You Can't Save Many Bets

It seems to me that it's a fine line between profiting the most from a hand and losing the least. If you know that you have the best hand, then it makes sense to figure out how to get the most money into the pot.

But many times, you have to be resigned to seeing a showdown with what may well be the second-best hand. You know you're likely beat, but the chance that you will win and the size of the pot mean that you should pay off that last bet or two.

The problem is that I find myself spending a lot of extra bets on hands that turn out to be second-best. I usually want to jam the pot when I believe have the best hand, and I want to gain information, position and equity by raising and making other people fold.

My point is that it's difficult to save bets because that often means you would have to scale back your aggression. And I strongly believe that aggressive play wins the most money in the long run, even if it costs a little bit more on those second-best hands. I think it's difficult to try and save money, because those hands are the ones where you should be thinking about value betting and fighting for the pot.

Of course, some hands are clearer. When you're way ahead or way behind, it's easy to check-call, check-call, bet. And against a passive opponent, it's easy to raise the turn and perhaps check the river, depending on the situation.

But I don't know how much you can really try to save money on losing hands without losing money on winning hands as well.

Separately, I am continually impressed with Sound of a Suckout. He had another excellent post here.

The post rang true with me for a couple of reasons. First, he talks about how you need to examine your game closely when you're winning, moreso than when you're losing. I need to work on that. And he also talks about how it's easy to get complacent in your game. He's absolutely right, once again.