Table Selection

Today's entry is going to be a short post because there really isn't a ton of theory that can be applied to the subject. However, table selection is perhaps the most often ignored aspect of playing winning online poker. This may be because most players are prideful, and want to show that they can beat the "good regs" at their level. I feel like at 50NL there are perhaps four or five regulars that are in the ballpark of my playing skill, and the rest are all clearly inferior, and exploitable. That said, with the number of tables that are available on the major sites like Pokerstars and Full Tilt, it is ridiculous to stay at a table when it is occupied by a majority of tight-aggressive regulars.

Even when the games are poor in general, it is most definitely possible to find tables with 3+ passive fish, or one complete donkey with a couple fish on the side. A typical bad table might have 2-3 tight-aggressive regs (the worst kind), 2-3 nitty regs (exploitable, and will give you small profits over time), and maybe a loose-passive fish or two. Such a "bad" table might have an average VPIP of around 12-16, compared to a "good" table with a makeup I mentioned earlier being in the 18-25 range. Furthermore, these "good" tables also often have donkeys willing to play for stacks lightly, so the odds of us getting paid off on our big hands is even better.

My winrate has been far better this month than in April. I've ran a little bit better, and my game has improved. Even considering those factors, I think the biggest contributor to the increase is that my game selection has been better, and I'd encourage people who have been ignoring it to wake up and make sure that their tables are worth playing. Checking the lobby a little more often to find better seats could easily make a 1ptBB/100+ difference, so why aren't you doing it?

Long Weekend Review + Squeezing Light

I played a lot of poker over the Victoria Day weekend, finishing at 13.6k hands. I ran well during the first half, then poorly during the second half. As you'll see in the graph below, I ended up running bad in terms of showdown equity. However, I ran positively in terms of "heater versus cooler" spots, and flopped pretty well overall, so I probably actually ran marginally above average over the period as a whole. As I posted a very satisfying 6.3 ptBB/100 winrate over the period, it goes without saying that the tables were very good with lots of easy money laying around.

Here's my showdown EV graph for the weekend ($850 profit, running $170 below Sklansky expectation):


As the title suggests, I'll add a little strategy/hand history content to this post by talking about how we can make a +EV move by occasionally executing a "squeeze play" without a premium hand.

In the hand history below, the original raiser in MP1 is a 12/7 regular. His raising range from MP is most likely something like {AQ+, 66+}. Of this range, he is likely folding {AQ, 66-JJ} to my 3-bet, while calling or raising with {AK, QQ+}.

There are 16 combos each of AK and AQ, 6 combos each of 66-AA. Thus, the range we have assigned our villain has 86 combinations in all. Based on our estimation of what he calls/raises/folds, he is folding 52 of these combos, or 60% of the time!

Lets take a quick look at the actual hand history before proceeding further:

Poker Stars, $0.25/$0.50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 9 Players

Hero (BTN): $59.20 (118.4 bb)
SB: $34.95 (69.9 bb)
BB: $43.15 (86.3 bb)
UTG: $11 (22 bb)
UTG+1: $13.85 (27.7 bb)
MP1: $50 (100 bb)
MP2: $49.50 (99 bb)
MP3: $54.55 (109.1 bb)
CO: $40.40 (80.8 bb)

Pre-Flop: Hero is BTN with
2 folds, MP1 raises to $2, MP2 calls $2, MP3 folds, CO calls $2, Hero raises to $10, 5 folds

Results: $8.75 pot
Hero mucked (high card Jack) and won $8.75 ($6.75 net)

Because the players acting behind the villain were only strong enough to call the initial raise, it's safe to say they probably don't have AA or KK. That said, if they are weak-tight, a hand like AK which they may call our 3-bet with is very possible. However, our TJs will play very well against such a hand, especially because we'll have both position and be the preflop aggressor. Thus, we probably are in a pretty marginal position should one of these two players call, with some decent dead money in the pot. Lets consider such a situation EV neutral.

Since one of the two players acting after the initial raiser calling is EV neutral, lets see what happens when the initial raiser calls or raises. We have a hand that plays well in multiway pots, but lets ignore what happens when more than one villain calls, as it is unlikely to occur. So, on the 40% chance that villain calls/raises, lets assume that he always 4-bets AA/KK, and always calls AK and QQ. This is a pretty big assumption (and he should actually 4-bet AK/QQ some of the time, and call with AA/KK some of the time) but should be decent for a simple analysis. Thus, we are being called by 22 of the 34 combos (65%), and getting raised by 12 of the 34 (35%). Lets assume we fold to any raise. Against his range of {AKo, AKs, QQ} our hand of JTs has 35% equity. With this information we can start a rudimentary EV calculation.

