please explain how people handle mutliple bad beats [Archive]

BonJoviJones

11-07-2004, 01:38 AM

The best advice I have: Deal with it. Accept it. You got your money in with the best of it, and that's all you can do.

Variance is a bitch. No one will ever say anything different. If you have a problem with variance I have one suggestion: Casino Whoring. Check the Zoo, they have a thread on a great job. Playing blackjack really shows you wacky-ass variance, much more than Poker.

*Shrug* Blackjack helped me get over this stuff, and provided some good bankroll to start.

But don't tilt while playing blackjack.

SCfuji

11-07-2004, 01:43 AM

i only get pissed when i make mistakes. its irritating to lose multiple times, but as long as you play the same way the money will come back to you. whether the money is from that person or another it does not matter. when bad players win they return it back into 'circulation' on party poker unless they decide to never play again.

TheHip41

11-07-2004, 01:50 AM

Listen to "Nugget" by Cake /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Harv72b

11-07-2004, 01:51 AM

That's exactly it. I try to just laugh to myself, give the guy a "nh" in the room chat, and get back to my game knowing that the player who just beat me with 25o is going to give me a lot more money than I just lost over the long run.

It is hard sometimes, and if you find yourself tilting, the best thing I can recommend is to just stop the session immediately. Or if you must keep playing, enter a cheap sit & go; you get that nice, big stack to start off with, your solid play will likely lead to that stack growing, and best of all, even if the bad luck keeps trumping your good decisions, you'll lose a lot less money for your time.

Ritter

11-07-2004, 01:57 AM

Casino's don't get upset when a player hits their number on roulette or makes their pass line at craps - they smile and say "congratulations!"

(Paraphrase - Ed Miller SSHE)

siccjay

11-07-2004, 02:57 AM

It's hard, I don't know if I'll ever be able to take the beats.

I just lost KK flopped a set to J4 s00ted and AK flopped an A to 82 s00ted. SAME DAMN FISH!!!!!!! Thats what makes me the maddest, it always seems like the same guy who everyone else is killing sucks out on me and then spreads my money around the table.

I used to kill the micro games when I first started playing and now after reading the boards so much and reading SSHE I feel like such a better player but I can't get out of the downswing. All you can do is vent (like I did in this post) and remember its all one big session.

young nut

11-07-2004, 03:13 AM

variance is certainly a biatch. I was catching monster hands 3 tabling yesterday. I'm talking AA KK and AK over 20 times in a 2 hour session (not a piece of course). But my KK kept getting cracked. I had one Kk hold up out of 4. My aces only won 2 out of 5. And my AK's missed the flop and turn almost every time. Just gotta chalk it up to variance though. I just simply stopped. Came back today and made up almost all of my downswing in 2 hours. Variance is certainly a biatch, but as long as you are playing smart game, eventually payoffs will come.

emonrad87

11-07-2004, 04:08 AM

Well, since everyone is going to tell you that varience is a bitch, get over it... I'll give you my advice: just become a better player. Then you can win every pot like I do (or maybe that's my pattern mapper...) /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Multi-tabling is my best advice to avoid heavy varience, because you'll often get killed at one table but win at your other 2 or 3 and be positive.

detruncate

11-07-2004, 04:15 AM

Practice.

Chris Daddy Cool

11-07-2004, 04:36 AM

umaga

11-07-2004, 08:36 AM

"SAME DAMN FISH!!!!!!! Thats what makes me the maddest, it always seems like the same guy who everyone else is killing sucks out on me and then spreads my money around the table."

1) If you truly played the hand optimally, the "SAME DAMN FISH", didn't beat you - the cards did.
2) If you didn't play optimally - learn.
3) The statements I quoted above should tell you that you are getting your ego involved in situations it doesn't belong.
4) Don't think of opponents as "Fish", all players are a bundle of playing characteristics that have to be factored in to your play. Name calling, even if internal, doesn't help this process. It merely strokes your ego (bruised).

