My Retirement and Future

You know how in sports, often times there are athletes who get career ending injuries? You just don't see them ever play at the same level again and almost wish they just retired instead of forcing themselves to play.

For me, it was a hand that did me in. That's right. One. Single. Hand.

In poker, there is no injuries except maybe heart attacks or strokes. That's meant to be somewhat of a joke but sadly it's also true. I've witnessed one heart attack and one stroke in my short career and it's some scary stuff.

Because poker is a game of psychology, it is fitting that only a psychological defeat would be able to take you out permanently. Everybody has bad days and good days, even bad months and good months. This particular hand would seem very simple and normal. However, to me it gave me everything I needed to know that I had to walk away. Maybe not completely to the point where I will never play poker, even recreationally, again, but definitely to a point where I have to move on to something else.

My thought process throughout this hand is very difficult to dissect. In all honesty, it's because I don't view the game the same as anyone else I know - literally - for better or for worse. I will try to explain my point of view and exactly what happened along with the aftermath. Feel free to skip ahead if you are not interested in what I consider possibly the most psychologically-broken-down-hand I've ever written about. I usually with hold some information in hands because I would have to write too much to give an actual analysis. Seeing that this is my "career ending" hand, I think it is appropriate to be 100% forthcoming and honest about my thought process.

Before I begin with the hand, I have to give somewhat of a preface. Something that most players understand - but few actually try to improve on - is the "theory" of adaptation. I put "theory" in quotes because for 99.999% of the poker playing population, it is something that happens. That is not an exaggeration. I truly believe that less than 1 out of 10,000 players even take time to think on this level. In Darwin theory, the faster adaptor survives. Likewise in poker, the fastest adaptor's rise.

Most players, when they sit at the table, are doing two things: playing their hands and waiting for their opponents to make mistakes. While this is a generalization, it depicts the truth. So where does the adaptation come into play? Some players never adapt, they will always play their cards. Others do adapt, but only after 200+ hands of observation. The elite players are capable of adapting within the first orbit or two after sitting down. This means they are able to make reads and sharpen their range when given only a sliver of information about their opponents.

Now on to the hand. I sit in a 5/10 game with 4k, having everybody covered except a kid in seat 9. I have relevant history with only one other player at the table, seat 6, from the night before. I got him pretty good several times but he is mostly irrelevant in this hand other than preflop. The kid in seat 9 I recognize from somewhere but have no history with him. I assume he is very competent, thinking, and most importantly, confident.

The first piece of the puzzle to this hand is the previous hand played at the table. The kid in seat 9 just made what I assume was a thin call on the river for a decent chunk of change and was shown the effective nuts. He is obviously unhappy with his play, but I also go several layers deeper and begin to operate under several assumptions. These assumptions will be relevant throughout the course of the hand:

1. He just lost a large pot. Judging by his stack size, his accessories (headphones, zip-up jacket, earrings), and the fact that he is a very confident player, my first assumption is that he is going to try and win his money back. Not in an hour or when he gets dealt a hand, but now. He will force the issue.
2. He will most likely attack the deeper stacks at the table, of which I am at the top of the list. Given that I have sat for less than 10 hands and therefore an unknown, I have no knowledge of history at the table other than the hand that just occurred. This means he will almost certainly try to make a move on me because he will operate under the assumption that I know nothing about his play as well, which forces me to play a tighter range vs him.
3. He will fast play the top of his range (both preflop and postflop), hoping that the rest of the table will view his actions as tilt and not giving him credit for a hand.

Preflop

I am in BB with JTdd. Seat 6 raises to $30, seat 9 calls, and it is folded to me.

My options here are to call or 3-bet. Let's go a little deeper and decide which is the better option. Calling would keep the pot small and allow me to play it safe. Given my holding, it is certainly a viable play. However, I would argue very strongly that this would be giving up a massive amount of EV due to seat 9's current psyche.

Since I am operating under the assumptions I listed, I am expecting seat 9 to play roughly 90% of his hands within the next orbit or two until he wins his money back. He will only fold the bottom 10% of his hands such as Q5o or J2o. Even these hands, I consider it very possible he would 3-bet and try to bullet his way through the remainder of the hand.

Therefore, it is very likely that seat 9's hand is not strong. Combining this with the fact that seat 6 respects my actions due to the night before, reraising is clearly the better option. Having said that, I will need to operate under a new set of assumptions if I choose to 3-bet.

1. Seat 6 will fold the majority of his opening range. He will reraise with the top of his range. He will flat with the middle of his range - KQdd, 99, etc.
2. Seat 9 will call this 3-bet close to 100% of the time.
3. Seat 9 will not give up to one street of postflop aggression.

I choose to 3-bet to $155. Seat 6 folds rather quickly, and seat 9 rechecks his hand, my stack, and spends about 10-15 seconds before calling. This instantly gives me more information:

1. Seat 9 is playing a hand that requires implied odds. He has to make sure he can win enough from me.
2. Seat 9 considered folding, which means his hand is near the bottom of his range. We can now remove hands like T9ss, Ax suited, and Kx suited hands from his range.

Flop (Pot $345)

Q 7 3 rainbow

I have exactly $3845 behind and he covers. At this point the stack sizes don't matter much, but they will later on. Given the texture of the board, the preflop action, the hand before, and my read of seat 9's hand, firing a continuation bet is the correct play. As I stated before, I do not expect him to give up to one street of aggression but on this kind of flop, checking is probably the worst play, slightly behind open mucking your hand.

