Is poker just not for me?

[wyrd]

I've been playing limit .20/.50 on Ultimate Bet and Carribean Poker (which no longer counts low limit rakes towards your bonus - major suck). I can't count the ways I've lost money the last two days;

- I flop an Ace, but the board is suited and someone else flopped a flush.
- I flop a straight, someone else hits a miracle river for a full house (paired 10s on the turn, paired Kings on the river, he had a King).
- I flop a set, someone else hits the turn for a better set.
- I flop two pair, and get outdrawn by someone hitting a gut shot straight draw.
- I flop a pair with a flush draw. I still lose to a higher pair and I never hit my flush.
- AA, KK, QQ, JJ lose 90% of the time. I raise preflop, keep betting and raising down to the river. Do they hold up? Of course not.

It almost seems like the game is a crap-shoot. Usually 4-8 people per flop, with about 3 calling with anything all the way down to the river. I kid you not, someone called a raise and continued calling down to the river with 72o only to hit a straight and win. I've seen two 93o split a pot which was raised preflop.

I try so hard to play the way SSH says to play. Check-raise here for value, Raise here to try and get drawing hands out of the pot, raise here for value, so on and so on. Don't fold in an insanely large pot, even if drawing slim. Call when pot odds permit it on a draw, or raise (flush draw w/ pair) for value.

I have reexamined my playing, I have reread some parts of SSH and Theory of Poker, I have asked questions here on the forums about certain situations. While I'm not perfect, and I definitely make mistakes at times (which I carefully examine so I can learn from them), overall I would have to say I'm playing well. But of course, I'm not winning. So that logic has to be flawed. If I'm losing, I obviously can't be playing well.

So this leaves me frustrated to no end. Is there a luck factor in poker that I just don't have? I try to play based on skill and odds, but I have to say so far it hasn't been going so well.

I'm not sure what else to say except... I'm looking for guidance.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
- AA, KK, QQ, JJ lose 90% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against 6 random hands played to the river, AA does in fact wins less than half the time. The beauty is you win 43% of the time while only putting in 14% of the money.

KK is around 37%, QQ is around 32% and JJ is around 28%. So all 4 show a big profit pre-flop against a large field of random callers.

But of course not all the money goes in pre-flop. You need to evaluate the best action on each street. 6 people call and the flop has an Ace in it? Your KK is dead - drop it. Big pairs and big cards make their money early in a hand, but if you pay off on the big streets (turn and river) when your hand has turned sour you could just be giving it all back. That's why it's so important to do things to protect your hand.

Give this recent article in the 2+2 Magazine a read. This exact concept comes up in my low limit play all the time. Note that in the example the turn and river turn out well for the writer, but he notes which cards kill his hand on the turn. If those hit and he saw action behind him he would switch modes totally and only continue if the odds for him to draw to his boat were there.

On The Edge - Part V (http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/current/Toth0705.html)

It is frequently said you can break even playing perfectly preflop. To win money you have to play from the flop onwards.

[Student]

It really does seem, thru these beginner's eyes, as though you're playing very skillful poker!

But poker is a game of skill AND luck. Bad luck easily trumps good skill, as both you and every TV expert player will attest. They've experienced bad luck that would make yours look like a cakewalk! If you continue placing emphasis on playing hands correctly, instead of looking at seeming RESULTS, in time your luck will change and hardening in your game will accrue to your extreme advantage.

You're doing one thing really right. When facing bad luck one should emphasize reading books, articles in poker magazines and 2+2 posts, rather than playing. Look, this is a rare opportunity to grow significantly. Don't blow it. Learn from all this bad luck. Study your game (as you're doing), and examine all sorts of possibilities that come from an out-of-the-ordinary kind of thinking.

You're doing the right thing coming to 2+2! There are some true experts who will unselfishly share with you here. Ask...

Dave

[Student]

Very insightful! I notice your post beat mine by a minute. Great minds think alike, eh?

Dave

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
I notice your post beat mine by a minute.

