when most people wouldn't be in there with anything less than TT).

-Hand #9-
QQ UTG, Villain BB.
I limp, Villain raises 50, I call.
Flop is JJx, Villain bets 65, I call.
Turn is a blank, Villain checks, I check.
River is a J, Villain checks, I bet 120, Villain folds.
Analysis:
This was poorly played, and the reason it was played this way was due to cowardice.  I was slightly scared that Villain was checking the turn with AA/KK to trap me.  However, there are two reasons I think that this is unlikely.  One, most people outside of me don't do that.  Two, I'd given off a very passive table image to that point, so Villain shouldn't have expected me to bet the turn with QQ/TT/99. By checking behind, I'm giving him a free card to either hit or bluff (he obviously has the A, but it's not clear if he has AK or AQ, so the K is dangerous as well).  Furthermore, if the river misses, I can't expect to be paid off, so I might as well try to get him to pay me off on the turn with AK/AQ (he still has showdown value and outs).

-On record career to date-
Time at 1-2 cash tables: 134 hours
1-2 Cash: +$3310
Time at 2-5 cash tables: 75 hours
2-5 Cash: +$1440
Total time at cash tables: 209 hours
Cash games: +$4750
Time at tournies: 30 hours
Tournies: -$2840
Poker total: +$1910
Net: +$900

Brags:  I walked away when I realized I might tilt.  I played 1-2 perfectly for the session.  While my 2-5 play wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, I was able to realize the market inefficiency (the maniac), my likely disadvantages against everyone else, and exploit the one advantage I had.
Beats:  I'm not convinced I can beat 2-5 yet against a table full of the better players (there wer 4-5 of them at my table yesterday; the other 3-4, including the maniac, were horrible).  They're able to combine tight play with a more accurate feel of when to not fold (when I actually play well at 2-5, I still fold too much).
Variance:  Up to and including the $1000 rivered-boat hand, I'd lost 5 of 6 pre-river all-ins in which I was the favorite (and in 4 of them, I had >50% pot equity, with the 4-handed pre-flop all-in from last week the exception).