How do I overcome the bad and lucky players?

[PizzaAggie]

It seems that whenever I get knocked out of a tourney or lose significantly at the ring games on line it is due to people that call raises that they should not and end up hitting their two pair, Js and 7s for example. Should I go up in limit to avoid some of those players or should I play extra tight? I need some help to get over the hump.

[TheGrifter]

Play better postflop, know when you're beat.

If you can't beat players who are constantly making mistakes it's because you yourself are a bad player, get better.

Moving up in limits will only allow you to lose your money more quickly.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that whenever I get knocked out of a tourney or lose significantly at the ring games on line it is due to people that call raises that they should not and end up hitting their two pair, Js and 7s for example. Should I go up in limit to avoid some of those players or should I play extra tight? I need some help to get over the hump.

[/ QUOTE ]

You definitely should not move up in limits. Beating loose passive players is the easiest it gets, and that is what you just described ("...people that call raises that they should not..."). If this is a long term thing, re-evaluate your play. The two biggest leaks in poker are playing too many starting hands and going too far with them. I would take a brutally honest look at my game. If you are playing a tight aggressive game (in ring games) the wins will come. Tournament play differs from ring game play, but against a weak field you should do above average with just being tight aggressive.

Have you read any books on poker? If not, I would reccomend it. Also, start posting hands that give you trouble in these forums and getting feedback.

[PizzaAggie]

Thanks for the advice. One question...how do I know that I am beat when I hold AJ, my oponent hold J7 and the flop is J74? This is just an example, and I am sure that I am blowing it out of proportion, but I want to get better. Maybe I am just remembering the bad hands and forgetting all the good hands I play. Unfortunately, my bad hands occur on my last hand of the tourney /images/graemlins/frown.gif...LOL.

[PizzaAggie]

I looking at 9 poker books on my bookshelf that I have read. Maybe my sampling size is too small and I need to play longer and be willing to experience fluctuations in my bankroll. I have read here people say that they are too focused on the money and it hurts their play. Maybe I need to forget about the money and not let losses hurt me so badly. As you stated, if I play my game, which is tight aggressive (usually less than 20% of hands played), then I should win in the long run. I just hate to lose. Guess I need to get over that.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the advice. One question...how do I know that I am beat when I hold AJ, my oponent hold J7 and the flop is J74? This is just an example, and I am sure that I am blowing it out of proportion, but I want to get better. Maybe I am just remembering the bad hands and forgetting all the good hands I play. Unfortunately, my bad hands occur on my last hand of the tourney /images/graemlins/frown.gif...LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]


It happens. Just last week I had pocket Aces UTG, raised, everyone folded to the button, who called, and the BB called.

Flop was A-4-9, rainbow.

BB checked -- I bet -- button called -- BB folded.

Turn: 10

I bet, button called.

River: 5

I bet, button raised, I was about to 3-bet when I had the vision of 23 -- a HORRIBLE vision but a vision nevertheless. I was about to fold but then I questioned my vision and it cost me another $20, as the button had 2-3

sooted!

Instead of getting angry, I said good hand, mucked my Aces face-down, and went on to see the button give back the stack he won off with me, along with the other $400 in front of him that he had just sat down with a half hour before, in about another hour.

Bad beats happen. To everyone. Constantly.

It's part of the game.

And taking them is, as Staind teaches us, the price you pay to play that game.

Or you can learn to listen to the visions better.

Or, as my boy Bruce calls it, The Song.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[cnfuzzd]

This has been covered here (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=&Number=491819&page=&view= &sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

peace

john nickle

[zephyr]

One of the biggest things you should realize is that you need to be able to adjust to different games. If you're playing in low-limit ring games than your tight-aggresive style will probably get you the money.

If you're playing in tournaments, especially the no-limit variety, playing tight agrresive can be an enormous mistake at some points. The fact is that you need to be able to adjust. At some points in tournaments you need to be pushing preflop with more than 50% of your hands. At other points you need to be folding AKs preflop.

What I'm getting at is that you should make sure that your opponents are as bad as you "think" they are. I can think of a lot of times where I'd play J7s, and be correct in doing so. Once you've established whether they actually are fish or not, then take another look at your supposedly winning game.

I believe that one of the worst mistakes beginner players make is that they get attached to starting hands. AJs beats J7s ~70% of the time. If you're in a low limit ring game and lose an extra couple of bets in the 30% of the time AJs loses than you're probably alright. If you're playing in NL tourneys and lose your whole stack those 30% of the time then your in trouble.

