Why do people get mad at their money?

[BugSplatt]

I must admit I don't quite understand "tilt." While I will be the first to admit it pisses me off when someone chases me to the river with botom pair or a gut shot and catches, I have never turned around and used something like that as an excuse to add to my woes by spilling off a bunch more chips. So, yes, I get mad - really mad sometimes - but not at my money. I don't find a reason to play mediocre hands in some desperate attempt to get even.

If anything, I may play a little too tight after a few bad beats. I know all the mathmeticians out there say that each hand has no correlation to the hands that follow, but some days ....... well, I guess I would call it a "reverse rush." Instead of everything going exactly right, everything goes exactly wrong. When it is the latter, I play tighter, and sometimes maybe I fold hands in late position that are playable.

I bring this all up because this morning I was playing in a game and one player in particular, was playing very, very well - until he had his pocket aces cracked by a very loose player who chased him to the river with a Q8 in his hand, caught an 8 on the flop and another on the river. After this happened, all the correct play by the loser of this hand was thrown out the window, and before long he was stuck for a lot more money playing almost every hand that came his way.

I don't get it.

Bug

[thomastem]

[ QUOTE ]


If anything, I may play a little too tight after a few bad beats.

Bug

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing too tight is a form of Tilt as well as while on a winning streak "playing the rush" is.

Tilt means that circumstances effect your play in an unprofitable way. So if you play less hands than you should from bad beats you are on tilt and losing money in the long run from it.

So why are you getting angry at your money by not investing in profitable hands?

[RiverMel]

[ QUOTE ]
sometimes maybe I fold hands in late position that are playable

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you're admitting to making a -EV play because of past bad luck. Sounds an awful lot like tilting to me.

[RiverMel]

Oops. What tt said.

[dogmeat]

Thomas, I don't always agree with your posts, but this one is IMHO right on the money! Nice.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[BugSplatt]

Okay, interesting point; however, it is rare that I muck -say - a KJ in late position and come to regret that decision when I have decided to tighten the reigns because things have not been going well. I don't like KJ at the best of times, and while I of course play it, it's funny how that hand can get you into some unwanted difficulties. So, yes, your definition of tilt in my situation is completely accurate, but I still have a difficult time believing tightening up is costing me more money than playing every hand after a bad beat. We have all had rushes, and when things are going well, not only are you hitting more than your fair share of hands, but most of your opponents begin to fear your every move. Again, I say, reverse to that is when you are not hitting, your opponents know it, and they are playing back at you. I think, for the most part, I do play a tight aggressive game, but there are times when - if we are to use your definition - I play weak/tight. And I would rather play weak tight any day than piss away a bunch more chips because one bad beat turned me into a maniac. If I get that mad, I hope I would have the common sense to leave the game and do battle another time.

[Alobar]

I agree with what you are sayin in part. People go on tilt and piss away chips, this equals lost money due soley to tilt. But money not won is the same as money lost in poker. So folding a +EV hand because of tilt, is still losing money. Its not as bad as pissing away chips in frustration, but its still pissing away income because of your emotional state, i.e. tilt.

[scotnt73]

just the fact that you say you "tighten up"implies that you are playing differently because you arent hitting. this is tilt. the sooner you recognize this the better. its better than playing everyhand for a raise but you are still choosing to play less than your best because you arent hitting.

[thomastem]

Bugsplatt,

So what you are saying is that your form of tilt or leak is less bad than another form of tilt or leak.

So then you get mad at your money but it is less mad than some? Does this make it ok?

My underlying point is that your post is a form of bragging or bravado. You are putting down a weakness some players have to make your own weakness or leak seem less bad.

How can this behavior be constructive or ever improve your game?

[PlayerA]

Until now, I've never ever seen tilt used in a sentence to refer to someone who has "gone into a shell" in response to bad a beat. Tilt is generally used in a more specific context to refer to someone that not only starts making -EV plays, but also exhibits loose, wild, reckless behavior. (Since you all wanted to split semantical hairs here...)

[thomastem]

[ QUOTE ]
Until now, I've never ever seen tilt used in a sentence to refer to someone who has "gone into a shell" in response to bad a beat. Tilt is generally used in a more specific context to refer to someone that not only starts making -EV plays, but also exhibits loose, wild, reckless behavior. (Since you all wanted to split semantical hairs here...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Was my earlier response confusing?

[ QUOTE ]
Playing too tight is a form of Tilt as well as while on a winning streak "playing the rush" is.

Tilt means that circumstances effect your play in an unprofitable way. So if you play less hands than you should from bad beats you are on tilt and losing money in the long run from it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Granted looser play is the most common example but it is not the only example of tilt.

[PlayerA]

[ QUOTE ]
Granted looser play is the most common example but it is not the only example of tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I say, until now, I've never seen tilt used in this more general manner. I've only even seen the term used in the more specific context of someone playing wildly and recklessly. Of course, language is fluid and if everyone says green is blue, then green is blue.

[RiverMel]

So what if people have, in the past, been mistaken and had a conception of "tilt" that didn't encompass all true instances of it?

In any case, the point was that the poster was asserting that others were making a mistake by altering their play due to past bad luck. I was pointing out that he too is guilty of that same mistake! I don't see how that's "splitting semantical hairs"--even if "semantical" were a word!

[thomastem]

Woohoo what MPBM said! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[PlayerA]

[ QUOTE ]
So what if people have, in the past, been mistaken and had a conception of "tilt" that didn't encompass all true instances of it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, find me some documented instances where tilt was used in the "true" way. And I don't mean some glossary that contains the general definition. I mean actual sentences where the more specific meaning is not intended. You can search this forum on the word and I doubt (I could be wrong and will admit it if proven wrong) you will find any instances of the word tilt being used in the generic context.