60% of the time the villain folds. So 60% of the time, we win $6.75, for an EV of +$4.05. 40% of the time the villain calls or raises. Of this 40%, 14% of the time the villain raises, we fold, and we lose $10, for an EV of -$1.4. 26% of the time the villain calls, and our hand has $35% equity of the $24.75 pot, risking $10. Our risk is $1.4 more than our equity at this point, so 26% of the time, we are losing $1.4, for an EV of -$0.4.

Thus, our total EV in this rudimentary model is $4.05 - $1.4 - 0.4 = +$2.25. Obviously, we oversimplified and there are other factors which will probably decrease this vaule in practice, such as one of the blinds waking up with AA/KK, etc. That said, it is still clearly a +EV play, even though we likely do not have the best hand.

There are two reasons why we were able to make such a play:
(1) Our villain had a range which contained many hands he would be able to fold to the squeeze. Our villain was not a maniac, and is not going to want to play for stacks preflop with a hand like AQ or JJ. If our villain was a 6/3 nit, we obviously should not be making this play as our villain rarely if ever folds. The villains acting behind are also need to not be maniacs.

(2) We have not gotten out of line to an extent that suggests we would be squeezing light. If we start squeezing with ATC, it will probably be +EV at first, assuming the conditions above are met. But eventually, some of the better villains will start to notice. Even the mediocre regs at $50NL are bound to recognize that you're squeezing more than is reasonable if you do so with ATC, because it's such a strong play. When the better players start to adjust, squeezing light can easily become -EV. Of course, at this point squeezing with AA or KK becomes even more +EV than it is normally, so it's not all downside.

Preflop 3 Betting Ranges

There was an exceptional post on the 2+2 Forums a few days ago (in a theory thread that was a great idea to begin with) that really got me thinking.

The post is here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=4059717&postcount=11

The entire thread is here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?p=4059717#post4059717

I wrote a huge essay expanding on this topic a few days ago, then realized that I'm not confident enough about what I wrote to make it worth posting. Oh well, at the very least it was a learning experience.

Today I'm going to take another stab at it... and after writing another piece that was far too long, I don't really think it's worth posting either.

Here's the cliffnotes of what I believe is true and want to get across:

Against a typical TAG regular (lets say 13/9 with a 3-bet calling range range of {AK+, QQ+} 3-betting his open raise from MP1 (assume there are no other callers, otherwise squeezing is likely worthwhile) with QQ is +EV. However, flat calling is almost certainly higher +EV.

Against the same villain as above, 3-betting AK is the highest EV play possible with the hand as it functions as a semi-bluff. We fold out lots of hands that have ~53% equity against us, and have outs against the majority of hands that call (all except AA). 3-betting AQ is also likely +EV against such a villain for the same reasons. 3-betting AK and AQ also has the added benefit of increasing the likelyhood of being HU postflop with these hands, rathern than in multiway pots where they do not play well.

3-betting small pairs (22-55 or so, perhaps) as bluffs against the same villain is +EV until he adjusts. However, if we do this too often the probability of the villain adjusting increases, and if we are already 3-betting AQ against him, we definitely can't use this too often. Squeezing with such small pairs as a bluff is also a good option. Once we have gone to showdown doing this, the likelyhood of us getting paid off 3-betting our monsters also increases.

The bottom line is that against most regulars at microstakes, 3-betting a good bit more than the average TAG (who probably only 3bets AA/AK/KK) is +EV. However, this is due to the nature of 3-betting in general. In order to expand our 3-betting range, we are better off using hands that fall into the "semi bluff" or "bluff" categories such as AQ, 22-44, and SCs, rather than wasting hands that play well postflop like QQ and JJ. In addition, we need to keep our 3-betting frequency to a reasonable level so that we do not become a maniac and cause our opponents to adjust.

So how am I going to adjust my game based on the thoughts above? First off, I've stopped 3-betting JJ and QQ in non-squeeze situations, unless the villain is a donkey that won't fold hands like 99-TT and AJ to the raise. Against some drooling maniacs, I'm obviously looking to get AIPF with QQ and sometimes even JJ.

