Holy Variance Batman! (n/c, small sample, rant post)

[KingOtter]

I'm moving back to .5/1 due to real-life impacts on my bankroll. That's not the low-content.

Here it comes (1 session tonight):
Hands: 115
VP$IP: 19.13
PFR: 8.70
Saw flop: 32 times out of 115
Went to showdown 37.50% (12 out of 32)
<font color="red">Won $ at showdown: 8.33% !!!!</font> (1 out of 12)
<font color="red">Won $ When Saw Flop 9.38% </font> (3 times out of 32)

AKs 1 time, -3.00
AQo 3 times, -4.00
AJs 1 time, 1.00
AJo 2 time, -8.00
KQo 1 time, -25.0

Only decent pocket pair I had was JJ, and that lost me 3.50 (ok, that's not unexpected out of only 115 hands).

One of the 3 hands that won me money was a 72o.

Phew... that was a tough session.

KO

[ArturiusX]

Get a blog.

[zeropotential]

[ QUOTE ]
Get a blog.

[/ QUOTE ]

firstly, classic reply

secondly... i see these posts from you all the time. stop.
if you cant handle little swings like this, your future looks bleak.

[handsome]

Sometimes you'll leave a table winning 0%

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Get a blog.

[/ QUOTE ]

firstly, classic reply

secondly... i see these posts from you all the time. stop.
if you cant handle little swings like this, your future looks bleak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever dude... you're obviously far superior to me and always will be.

I've got no clue what you mean by 'see these posts from (me) all the time'. Back when I was having a hard time at Party I posted some whines... but that was months ago.

I didn't really bitch or whine or moan in the post other then to say, phew! The only clue that it was a bit of a rant was in the subject heading... so the no content was duly noted. You didn't have to read it. You were warned.

Secondly... I thought perhaps if someone else who saw a session like this from a player that's been making money at .5/1 for a while, that they might not feel so bad when THEY have a session like this and think, 'WHAT am I doing WRONG?!'. Bad cards is bad cards... it happens.

KO

[KingOtter]

Okay, forgive me... I guess I completely mischaracterized what my reputation on these boards might be...

I was thinking I might be considered an established, decent poker player.

I didn't think I had the reputation of being a whiny-ass cry-baby that posts every bad-beat and misplayed AA and quad hands.

Please accept my apology.

KO

[ArturiusX]

Getting a blog will help this stuff out if you need to write it down.

When I went through a 150BB swing, I never made one thread about it. When AA and KK were losing hands after my first 3000, I never made one thread about it.

I just kept playing like I knew the winning players would.

Bad sessions happen, otherwise it wouldn't be poker. I love having bad sessions and grinding through, cause I know how sweet the up swing is gonna feel.

Just remember, you aren't different to the general poker population.

[KingOtter]

Okay, so you're a better man than me... whatever.

This session did nothing to my overall attitude... I was laughing and pointing out things to my wife during the entire thing.

It didn't get me down, I wasn't complaining... perhaps I shouldn't have said 'rant' in the title because I wasn't really ranting... just amazed at how no cards I was getting could pull anything once the flop came.

I just thought it was kind of amazing and thought I'd share it with my friends... and thought perhaps if some of the newer players saw it they wouldn't get discouraged by having a session similar to this... that's all... really.

Sheesh.

KO

[AngelicPenguin]

FWIW, I enjoyed the post b/c it did NOT sound like a whiney bitchy post.

[KingOtter]

I forgot to put lots of /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif in it, I guess.

Thanks,

KO

[milesdyson]

I recommend you stop being such a faggot. You're in the backseat. <font color="white">Don't take this seriously.</font>

[pointcount]

[ QUOTE ]
I was laughing and pointing out things to my wife


[/ QUOTE ]
lol

[SCfuji]

maybe you should tighten up? KQ AQ and AJ all make 2nd best hands.

[Sasnak]

Don't feel alone KO. I'm starting all over at .50/1 as I had to pay some taxes and I just need to work my game over. I've gone from 13/6.2/2.1 to 17.2/8.47/2.45. You'll pull out.

[MadMat]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm moving back to .5/1 due to real-life impacts on my bankroll. That's not the low-content.

KQo 1 time, -25.0


[/ QUOTE ]

How'd you get $25 in the pot at .5/$1 ???

[waynethetrain]

Sorry to hear about this, but you have nothing to complain about until this starts feeling like a normal session. That's when you know you are going bad.

