The difference between success and failure

[Irieguy]

Because of my recent foray into backing and coaching, I am now exposed to a large number of results from a heterogeneous group of players at multiple limits. I watch a lot of hand histories, and I look at a lot of spreadsheets. I get at least 5, and often more than a dozen bad beat/bad run PMs or emails every day.

This experience and exposure has taught me a great deal about the difference between winners and losers. I am becomming a much better player as a result of it. I'm going to share something that I have learned which I feel may be the single most important key to playing SNGs for a living.

The following is not at all meant to be a criticism of anyone who has sent me a rant about running badly. I have certainly done my share of complaining in the past. This is just an explanation of something I have learned. I hope it will help you all, because it has helped me.

Everybody will eventually run worse than they thought was possible. The difference between a winner and a loser is that the latter thinks they do not deserve it.

That which we shall not speak of has happened to me. It's going to happen to you, too, if you play long enough. If you believe that such a bad run exists only in the most improbable of statistical wastelands, you will feel particularly unlucky while it's happening to you. This will make you feel like you don't deserve what's happening.

"Why is this happening to me? Why is it lasting so long? How can they play so poorly while I play so well as they continually outdraw me? This doesn't make sense. It's not fair."

This type of internal dialogue is poisonous. It causes players who have enough skill to beat the game to quit the game instead. The only difference between a loser and a quitter is that at least a loser is still in the action.

All of the players that I back and coach have the requisite skill to beat SNGs for enough money to make a living. 90% of them are currently winning. But I predict that less than 20% of them will be consistently playing and consistently winning one year from right now.

I look at how the names have changed on this forum over the years. I've been on the 2+2 forum for around 5 years (under a different name), and Fossilman was the only poster I can remember who stayed around for more than 2 years. (I'm sure there are a few more, but not many.) Obviously, he didn't leave because he quit or got loser... but it's also quite obvious why he's the exception.

I am beginning to realize that most people don't have the psychological fortitude or spiritual perspective to manage the vicissitudes of this game. I also believe that of the very small number of professional poker players who have been successful for more than a few years, most of them are actually quite lucky. I believe that there are many pros who will fail once they begin to experience average luck.

Now for the good news.

I think you can learn how to avoid this trap of psychological betrayal. I think I'm beginning to learn it myself. It involves turning your noise filter all the way up. There are only two signals emitted from the poker universe:

1. The universe will unfold as it should
2. If you play the right way, and your opponents do not; you will win.

Everything else is noise, and to make too much of anything that doesn't expressly involve the two above facts is to pave the road to failure.

Poker has nothing to do with good luck or bad luck, fairness or unfairness; and there is no such thing as the unbelievable.

It is what it is, fellow warriors. Learn which side you want to be on, and be there as often as possible. Assess your position in this regard as frequently and precisely as possible... but stand firm and calm. Resolve is rewarded. Chafe is the mark of a loser.

Irieguy

[bones]

Thank you.

[eastbay]

Irieguy,

I have been running bad for 2 1/2 years now but you have given me the courage to carry on from my $374,356 loss. I know that this is just a streak, and that statistics are on my side and will return what is rightfully mine.

Sometimes I begin to lose hope that the variance will smooth out and return me my rightful earnings. But I fear no more. Six more credit cards will bridge the gap, and then it will all be gravy.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that for many players, consistent losing is a sign of bad play, not "that which we will not speak of."

I know you know the difference; I also know many beginning to intermediate players do not, and may be tempted to ascribe their losses to "that which we do not speak of" rather than the truth which is that they're playing like crap.

Just a note of temperment and fair warning to the casual reader.

Or maybe this is just a brilliant guerilla campaign for fish retainment and restocking. Who knows. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eastbay

[adanthar]

I'll say this much: "That we shall not speak of" goes away really quickly when you take a couple of days off, switch sites, play some limit, go back to the roots of your game and immediately destroy some SNG's and win a fair sized MTT. Next time I run that bad, I'll probably do it again /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I think the thing I'm third or fourth proudest of in my poker career has been that I've never made a bad beat thread.

[EliteNinja]

That post rocked!

You should submit it as an article.

It's just like the philosophy taught in Miyamoto Musashi's book 'The Book of Five Rings' (1645). In this scripture, he wrote that to become invincible, one must put oneself outside the the battle. And one must execute what needs to be done to become victorious without thinking of the consequences. When you're 'inside' the battle, you will start to think about yourself. When you think about your own life when you are fighting, you may start to have fear which will cripple your ability to execute the right strategy. It will make you hesitate.

Miyamoto was a famous swordsman who lived in Japan from 1584-1645.

