Enlightened...

[VBM]

I just finished playing a session & had an epiphany; for me, at this novice stage, poker success is a function of 3 variables:

1. Getting good cards
2. Playing bad, predictable players
3. Me playing well

If any one of these is out of whack, my chances for success drop precipitously...

Thoughts?

[WordWhiz]

Yes. These 3 things apply at all levels, not just novice/ small limits. Bad players (may) get less bad, and predictable players (may) get less predictably, but you still only can make money off of your opponents' mistakes.

[@bsolute_luck]

define "good cards"

[TripleH68]

1. Getting good cards <font color="red">in good position. </font>
2. Playing bad, predictable players <font color="red">who take second-best hands too far and pay off $$$. </font>
3. Me playing well <font color="red">and not f'ing up too much. </font>

[VBM]

[ QUOTE ]
define "good cards"

[/ QUOTE ]

cards that make winning hands. cards that can cover a whole host of poker mistakes due to their inherent strength.

i made this #1 b/c i had an abnormally high number of playable/strong hands my recent session that frankly, a chimp could've played profitably. i have no illusions that were i given my opponents' cards, i'd fare anywhere close as well.

[crownjules]

[ QUOTE ]

i made this #1 b/c i had an abnormally high number of playable/strong hands my recent session that frankly, a chimp could've played profitably. i have no illusions that were i given my opponents' cards, i'd fare anywhere close as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Last night the same thing happened to me. I ran incredibly hot for about an hour that netted me +100BBs. Combination of good starting hands and very good boards.

[VBM]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Playing bad, predictable players <font color="red">who take second-best hands too far and pay off $$$. </font>


[/ QUOTE ]

excellent revision. i think sometimes even otherwise solid players do this for their "table image" or to defense the possibility of someone "making a move" on them.

[NateDog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Playing bad, predictable players <font color="red">who take second-best hands too far and pay off $$$. </font>


[/ QUOTE ]

excellent revision. i think sometimes even otherwise solid players do this for their "table image" or to defense the possibility of someone "making a move" on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guilty.

I called a river bet tonight on a double paired board with A high. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Brain]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Playing bad, predictable players <font color="red">who take second-best hands too far and pay off $$$. </font>


[/ QUOTE ]

excellent revision. i think sometimes even otherwise solid players do this for their "table image" or to defense the possibility of someone "making a move" on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guilty. I don't trust people in real life, how am I supposed to do it at the table? I don't want to go back to being weak-tight again. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[NAU_Player]

[ QUOTE ]
define "good cards"

[/ QUOTE ]

the ones that win pots!

Don't you hate it when you confuse the "bad cards" with the "good" ones?

[Jaran]

I think that poker success is most shown when the cards are cold. Limiting your losses when you are running bad is the sign of a good player (not that I'm there yet) /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

-Jaran

[@bsolute_luck]

just to be clear: i didn't post "define good cards" to be smart or anything, but good cards could definitely mean marginal ones that perform well under certain circumstances.

"good cards" don't have to mean A/images/graemlins/spade.gifQ/images/graemlins/spade.gif or KK- just adding to your posting that's all /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TripleH68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Playing bad, predictable players <font color="red">who take second-best hands too far and pay off $$$. </font>


[/ QUOTE ]

excellent revision. i think sometimes even otherwise solid players do this for their "table image" or to defense the possibility of someone "making a move" on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guys, I am a marginal winner - less than 1bb/hour at 1-2 and 2-4. When reviewing sessions I find places where I likely should be 'saving' 2bb against predictable/passive players. Major leak I think...

The biggest difference I notice moving up is getting paid off less with strong made hands.

The second biggest difference is running into players who play strongly against preflop raises. Much better from the blinds. Much better with pocket pairs.

Good post ollie.

[VBM]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that poker success is most shown when the cards are cold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, that n00b Jennifer Harman said something similar here (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=14549&amp;m_id=65556)...
Losing streaks are the barometers for me. Show me a player on a winning streak and I won’t be able to rate him. Show me a player who is in a losing streak and I’ll be able to tell you if he can play.

we forgot the all-important #4:
when running bad, run from the "bring-in"... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[jaym]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that poker success is most shown when the cards are cold. Limiting your losses when you are running bad is the sign of a good player (not that I'm there yet) /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.


[/ QUOTE ]

Quoted for truth. I think the fact that I broke even during a 10K hand shi[/i]tbomb the entire month of June makes me feel a little better now that cards are actually falling my way in July (so far).

[SlantNGo]

You forgot #4: Hitting flush draws.

[Watain]

[ QUOTE ]
define "good cards"

[/ QUOTE ]

+EV cards... Which depends on a shitload of factors... position, opponents, table image, you skill, you opponents skill, preflop action up til you turn, the weather in Singapore... usw.

/Torben