Avoiding Tilt When the Underdog Wins

[mcozzy1]

I was a little confused by this article. I'm not sure how the examples provided relate to tilting. In each of the hands discussed, the player was eliminated from playing. There was no danger of going on tilt.

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm a 95 percent favorite and the 5 percent wins, then I feel that the next time I'll be a 96 percent favorite because I know that I'll win 95 out of 100 times and I've already used up one of the losses

[/ QUOTE ]
It's dangerous to think this way because it is not true. You're not grounding yourself in reality to think this way. In fact, it could lead to even more tilting when a series of bad beats occurs.

[ QUOTE ]
Make a conscious decision to tighten up your starting hand requirements for a few rounds

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're going to take this attitude, you're better off taking a break. If you're not playing your best poker (or at least good enough poker to beat the game your playing), you shouldn't be playing. Many authors warn of the dangers of playing less aggressively after getting outdrawn.

[lostinthought]

I was simarly suprised that such an article would be published in this magazine for the stated reasons.

Defense by the editors?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi mccozzy:

Many playable hands in poker are simply borderline. That is, if played well they will show a small profit in the long run. If you choose not to play some of these, it should only lower your win rate a little.

However, to play these hands profitably often requires good judgement. It's my experience that when your judgement's off, some of these near breakeven hands, especially in hold 'em, can become fairly large long run losers.

So if you think this is happening to you, that is your judgement has become suspect, tightening up your stating hands might be beneficial. And if it's not beneficial, it won't theorectically cost much.

Notice that this is different from playing less aggressively. Those hands that you do play, should not be played passively just because you have been losing.

Best wishes,
Mason

[jdl22]

What about the first point, that it's a reasonable idea to feel like you're more likely to have your big hands hold up after you've been sucked out on?

This is bad because as the OP said it's not based on reality. Furthermore if you are on the losing end as a 95% favorite then you are playing against at least one fishy player. If this is the case then you can expect more bad beats in the session. Not more than is statistically expected, but more than the one you just suffered. If you think you are even more likely to hold up than you are this could be pretty damaging.

[MicroBob]

I completely agree.
I had already cut the 95% quote and was going to comment on it as well.

I know what the writer is getting at....but I still don't think that convincing yourself that there is some trend in the numbers that doesn't actually exist is the best way to approach poker.
if you think like this then perhaps you will come dangerously close to doing the opposite....that is, getting too passive when you are a favorite because you have won a couple of coin-flips already and are afraid of 'pressing your luck' because 'the numbers might catch up to you this time'.


Not sure who the writer is....so my apologies....but this article didn't really impress me a whole bunch.

[Cardzy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I'm a 95 percent favorite and the 5 percent wins, then I feel that the next time I'll be a 96 percent favorite because I know that I'll win 95 out of 100 times and I've already used up one of the losses

[/ QUOTE ]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's dangerous to think this way because it is not true. You're not grounding yourself in reality to think this way. In fact, it could lead to even more tilting when a series of bad beats occurs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I believe it was just meant as a way to deal with tilt control and not to be taken literally in the sense that your odds increase the next time. Of course that is bad thinking, but at the moment your emotions kick in and anger builds up, you are not thinking logically and thinking about it from this perspective for a few moments could bring you back to reality.

I agree, it was a bad statement if taken literally. But if taken only as a way to control your emotions at the table, I don't see much harm in the statement. I understand your point though about if you think this way sometimes then your thinking in general or on other parts of the game could be just as flawed.

So I agree, but don't feel it was that big of a deal myself.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
But if taken only as a way to control your emotions at the table, I don't see much harm in the statement.

[/ QUOTE ]


I didn't like the 95% statement very much....but I think this is the correct take on it.

[37offsuit]

The author writes:
---------------------------------------
Some people would whine about both of these as being bad beats and act like the cards owed them something. The way I choose to look at these situations is a little different, and helps keep me focused and off tilt. If I'm a 95 percent favorite and the 5 percent wins, then I feel that the next time I'll be a 96 percent favorite because I know that I'll win 95 out of 100 times and I've already used up one of the losses. I also know that if I continue to strive to put myself in these situations, I will be successful.
------------------------------------

It is clear that he's giving an example of a psychological trick he plays on himself in order to resist the urge to think that the results are anything but what they are. It so happens that there is little trick involved. He is simply explaining to himself the math as it should apply, albeit in a rather simplistic and slightly incorrect mannor as is the case of the exact numbers. Psychologically, this is correct, even though it is not mathematically sound.