[/ QUOTE ]

What really sucks is when you reply to something, but it takes you so long to type it that two other people have already said the same thing by the time you actually post. :P I'm a little too wordy I guess. Okay, a lot.

I think sometimes my careful thought goes to waste because my explanation is so long no one reads it. Fortunately I do this just as much to force myself to take a stance and form a clear thought as I do to actually help people so at least I get something selfish out of it.

[Sakuraba]

[ QUOTE ]
- AA, KK, QQ, JJ lose 90% of the time. I raise preflop, keep betting and raising down to the river. Do they hold up? Of course not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get PokerTracker. Get 10000+ hands in it. The next time you feel this way, go look at your win % for these hands. You will be shocked by how wrong your numbers are.

BTW, some of these are really routine. (listed below) These probably happen to me almost every day I play yet I manage to win. The others are bad beats, but that is part of the game too.

- I flop an Ace, but the board is suited and someone else flopped a flush.
- I flop two pair, and get outdrawn by someone hitting a gut shot straight draw.
- I flop a pair with a flush draw. I still lose to a higher pair and I never hit my flush.

[wyrd]

Fascinating article. Thanks for that.

[Student]

As I'm sure you've noticed, I'm the 2+2 reigning presense concerning long-windedness! At least your posts are based on expertise, whereas mine are based on ignorance. Turns out there's a lot more to say in ignorance, than in expertise, huh?

Dave

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]

What really sucks is when you reply to something, but it takes you so long to type it that two other people have already said the same thing by the time you actually post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this all the time. But then I just go, "screw it, they'll just have to read it again." /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regards,

T

[donkeyradish]

If you only play good hands and everyone else plays random hands, it stands to reason you have an edge on them.

But its only an edge, not total domination. Short term results mean little.

[Cooker]

It sounds like you are having a bit a tough luck with the cards lately. I too am having a sort of dry spell. I think a slight winning player can easily have a bad run of 5000 hands where they end up down. There are some estimates in Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason on this, and I am just trying to roughly remember.

Still, post flop play is more important than many people think. Being tight and raising correctly preflop is good, but will probably only give you a slight edge, you really need to look at how you play postflop. In a loose game, you should know when and how to build big pots. Often after a tough run of cards people tend to become a little passive and become more self weighting (this basically means that you try and get to showdown cheaply with your strong hands). I know this sounds obvious, but winners must get much more on winning hands than they lose on losing hands (this is non-self weighting). I bet you are missing key big pot building hands and so your wins aren't quite covering the times your big hands get beat.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been playing limit .20/.50 on Ultimate Bet and Carribean Poker (which no longer counts low limit rakes towards your bonus - major suck). I can't count the ways I've lost money the last two days;

- I flop an Ace, but the board is suited and someone else flopped a flush.
- I flop a straight, someone else hits a miracle river for a full house (paired 10s on the turn, paired Kings on the river, he had a King).
- I flop a set, someone else hits the turn for a better set.
- I flop two pair, and get outdrawn by someone hitting a gut shot straight draw.
- I flop a pair with a flush draw. I still lose to a higher pair and I never hit my flush.
- AA, KK, QQ, JJ lose 90% of the time. I raise preflop, keep betting and raising down to the river. Do they hold up? Of course not.

It almost seems like the game is a crap-shoot. Usually 4-8 people per flop, with about 3 calling with anything all the way down to the river. I kid you not, someone called a raise and continued calling down to the river with 72o only to hit a straight and win. I've seen two 93o split a pot which was raised preflop.

I try so hard to play the way SSH says to play. Check-raise here for value, Raise here to try and get drawing hands out of the pot, raise here for value, so on and so on. Don't fold in an insanely large pot, even if drawing slim. Call when pot odds permit it on a draw, or raise (flush draw w/ pair) for value.

I have reexamined my playing, I have reread some parts of SSH and Theory of Poker, I have asked questions here on the forums about certain situations. While I'm not perfect, and I definitely make mistakes at times (which I carefully examine so I can learn from them), overall I would have to say I'm playing well. But of course, I'm not winning. So that logic has to be flawed. If I'm losing, I obviously can't be playing well.