I don't think I've ever 3-bet a small pair or suited connector before, but I may start doing so occasionally, as I believe I have room to open up my 3-bet range profitably outside of AQ+, KK+.

Finding Thin Value on the River

I played a 2 hour session last night, and ran marvelously in terms of showdown winnings versus EV. Every time I got my money in good and went to showdown, it seems I won! I did find the fold button on the river in one hand where I'm sure I was ahead for the first two streets, so I wasn't invincible. However, thanks to my good luck and solid play, I picked up $250 last night. Around $150 of this can be contributed to running well, as per the EV graph below:



On to the title topic, one way to increase one's winrate is to take advantage of spots on the river where we can bet for "thin" value. What the "thin" part means is that we are in a situation where we are ahead enough of the time to make the play +EV, but not so much of the time that it is an obvious value bet. Basically, these spots reward superior hand reading, and the willingness to throw out a bet when often we could easily check and see a free showdown with a medium strength hand.

Though I've been better at finding these spots lately, here's an example hand of where I failed to do so last night:

Villain in this hand is an 8/6/1/100 nit.
Poker Stars, $0.25/$0.50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 9 Players
UTG: $52.95 (105.9 bb)
Hero (UTG+1): $63.50 (127 bb)
MP1: $49.40 (98.8 bb)
MP2: $69.25 (138.5 bb)
MP3: $22.90 (45.8 bb)
CO: $51.25 (102.5 bb)
BTN: $58.35 (116.7 bb)
SB: $42.65 (85.3 bb)
BB: $56.10 (112.2 bb)

Pre-Flop: Hero is UTG+1 with
UTG folds, Hero raises to $2, 4 folds, BTN calls $2, 2 folds

Flop: ($4.75) (2 players)
Hero bets $3, BTN calls $3

Turn: ($10.75) (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN checks

River: ($10.75) (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN checks

Results: $10.75 pot ($0.50 rake)
Hero showed (two pairs, Jacks and Eights) and won $10.25 ($5.25 net)
BTN mucked (two pairs, Tens and Eights) and lost (-$5 net)

In this hand I raise AJs from UTG+1, which is standard for me currently. This is probably a pretty marginal play, and at higher limits specific table dynamics might make this -EV, but for now I'm convinced it is profitable, though not significantly.

At any rate, I pick up a club draw on the flop and continuation bet as I would regardless of my holdings. The villain calls. What does this say about his hand? His preflop calling range is pretty narrow, it consists mostly of small to medium pocket pairs. His call suggests one of the following:
1) He has a middle sized pair and wants to float the flop because my c-bet says nothing about my hand strength. This is a fairly good play on his part with a hand like 77, 99, TT or JJ.
2) He has AQ, and made TPTK. This is less likely because he should be raising the flop with this hand much of the time, to protect himself against the club draw, and also for value against a hand like JJ or KQ which I could show up with. He probably wouldn't raise if he had AQcc, but we know this can't be the case because we have the Ac!
3) He has a set. Again, this is less likely because sets will often raise to protect their hand at this point, given the two tone board A set is still possible though.

The turn comes to give me middle pair, top kicker. The flush draw does not complete. Here I make a questionable play by checking. To some players, this is a no brainer spot to bet. I have middle pair, top kicker and the NFD, which at worst has decent equity, at best a ton. However, based on my opponent's likely holdings, what does a bet here accomplish? Do worse hands call? I would think a second barrel would fold out hands like 77, 99 and TT at this point, especially with the risk of having to call a 3rd barrel on the river to see showdown (leverage remember, see last blog post). Do better hands fold? We almost certainly aren't folding out flopped sets, nor the JJ which has now turned a set. AQ almost certainly sticks around as well. So, betting here accomplishes very little, aside from building a pot large enough that should allow us to pick up a significant bet on the river from a hand like AQ should our flush come. That said, it also gives the villain an opportunity to raise us off the hand. Not a good place to bet in my opinion.

However, by checking we can sometimes induce value on the turn. Very often when a villain floats our flop bet, he is looking to bet out on the turn to take the pot down right there. A hand like 99 or TT will often bet here, which we crush. If AQ bets the turn, we still have 11 outs. We've got 7 outs versus sets. These factors make c/c the ideal line for this street in my opinion.