Very pertinent in poker.
1. Put yourself outside, looking in.
2. Do what you need to do to win without thinking about your results.

[Gramps]

I've only been playing poker seriously for 18 months, but I've come to the opinion over that time that there's a "personality characteristic" that is as essential to long-term success as one's knowledge of the game - ones ability to handle adversity coupled with a sort of "twisted enjoyment" on some level of the challenges that adversity presents and overcoming those challenges (doesn't mean part of you doesn't want to scream/throw things, just that part of you says "bring it on, I'll kick this thing in the arse eventually" and you proceed to gather your wits and continue on in a rational fashion).

Not saying the above is necessarily a good or bad personality characteristic to have in general, just that it seems to be a must for succeeding (and wanting to continue grinding it out) long term in poker, given how detached good results can be from good process in the short and even mid-run.

Cliff notes = sh-t happens, stop whining and just deal with it. (Of course, I still have to remind myself of this a couple of times a month, and it's never very comforting emotionally...)

[1C5]

Great post, makes total sense to me. I am not sure but I think me being an athlete somehow helps the mental side in poker as sometimes I would do everything to the best of my ability and still lose sometimes. Reminds me of a tennis player who lost 21 straight first round matches. He got the nickname "Blackjack". Probably many others would have retired at his age yet he played through it and is now one of the top players in the world again.

[Mr_J]

The difference (apart from having or not having a longterm edge or sound management) is how they deal with the hard times. Anyone can deal with the positive side of variance, but it takes real determination and dicipline to be able to battle through everything variance has to throw at you. Most people just don't have the traits to handle it.

[The once and future king]

Also I would also like to add one thing.

Months and years of consistent winning may make you over confident. At some point a streak more brutal than you can imagine will occur.

MAKE SURE YOUR BR IS PREPARED FOR THIS INEVITABLE OCCURANCE

This practical measure will also help the poker warrior survive the battlefield of variance.

[IMTheWalrus8]

[ QUOTE ]

Everybody will eventually run worse than they thought was possible. The difference between a winner and a loser is that the latter thinks they do not deserve it.


Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post. I'm struggling with this right now. My biggest success is not self-destructing when all I could think about was how unfair the game was and how awful the other players were. But I'm still down 1/3 of my initial bankroll. In looking back at some of my SnGs (self-evaluation isn't easy), I'm surprised at the impatience I showed and bad decisions I've made. I still make them, but I'm trying to slow down.

Poker is a tough game. As a consistent winning chess player, it's difficult to accept the fact that the best player doesn't always win. In that context, it's not always easy to determine what the best play was or is.

I know there *is* a best play from a theoretical point-of-view, but the hardest aspect of poker is that it doesn't always pay off.

We'll see if I'm here six months from now. Regardless, thanks for the post, Irieguy.


Joe

[kamrann]

A fantastic post for those just starting out I think. One of the easiest mistakes to make in poker is to think you deserve to be winning more than you are doing. It's easy to see how this comes about, with skilled players often getting their chips in ahead and being outdrawn. Easy to overlook the fact that you often should be outdrawn, and this combined with the number of times your hand needs to hold up in a tournament for you to cash brings an important conclusion: a good player doesn't have much of an edge over a bunch of bad players, no matter how much better he feels he is.

I actually moved from mainly MTTs to SNGs recently because I was fed up of the variance in MTTs and wanted something more consistent. It's not taken me long to realise that the variance can be huge with SNGs also. Although I would say that it's easier to take without getting too annoyed with how you're running. I briefly moved back to play some MTTs this weekend. I effectively bubbled for an EPT seat when someone reraised my A9 with J8 and hit, then I played the Stars $500 yesterday and beat 1200+ players before losing a big pot with AQ v KQ allin preflop. The point being, in MTTs single hand outdraws can cost you such large amounts and are therefore that much more painful. When multi-tabling SNGs you just load up another and start again. But anyway, I seem to have sidetracked somewhat... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

One question though Irieguy. Your post touches on the idea of swings so long that you think think you're running average when in fact you're running good, and of course you could experience an equally extended bad swing also. But then you bring up the good news with the old "It'll all even out in the end" idea. Where exactly do you stand on this? Will it, necessarily? I'd be interested to get some idea of the extent of swings you've had playing SNGs, since I switched to them only recently. I certainly believe in the field of large MTTs, there are many people who, if not lucky/unlucky for their entire poker playing career, at least finish up with hugely skewed results positively or negatively from what would be the expectation from the way they played during that time. And I'm talking stretches of many years solid playing. I don't know if this is possible/likely with SNGs though.

[TheAmp]

"There are winners, and there are whiners"....

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe this is just a brilliant guerilla campaign for fish retainment and restocking

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, this is the dichotomy of the thread. 90% for some, 10% for the others.