I can see it now: "I was in a game last night and saw this guy his AA cracked. He went on tilt and didn't play another hand until he got AA again!"

I'm just trying to out-nitpick the nitpickers.

[RiverMel]

Yes, you certainly are trying. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I suspect you and I have a very different Philosophy of Language.

My point is that, even if everyone until now has used "tilt" to only describe instances in which someone becomes a looser player, that does not mean that, if they thought about it, they would not or should not include all instances of someone's play becoming less optimal in response to past bad luck. My argument is that the correct conception of tilt includes all those instances--this is because the essential element of the concept TILT is "a poor response to past bad luck, manifesting in suboptimal play."

[beernutz]

I tilt by getting up and leaving the table, even if it appears to be a +EV situation.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
if everyone says green is blue, then green is blue

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you haven't used words used in a certain way before doesn't mean you have the definitive definition of them and other people with different definitions are wrong.

For what it's worth -- and since you are basing your correct definition so thoroughly purely on what you personally are familiar with -- the psychology forum here has discussed tilt as encompassing far more behavior than your narrow definition describes. If your experience is limiting your definition compared to those of others, perhaps you should read the psychology forum more so at least a little more experience on your part is something you're willing to hold up against all comers as the ultimate arbiter of what terms like these mean. The people with broader definitions of tilt whom you are arguing against have done just that type of reading to broaden their experience. You're overdue and should catch up instead of just arguing.

[Blarg]

You have to get back on the horse again when you fall off. You're losing a lot of potential money if you start turning away profitable situations because you start thinking the cards have memory and are going to treat you differently. Money not won is just as real as money won, in poker.

The only reason to play differently after a bad beat or series of them is if your table image has changed and you find everyone playing into you so much that you've lost any sort of control over the table. Poker somewhat depends, especially for certain people's styles, on table control, and if you don't have it, you can be in a negative -EV for hours. If that happens you can play differently, but it's probably best just to change tables, as you don't want to start ignoring +EV plays or making a greater part of your play book -EV or break-even EV plays just to stay in the action.

If you feel spooked or that the cards are getting memories or anything magical like that, there's no shame to it, nor sense in denying it if it's going to affect your behavior. Indulging supersitions to a certain extent can be +EV if it helps one's confidence or makes one feel better. You just have to be aware that's why you're doing it -- to satisfy the parts of you that aren't logical. Everyone has those parts. But once it starts cutting into your hourly rate significantly, it's time to either play right, leave the table, or leave the casino. There's definitely no point in giving superstitious behavior enough influence over your gameplay that it significantly impacts your earn rate.

[BottlesOf]

For a thorough explanation of "tilt," you should read Feneey's "Inside the Poker Mind." You'll see that tilt takes on many forms, not merely the most visible ones.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you certainly are trying. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I suspect you and I have a very different Philosophy of Language.

My point is that, even if everyone until now has used "tilt" to only describe instances in which someone becomes a looser player, that does not mean that, if they thought about it, they would not or should not include all instances of someone's play becoming less optimal in response to past bad luck. My argument is that the correct conception of tilt includes all those instances--this is because the essential element of the concept TILT is "a poor response to past bad luck, manifesting in suboptimal play."

[/ QUOTE ]


you are of course correct

[BugSplatt]

Post Extras:

Firstly, thank you all for your responses to my post. It has certainly opened my eyes to a much broader definition of the word "tilt." However, "bragging and bravado" were not the two things that came to mind when I posted this. I am a slightly better (and I do mean slightly) than break-even player. I have nothing to brag about. And I do understand your point(s).

And, yes, I am putting down a weakness some players have, I admit it, so shoot me. When a Q 10 becomes a raisable hand under the gun because you have just suffered a bad beat, or you cap a pot with the same hand when you would have folded it two minutes prior to suffering a bad beat, that is, to me (the break even player) a far greater drain on your bank roll than mucking a potentially playable hand. And I am not using the word "potentially" loosely here. We all have our definitions of "playable" don't we? Some players find any two suited cards playable, others will find a reason to play an 8 6 off suit in early position, some will play any two face cards or a small pair, even others will defend their blinds regardless of what they have or the action that has taken place before them.

I think everyone that has responded to my post is aware of the detrimental effects playing like a maniac can have. Either you have experienced it yourself (and given the responses, I find that unlikely) or have witnessed it from someone else. Also, I believe you all appreciate that the biggest chip spillers are maniacs. Don't tell me you don't try and get in on a loose cannon's game. They build nice pots. To that I will say this: if I am going to build a big pot I will do so because I think I have a better chance of winning it than you or any other player does, not because I am so mad about having my AA run over by a Q8 that I have lost complete control of what I constitute to be a good starting hand in a given situation. Does tightening up mean I am going to limp in with big starting hands? Of course not. I hate limping in. I have always tried to live by two things when playing holdem. Firstly, I want to be the hammer, not the nail - if I can't raise or re-raise going into the hand, I am probably better off mucking. Secondly, it is not the hands you play where you make money; more often, it is the ones you stay away from where the true profit lies. Apparently, to some of you, I am wrong in that mindset - fair enough. But if you want to talk about "bragging and bravado" I offer you this:

I am good enough to know that I am not yet good enough.

Thanks,

Bug

[Graham]

there's merit to playing tighter after taking some beats, and playing looser after/while on a rush. It's to do with your opp's perception of your image and how likely they are to now currently go after you.
Playing the same regardless of your recent run and how that affects (note the correct spelling TT..;)..) their image of you is not optimal. Changing your tightness/looseness/aggressiveness according to recent history is a big enough part of poker. The original poster may likely be doing the correct thing by tightening up after a series of beats.

I think Mason has an essay or two on this somewhere.