Unfortunately, our villain checks (that's ok, as we didn't lose a ton of value anyway). This action further narrows our villain's range. He almost certainly does not have a set as he would have bet the turn. AQ likely would have bet the turn, but cannot be completely ruled out. However, a hand like 77, 99, or TT is by far our villain's most likely holding at this point. We are ahead of his most likely holding after the river blanks. We are behind AQ, or a brutally slowplayed set. This is a good spot to bet for "thin" value. The pot is $10.25, and if we bet $3.50 I would guess villain calls 80% of the time to try and catch us bluffing.

Instead, I decide to c/c, and our villain checks behind. I take down the pot after he shows TT. Our villain knows he has some showdown value at this point, and smartly does not decide to turn his hand into a bluff. If we were playing against a looser, bluffy villain, he shows up with a busted flush draw a lot of the time here, and the c/c line would be appropriate to induce value from bluffs. However, against our particular villain betting for thin value is clearly a better play.

Bluffing the Turn

Last night I played an hour and a half long session in which I gained just over a buyin playing full ring. As I was checking out of my tables, I ended up heads up with a donkey at one, so I decided to stick around and focus entirely on that table. His only moves were to bet and raise, so while frusterating to play he was easily exploitable. Eventually someone sat down at the table (at which point we were about even), and he complained that our HU match was ruined. I informed him that Stars has $50NL 1-on-1 tables which we could move to if he desired. He said he wanted to, so I was on my way to playing my first heads up cash session ever.

It took me 28 hands at the HU table to take his buyin. I ran pretty well, but also had a huge edge. Here are my lifetime HU stats:

166ptBB/100 for the win!

Ok, on to what I want to talk about today as per the title of the post. At microstakes, it is possible to be a profitable player without ever bluffing the turn or the river. Bluffing the flop (which 90%+ of the time is in the form of continuation bet) is however likely a prerequisite for success. That said, being able to pick good spots to bluff on the turn and the river could easily increase one's winrate substantially, and is a necessary skill to develop as one moves to higher stakes.

So, when do we bluff? If we're thinking about bluffing one of the later streets, we need to double check three things:
1) It is feasible that we actually have the hand our bluff represents based on the action so far.
2) Our opponent is not a calling station.
3) Better hands can realistically fold.

If our opponent is a calling station, we're probably getting called down regardless of how great our bluff was, and even poor players can sometimes figure out when a line doesn't make sense and by default often call to see what is going on. Further, if only worse hands fold to our bluff, we would have been better off checking the hand down or perhaps picking up a small value bet on the river, rather than blowing the weak hands we beat out of the pot.

Lets look at a couple examples:

Villain in hand one is a 10/6/2/1000 nit. As far as I know he's straightforward postflop.
Poker Stars, $0.25/$0.50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 9 Players
MP1: $97.20 (194.4 bb)
MP2: $41 (82 bb)
Hero (MP3): $67.90 (135.8 bb)
CO: $59.10 (118.2 bb)
BTN: $50 (100 bb)
SB: $47.50 (95 bb)
BB: $68.70 (137.4 bb)
UTG: $50 (100 bb)
UTG+1: $49.60 (99.2 bb)

Pre-Flop: Hero is MP3 with
2 folds, MP1 calls $0.50, MP2 folds, Hero raises to $2.50, 4 folds, MP1 calls $2

Flop: ($5.75) (2 players)
MP1 checks, Hero bets $3.50, MP1 calls $3.50

Turn: ($12.75) (2 players)
MP1 checks, Hero bets $8, MP1 folds

Results: $12.75 pot ($0.60 rake)
Hero mucked (a pair of Fours) and won $12.15 ($6.15 net)

In this first hand, we continuation bet our small pair into a two tone board and get called by our uncreative, nitty villain. At this point, our range is anything we raise with (overcards like AK/AQ, large pairs, small pairs, suited connectors, etc.) Since our nit limped preflop in MP, it is very likely he is playing a small/medium pair, something like 22-TT. It's also possible he's on suited connectors or a hand like AJs, but fairly unlikely.

So, given that information and that our villain called our c-bet, what are the villain's most likely holdings?

1) A middle sized pair, second or third pair based on the board. TT/99 most likely, with 33-66 a possibility as well.
2) A set. This is somewhat unlikely however, as many villains would raise this two tone flop with a set, as they really don't want to see another spade fall.
3) A flush draw. Very unlikely as our villain is fairly nitty preflop, but we can't entirely rule out a hand like QJs or AJs.

