Message Board : Just how badly did I do with Q-Q?

I have been playing 6max at .25 - .50.  My account went from $169.70 on June 1 to $419.00 on June 9th.  I thought I had finally gotten it.  Then this hand has me regressing to the mean:

Full Tilt Poker Game #6785908611: Table Bangle (6 max) - $0.25/$0.50 - No Limit Hold'em - 17:06:08 ET - 2008/06/11
Seat 1: Tikk tikk boom ($48.65)
Seat 2: Natchez Too ($22.10)
Seat 3: monsterhally ($56.40)
Seat 4: Lepoulpe007 ($77.55)
Seat 5: fjellfinn ($48.35)
Seat 6: HangryHippo ($50)
HangryHippo posts the small blind of $0.25
Tikk tikk boom posts the big blind of $0.50
The button is in seat #5
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Natchez Too [Qc Qd]
Natchez Too has 15 seconds left to act
Natchez Too raises to $1.75
monsterhally folds
Lepoulpe007 folds
fjellfinn raises to $6

The players in these 6max games are outrageoulsy aggressive.  This guy could have been bluffing.  Should I have folded?
HangryHippo adds $0.25
HangryHippo folds
Tikk tikk boom folds
Natchez Too calls $4.25

I call.
*** FLOP *** [3s 4s 5d]
Natchez Too checks

Thinking I am trapping and hoping to check raise.
fjellfinn has 15 seconds left to act
fjellfinn checks
*** TURN *** [3s 4s 5d] [3c]
Natchez Too bets $12.75

I think I am best and bet the pot.  Given the preflop raises, it isn't likely that he has 3-4, 3-5, 55, 44, or A-2, etc.  Should I have checked, and then folded if he raised?
fjellfinn raises to $42.35, and is all in  Wasn't it at least possible that I had a set? 
Natchez Too calls $3.35, and is all in
fjellfinn shows [As Ad]
Natchez Too shows [Qc Qd]
Uncalled bet of $26.25 returned to fjellfinn
*** RIVER *** [3s 4s 5d 3c] [8d]
fjellfinn shows two pair, Aces and Threes
Natchez Too shows two pair, Queens and Threes
fjellfinn wins the pot ($42.75) with two pair, Aces and Threes
Natchez Too is sitting out

Was all of this inevitable, or just another instance of my poor play?  Hey, go ahead and kick me, I can take it.  In fact, if I played as poorly as I feel, I welcome and need the kicking.

NATCHEZTOO

Natcheztoo,

I am by no means an expert (neither 6-max, nor NL at that level), so beware!

First of all I agree that running into AA (or KK) is bad luck and unavoidable. By the time you were raised you had 20.35$ left, had to call 4.25$ and the pot was already 8.50$. Since you were getting 2:1 and your stack was down to 2.5 x pot size your call was OK (although I'd prefer a shove that would have been better in case your opponent had AK, AQ, JJ etc.). There is simply NO WAY given your stack size that you could have made someone fold AA!

Postflop: Going for a check-raise is OK. Betting the turn is OK, too. Call is a nobrainer.

BUT: Maybe a different line would have been better preflop?! You describe the game as outrageously aggressive. Since all the other players are acting after you and since a raise by one of them is quite likely I'd probably prefer a limp-reraise. That way you get more into the pot. You are far ahead of the majority of the hands that will raise in such games. I think you must be prepared to get your 44BB stack all-in preflop. (Personally I don't like the big swings that those games produce, but maybe you don't mind.)

Just my 2 cents.

Greyzy

Todd and Greyzy,

What does NL50 mean.  You said NL50 is probably too big for my roll.  Are we talking about the same game?  I was in a 6max, 25 cent small blind and 50 cent big blind game.  I was accustomed to buying in for the $20.00 minimum, and had done so well for eight straight days that I thought I had finally figured out the game.

Are there really semi-professional “grinders” at a .25 - .50 buy-in 6max game?  I am surprised.  No, astounded. 

Since you both think these guys are so aggressive and good and there are such violent swings (if we are talking about the same game), where would you direct me to play to obtain the experience I seek?

Also, when I studied chess seriously I developed the following rule for myself: 50% studying books (way back before all of the computer aids) and 50% playing against opponents stronger than I.

I seem to be playing poker more and studing it less when compared to the rule above.  Have either of you a thought on how I should apportion my sudy/play ration?

Thanks,

Natcheztoo

Are there really semi-professional “grinders” at a .25 - .50 buy-in 6max game?  I am surprised.  No, astounded.

At the .25/.50 level, no one is making a living yet, but people are striving to build a roll to get to that point.  There are a good number of folks that are making very significant incomes multi-tabling 1/2 and 2/4.  The 1/2 and 2/4 games are very professionalized.  You will see very fine players playing 5-8 tables of 1-2.  You could probably make a decent income playing 12-16 tables of .50/1.00 full ring.

On Stars at the .25/.50 table you will see waiting lists 2 and 3 deep on tables with 1 weak player.  Usually these are winning players with pretty solid games.  The best of these won't be as good as the best higher up in the mid-limits, but there are many very solid players.

That is NOT to say these games aren't beatable, because they are.  They will just be as tough or tougher than any 1/2 live game you are likely to find.  Typically they are a fair bit tougher than the typical soft full ring 1/2 game.

Since you both think these guys are so aggressive and good and there are such violent swings (if we are talking about the same game), where would you direct me to play to obtain the experience I seek?

With a $500 roll, I'd play .10/.25 until you work that up to around $1000.

I seem to be playing poker more and studing it less when compared to the rule above.  Have either of you a thought on how I should apportion my sudy/play ration?

I typically spend 1-2 hours per day reading, posting or watching videos about poker and 3 hours or so playing.  It depends what is going on in the rest of my life.  I'm a hobbiest, so I probably lean more towards playing and less towards study if something has to give. The good, winning pros seem to spend quite a bit of time away from the table working on their games.  Bryce over at stoxpoker seems to spend more time working on his game away from the table than he does on the actual play.  I'm not sure that is typical, though. 

Todd said:

The NL50 game is probably too big for your roll, though.  .

Also, it's not really a bankroll until the player can estimate his winrate at the stakes he plays. 

Most so-called “bankroll” discussions are woefully thin on the question of winrates.   It's far more important to make sure you're a winning player at the stakes you play than to worry about risk of ruin.   Invariably people end up getting quoted some ”bankroll” number appropriate for a winner at such-and-such rate, but no one bothers to figure out whether the person getting the advice can really win at that rate.