I fire $265 and he gives some thought before calling. Now we have a new set of assumptions that we will call Turn Assumptions:

1. He is raising 33/77 on this flop given our stack sizes.
2. He is not folding any pair, whether it be 53ss or 22.
3. By calling, his hand range is narrowed by roughly 5%. I think one of the only hands he might fold in this spot is something like 98.

Turn (Pot $875)

9

The rainbow is complete which makes the hand slightly easier to play since I can now discount most backdoor outs. This card is only harmful if he has a hand like 97, 99, Q9. Given my turn assumptions, firing here is again the superior play. Here is where I make a small mistake in bet sizing. In retrospect, the correct size would have been somewhere around $650. I fire $485 and seat 9 begins to reveal some discomfort. He rolls up his sleeves slightly and chews his gum that much harder. I can tell he is contemplating calling or raising.

He eventually settles on a raise, making it $1200 to go. I have $3360 remaining, making a ship very awkward and spewy. I think this over for a couple minutes and decide that calling is marginally the best play. I'm not sure what I'd choose between shipping and folding here.

Had I made it $650, he would have to raise to the neighborhood of at least $1600, making shipping a much more viable play. Given the turn action, I now have River Assumptions:

1. My opponent's strongest holding is 99.
2. My opponent's remaining holdings can be Q9, Q7s, 97, 65, 73s, and maybe 93s. This is very specific and it is very rare that you can narrow an opponents range to this many holdings minus random spew %. However, this board is that makes it possible to do so.
3. My opponent's short hesitation and decision between calling and raising tells me he does not have a two-pair hand as these types of hands are obviously raising. He must protect his hand and build a pot now in order to maximize EV on the river. By calling with these hands, he significantly increases the chance that I will bet/fold the river.
4. My opponent's raise narrows his range considerably, by 71.5% in this case. However, I would argue that 99 is almost certainly raising without second thought because it is exactly the same as 77/33 on the flop and therefore plays the same. This leaves us with 14% of his range and exactly one hand, 65.
5. Raising with Q9/97/99 gives me the highest % chance of making a mistake and shipping with AQ, AA, KK, or the hand that I have. So ironically, my opponent has narrowed his range by taking the most aggressive line.

River

7

I check and my opponent moves all-in after literally two seconds of consideration. The dealer asks him to put some chips forward for the camera to know that he is all-in. My opponent proceeds to not only put "some" chips forward, but his entire stack, one tower at a time. Now I have new information:

1. Given the board pairing and the near snap ship, it is very unlikely my opponent has Q9.
2. Given the board pairing and the near snap ship, it is also very unlikely my opponent has 97. It is far more likely for him to take some time and then ship.
3. My opponent is most likely bluffing. Anybody who has played live poker for an extended period of time knows that strong means weak. Moving his entire stack in the middle when he only needed to put one tower in tells me that he wants me to think he is strong. He wants the amount of chips to intimidate me. Furthermore, shipping so fast reveals that his move is premeditated.

Now given all this information from my first set of assumptions to last, it is likely that my hand is good here. To save any suspense, I folded after tanking for over five minutes. My opponent proudly turns up 65 thinking he forced me to make a hero fold.

The final paragraph might have seemed contradictory and it is. I tank not for show, but because I am convinced my hand was somehow good. I have made queen high and jack high calls before so it's definitely not a question of capability. It was a question of heart. This hand is irked me for almost a month now. It's like a bad dream that you can't escape.

I've consulted with many players and all assure me this is not a standard call. However, throughout my career, I've pushed myself to constantly stay ahead of the competition. I've spent hours thinking about a single hand before, in order to enter the psyche of my opponent. Understanding the game and the population that participates in it allows me to create theories before others do and pioneer something new for a short period of time. In order to be at the top, you have to feed yourself, you have to create. And I have put in hours upon hours of mental labor to create for myself. Unfortunately, this hand has shown me that I may have lost the ability to stay in front of my competition. Although most people define themselves through the big hands they've won, for me it's the opposite. In some ways, this hand redefined who I had become. Somebody who had lost focus.

To me, this hand told me so many things on so many levels:

1. It told me I was no longer the player I used to be. I am certain I would have called if I were in my sharpest form.
2. It showed that my heart was no longer in the game. I have always played for the challenge and the competition, never the money. However, for about 5 minutes in this hand, it really seemed like it was about the money.
3. Similar to how an elite player invents new thought processes and theories, an elite player would have found a call here. If I no longer view myself as elite, I refuse to play professionally.

The truth is, you aren't always going to be good at what you do. That's why some people go crazy trying to regain something they once had in the palm of their hand, wondering, "What happened?" Although I've considered walking away countless times, I believe this is the first time I've wanted to walk away independent of a string of bad luck. I am lucky to be in a situation where I can walk away on my own terms.

So what do I do now? I am dedicated to finding something new to apply myself in, but I don't know what yet. My emotions have been like a roller coaster the past three weeks. There have been many changes and challenges in my life. As an example, I have forgotten what it's like to not have an income and a hefty one at that. I don't know what it's like to find a job or how long it takes. I am walking away from an industry I fully understood to something completely foreign.

In all honesty, I have no bearing on where I'm headed whether it be profession or even location. I may sound crazy, but after some emotional anxiety and thought, I've reached a calming state, truly believing that the position I am in now is a fascinating place to be. I am so lucky to have done and experienced so many things at my age. I have traveled to many countries, shared my success with others through great food and spirits, and even had a 13-course meal to name a few. How can I possibly complain? I now have the opportunity to create something new for myself. I believe there will be a day where everything will click again. For now, I get to spend time figuring things out with God and learning more about myself in the eye of the storm and in the face of chaos. "For if God is for us, who can be against us?"