Excellent thread, Irieguy.

EliteNinja, thanks for your reply as well. Printed and posted on my monitor.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Miyamoto was a famous swordsman who lived in Japan from 1584-1645.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats fairly impressive most of the people who lived by this philosophy only lived into their early twenties. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Regards Mack

[PrayingMantis]

I'd like to add a few thoughts to this philosphical/mental thread. These are thougts I've found myself telling myself, sometimes repeating, especially when during bad runs.

a. All poker hands suck. Good poker is about who's dealing better with the usual ugliness of the cards.

b. Be always ready to bust. At any second. This is particularly relevant for MTTs, in which busting is obviously more frustrating than in SNGs, but it's true also for SNGs. I try never to be surprised or disappointed when I'm busted, whether it was a terrible bad beat, a huge mistake that I did, or just a hand one can't get away from. Busting is a natural thing. You WILL bust! /images/graemlins/grin.gif (But on the other hand, some disapointment is natural too, and it's also part of playing this game).

c. I see every bad beat as an opportunity to improve my ability to tolerate bad beats. Sometimes when I suffer a bad-beat I actually think: "oh, nice! now let's see how I manage to not give a damm about it, and just keep my normal game". At some point I was typing "nh" every time someone sucked out on me. It wasn't easy, I'm sure you know that, but it was a good practice. That's the way I try to treat bad-streaks in general. I see it as the "fish time", I don't mind losing some, it's part of the game. And it's a brutal game (although I admit that during the worst runs It's almost impossible not to start really hating poker...).

[zaphod]

As always an excellent post Irieguy!
There are some points i wont to mention:
-If you let our average winning player have even luck for some period of time, and the ask him if he has been lucky or unlucky, i would think that most would say that they have been a little bit unlucky. It is so much easier to remember the bad beats, than the times when you outdrew someone else.

- I think more players should be willing to move up and down in what limits they play according to current results. When you are having a really bad run it is possible that this is just bad luck. But it is also possible that the stress from loosing affects your play and prolongs "IT". By moving down you get softer oponents, reduces stress and hopefully reduces the length of "IT". Even if it doesn't it at least reduces your losses during the bad period.

- It is very dangerous when you feel that you might be playing badly and having bad luck at the same time. Example: Your last x SNG's have been OTM. You get a few big hands early in an SNG which gives you almost no chips. With four players left you are now desperatly shortstacked. You take a 50-50 shot vs another shortstack and lose. How does you feel now? You feel like the unluckiset player ever, but know deep inside that if you hade played that early hand better you would still be playing, instead of booking yet another 4'th place.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Irieguy,

I have been running bad for 2 1/2 years now but you have given me the courage to carry on from my $374,356 loss. I know that this is just a streak, and that statistics are on my side and will return what is rightfully mine.

Sometimes I begin to lose hope that the variance will smooth out and return me my rightful earnings. But I fear no more. Six more credit cards will bridge the gap, and then it will all be gravy.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that for many players, consistent losing is a sign of bad play, not "that which we will not speak of."

I know you know the difference; I also know many beginning to intermediate players do not, and may be tempted to ascribe their losses to "that which we do not speak of" rather than the truth which is that they're playing like crap.

Just a note of temperment and fair warning to the casual reader.

Or maybe this is just a brilliant guerilla campaign for fish retainment and restocking. Who knows. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for the counterpoint, Eastbay. Much of the statistical content on this forum has to do with deciphering whether or not a player is a winner or a loser. I really don't find this to be very difficult. I can tell whether or not I am playing well.

When I start watching HHs on the replayer for somebody I am considering backing, I can tell what kind of player they are within 100 hands. The only reason I ask for people's stats is so that I can determine if they know how to keep them. I can tell more from 2 tournament summaries than I can from 300 SNGs worth of data.

Also, I don't find losers to be particularly interesting. I prefer to start from the premise that my opinions will find the ears of the winners. I don't feel like I should put a disclaimer on all of my posts saying "The following information may not apply to you if you commonly make bad decisions."

If you are a losing player, and you can't tell... you have no future in this game. If you are a winning player, but you are not sure if your bad results are due to variance or bad play... you will not find the answer in your spreadsheet.

You said one of the most brilliant things I've ever read on this forum once... something like "poker is not and endless collection of 'what should I do here?' situations, but rather a finite collection of sound concepts that, when properly applied, allow the winning player to handle an infinite number of decisions." You said it better than that... I can't remember the exact words but I'll never forget the message.

My point is that my post was directed towards the winning players who are destined to fail unless they get their heads on straight. If some losing players read it and mistakenly think my advice applies to them... well, so be it. I have to eat, too.