Qhorin

11-07-2004, 09:58 AM

I try to think about some hands where I was behind but had implied odds to stay in, and won. Middle pair + backdoor flush draw that came in, for instance. Remembering being called a chaser always makes me laugh.

Accident

11-07-2004, 10:02 AM

The guy I went to vegas w/this past weekend was like the king of bad beat fish. He thinks he is great at holdem too. He would get up like $200 at the 2/4 table w/all these lucky flops. People would be muttering about how lucky he is. I just said, "watch and wait". Sure enough after about 2 more hours he was back to even and guess what?? TIME TO QUIT!! haha. Long haul will get those guys.
Accident /images/graemlins/club.gif

dfscott

11-07-2004, 12:10 PM

Several people have suggested that PoP has been helpful (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1214628&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) ...

Greg J

11-07-2004, 12:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've just had several bad beats happen and want to scream...are there techniques people use to handle these things...I'm sorry but after my aces get thumped by 62 and my queens get hit my j6...I'm heading towards tilt...how do you deal with these things

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is my barometer: I try to maintain a positive attitude about it. When my aces get cracked by unsuited crap, or a rivered set (calling with 66 the whole way), I say "awesome." I take a sort of perverse pleasure in taking bad beats. When I can no longer say awesome and find it ammusing, I know it's time to leave b/c I'm in no emotional state to play. It's hard to get up when you have had your ass handed to you by the fish -- you want to stay and get your money back. You have to have the discipline to get up and walk away.

maryfield48

11-07-2004, 02:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Multi-tabling is my best advice to avoid heavy varience, because you'll often get killed at one table but win at your other 2 or 3 and be positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real secret to crushing these games of course, is to leave the table you're being killed at and just play the profitable ones.

--
Peter

anyjack

11-07-2004, 03:46 PM

When people play 62o and J6o at a table, I say to myself, where do I sign up?

Ritter

11-07-2004, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Multi-tabling is my best advice to avoid heavy varience, because you'll often get killed at one table but win at your other 2 or 3 and be positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real secret to crushing these games of course, is to leave the table you're being killed at and just play the profitable ones.

--
Peter

[/ QUOTE ]

NO - how much you're up/down should have no bearing whatsoever on your decision to stay at a table or not.

I use the PT gametime window to keep a running update of the VPIP of each opp. After about 50 hands or so, I've got a good enough take on the texture of the table to decide if I want to stay or not.

I don't care if I'm down 50BB - if there's 4+ players with VPIP +40 - I'm not going anywhere...

busguy

11-07-2004, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When people play 62o and J6o at a table, I say to myself, where do I sign up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Where would you be if these "fish" never won. You'd be sitting at a table playing heads up against a guy that is surely better than you. How profitable would that be ??

Get over yourself. Would it be better to have your big cards always win for you and your draws to never win ?? Who really cares what wins for you on any given day as long as at the end of the day you are positive.

I could never understand why people got so worked up when they lost, JUST because they had the best starting hand (and then overplayed it of course).

If you haven't realized that these are the guys that you make your money off of, then you still have a long way to go.

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif busguy

busguy

11-07-2004, 04:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Multi-tabling is my best advice to avoid heavy varience, because you'll often get killed at one table but win at your other 2 or 3 and be positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, and for anybody that is new (or sucks) this is just plain bad advice. The variance at any one table is not effected by the variance at any others. Your are JUST as likely to be down at two + tables as you are at one. So by playing at more tables you could be MUCH worse off. If you suck at one table, your just as likely to suck at two or more.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif busguy

topspin

11-07-2004, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Multi-tabling is my best advice to avoid heavy varience, because you'll often get killed at one table but win at your other 2 or 3 and be positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, and for anybody that is new (or sucks) this is just plain bad advice. The variance at any one table is not effected by the variance at any others. Your are JUST as likely to be down at two + tables as you are at one. So by playing at more tables you could be MUCH worse off. If you suck at one table, your just as likely to suck at two or more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest rethinking this argument.