[KingOtter]

Doh, typo... probably 2.50.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to hear about this, but you have nothing to complain about until this starts feeling like a normal session. That's when you know you are going bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

No apologies necessary, really. It was an incredible trip down Probability Lane.

KO

[Hojglad]

[ QUOTE ]
Won $ at showdown: 8.33% !!!! (1 out of 12)
Won $ When Saw Flop 9.38% (3 times out of 32)

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm. Flop, turn and river better. This should solve your problem. That being said, I've had worse /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chris_a]

These are actually your most important sessions. Almost everyone on this forum makes nearly the same amount of money with the top hands when they win. But what separates the 4BB/100 players from the 0.4BB/100 players is mostly:

a) how much they lose on their losing sessions
b) whether they let it change their play on present or future sessions
c) whether they look back at these sessions to analyze and determine if they could have lost less

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
a) how much they lose on their losing sessions
b) whether they let it change their play on present or future sessions
c) whether they look back at these sessions to analyze and determine if they could have lost less

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, a) I lost 49BB during this one, but that didn't really disturb me too much. I had made some money earlier on a 1/2 table and I broke even on 2 other .5/1 table I was playing about the same time.

And I don't agree with c). That seems to me to encourage results-oriented thinking and weak play. This wasn't 'I had a losing session because I wasn't check-raising.' The cards were plain and simple against me. I don't even want to post examples because then I'd get the bad-beat police on me.

It wasn't dead cards... at least not in my hand. I had plenty of hands to play. The board just dodged my hands, that's all.

KO

[chris_a]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, a) I lost 49BB during this one, but that didn't really disturb me too much. I had made some money earlier on a 1/2 table and I broke even on 2 other .5/1 table I was playing about the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't concern yourself with what money you won on other tables at the same time. Each hand is indepedent.

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't agree with c). That seems to me to encourage results-oriented thinking and weak play.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't what I meant at all. I'm not saying that you should be looking for your bad beats. Bad beats are bad beats... nothing you can do about them. What I am saying is that you should be looking for cases where you could have protected your hand better or places where you maybe could have lost fewer bets by better reading or whatever. You'll learn a lot more from these sessions about how to improve your play simply because a lot more close decisions come up in these sessions.

[ QUOTE ]
The board just dodged my hands, that's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure the main reason for your loss was your bad beats, the board missing you etc. I'm just saying "could you have played these hands better"? There's a lot more potential material for learning how to improve your play on your losing sessions than on your winning sessions.

[ErrantNight]

I didn't realize 115 hands was a session...

get thee to a bankroll!

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize 115 hands was a session...

get thee to a bankroll!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, okay, it was 1 table out of a session. It was a 'PokerTracker' session, which is time at one table.

I actually played about 400 hands last night at various tables (and 2 different limits).

KO

[grjr]

Hey King, just curious but have you read any of my posts about ditching a table when I lose 10BB?

John

[adsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey King, just curious but have you read any of my posts about ditching a table when I lose 10BB?

John

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope your posts say not to do this.

[grjr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey King, just curious but have you read any of my posts about ditching a table when I lose 10BB?

John

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope your posts say not to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. But I don't advocate it for everyone either. It's just something I do that I feel works for me. I would have saved 39BB on that table of King's while still winning on the other tables.

Didn't mean to reopen that argument here I was just curious if King had ever considered doing something similar; not necessarily at 10BB though.

[adsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey King, just curious but have you read any of my posts about ditching a table when I lose 10BB?

John

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope your posts say not to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. But I don't advocate it for everyone either. It's just something I do that I feel works for me. I would have saved 39BB on that table of King's while still winning on the other tables.

Didn't mean to reopen that argument here I was just curious if King had ever considered doing something similar; not necessarily at 10BB though.

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't advocate it for anybody. Bad enough that you do it yourself but don't go giving other players bad ideas like this.
You're going against standard deviation here, and standard deviation is your friend, for two reasons. It enables losers to win in the short term, (and thus keeps them in the game),which naturally means that sometimes the winners will lose. Plus, if you're playing optimal poker your standard deviation will be higher as you're taking more risks attempting to squeeze the maximum profit out of marginal situations. But in the LONG RUN this is good for you. Mason Malmuth says that a good player using advanced poker theory will have over 48% losing sessions. The winning sessions more than make up for this. Now, how do you know if you drop 10BB in the first half hour that that session wasn't going to be a huge one for you?

[Entity]

http://www.geekfitness.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_crappyday.png

[adsman]

My point exactly.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey King, just curious but have you read any of my posts about ditching a table when I lose 10BB?