[partygirluk]

This article was weak and unoriginal.

[Gabe]

This is what I couldn't believe you let in:

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm a 95 percent favorite and the 5 percent wins, then I feel that the next time I'll be a 96 percent favorite because I know that I'll win 95 out of 100 times and I've already used up one of the losses


[/ QUOTE ]

When you were screening articles for cardplayer would you have let them print this? Of course, you may have changed your opinion since then, and come to the realization that certain cards are more likely to hit because they are due.

[37offsuit]

This is not an article about math or odds, it's about managing tilt and the psychology of poker. The statement made in the article is clearly defined as such, even the quote you posted says "then I FEEL" not "then I KNOW".

It is often said that when you have a bad beat, it might be time to get up from the table and cool off. Clearly if you're a good player who knows the math of the game, leaving the table is a bad purely mathematical decision, but the right psychological one.

[mcozzy1]

Hi Mason,

I understand that it might be good strategy to eliminate some borderline hands when you might be tilting; however, this is not exactly what the author stated.

He said:
[ QUOTE ]
If playing hold 'em, play only aces, kings, queens, and ace-king.

[/ QUOTE ]

The author seems to be suggesting that I throw away AQs on the button when there has been no raise; or JJ in late position. In the games that I play, this is never a good strategy. (I do understand the distinction you made with playing aggressively though).

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Mcozzy:

I agree with you. Throwing away hands that are clearly profitable just because you have lost a few hands and are now a little upset is not good strategy.

Best wishes,
Mason

[David04]

Well the first thing I do is check twodimes or PT to see if I was a favorite....if I was I just tell myself I playd it right, and that I will win in the long run. Then I move on.





If all else fails I post 12 messages on 2+2 about online poker being rigged. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Subby]

This is the first chance I have had to check out the magazine and I was pleasantly suprised to see the article about tilt control. I see it as one of the biggest holes in my game and have been considering posting about it here. Nice to see how others deal with it - the advise about tightening up is one I will certainly follow - I tend to start playing Axs for any raise regardless of position after a bad beat or two...and it never really ends well. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Anyway, thanks.

[Pokermonger]

Hello all. My name is Wesley Young and I wrote the article in question.

Let me start by thanking 2+2 for posting it, everyone for reading it and everyone who has posted comments.

Obviously I did a poor job of explaining a few concepts. I completely understand the mathematics involved, and the 95%/96% comment is purely psychological. The point I was trying to make is that as long as you have a plan and a way to deal quickly with tilt, it doesn't matter if your thought process is 100% correct.

In response to both hands ending play in a tournament, we both joined side games afterward so tilt could still have been a factor.

Once again, thanks to everyone. I look forward to any additional comments/suggestions as I strive to not only improve my poker skills but my writng skills also.

Wes

[Grisgra]

I must regretfully agree . . . I thought I was reading CardPlayer for a second there /images/graemlins/frown.gif.

[Beavis68]

I tried that "I am due" mentality, and it just made me tilt more every time I missed.

Now how I think about it is, well, he tried to give me all his chips, it just didn't work out.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Gabe:

First off, I never screened any articles for Card Player. I did screen some but not all articles for Poker Digest for a short period of time.

As for leaving this in, it was clear (to me anyway) from the context of the article not to take the math as an absolute. However, just to set the record straight, if the 5 percent does win, the next time this situation occurs, you are still only a 95 percent favorite.

But what the author was really saying was that he understands that when the live one hits his two outer, that's actually good for you in the long run because he'll be encouraged to do it again. That's why he felt even better the next time one of those situations occurred.

By the way, one of the beautys of this magazine is that if anything stupid does get printed, or something isn't as clear as it should be, it should appear in discussion on this forum.

Thanks for your post and best wishes,

Mason