Irieguy

[Scuba Chuck]

FWIW, Irieguy, the quote you're looking for was directed at me. This comment, along with one other thing changed the way I approach SNGs (and made me a better player).

Here it is.

[ QUOTE ]
In this case it may be that the answer is dominated by those estimates - those are the interesting poker problems. But I'm quite certain Scuba doesn't even know how to approach it, otherwise he wouldn't be asking these questions. So I'm trying to get him to ask the right questions, so that he can begin to see that this game isn't a disconnected infinite grab bag of "what do I do here" questions, but rather just a few principles, once mastered, that answer most questions one could reasonably ask, especially of these endgame situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

...from the following link.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1603658&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Miyamoto was a famous swordsman who lived in Japan from 1584-1645.



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



Thats fairly impressive most of the people who lived by this philosophy only lived into their early twenties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the downer Mack. I'm sure you're right tho...

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

[shayneon]

I started playing on Party in my spare time in January 2004 and in December I cashed out the total of everything I had spent on deposits and books ( I own pretty much the whole 2+2 library now), leaving myself with about $600 of the “house’s money” for a bankroll. After some wicked swings playing limit (I realize now I was terribly underrolled) I decided to download Aleo’s Spreadsheet and dedicate myself to SnGs. I had done well in the 10s and 20s in the past, and was even arrogant enough to consider them my “ATMs” to fund all the money I was losing playing 2/4 Bad Beat. Never in a million years did I think I could finish OOTM 13 times in a row at the 10s….but sure enough tourneys 81-93 it happened.

While many people find bad beat and losing streak posts annoying, I found it very helpful to search for and read these old posts and realize that losing 13 in a row is relatively normal for someone who plays a lot – and there are players much better than me who have had OOTM streaks longer than 13. This enabled me to continue to play with confidence in my game, and not make “change for the sake of change” or “press” just to snap the streak. Before I knew it I was back to my usual 40% ITM.

Thank you for all of your posts past and present Irie, they have definitely helped me to think more like a winner.

A grateful restocked fish-

Shayne

[Scuba Chuck]

Since I read this post this AM, I have been thinking about your comments Gramp, and more specifically been asking myself the following question.

"What makes a Long Term poker player?"

Theoretically, it would make sense that motivation by money would be an answer, but I don't think that is the primary (maybe it's secondary or tertiary) motive. Once again, I want to emphasize, the point that I am trying to make here is about staying with poker over the long term.

My thought is that a long term poker player is probably a gamesman (woman) as well. I don't mean sports, I mean games: board games, card games, etc. Like chess, backgammon, bridge, whatever. Without ever knowing a Long Term poker player personally, I would be willing to wager that most, if not all, are this way. And that through their poker life, they have taken breaks from poker, perhaps for months, but stayed true to their inate pleasure they get in return from playing games.

I don't think the following is as equally important, but a grasp for math, and an attitude of enjoyment from math problems, is probably also true (more than say a tolerance for math).

Thus, my conclusion is that a games-person(Politically Correct), and an enjoyment from math, are two dominant qualities that make a Long Term Poker player. Oh, and the money is nice too.

[Voltron87]

Great post Irie.

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody will eventually run worse than they thought was possible. The difference between a winner and a loser is that the latter thinks they do not deserve it./quote]

I think losing streaks and variance get to the heart of what seperates the losers/ small winners from the long term winners who can deal with anything. Losing streaks put someone to the test of whether they really understand that this is a gambling game, and whether they believe this enough to stick it out and keep putting themselves in +EV situations. A lot of above average players can do well because they have a basic understanding of the game, and when they get good cards they can win well. Their winnings can last for a while, but when they get hit with the deck they will have no idea how to deal with it. They are the latter group in your quote. A lot of players understand the cards enough to be a winning player, but not a lot understand the odds and statistics of variance enough to be able to deal with it. Like I said earlier, I really believe understanding variance and being confident enough to deal with it is what makes someone a truly strong poker player, more so than playing AJ in MP, defending blinds, and postflop play, etc. A lot of players spend hours learning these things and then it is no use to them when they are at sea during a rough patch.

This is what understanding poker is all about.

[sofere]

One thing I recently realized about myself is that I'm actually scared to go down in limits for fear that I'll find out that my previous success there was just a prolonged upswing in variance.

I've played 250 11s and 200 5.50s both with ~35% ROI and 50% ITM. Hit the 22s for 100 games at -5% ROI and 33% ITM. I feel like i've been playing OK...not horrible, but not great by any means. But as long as my bankroll is staying horizontal for the most part, I'm too scared to go down to the 11s and find out I suck there now too. (Plus I like the challenge of having to get myself over a hump).