Easy counterexample: say that at any given table, over a given duration, you're equally likely to be up or down. Playing one table, the likelihood that you're down is 0.5. Playing two tables, the likelihood that they're both down is only (0.5)(0.5) = 0.25. (Extensions to more tables are straightforward.) You're therefore less likely to be simultaneously "losing" at all your tables.

Similarly, the OP was also correct in saying that if you're a winning player, you're more likely to be up overall. Over the same amount of time, by playing 4 tables (for example) you're playing 4x more hands than single-tabling. Given a 1000 vs. 4000-hand sample size and a winning player, which is more likely to show a net positive outcome over the observation interval?

maryfield48

11-07-2004, 05:10 PM

topspin

11-07-2004, 05:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real secret to crushing these games of course, is to leave the table you're being killed at and just play the profitable ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO - how much you're up/down should have no bearing whatsoever on your decision to stay at a table or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect your humor detector needs tuning.

emonrad87

11-07-2004, 05:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Multi-tabling is my best advice to avoid heavy varience, because you'll often get killed at one table but win at your other 2 or 3 and be positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, and for anybody that is new (or sucks) this is just plain bad advice. The variance at any one table is not effected by the variance at any others. Your are JUST as likely to be down at two + tables as you are at one. So by playing at more tables you could be MUCH worse off. If you suck at one table, your just as likely to suck at two or more.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif busguy

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

If you're a winning player, my argument is correct. For example, say that over the long haul you will win 68% of all sessions (I pulled that number out of my ass as an example, so don't attack it as unreasonable, etc). Then, your chances of losing a session is 32%. If you're playing 2 tables, your chances of losing both is 0.32 x 0.32 = 0.1024, or roughly 10%. Over three tables, your chances of losing on all three drop further to 0.1024 x 0.32 = 0.032768, roughly 3%. Clearly you are NOT just as likely to be down at two tables than you are at one. (This is of course, assuming that your chances of winning are the same at each table).

For newbies, multi-tabling may not be the best option because you cannot focus on individual plays as much. You MUST master the ABC's and have a good grasp of the D's, E's, and F's of poker before multi-tabling. But multi-tabling does decrease the noticibilty of variance.

For those who suck, no techniques (other than, of course, playing better) will help, as they will lose money period.

DeuceKicker

11-07-2004, 05:31 PM

I still get frustrated (many gamblers feel "entitled" to the pot when they're dealt AA, and complain that it was "stolen" from them if they lose), but a couple of things have helped me (I hope) avoid tilting:

1) I think about how I handle bad beats when I'm up 50BB in an hour. It is much easier for me to smile about it when I'm doing very well for the session. Then I remind myself that it's all one long session.

2) I remind myself that NH=FU

busguy

11-07-2004, 05:38 PM

No, I would suggest that YOU re-read (or read it for the first time thoroughly) my post.

He said:

[ QUOTE ]
Multi-tabling is my best advice to avoid heavy varience, because you'll often get killed at one table but win at your other 2 or 3 and be positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said:

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and for anybody that is new (or sucks) this is just plain bad advice. The variance at any one table is not effected by the variance at any others. Your are JUST as likely to be down at two + tables as you are at one. So by playing at more tables you could be MUCH worse off. If you suck at one table, your just as likely to suck at two or more.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key phrase hear being, "that is new (or sucks) "

Then you said :

[ QUOTE ]

I suggest rethinking this argument.

Easy counterexample: say that at any given table, over a given duration, you're equally likely to be up or down. Playing one table, the likelihood that you're down is 0.5. Playing two tables, the likelihood that they're both down is only (0.5)(0.5) = 0.25. (Extensions to more tables are straightforward.) You're therefore less likely to be simultaneously "losing" at all your tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

With this, " at any given table, over a given duration, you're equally likely to be up or down " being the key phrase to your argument.