Best Regards,

Zephyr

[Louie Landale]

Neither. Just adjust your attitude. If the bad plays never yeilded a win the bad players would stop doing it. Just like keeping folks at the slot-machines, these losing plays need to win to keep them doing it.

Your objective to "never get outdrawn" is rediculous; as is the correlarly "never outdraw the other guy". You ARE going to get outdrawn, even by clearly bad long shot hands; and you are also going to outdraw the opponent even when you wouln't have called had you known what he had.

If its a bad play then its good for you in the long run when he does it. Wait until you go a session betting top pair 10 times and getting 4 callers, and never losing a single one. Cha Ching.

- Louie

[donkeyradish]

It would be very surprising if bad players never got lucky, wouldn't it? In fact it would be terrible!

People sometimes make bad decisions and win. Which is why they'll make the same bad decision again and again.

[dogmeat]

If you blame the bad players for your losses, you are like an awful lot of losing players. If you can't beat bad players at .50/$1 I guarantee you that you can't beat them at $5/10 or $15/$30. You are a good/winning player who can move up in limits when you win a couple BB/hour at your current limit over at least 10K hands, and 25K hands would be better.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[PizzaAggie]

Awesome advice from all. I guess I need to just "get over it" and be happy when they call with bottom pair or an A high. It looks as if all I need is more experience, a fresh outlook /images/graemlins/smile.gif and a larger bankroll to keep the losses from hurting. Oh...and I cannot forget my daily trip to twoplustwo.com.

Thanks to all that responded! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PokerFoo]

There is no simple conclusive answer to this. However if I were to try and give one Id say the answer is Recall.

You have to pay attention to how that player you were up against has played previously. Many times he will indicate to you by a raising instead of his normal calling pattern. Or the call itself may be the indication if he is ultra tight.

If your worried your top pair with a good kicker is beat by on odd 2 pair and you just cant fold your hand, it MAY be correct in a limit game to let him have the lead and call him down as cheap as possable.

If the game is no limit and youve made a large raise and he calls you, AND you think he is NOT the type of player to call that big raise without having top pair beat you just have to let it go and wait for a better spot.

Foo

[dr_venkman]

Something I have been working on in the lower limit NL ring games is adjusting game play. Being tight aggressive all the time is (IMO) the best and only way to go in the beginning of learning poker. But tight agressive all the time is not very imaginative. I like to try and analyze the table play constantly and tighten up if the table is loose. Conversely, loosen up a little if the table is extra tight with lots of good players. Not withstanding that learning can be an expensive proposition, so have a fair amount of money to educate yourself and not get angry -- just learn.

If this is not something you want to do, then the next best thing is table selection. Try and find tables where players have basically the same size stack as you and stay tight/aggressive.

I have tried moving up in limits to find better games, but the catch with that is your need to increase your bankroll proportionatly to the size of the stakes. So if you have the cash to spare, go for it. But I recommend just staying on those LL tables until you can confidently move up in ranks.

Good Luck, see you at the tables.
~Venk

[cnfuzzd]

i dont understand why you would want to play players who are more knowledgable about the game, and more skillfull in playing it? I dont understand why one would feel that if one cant beat bad players, one can beeat good players?

peace

john nickle

i didnt even notice that i am an enthousiast now. w00t maybe one day i will learn to play.

[SA125]

Do you have pokertracker? That'll give you a detailed look at what hands and what positions are winning/losing for you.

I just mentioned in another post, Bobby Baldwin said seeing good players complain about getting sucked out is funny.
He said it will always happen to good players more than bad ones because good players usually have the odds in the favor and bad ones are behind much more often.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I bet, button raised, I was about to 3-bet when I had the vision of 23 -- a HORRIBLE vision but a vision nevertheless. I was about to fold but then I questioned my vision and it cost me another $20, as the button had 2-3


[/ QUOTE ]


that would have been a truly horrific fold.

[glen]

"that would have been a truly horrific fold. "

lol, i was like, "Wait, did he just say that?. . . " So I read it again, and, he did.

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont understand why one would feel that if one cant beat bad players, one can beeat good players?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good name.

No, I meant you learn to beat the LL tables and them move up in ranks. Hence, why I said it.

If that response wasn't meant for me then sorry. But you did re: on my message so I assume you were addressing me.