I know there wasn't much content to this post. Just felt like sharing my psychological dilemma and was curious if anyone else had similar experiences.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]


One question though Irieguy. Your post touches on the idea of swings so long that you think think you're running average when in fact you're running good, and of course you could experience an equally extended bad swing also. But then you bring up the good news with the old "It'll all even out in the end" idea. Where exactly do you stand on this? Will it, necessarily?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, anything is possible, but the longer a losing streak lasts, the more unlikely it becomes that it is due to luck alone.

I haven't had a losing month playing poker since I started keeping records. I've never had a 500 SNG stretch with a negative ROI. But short of those two abominations, I've seen some pretty bad things in terms of buy-in drops, streaks, and negative runs.

I also think that a losing month will eventually happen to me, and I no longer carry around with me the delusion that I don't deserve for something like that to happen.

To answer your question specifically "will it all even out in the end?"

Yes, "it" will even out. Regardless of whether or not "you" do.

But it doesn't matter. The only choice you have is how you play, and how you handle it all.

Irieguy

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
I've only been playing poker seriously for 18 months, but I've come to the opinion over that time that there's a "personality characteristic" that is as essential to long-term success as one's knowledge of the game - ones ability to handle adversity coupled with a sort of "twisted enjoyment" on some level of the challenges that adversity presents and overcoming those challenges (doesn't mean part of you doesn't want to scream/throw things, just that part of you says "bring it on, I'll kick this thing in the arse eventually" and you proceed to gather your wits and continue on in a rational fashion).

Not saying the above is necessarily a good or bad personality characteristic to have in general, just that it seems to be a must for succeeding (and wanting to continue grinding it out) long term in poker, given how detached good results can be from good process in the short and even mid-run.

Cliff notes = sh-t happens, stop whining and just deal with it. (Of course, I still have to remind myself of this a couple of times a month, and it's never very comforting emotionally...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said, Gramps.

I personally have not drunk enough Heineken to be a part of the cult that believes "that which we shall not speak of" even exists. I prefer to think of IT in terms of that which we mentally do to ourselves. For every time IT rears IT's ugly head, there are many other times we block from our gathering delirium the actual coin flips won or one-outers that we have successfully avoided even when we KNEW that one-outer was coming.

To summarize: The Irie cult (built on the spiritual fusion of rastafarianism and zen buddhism) needs to put down the Heineken (kool-aid) and realize that running bad is just running bad and IT and "that which we shall not speak of" are nothing more than doctrines of illusion for those running short on the "personality characteristic" of which Gramps preaches.

[Gramps]

I agree very much. One who enjoys playing games, and plays (or would play) other games just solely for the fun of it (even if those other games can be tortuous themselves at times) is going to be much, much more likely to stick out poker in the long run, because it's not just all about the $$ - there's a lot of enjoyment out of the process and challenges presented.

[d1sterbd]

[ QUOTE ]

- I think more players should be willing to move up and down in what limits they play according to current results. When you are having a really bad run it is possible that this is just bad luck. But it is also possible that the stress from loosing affects your play and prolongs "IT". By moving down you get softer oponents, reduces stress and hopefully reduces the length of "IT". Even if it doesn't it at least reduces your losses during the bad period.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Also, I am guessing that there are people that move up limits too fast. You remember those bad beats much more when you don't have the bankroll and/or experience to play at the limits that you are playing. It is also more difficult to have the courage to be as aggressive as you need to be at the end. The bad beats also put you on tilt more. IMO, people should figure out what limit their experience and bankroll supports and then play at the next lower limit. It is a lot less stressful and allows you to play better. It works for me anway.

I also think people probably settle for coin flips too much. It is amazing that I don't feel like I am the most unlucky person when it comes to races when I don't put myself in that situation as much.

[GtrHtr]

Very true. I have been very lucky the last week or so when I have finished ITM. One big massive tilt that has me playing some of the dumbest hands at the dumbest times. Think I'll change my name to bluff o' matic.

[sofere]

I actually think I played against someone named "bluffomatic" last night...wasn't you was it?

[skipperbob]

What does any of this have to do with Shabbat, Bowling or White [censored] Russians ? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[skipperbob]

You're 72 replies behind the PokerBot thread /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ZebraAss]

...but the pokerbot thread is totally lame.

Go IrieGuy!