Based on the likelyhood of these hands, we are behind almost the entirety of 1), nearly dead to 2), and probably even money against 3). On the turn, we catch the Kh. This doesn't help our hand, but it is a good card for our range - as our villain almost certainly doesn't have a king, and we very possibly c-bet our missed AK or KQ. Of course, it's also possible we had a big pair like AA/KK/QQ all along. Thus, this is a good time to fire a second barrel, because we can now fold out nearly (if not entirely) all the hands that beat us in 1). If our opponent has a set, he will let us know here and we obviously will fold.

This bluff worked because it was consistant with the betting so far (we very possibly had AK/KQ, or a big pair the whole time), and our villain was a standard nitty reg rather than a calling station. It was a +EV move (and almost certainly the highest EV choice based on our villain's range) because there were many better hands that were likely to fold.

Let's take a look at another hand which is a bit more complex.

Poker Stars, $0.25/$0.50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 9 Players
MP3: $53.55 (107.1 bb)
CO: $61.30 (122.6 bb)
Hero (BTN): $51.85 (103.7 bb)
SB: $8 (16 bb)
BB: $43 (86 bb)
UTG: $52.90 (105.8 bb)
UTG+1: $50.90 (101.8 bb)
MP1: $48.95 (97.9 bb)
MP2: $11.50 (23 bb)

UTG is a loose fish, don't have stats offhand. MP3 is an unknown.
Pre-Flop: Hero is BTN with
UTG calls $0.50, 3 folds, MP3 calls $0.50, CO folds, Hero raises to $2.50, 2 folds, UTG calls $2, MP3 calls $2

Flop: ($8.25) (3 players)
UTG bets $0.50, MP3 calls $0.50, Hero raises to $5, UTG folds, MP3 calls $4.50

Turn: ($18.75) (2 players)
MP3 checks, Hero bets $11, MP3 folds<

Results: $18.75 pot ($0.90 rake)
Hero mucked (high card King) and won $17.85 ($10.35 net)

In this hand, I really just wanted to take down the blinds + 2 limps with my button raise, but got caught. However, the min-bet + min-call on the monotone flop tells me that neither of these players have a made hand of any sort that is worth protecting, because otherwise they'd want to give people poor odds to catch up to the flush should a 4th heart come. A made flush should also be worried about a 4th heart because if said flush isn't the nuts, it is now beaten by bigger flushes (which are likely) and if it is the nuts, the 4th heart will likely stop any further betting.

So I decide to raise the flop, which is a pretty standard play in this situation. Both players have shown weakness, so consider this a "continuation bet" that is actually a raise. Technically I have a gutshot straight draw at this point, but it's not really much of a semi-bluff. The fish folds, and the unknown calls. The turn blanks (actually I pick up a double-gutter draw at this point, but I'm not terribly excited if I get a call on the turn and then make my straight, since I'm against a made nut flush a lot of the time at that point). So, we have a draw we're not excited about, but what is our villain likely to hold?

1) A flush draw. The way the betting has gone, this is by far most likely. Very likely the Ah or Kh. Could very possibly have a hand like Ah8x, AhJx, or KhJx for the draw + one pair. Many of these hands should fold to a significant bet on the turn, unless our villain is a huge station (we don't know at this point). If he has a hand like KhQx, we had TPGK and the 2nd nut flush draw, and probably isn't going away.
2) A made flush. Possible, but misplayed (terribly so if it's not the nut flush) if this is the case.
3) A set, 2 pair, TPTK type hand. Possible, but so brutally misplayed at this point that I don't really want to think about it. If our villain is poor enough to play such a hand this way, they're also probably bad enough to lay down a 2 pair type hand on the turn giving us credit for a made flush.

Based on these holdings, what does our second barrel on the turn accomplish? We fold out many of the hands in 1) which have better equity in the pot that we do. Our only real hope at taking down the pot at this point is by bluffing, though there's an outside chance we spike our straight on the river and it holds up, though most likely we're then against an ace high busted draw, so we get no further value. Overall, this bluff probably is not as a good a play as the example above, because we do not know if our villain is or is not a calling station. We do know that better hands can fold, however. Finally, due to our flop line, our turn bet is completely consistant with our representation of hands in {AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AQ}.

The reason why turn bluffs have the potential to be so effective is due to the concept of leverage, originally articulated by Howard Lederer. It's a very simple concept: people are reluctant to call turn bets because there is always the threat of a big bet on the river that they'll then have to also call to see showdown. That isn't to say we should never bluff the river, and I do so fairly often now (at least compared to myself a few months ago) when it is consistant with the line I've taken in the hand. However, always keep in mind that bluffing the turn is much scarier than the river because of this leverage.

