This past 3 weeks, I've been thinking about the game a lot and I questioned a lot of different issues. The questions I was asking were "what makes a winning player?, how do you sustain a desirable winrate? what makes one player better than another?" You get the point.
Something that Brian keeps saying comes to mind. I believe he said something like poker is all about grinding it out to win that 5bb/100 in a long term. He said this during the times when our hand goes all in as a huge favorite and get sucked out. In a long run, that play as we all know will be +ev. But short term, it sucks hardcore. Not until recently, his words has become a whole different meaning to me.
So what makes one a 5ptbb/100 winner? Actually in theory, it's very easy. If you steal the blinds 1.5x per orbit, you already make like almost 2ptbb/100 in a 6 max game. Some of us already knew this, but that almost sounds way too easy. Of course it's not that easy. It'll be crazy if the table lets you consistently steal their blinds 1.5x per orbit.
But this does remind us one thing about being a winning player. It's all about the little things that matters the most. Even though every time you try to set mine, you should remember that set mining comes at a price. If it costs you 4xbb to try to hit your set, you'll be paying 7.5x4bb = 30bb in a long run every time you hit. That means by calling 4xbb each time, if you don't make over 30bb DIRECTLY(not in a mutual pot) from the villian's stack, you are losing money by set mining. So every time you hit, and c/r his cbet(~7bb) but he folds, you are losing money. Recall all the times that happened to you, now in theory you are probably owing money by set mining considering how often that happens. But of course there are many times where you stack the guy with an OP, that should pay for some of your set mining costs. But what I'm getting at is.. yes, set mining is indeed profitable BUT it's only marginally profitable(less than 1ptbb/100, if interested, you may look at your PT stats and add all your set mining hands' ptbb/100). The misconception of set mining is that the few times you stack someone, you gain a nice boost in your short term results. Hence it always feels like set mining = super profitable, but I think veteran poker players should realize it's yet another small winner.
The toughest part about all of this is that poker is indeed all about long run profitability. It's all about winning small in a long run. As I move up in stakes, I feel it's harder and harder to win with those small edges. In micro stakes, if someone 3bets, you can almost always profitably set mine because most players' 3bet range is so tight, hence set mining is extremely profitable to set mine. But in 200nl, people are 3betting light and just sometimes too solid for you to call profitably in a long run, you probably lose money in a long run in that spot. Anyways, I'm not here to talk about set mining profitably in higher stakes, but actually how to think as a poker player.
Brian Townsend in his first video stressed hard on "taking responsibility for your results". This is so true, he stressed on the LONG TERM results. A mistake you make right now will not matter much in a year from now, but all that will added up. That same mistake will only cost you a faction of your winrate in a long run. But you should correct this mistake because it will largely affect your long term winrate if you keep making that same mistake. If you are thinking long term, in terms of buy ins, "buy ins" are just merely another faction of your winrate in some sense. Actually each BI you put on the table, it's just a "tool" for you to win more money. If bluffing your whole BI will net you profits in a long run, you should definitely do it. Remember, don't be consumed by short term results(bluff getting picked off, making a bad mistake, cooler, bad beat, etc..).
I've said this before and I quoted Brystar from CR. That the cards itself break even in a long run. And aggression is what makes you profits. So what does this all mean? Everyone, no matter what skill level, will experience the same types of hands in a long term. I will make a set X amount of times over Y amount of hands, this will be true for everyone over a huge sample size. Of course a better player will not pay off a set as easily, if one player pays it off, the other doesn't. Obviously the one who doesn't is going to be richer in a long run. But what happens in a scenario where both players are just as good as each other, they either both pay it off or both don't pay it off? So if we look at this situation as just one of a large sample of all different types of hands, then it's neutral ev in a long run, nobody wins because both players would make no money from each other. (this is a theoretical)
I want to drive this point home even more. Let's say in a regular 6 max game. You will play 10k hands(still relatively small sample but big enough to work with) on that table. If everyone on the table plays their hand face up and nobody will make any mistake, then in theory, nobody should win or lose on that table. But let's say in a similar scenario, but one guy has his hands faced down. But he knows what everyone else have, now he decides to bluff 5% of the time when he does not have the best hand. If nobody looks him up during the times he bluffed, this player should expect 5% of profits in a long run while everyone will be slightly losing.