[Billman]

One of the common mistakes people who can't beat low limit games make is thinking that moving up in limits will all of a sudden make people respect thier raises and bets. It doesn't. I see this all the time. I have so many friends who are new to poker and want to go to one of the local casinos with me. It's the same pattern:

1. They win or lose a little bit the first time out.

2. They read some poker books.

3. They win or lose a little bit the second time out.

4. They read some more poker books.

5. They start complaining that nobody can beat low limit games because people won't lay down their crappy hands and suck out on them so the obvious answer must be to move up in limits.

There's no real "secret" to poker. There's no special move or piece of knowledge that's going to make one a better player. It's like any other skill you want to perfect, you educate yourself, practice (i.e. play), evaluate the results, and adjust accordingly.

[GuyOnTilt]

that would have been a truly horrific fold.

I'm kind of scared that he may have actually been serious about almost folding. Talk about horrible poker...

GoT

[m2smith2]

.

[m2smith2]

You seem to have gotten a lot of responses critical of your play. So, those people have demonstrated that they’re smarter than you – hey, they’re smarter than me too. Many of them probably are the type of aggressive players who give advice to people during a game, since demonstrating that they’re smart is more important than winning money to them. I’d say those people are the second-easiest to beat.

Let me re-phrase some of what has been said, and then relate it to why you don’t want to move up in limits yet.

Let’s stick to ring games - mathematically, you are winning, even when you’re losing. That is, when you get your money in when you are ahead (statistically, not necessarily with a made hand), then you are winning money even when you’re on a bad run. That’s because over time, those loose callers will not hit their cards. Every time someone calls a bet from you when the pot is laying them 2-to-1 when they’re (say) 3-to-1 to hit, you are making money (any comments you may have gotten about “read a book” surely are referring to this concept from Sklansky and others).

Carson’s Corollary (a corollary to Morton’s Theorem) – Your hand is best when the odds that you will win the pot are greater than the odds that you are getting from the number of active hands that will call.

This is true whether you have a great draw or a made hand, but either way, when loose players call you when they have the worst of it, they are giving you money. Don’t let bad beats or a bad run convince you otherwise.

You shouldn’t move up to see “better” players who make “smarter” laydowns for the reason I just described – you may pick up more pots, but you won’t get paid off. Classic tight/aggressive players (that is, players way smarter than me, of course) only give you action when you’re likely to lose (OK, say 90% of the time that’s true). What’s more, they don’t pay you off when you hit your hand. Finally, it’s bankroll management. If you’re playing smart poker and suffering bad beats, you need to be able to withstand those beats. That means over the long-term you should hold 200 big bets (some say 300 – those people are probably smarter than me too).

As for tournaments, that’s a different story. Because chip management is important, it’s not always correct to make plays that are positive EV (again, Sklansky talking, not me). If you have queens and you KNOW your opponent has A/K, you shouldn’t be AI unless you believe that you are up against better players. Flipping a coin is smart against better players. Against weaker competition you should wait for a better spot. Of course, late, and in a short-handed game, that’s not the case (only the Brat can lay down QQ in that situation).

Starting hands obviously become more important in that case. The hand you described is in the “dominated” category and tends to be overplayed. I agree you had no reason to think you were behind in the hand you described, and in point of fact you were not – having a long shot catch on the river in the classic bad beat, not to mention he shouldn’t have been in the hand anyway. Of course, if he was the BB and the pot was un-raised, then you have to be alert for more than him flopping a gutshot – he very well could play an Ace-rag from the BB that hit the board.

But I digress – if you get your money in when you’re the most likely winner of the hand then you are statistically “winning” even when you aren’t pulling pots.

Don’t give up on dumb players – give them a chance and they will reward you over time. Keep saying “nice hand” and “great call” and cry all the way to the bank.

[Utah]

Learn to play no limit and you will avoid that problem.

[Wahoo91]

Read Ed Miller Small Stakes Hold'em (and his posts on this site). This is addressed. To summarize, if you can't beat bad players than you will not beat anyone.

The book describes how to beat these games better than any other information you might receive.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Awesome advice from all. I guess I need to just "get over it" and be happy when they call with bottom pair or an A high. It looks as if all I need is more experience, a fresh outlook /images/graemlins/smile.gif and a larger bankroll to keep the losses from hurting. Oh...and I cannot forget my daily trip to twoplustwo.com.

Thanks to all that responded! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's nice and all, but you could just start playing in the highest stakes game available. That should really cut down on your bad beats as you start to play against better players who play only good cards! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]
That should really cut down on your bad beats as you start to play against better players who play only good cards! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, then you would only have good beat stories :-)

[Louie Landale]

Have missed "SarcasMeister" lately.