John

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I have read those. Trouble is, 10BB can be one hand. I buy into tables with 25BB, and getting down to 15BB really isn't all that rare for me. I judge the table more buy the players sitting at it and whether I think I'm a better player than they are or not, rather than how much I've lost at a table.

KO

[KingOtter]

Well, I got down to about 5BB, reloaded, got down to 1BB and closed the table because it was getting cold in my basement and I recently got HoH and I like time to read before I go to bed. But I stayed responding to messages in this thread later than I wanted to, and ended up only reading a couple hand problems.. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The table was actually quite a good table throughout the night. Varied between 30 and 42% VPIP. About 3 40-60% VPIP fish (icons) stayed at the table most of the time I was there, and one was directly on my right. He was hitting full-houses with 83o, tho, heh. He and I talked quite a bit throughout the night.

KO

[grjr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey King, just curious but have you read any of my posts about ditching a table when I lose 10BB?

John

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope your posts say not to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. But I don't advocate it for everyone either. It's just something I do that I feel works for me. I would have saved 39BB on that table of King's while still winning on the other tables.

Didn't mean to reopen that argument here I was just curious if King had ever considered doing something similar; not necessarily at 10BB though.

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't advocate it for anybody. Bad enough that you do it yourself but don't go giving other players bad ideas like this.
You're going against standard deviation here, and standard deviation is your friend, for two reasons. It enables losers to win in the short term, (and thus keeps them in the game),which naturally means that sometimes the winners will lose. Plus, if you're playing optimal poker your standard deviation will be higher as you're taking more risks attempting to squeeze the maximum profit out of marginal situations. But in the LONG RUN this is good for you. Mason Malmuth says that a good player using advanced poker theory will have over 48% losing sessions. The winning sessions more than make up for this. Now, how do you know if you drop 10BB in the first half hour that that session wasn't going to be a huge one for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you do me a favor? Because I'm really curious about this. Go to your sessions tab and rank by most money won to bring up your best winning tables. Check the top 8 or 10 and see how many hands you won in the first orbit and second orbit.

In my top 6 winning tables at Party I've won at least 3 hands out of the first nine 4 out of 6 times. The rest of the top 10 show numerous wins in the first two orbits. Do your stats show anything similar or have I just happened to find some hot tables?

[KingOtter]

Just last night?

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

KO

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
In my top 6 winning tables at Party I've won at least 3 hands out of the first nine 4 out of 6 times. The rest of the top 10 show numerous wins in the first two orbits. Do your stats show anything similar or have I just happened to find some hot tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because you close the table after losing 10BB (or so)... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It isn't unusual for me to start out down on a table, get down to 10-15BB on the table, win 2 hands and be even.

I also probably don't have as long of sessions as most people. I have a lot of interruptions with family and everything else.

KO

[adsman]

[quoteWould you do me a favor? Because I'm really curious about this. Go to your sessions tab and rank by most money won to bring up your best winning tables. Check the top 8 or 10 and see how many hands you won in the first orbit and second orbit.

In my top 6 winning tables at Party I've won at least 3 hands out of the first nine 4 out of 6 times. The rest of the top 10 show numerous wins in the first two orbits. Do your stats show anything similar or have I just happened to find some hot tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even have to do that. Two hours ago, party, I won 47BB over two hours. I was down 21BB in the first 40 minutes. But the table was full of really bad players. I was playing good. There you go.

"There is no mathematical formula that tells you when you have won enough money to quit, and second, there is no mathematical formula that tells you when you have lost enough money to quit."

Mason Malmuth, "Gambling Theory and other topics"

I really recommend that you buy this book.

[grjr]

[ QUOTE ]


The table was actually quite a good table throughout the night. Varied between 30 and 42% VPIP. About 3 40-60% VPIP fish (icons) stayed at the table most of the time I was there, and one was directly on my right. He was hitting full-houses with 83o, tho, heh. He and I talked quite a bit throughout the night.

KO

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the kind of table I get away from. Everything looks good stat-wise. You should be winning but you're not because one or two players are hot and are winning all the money. Every time I've tried to stick around and wait for things to change; they haven't and I proceeded to lose more money.

Now granted, some of that might have been due to my play deteriorating as the fish kept winning. But by setting a mechanical stop point I don't care why I'm losing I only know I AM losing here so I'll go find someplace where I'm winning.

Frankly, I don't see why there is such a reluctance around here to leave a losing situation to go find a winning one. It just seems like a logical thing to do. A 10 BB cutoff is probably too quick for most people but it's a number that seems to work for me.

[adsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The table was actually quite a good table throughout the night. Varied between 30 and 42% VPIP. About 3 40-60% VPIP fish (icons) stayed at the table most of the time I was there, and one was directly on my right. He was hitting full-houses with 83o, tho, heh. He and I talked quite a bit throughout the night.

KO

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the kind of table I get away from. Everything looks good stat-wise. You should be winning but you're not because one or two players are hot and are winning all the money. Every time I've tried to stick around and wait for things to change; they haven't and I proceeded to lose more money.

Now granted, some of that might have been due to my play deteriorating as the fish kept winning. But by setting a mechanical stop point I don't care why I'm losing I only know I AM losing here so I'll go find someplace where I'm winning.

Frankly, I don't see why there is such a reluctance around here to leave a losing situation to go find a winning one. It just seems like a logical thing to do. A 10 BB cutoff is probably too quick for most people but it's a number that seems to work for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two things. If you're at a table with FISH and you're losing, if you leave that table after donating just because you're getting sucked out on, then you need your head read.

Secondly, with your mechanical stop point, what if the very next hand you were going to be dealt a monster? Or ten hands after? Or Thirty? Or.... you get my point?

I think that maybe you have a slight problem with tilt and your play deteroiates if you get off to a losing start. Fair enough, you've identified a weakness and you've taken measures to address it. But don't go confusing that with regular poker theory and then go and advise other players to do the same.

[chris_a]

[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the kind of table I get away from. Everything looks good stat-wise. You should be winning but you're not because one or two players are hot and are winning all the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are too superstitious. You realize that the cards on each hand are indepedent statistically speaking, right?

[grjr]

[ QUOTE ]
[quoteWould you do me a favor? Because I'm really curious about this. Go to your sessions tab and rank by most money won to bring up your best winning tables. Check the top 8 or 10 and see how many hands you won in the first orbit and second orbit.

In my top 6 winning tables at Party I've won at least 3 hands out of the first nine 4 out of 6 times. The rest of the top 10 show numerous wins in the first two orbits. Do your stats show anything similar or have I just happened to find some hot tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even have to do that. Two hours ago, party, I won 47BB over two hours. I was down 21BB in the first 40 minutes. But the table was full of really bad players. I was playing good. There you go.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you're going to disregard anything I say because you won money 2 hours ago? You don't want to check your stats because it would take too much time or you're afraid I might be right?

I'm glad someone around here has all the answers. I'll not clutter up this thread anymore.

[Dead]

1000 hands played and saw flop:
- 37 times out of 113 while in small blind (32%)
- 87 times out of 113 while in big blind (76%)
- 148 times out of 774 in other positions (19%)
- a total of 272 times out of 1000 (27%)

Pots won at showdown - 44 out of 121 (36%)
Pots won without showdown - 33

[jaxUp]

[ QUOTE ]
I recommend you stop being such a faggot. You're in the backseat. <font color="white">Don't take this seriously.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

FECKING HILARIOUS.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the kind of table I get away from. Everything looks good stat-wise. You should be winning but you're not because one or two players are hot and are winning all the money. Every time I've tried to stick around and wait for things to change; they haven't and I proceeded to lose more money.

Now granted, some of that might have been due to my play deteriorating as the fish kept winning. But by setting a mechanical stop point I don't care why I'm losing I only know I AM losing here so I'll go find someplace where I'm winning.

Frankly, I don't see why there is such a reluctance around here to leave a losing situation to go find a winning one. It just seems like a logical thing to do. A 10 BB cutoff is probably too quick for most people but it's a number that seems to work for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It works for you because it works for you. If you did something else, maybe that would work for you, too.

Remember, poker has a way of teaching short-term habits that go against the grain of the long-term aspect of it. Being results-oriented enforces this, and moving tables due to how much BB you are down is a results-oriented action.

As far as probability goes, the first hand at a new table is the consecutive to the last hand at the other table. They're not related, so moving to get better hands would be a misnomer.

What is very related is table image, and how to play the people on your table.

I would propose that being at a table where you've lost a number of decent hands... or even had to fold them becomes +EV. And more people will call you down with less. If you KNOW that's going to happen, you can make adjustments.

I would also propose that tearing a table up also gives you a table image that can push people around. People fold to raises and check/raises.

There are ways to use these images to your advantage, which you can't do when you move between tables.

Poker is situational, and long-term. You have to take all of that into account when playing your hands.

KO