So this leaves me frustrated to no end. Is there a luck factor in poker that I just don't have? I try to play based on skill and odds, but I have to say so far it hasn't been going so well.

I'm not sure what else to say except... I'm looking for guidance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This all reminds me of the other thread somewhere else on this board (Poker Theory I think) about folding A-A preflop. Actually with many people in the pot even two aces despite being favorite against every single player become a huge underdog. The more players are in the pot the better the pot odds get for everyone. Seemingly idiotic play automatically gets rewarded once they make it to the river. I think Sklansky describes the same phenomenom under the topic "Important concept borrowed from Razz".

There are three things you can do:

A. Try No Limit SnG where you can shut down the draws
B. Look for tables with less players in the pot on average - usually at higher limits than 0.5/1
C. Continue what you are doing now hoping it was just a streak of tough luck

[Cooker]

Seems like you have some misconceptions. If you have AA in holdem, the most +EV situation you can have on average is every player playing a capped pot preflop. This will make more money in the long run than ending up heads up or 3 way. Tables with weak calling stations are more profitable than those without and the more weak players the more profitable the table. Still, you must make some strategy adjustments, but at the lower limits, a good player can easily make 4-5BB /100. You should be seeking these tables out, not running from them. The variance might be a little higher, but the profits should be as well.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like you have some misconceptions. If you have AA in holdem, the most +EV situation you can have on average is every player playing a capped pot preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fairness, the other poster didn't say that playing them was -EV, just that they become a "huge underdog". Every hand is less than even odds in a family pot, so I suppose winning the pot is always an underdog to losing the pot (i.e., has probability < 0.5). I wouldn't call that a huge underdog -- to me that implies they have less than a 10% probability of winning -- so it does sound like he has misconceptions. Of course the point is that you're getting 9:1 on your aces, and will win about 30% of the time, or so I've read.

I don't think the idea that aces lose value in a multiway pot is absurd, though. I seem to remember reading that from Sklansky somewhere (HEPFAP?). Of course even if the aces lose a little value, they're still more +EV than kings, jack-ten suited, or what have you. The question is whether they're more +EV with say 4 opponents or 9, and I don't know if anyone's published a definitive answer. My intution agrees that the family pot is better but intuition can be tricky.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the idea that aces lose value in a multiway pot is absurd, though. I seem to remember reading that from Sklansky somewhere (HEPFAP?).

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that Aces lose value in a multway pot is totally absurd. A quote from page 126 of Getting Started in Hold'em by Ed Miller regarding playing AA, "Getting it all-in against all 9 players is actually your best result, but you will never be that lucky." This is actually an aside after saying that you would like to get all-in preflop with aces against 2-3 players. AA has such an enormous edge preflop, it plays well any way you want to play it. If you can find such a quote in a 2+2 book, then I will be very surprised. I keep seeing these pseudo quotes appearing and I don't like them. As so often happens, I suspect your pseudo-quote is putting incorrect ideas in someone else's mouth, which I doubt Sklansky would appreciate. If you think someone made a point, then find the source and quote them properly. It is bad form to pass incorrect ideas off as coming from a reputable source.

The point I was trying to make is that with Aces, your winning percentage goes down slower than the pot grows with multiple players. Aces with 10 players all playing for a raise is not only still + EV but higher + EV than Aces with 2-3 players playing for a raise. When you have AA you want everyone to call your raise, and hopefully someone to reraise so you can cap and still have everyone call. This is not only a +EV result, it is the BEST possible result.

You are only an underdog if you win less than your fair share and AA will only win less than its fair share in a few highly unlikely and contrived circumstances. For all practical purposes, before the flop Aces will never be an underdog and will certainly be the strong favorite. You want to win the most money not the most pots. More weak players = less pots but more MONEY.

Sorry if this comes off as a bit of a harsh rant, but the pseudo-quote thing is one of my pet peeves.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think the idea that aces lose value in a multiway pot is absurd, though.