The problem with assuming this is that as a new player (or one who sucks) you are not "equally likely to be up or down ". As a winning player this may be the case but that is not who I was directing my advice towards.

/images/graemlins/frown.gif busguy

busguy

11-07-2004, 06:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Multi-tabling is my best advice to avoid heavy varience, because you'll often get killed at one table but win at your other 2 or 3 and be positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

No.

If you're a winning player, my argument is correct. For example, say that over the long haul you will win 68% of all sessions (I pulled that number out of my ass as an example, so don't attack it as unreasonable, etc). Then, your chances of losing a session is 32%. If you're playing 2 tables, your chances of losing both is 0.32 x 0.32 = 0.1024, or roughly 10%. Over three tables, your chances of losing on all three drop further to 0.1024 x 0.32 = 0.032768, roughly 3%. Clearly you are NOT just as likely to be down at two tables than you are at one. (This is of course, assuming that your chances of winning are the same at each table).

[/ QUOTE ]

Both of these are wrong. I'm not a huge statistics guy but I do not believe your simple formula is correct for calculating variance. If you normally play one table of $2/4, and move down and play two tables or $1/2 your variance will be lower . . but if you play two tables of $2/4 your variance will go UP, not down. I thought this was a pretty well known fact.

For back-up see:

- Serious Poker by Dan Kimberg page 178.
- Internet Texas Hold-Em by Mathew Hilger page 275

Now I could have been clearer in my post and said that variance at any particluar table IS NOT effected by the variance at any other particular table. When playing two tables YOUR overall variance will be effected but as I said it will go up not down.

/images/graemlins/blush.gif busguy

topspin

11-07-2004, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, I would suggest that YOU re-read (or read it for the first time thoroughly) my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read your post. I was addressing this thesis from your original message:

[ QUOTE ]
The variance at any one table is not effected by the variance at any others. Your are JUST as likely to be down at two + tables as you are at one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded statement is not correct. You are clearly not "just as likely" to be down if you multi-table versus if you're playing a single table. If you are a winning player, you are more likely to be up. Conversely, if you are a losing player, you're more likely to be down.

If the problem is variance, which both OP and emonrad's posts assumed, then multi-tabling helps. If the problem is losing play, then obviously multi-tabling doesn't help.

topspin

11-07-2004, 06:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're a winning player, my argument is correct. For example, say that over the long haul you will win 68% of all sessions (I pulled that number out of my ass as an example, so don't attack it as unreasonable, etc). Then, your chances of losing a session is 32%. If you're playing 2 tables, your chances of losing both is 0.32 x 0.32 = 0.1024, or roughly 10%. Over three tables, your chances of losing on all three drop further to 0.1024 x 0.32 = 0.032768, roughly 3%. Clearly you are NOT just as likely to be down at two tables than you are at one. (This is of course, assuming that your chances of winning are the same at each table).

[/ QUOTE ]

Both of these are wrong. I'm not a huge statistics guy but I do not believe your simple formula is correct for calculating variance. If you normally play one table of $2/4, and move down and play two tables or $1/2 your variance will be lower . . but if you play two tables of $2/4 your variance will go UP, not down. I thought this was a pretty well known fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both of your bolded statements are correct, and there is no contradiction. What you're missing is that when you multi-table, your variance per hour does go up, but so does your win rate. Overall your chances of showing a net profit go up.

One way to see this is to note that statistically speaking, it doesn't matter if you play 4 tables for X time or a single table for 4X (neglecting for the moment effects of poorer reads). Consider playing 1000 hands vs. 4000 hands of single-tabling -- in which case are you more likely to be up?

busguy

11-07-2004, 07:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The bolded statement is not correct. You are clearly not "just as likely" to be down if you multi-table versus if you're playing a single table. If you are a winning player, you are more likely to be up. Conversely, if you are a losing player, you're more likely to be down.