I'm not trying to stress the effects of bluffing, but aggression in general. People making mistakes is definitely +ev, and no poker game has all their cards faced up, it would be uninteresting. But you will run into tough games where you can't win because you are just "playing your cards"(theoretical neutral ev). If someone decides to bluff you when you have the best hand and succeeded, you just lost money in a long run to that villian.
I'm sure we have all encounter times when we have a decent draw and we go down in check/call mode to try to hit it. Is that +ev in a long run? Remember villian would have to incorrectly call you when you hit for you to be profitable(unless pot odds allows you to draw). So in an imperfect world, nobody pays you off. Now you are a losing yet again because you paid a lot to draw and the few times when you hit, you didn't get paid. But let's change the scenario and instead of calling, we apply aggression on the villian. We raise his bet. Now, villian isn't happy he got raised here because if he doesn't have a monster(majority of the time he won't) he feels insecured about his hand. He now has to question what hand you have, and he's on the defensive. If villian incorrectly folds his best hand, guess what? you just made money in a long run as cards break even, you won with the worst hand. The actual math is more complicated than that, but I'm mostly talking theories.
In this game, very very rarely is anyone going to have huge hands. Very few hands can withstand a lot of pressure, that's why aggression is very powerful. Today, I ran into a situation where I had JJ on a AK8 flop. I was oop, and I cbet into it, villian calls. Turn came a T. This villian likes to float and I knew I most likely had the best hand but I'm not sure on such a scary board. I checked to him, he bets out half the pot. I was like, I hate calling oop here, there is a chance my hand isn't good but actually I think my hand is good a large % of the time. So I decided to c/r his bet. I really like that play because it applies pressure to him, even if he has a weak ace, he is starting to question if his hand is no good. But my assumption is that even on this board, my hand is probably best against this frequent floater. If he calls, it's an easy laydown for me on the river, I know for a fact I'm beat. But keep in mind that I have 6 outs to probably improve to the best hand. By applying the pressure, villian probably folds Kx, maybe some weak ace, definitely air. While if you decide to call him down 2 streets, you could possibly be milked with a marginally better hand.
I do not advocate raising randomly but the point is that aggression is usually +ev and honestly I would even say if you aren't sure what to do, it's better to apply aggression than to call. It might be a really abstract concept, but even if you made a mistake, it's normally not a huge mistake in a long run. There is an article about this in 2+2 that might interest someone.
So back to the concept of winrates, I know I talked about hating "calling" in my blog. Well this is completely related. While sometimes calling is the best play, but honestly so many times, I think folding or raising is the best in the same situation. We see maniacs stack up to like 200, 300bb all the times. Why is that? Because aggression in general is +ev! People generally do not have huge hands 99% of the time, by constantly applying pressure, rarely will he run into a monster hand. When someone decides to call this maniac down marginally, well maybe that maniac has a slightly better hand! But people who are reading this are definitely not maniacs, if you can use the similar concept of applying aggression, it will be definitely be profitable in a long run.
Properly timed aggression is the key to improving your winrates in addition to exploiting villian's mistakes.
Another point is that aggression makes you much harder to play against. If you are a loose raiser, you are going to get a lot more loose calls. It opens up your overall game when people know you are capable of a lot of things. I've stressed before that every time you apply aggression, it only makes it tougher for villian to play correctly against you. I used to worry about the aggro regulars, but since I have increased my aggression and show them what I am capable of, they are no longer a huge threat to me. I actually think over a long run, I should be winning against most of the guys I sit with.
So keep in mind why poker is profitable and make only profitable plays. Realize that the little things matter the most. Poker isn't about winning BIs, it's about making profitable decisions. These decisions should definitely incorporate a lot of aggression. This is very vital to understand as a successful player.