- Louie /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Louie Landale]

Lets not confuse "smarter" with "more knowlegeable". I know more than you but you are probably smarter (in grade school I was always a couple clowns short of a circus). And lets also not confuse "smart" with "wise". Smart is being able to see relationships and draw conclusions; whereas Wise is the ability to see the truth and acurately prioritize conficting realities. A smart person will be able to disect and invalidate their partner's arguments; a wise person will know what's the real problem. But I digress...

Most of the responders are NOT the second easiest type of player to beat.

Yup, moving up is not the solution.

Clarification: you are making money when you bet your favorite hand even if they ARE getting the right odds to chase and do so. You may make more money if they fold if they are getting the right odds, and make less money when they fold if they are not getter the right odds, but all these scenarios are generally better than checking when you have the best hand.

Carson: this is not correct. You are "A" favorite if your odds against actually winning the pot is better than the number of active hands; but the "Best" hand is the one most likely to win.

The reason you should not jeapardize a bunch of chips on a close match in a Tournament isn't because the opponent plays worse than you; its because the chips you have are worth a LOT more than the chips you can win: if you have a healthy stack, doubling up does NOT double your tournament EV. You end up risking your entire tournament EV for perhaps +.5EV on an even match: bad gamble.

"But I digress &amp;#8211; if you get your money in when you&amp;#8217;re the most likely winner of the hand then you are statistically &amp;#8220;winning&amp;#8221; even when you aren&amp;#8217;t pulling pots.

Don&amp;#8217;t give up on dumb players &amp;#8211; give them a chance and they will reward you over time. Keep saying &amp;#8220;nice hand&amp;#8221; and &amp;#8220;great call&amp;#8221; and cry all the way to the bank."

Two pieces of excellent advise there.

- Louie

"Nice post" by the way. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

"cry all the way to the bank". Very nice touch.

[cybertilt]

Pizza, the main problem you need to get over is what Roy Cook calls "results oriented". Ed Miller in his new book says there would be no profit in poker if it wasn't for these poor players. Your earnings come from exploiting you opponents' errors and predictable tendencies. Ed has a good section on how your mind is reacting to the results, not what was good poker.

Pick up one of these books, or both should help you a lot.

[GuyOnTilt]

It's rarely horrible to fold when you're beaten

I've talked about this many times before, but river folds and/or calls have absolutely nothing to do with the particular cards your opponent happens to have this time. It has everything to do with his range of hands, their respecitive probabilities, and the size of the pot. In limit hold'em cash games you should be thinking probabilistically nearly all the time.

GoT

[Nick Moore]

I agree that everyone here is smarter (poker wise) and most likely better than me, at least right now, and I agree with what they've said, especially the last several posts. I just want to point out that there are more than one kind of bad player. In Theory of Poker, Sklansky mentions that he intuitively realized that he did better against tight people that played bad than loose players that played bad, because the loose players bluff more. Until you can beat every bad player, you might want to pay attention to what kind of bad players that you can beat, and take their money to play against the other's that you can't, until you can. It still comes back to your game though.

[SevenStuda]

You can't win em all. Losing builds character. Lucky/bad players can't win in the long run, skill provails.

-Dimitri

[PizzaAggie]

Now that is what I was looking for. Thanks for putting into terms that make sense to me. I do appreciate the fact that so many people think I am an idiot for suggesting that I move up in limits. You were able to break in down for me and I appreciate that.

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have gotten a lot of responses critical of your play. So, those people have demonstrated that they’re smarter than you – hey, they’re smarter than me too. Many of them probably are the type of aggressive players who give advice to people during a game, since demonstrating that they’re smart is more important than winning money to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that's a really weird comment. I don't know about you but having my play criticized is the reason I come to 2+2.

I looked through the responses to this thread to see what you were talking about and the only arrogant, rude and inappropriate post I found was yours.

I know you're working hard to understand human emotions, so I'm going to let you off with just a warning this time. Don't make me bring Kurn, Son of Mogh in here!

/mc

[AVelie]

PizzaAggie,
For what its worth, if you can identify that you have a/several of these loose players...raise your aggressiveness against them. If they will call your 4xBB standard "A-A" raise, then start making it 8xBB and see what happens. More chips for you when they still make the poor call...the price of bad poker just went up. Of course, if you are gonna do this, you probably have to tighten up your starting card requirements, because you really can't afford too many bad beats.

Well in any case, that adjustment has worked for me in the past. Not always, but enough that I think about it.
- A.