[skipperbob]

See, Here's the deal!...When I ragged on Irie that his post was 72 replies behind the "Bot", the humor in it is that the "Bot" thread is meaningless drivel & Irie's is a thoughtful observation on the nature of things. So when a complete moron, like me, says something stupid, it's suppose to be funny...see "Ha-Ha"...So your explanation turns out to be more funny /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DyessMan89]

[ QUOTE ]
See, Here's the deal!...When I ragged on Irie that his post was 72 replies behind the "Bot", the humor in it is that the "Bot" thread is meaningless drivel & Irie's is a thoughtful observation on the nature of things. So when a complete moron, like me, says something stupid, it's suppose to be funny...see "Ha-Ha"...So your explanation turns out to be more funny /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/19.gif

[SuitedSixes]

I've been trying all day to come up with an eloquent response to this. I give up, I'll just blurt it all out.

Once of my favorite quotes, "Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it."

For the last 13 years I have been a high school coach. I have learned that the one thing that seperates winning teams/players/coaches from losing ones is how they react to adversity. In games, mistakes are made, bad calls happen, funny bounces occur. Too many people spend their energy worrying about how unfair what just happened was that they are unprepared for what is currently happening or about to happen.

Of all the skills that I have accidently acquired in my life, this ability to move on after something bad happens is going to prove to be the most beneficial in my poker career.

[Hillbilly Cat]

I think this says it all....

"When the last great scorer comes to mark against your name, it's not whether you won or lost, but how you played the game" - Grantland Rice

I hate cheesey quotes, but that sums up poker for me anyway.

[Hillbilly Cat]

Whilst I seem to be having a fit of cheesey quotes...

'No plan survives contact with the enemey.'

No idea who said that, but its a military thing.. Seems appropriate somehow although I'm not quite sure why.

[Mr_J]

" Seems appropriate somehow although I'm not quite sure why."

Because things rarely go as expected.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I have made success in sales. I see that the same differentiatior applies there as you describe. Those who judge their performance on short or midterm results undervalues the factors beyound their control. Those who evaluate their own performance instead of results have higher learning curves.

Conversation with my friend (who is one of the best salesmen i know):
I: Did you get the sale?(multimillion $ contract)
Him: Yes
I: Why no joy?
Him: It vas very easy
I: And so?
Him: It means I must have priced it lower than I could

Morality: Winning or losing the pot is not what the game is about. Making the optimum out of every situation is.

[cyorg]

a moving post.

[The Student]

hey irie,

thanks for the great post. just want to add one thing: after a few big swings in my BR, i started adding one more thing in my notes that helps me when i'm in the middle of a OOTM streak - all the bad beats that i put on people. whether it's a terrible call that ends up with me hitting my second pair on my weaker kicker, or a beat i put on a smaller stack when i'm bullying them. it just helps to remind me that sometimes i get lucky too and keep me out of the whiners' circle.

thanks again for the post,

ts-

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]

When I start watching HHs on the replayer for somebody I am considering backing, I can tell what kind of player they are within 100 hands. The only reason I ask for people's stats is so that I can determine if they know how to keep them. I can tell more from 2 tournament summaries than I can from 300 SNGs worth of data.


[/ QUOTE ]

I find this an interesting proposition. I also think it's true to a large degree, if you get the right data. But it's also possible you can misread someone, as if you pick the wrong 100 hands, you get a complete misread. Although I have no interest in playing for you, the idea of a 100 hand analysis of my play intrigues me. But what 100 hands? Two SNG hand histories. Maybe the one where I come back from 32.50 to win it all? Perhaps the one where I'm heads up against 8500 chips to my 1500, but I manage to weave and dodge my way to victory over 20 hands? Or there's the one where I'm on the bubble with 6500, but somehow manage to finish OTM. Will they all tell you the same thing?

To be honest, I really do think they would, if you look at the whole game, start to finish. Some might think you're arrogant for saying so, but they should try the following - look in your own hand histories for someone who consistently beats you. Replay the games with their cards revealed. You won't have as much data as if you had their hand histories, but you've got enough. How does their betting develop? Why do they beat you? Luck, skill, or your own stupidity? What are they doing that exploits your weaknesses? And how can you exploit theirs? If you can do this with limited knowledge of an opponents hole cards, imagine what Irieguy can do with full knowledge of your hole cards.

Which brings up an interesting point. Is Irieguy creating an intelligence database on the best opponents out there, or people who think they're good? I don't know about you, but if I had inside knowledge of someone's game, I could exploit all but the best of them pretty well. I don't want to accuse Irieguy of anything, as I like his posts, and maybe even he hasn't thought of the idea, but it's something to think about. Then again, anyone can probably do the same thing just by playing enough and gathering the data on PokerTracker. It would just take a little longer.

[1C5]

Get the flame suit on....

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]

But it's also possible you can misread someone, as if you pick the wrong 100 hands, you get a complete misread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Note that Irie's not saying that he will know your game front and back after 2 HHs. He's merely saying that it does more for him assessing someone's game than looking at their ROI/ITM type stats.