[/ QUOTE ]

With this I agree with you. I tried to clear this up in a post above.

[ QUOTE ]
If the problem is variance, which both OP and emonrad's posts assumed, then multi-tabling helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. I think you are mixing up EARN or EXPECTED VALUE with variance. Variance explains the amount you differ from your average (mean). If you add up all of your sessions over the last year and determine that you averaged a $20 win per session playing one table each time you played the variance would tell you +/- how far you could expect to be from $20 in any given session. Now if you play 2 tables every time you played (staying at same level . . say $1/2) for the NEXT year would you expect your average to go up ?? Of course you would. And do you think you would stray more or less from this new average by playing two tables. You would VERY LIKELY stray quite a bit more from this average and hence your Variance (from the mean or average) would go UP not down.

Hope this helps.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif busguy

busguy

11-07-2004, 07:15 PM

LOL,

OK. I think WE know what we are talking about. We were just coming at it from different sides of the same equation (pun intended). I'm just not sure whether the other poster (elm....) does. Here's hoping.

cheers

/images/graemlins/grin.gif busguy

emonrad87

11-07-2004, 07:22 PM

Is "elm.." referring to me? If so, I understand it as well... It seems like we were saying the same thing in different ways? Whatever.. I know why/how it works.

Zetack

11-07-2004, 07:28 PM

is to kick your dog. I don't have a dog yet, but I'm thinking of renting one because I'm a traditional kind of guy...

--Zetack

EdSchurr

11-07-2004, 09:36 PM

I just grit my teeth and raise my QQ again the next time (though personally I'll toss my chips in with a smile then. It's JJ that kills me). Variance is just the nature of the game.

And I've heard that marijuana helps. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

meanjean

11-07-2004, 10:33 PM

thanks everybody...It appears that stopping helped me the most...I did make most of it back today...And where do you rent a dog?

Zetack

11-08-2004, 09:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And where do you rent a dog?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same place you rent a sheep...the hourly charges are lower though.

fervent

11-10-2004, 03:11 AM

Listening to Cake is good advice under any circumstances.

mmbt0ne

11-10-2004, 03:22 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
Is "elm.." referring to me? If so, I understand it as well... It seems like we were saying the same thing in different ways? Whatever.. I know why/how it works.

[/ QUOTE ]

See this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1085517&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) thread for a larger discussion on variance and multi-tabling. Basically, more tables = more variance, and less standard error.

phredd

11-10-2004, 04:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I try to think about some hands where I was behind but had implied odds to stay in, and won. Middle pair + backdoor flush draw that came in, for instance. Remembering being called a chaser always makes me laugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a very good point. I remember really laughing at somebody who accused me of catching a "lucky" river card. Combining pairs, straights, and flushes, I had something like 18 outs against the guy and his KK. Sure, he was ahead going into the river, but I more than had the odds to chase that hand.

If you get caught with the KK in that situation, there's not much you can do. You can't fold, and the opponent will get pot odds no matter what you do. But it sure as heck isn't a "bad beat".

Actually, that's part of the problem, right there. Really, you need to convince yourself that there is no such thing as a "bad beat". As Sklansky says repeatedly in ToP, you come out way ahead, even when somebody draws out a 5-2o against your AA. Giving him that win - or even winning session - is important, so he'll come back tomorrow and next week to play some more with those hands. You *will* beat that type of play, eventually.

wabe

11-10-2004, 08:24 PM

Take a crap, name it after him, then flush it. Laugh maniacally.

Or, go refill your beer. Either one works.

ricdaman

11-10-2004, 09:38 PM

I haven't read every post, so I'm not sure if someone else already said it, but I've heard that, "Zen and the Art of Poker" is a good book for avoiding tilt.

My method is to take a break, throw a few things around the house, scream at the top of my lungs until I have no voice, punch a few holes in the wall, then get back to poker. j/k.

Swings are part of poker. If you can't handle them, find another hobby.