Re: Inducing Tilt

As we've mentioned before, one of the good things about co-authoring a blog is the ability to present differing perspectives on issues. Sometimes we will agree, and other times, we will not. I think readers can get value from hearing both sides to an idea and coming to their own conclusions.

This is one of those times where we disagree. I take exception to the claims Billy makes in his post because the first "friend" he describes there is me. I feel that the strategy I employed that night can work effectively in certain situations, against a particular type of opponent.

Billy believes that the strategy of putting my opponent on tilt via verbal abuse did not work. I can understand why he would think this is so. I finished the evening stuck for three buy-ins. I hadn't won money by the end of the session, so my strategy must have been flawed. Makes sense, right?

I'm not so sure I agree. I think Billy has made the mistake of placing too much emphasis on short-term results -- namely me ending the night a loser. I believe the direct opposite -- that my strategy was a resounding success! The player in question was the consummate calling station. Middle pair was more than enough for him to call all the way to the river. But after the hand that Billy described, a funny thing happened. The player would still call large bets preflop, on the flop and on the turn, but he began folding on the river if he thought his hand wasn't good. He started to doubt himself. This was a HUGE boon not only to myself, but to the rest of the table as well. I had managed to shake his confidence enough to fold to substantial bluffs on 5th street. I made all the money that I had lost to him back in short order by selling my hand the whole way. The guy was calling all the way and then mucking when he failed to improve. An aggressive player's dream.

But even before that painful hand, I had the guy right where I wanted. Billy -- either to be nice to me or because he just forgot -- misrepresented my preflop raise on that hand. We were playing $1-2 no limit, and I made a preflop raise to $30 from middle position into an unraised pot with a suited A-K. I had the guy calling my raise cold with A-9 offsuit. Isn't this exactly what I want to happen? No matter what the result is, I want him calling my large raises when he's a substantial dog to win the hand. Yes, I lost a huge pot there, but when I pushed before the flop came I got all my money in as a 3-1 favorite. In a no limit hold 'em cash game, I will take those odds. I got my opponent to make the mistake of calling 15x the big blind before the flop with a dubious holding.

As I said before, I made all my money back from that guy and some. I ended up losing it all later on in the night to another guy. Basically I couldn't believe that this second guy had called my pot-sized flop bet with only a gutshot straight draw. I bet all my chips on that belief, and I was proven wrong. That was the point at which I decided three buy-ins was enough damage for one night. I don't think my losing that way was me temporarily being a fish, as Billy puts it. I think many a good player would have been felted in that situation. I've seen it happen.

I maintain my stance that I was not on tilt that night, and that my play was not "fishy." I had exactly the table image I had cultivated, and had I decided to buy in a fourth time I was fully confident I would have still made a profit on the session. I just didn't think it was worth the effort to play long enough to accomplish that. Billy may not buy it, but I am telling you all that I pretended to be on tilt in order to get my other opponents to lower their defenses. I got the looser action that I desired. Take, for example, the hand I busted out on. Because I had pretended to be on tilt for so long, had cried about bad luck and shown off bluffs and whatnot, I was able to get a guy to call a large flop bet when he only had four outs. The fact that he hit his gutshot and felted me is irrelevant. The point is that my actions encouraged my opponents to make mistakes and misread me.

So sorry Billy, but I have to reject your analysis. I think you have made two critical errors. The first, as I have mentioned, is evaluating the merits of a style of play based on the end results of a single session. The second is having too narrow a definition of correct play. You somehow concluded that my play was fishy -- even though the cards I chose to play that night were almost all either pairs, or high suited connectors (a rarity for me). I can only assume you meant I was a fish because I made larger than average bets and raises. But I don't think that's bad play if your large bets are getting called by weak hands in heads up situations. I would contend that my biggest mistake would be having such misfortune to lose way more than my fair share of those hands when I was far ahead. I should have walked out that night up several hundred dollars. But the odds didn't hold up for me. That's poker.

Bottom line, while I respect your opinion, I think you have confused bad luck with bad play.

But I'm certainly willing to listen to a rebuttal.