[ QUOTE ]

Although I have no interest in playing for you, the idea of a 100 hand analysis of my play intrigues me. But what 100 hands? Two SNG hand histories. Maybe the one where I come back from 32.50 to win it all? Perhaps the one where I'm heads up against 8500 chips to my 1500, but I manage to weave and dodge my way to victory over 20 hands? Or there's the one where I'm on the bubble with 6500, but somehow manage to finish OTM. Will they all tell you the same thing?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, 100 hands won't tell you all there is to know about a player. But it'll tell you a lot more than the stats of 100 STTs.

[ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I really do think they would, if you look at the whole game, start to finish. Some might think you're arrogant for saying so, but they should try the following - look in your own hand histories for someone who consistently beats you. Replay the games with their cards revealed. You won't have as much data as if you had their hand histories, but you've got enough. How does their betting develop? Why do they beat you? Luck, skill, or your own stupidity? What are they doing that exploits your weaknesses? And how can you exploit theirs? If you can do this with limited knowledge of an opponents hole cards, imagine what Irieguy can do with full knowledge of your hole cards.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm....so you're agreeing with him now, then? I guess I'm not sure I get the 'point' of your post yet.

[ QUOTE ]

Which brings up an interesting point.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aha! Your point must be coming up real soon. I'm glad I kept reading this far. Of course, having to read all the prose beforehand didn't motivate me to do so.

[ QUOTE ]

Is Irieguy creating an intelligence database on the best opponents out there, or people who think they're good?


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps but that's far and away not his primary reason for doing what he's doing.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know about you, but if I had inside knowledge of someone's game, I could exploit all but the best of them pretty well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmmm, yeah. But it's easier to just exploit fish who bleed $EV right and left.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't want to accuse Irieguy of anything,


[/ QUOTE ]

Ooops, too late! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]

as I like his posts, and maybe even he hasn't thought of the idea, but it's something to think about. Then again, anyone can probably do the same thing just by playing enough and gathering the data on PokerTracker. It would just take a little longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. So, here's the deal. Irie is pointing out that stats are secondary (or tertiary or sextary, etc) to actual hands and play. Thus, even if you're 'running bad' statistically you could be 'running very well' making decisions. It is much more important to be making good decisions than running well monetarily (unless your rent is due in 2 days and you're up against it - but this is a problem with basic money management skills....). To know whether someone is making good decisions you need to look at his/her HHs, NOT his/her stats.

As far as Irie doing this to research his 'best' opponents in order to have an easier time defeating them -- this is just plain wrong. In fact...I'd wager that b/c he's helping back and/or coach these players and making them better, he's going to be avoiding them as much as he possibly can. Not to mention that good players eat up fishy $EV that Irie could otherwise snack on.

If Irie was playing the $109s or $215s then the information about his good opponents would be more valuable but none of those good players would have Irie 'coaching' or 'backing' them. And Irie would just avoid them anyway.....Avoiding good players is by far and away better than sitting at their tables and trying to outplay them b/c you're intimate with their game.

I don't pretend to understand all of Irie's motivations for backing and/or coaching other players but I do know that what you're talking about is not one of them.

Yugoslav

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Get the flame suit on....

[/ QUOTE ]

In an attempt to head that off, my point wasn't to accuse anyone of anything. It's to point out that if you play the same way every time, someone will gather enough intelligence on you, through whatever means, to crack you. The people who that won't happen to are those that change gears and win through different means. That's why Irieguy can look at 100 hands and know someone. He knows that most people play the same game all the time. It's pretty easy to see that when you read the hand histories.

The data he's got, in the wrong hands, can do a lot of damage. Poker pros accumulate that data through play, internet people through hand histories. Some people just handed the inside of their brains over to someone else. Was that wise? Or maybe I just don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about.

I'm assuming Irieguy is an honest guy. Some other people, less so. I'd just be careful, if I were at the $100 or $200 SNG level (and I'm not) about handing over hand histories.

Apologies in advance.

[sofere]

I can't wait till I'm good enough to actually have spokespeople defend my posts for me. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't wait till I'm good enough to actually have spokespeople defend my posts for me. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither can I, /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

Actually, Irie has been MIA for 2 days and counting now, /images/graemlins/shocked.gif. I think it's more impressive that a whole *thread* was started on this very issue.

Yugoslav
(What? Irie hasn't posted today?? Something must be terribly, terribly wrong!)

[sofere]

Even more disturbing is that the MIA thread was started by his father(?)

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
Because of my recent foray into backing and coaching, I am now exposed to a large number of results from a heterogeneous group of players at multiple limits. I watch a lot of hand histories, and I look at a lot of spreadsheets. I get at least 5, and often more than a dozen bad beat/bad run PMs or emails every day.