Taking Notes and Playing the Player

While playing 10+ tables at time, we rely mostly on our HUD stats when deciding how to play against a specific villain. However, when we see a villain expose a certain tendency, it is important to make a note of it for future reference. For instance, if we notice that a 8/6 nit 3-bets his entire raising range (including hands like AQ/TT) we should be inclined to start 4-betting him with hands like AK and QQ to compensate, although against a typical 8/6 player this is likely a very bad idea.

In the hand below, I am playing against a 24/10 villain whom I have a note on which says "raises his draws and likes to bluff". Against a typical villain, my line on this hand would be terrible. However, against this particular villain after he min raises the flop, I know he is drawing much of the time.

Unfortunately, I still misplay the hand by checking the turn - I really should have fired out 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the pot, to force him into making a significant mistake if he wants to draw further, then check/call the river once the flush draw misses to induce a bluff.

Instead, I induce a semi-bluff on the turn and a full fledged bluff on the river, with a hand that at this point is nothing more than a bluff catcher given the betting so far.

Poker Stars, $0.25/$0.50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 9 Players

UTG+1: $18.25 (36.5 bb)
MP1: $17.10 (34.2 bb)
MP2: $17.45 (34.9 bb)
MP3: $55.80 (111.6 bb)
CO: $51.50 (103 bb)
BTN: $39.10 (78.2 bb)
Hero (SB): $50.70 (101.4 bb)
BB: $125.55 (251.1 bb)
UTG: $50.70 (101.4 bb)

Pre-Flop: Hero is SB with
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls $0.50, 4 folds, BTN calls $0.50, Hero completes, BB checks

Flop: ($2) (4 players)
Hero bets $2, BB folds, UTG+1 folds, BTN raises to $4, Hero calls $2

Turn: ($10) (2 players)

Hero checks, BTN bets $6, Hero calls $6


River: ($22) (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN bets $14, Hero calls $14


Results: $50 pot ($2.40 rake)
BTN showed (high card King) and lost (-$24.50 net)
Hero showed (a pair of Jacks) and won $47.60 ($23.10 net)

Jason Almost Folds the Nuts, Hilarity Ensues

Putting the title of the post aside for a moment, I've played 10k hands already in May, adding $515 cash and ~$110 in FPPs to my roll. I ran above average during my Saturday session, but below average during my hands on Sunday. Overall, when considering both showdown equity and heater versus cooler hands, I believe I've run marginally hot (probably ~0.5 ptBB/100 better than average) which seems about right since I'm at 4.7ptBB/100 on the month so far.

Below is my EV graph for the weekend:


As per the title, here is a hand where I was the Big Blind, and almost folded the nuts on the river. My river check was unintentional, I wasn't aware of the hand I had at the time. Since there had been no betting up to the river and I had action going on with premium hands at other tables, I was basically in "check/fold" fold mode on this table barring making something like trips or two pair. Just before I hit the "fold" button on the river, I did a quick double take and noticed I might have a straight, and I'll be damned, I had the nut straight infact! The hand was so well disguised I almost didn't even notice I had it.

Poker Stars, $0.25/$0.50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 8 Players
MP1: $79.65 (159.3 bb)
MP2: $38.90 (77.8 bb)
MP3: $49.25 (98.5 bb)
CO: $60.10 (120.2 bb)
BTN: $54.90 (109.8 bb)
SB: $50.50 (101 bb)
Hero (BB): $73.20 (146.4 bb)
UTG+1: $52.05 (104.1 bb)

Pre-Flop: Hero is BB with
UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls $0.50, 5 folds, Hero checks

Flop: ($1.25) (2 players)
Hero checks, MP1 checks

Turn: ($1.25) (2 players)

Hero checks, MP1 checks

River: ($1.25) (2 players)
Hero checks, MP1 bets $1, Hero raises to $3, MP1 raises to $8, Hero raises to $16, MP1 calls $8

Results: $33.25 pot ($1.65 rake)
Hero showed (a straight, Five to Nine) and won $31.60 ($15.10 net)

MP1 mucked (two pairs, Kings and Queens) and lost (-$16.50 net)

I'll have two more hand history posts coming either later in the day or tomorrow, which will be much more educations. One will deal with bluffing the river, and the other with the benefits of taking notes on players and trusting these reads when appropriate.