This experience and exposure has taught me a great deal about the difference between winners and losers. I am becomming a much better player as a result of it. I'm going to share something that I have learned which I feel may be the single most important key to playing SNGs for a living.

The following is not at all meant to be a criticism of anyone who has sent me a rant about running badly. I have certainly done my share of complaining in the past. This is just an explanation of something I have learned. I hope it will help you all, because it has helped me.

Everybody will eventually run worse than they thought was possible. The difference between a winner and a loser is that the latter thinks they do not deserve it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Poker's got nothing to do with deserving or not. You don't deserve your bad luck any more than your good.

Maybe we agree, and just have different ways of saying it, but as William Money said (sp?) "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

On a side note, I think it's just part of the gambler's personality to make more out of luck than what it is.

[ QUOTE ]
That which we shall not speak of has happened to me. It's going to happen to you, too, if you play long enough. If you believe that such a bad run exists only in the most improbable of statistical wastelands, you will feel particularly unlucky while it's happening to you. This will make you feel like you don't deserve what's happening.

"Why is this happening to me? Why is it lasting so long? How can they play so poorly while I play so well as they continually outdraw me? This doesn't make sense. It's not fair."

This type of internal dialogue is poisonous. It causes players who have enough skill to beat the game to quit the game instead. The only difference between a loser and a quitter is that at least a loser is still in the action.

All of the players that I back and coach have the requisite skill to beat SNGs for enough money to make a living. 90% of them are currently winning. But I predict that less than 20% of them will be consistently playing and consistently winning one year from right now.

I look at how the names have changed on this forum over the years. I've been on the 2+2 forum for around 5 years (under a different name), and Fossilman was the only poster I can remember who stayed around for more than 2 years. (I'm sure there are a few more, but not many.) Obviously, he didn't leave because he quit or got loser... but it's also quite obvious why he's the exception.

I am beginning to realize that most people don't have the psychological fortitude or spiritual perspective to manage the vicissitudes of this game. I also believe that of the very small number of professional poker players who have been successful for more than a few years, most of them are actually quite lucky. I believe that there are many pros who will fail once they begin to experience average luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Poker has a large standard deviation, and there are a lot of people playing the game.

People sometimes say, "He couldn't have won that tournament (or that hand, or that number of games) unless he was really good. Nobody could be that lucky."

I think it's more accurate to say the winner couldn't have won unless he was that lucky.

If you got a very large number of people together, and set them to flipping coins, at the end of the day somebody would have flipped a tremendous number of heads.

It doesn't necessarily mean he's a great coin-flipper. It just means somebody had to be the winner, and whoever it was had to have flipped a lot of heads.

Of course, poker isn't coin-flipping. But there is a wide element of luck in poker, and the principle is the same.

If there's any single mistake repeatedly made in this forum, I think it's got to be failing to appreciate the effect luck (volatility, variance, what have you) has on your game.

[ QUOTE ]
Now for the good news.

I think you can learn how to avoid this trap of psychological betrayal. I think I'm beginning to learn it myself. It involves turning your noise filter all the way up. There are only two signals emitted from the poker universe:

1. The universe will unfold as it should
2. If you play the right way, and your opponents do not; you will win.

Everything else is noise, and to make too much of anything that doesn't expressly involve the two above facts is to pave the road to failure.

Poker has nothing to do with good luck or bad luck, fairness or unfairness; and there is no such thing as the unbelievable.

It is what it is, fellow warriors. Learn which side you want to be on, and be there as often as possible. Assess your position in this regard as frequently and precisely as possible... but stand firm and calm. Resolve is rewarded. Chafe is the mark of a loser.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, if you ARE a loser, resolve is probably the worst attribute you could have. At least if you're playing poker. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[r2p]

Your post is without question dead on. I think that a few factors make the situation more emotional than factual( spoken like the rookie I am). As you spend a little time and energy reading/studing/thinking you improve at your current level and you make some improvements and your ROI goes up. You then get overconfident and start the B&M (Bitch & Moan) train about your "bad beats". If you couple that with not using a tool like Poker Tracker you really can set yourself up for a downward spiral. The best thing I read on this forum was advice to get Poker Tracker, sit your ass down, and go through hands on a regular basis on both good and bad runs to see what you are doing. Good thing I do it in the privacy of my den because it can be embarrasing at times ! As always thanks for the advice IrieGuy.

[Blarg]

In the spirit of Degen, I'm bumping this one, since Degen bumped Gigabet's, and Gigabet's post is a response to this one. Now people can see them side by side if they missed them.