[/ QUOTE ]
A priori, it is conceivable, but not after you look at real data. People keep saying AA is in trouble in multiway pots because they focus on winning pots rather than winning money.

[ QUOTE ]
The question is whether they're more +EV with say 4 opponents or 9, and I don't know if anyone's published a definitive answer. My intution agrees that the family pot is better but intuition can be tricky.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here are two sources of data:

GoCee: equity against random hands (http://gocee.com/poker/HE_Val_Sort.htm)

Profit from every $1 put in preflop against n random hands, all-in:

n
1: 0.71
2: 1.20
3: 1.56
4: 1.80
5: 1.95
6: 2.05
7: 2.10
8: 2.12
9: 2.11

So, it looks like you want more random callers if you are all-in preflop.

How about actual play?

PokerRoom's stats (https://www.pokerroom.com/games/evstats/pairStats.php)

It's not clear how to use this data. Here is one possibility. Suppose you have AA in the big blind. Is this more profitable with many people at the table, or with fewer? More people at the table will mean more people limp or raise in front of the AA.

Here is how much AA is worth in the big blind against n opponents at $2-$4:

n
2: 0.81 BB
3: 1.49
4: 2.00
5: 2.22
6: 2.50
7: 2.22
8: 1.94
9: 2.40
10: 2.43

Here is the data from $5-$10:

2: 1.25 BB
3: 1.56
4: 2.02
5: 2.21
6: 2.51
7: 2.98
8: 2.44
9: 2.69
10: 3.70 (not 2.70)

Again, AA appears to be more profitable agaainst more opponents.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this comes off as a bit of a harsh rant, but the pseudo-quote thing is one of my pet peeves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point in wanting ideas properly attributed, but I don't think an encyclopedic knowledge of every 2+2 book should be a prerequisite for discussing these ideas either. Upon further review, perhaps I was a bit too casual in tossing that out there. Next time I'll try harder to phrase it in the form of a question: "Has anyone ever seen a reputable poker author say that blah blah blah?". But speaking up greatly increases the probability that someone will say, "You're wrong, it was really _____" or "You're right, it was on p. ____ of _____." Keeping quiet, though more appealing to the intellectual ueberpurist, is less likely to sustain a fruitful discussion about the value of aces.

If people read my half-remembered citation and conclude that it's gospel truth, then I'm disappointed that they do that. Unfortunately I can't force critical thinking on everyone who reads one of my posts. That said, I will see if I can find the passage I'm remembering and post it in context. Until then I certainly don't mean it as anything other than a vague recollection.

[amoeba]

if you are going to base results on such a small sample size where you can name specific hands than perhaps poker is not for you.

[pokers]

wow dude..I dont know but you cant lose 90% of the time with hands like that.


also UB isnt the way to go get out of there

[hotsauce615]

I think you need to read a little. Just the basics in the FAQ thread, and learn to deal with bad beats. It's not a crap shoot if your employ the proper strategies and not go on tilt. I have kings, queens, aces, etc cracked all the time, but you need to realize that in the BIG picture (Notice the emphasis on BIG), it will work out in your favor. It's going to be a long grind to get started, if it was easy everyone would do it.

[CaptSensible]

low limit poker is tough because people stay in with hands that they wouldnt play in higher limit games. With 4 to 8 in on a flop it's tough. Streaks of bad beats do happen though. That's just a part of the game. Try playing a 10 dollar sit and go (single table tournament). The most you can lose is 11 bucks and you'll get a stronger sense of higher stakes poker. You usually see maybe 3 in preflop sometimes 4. After the flop there's usually only 2 in maybe 3. With as many as 8 in preflop you'll more than likely need a straight or flush to win the hand. That's been my experience anyhow.

Hope this helps. Good luck to you!

[AKQJ10]

I located the paragraph I remembered, on page 22 of the 3d edition of HEPFAP. I have a longer post about it on my other computer, but the "wifi enabled" coffee shop I stopped at this morning turned out not to be wifi enabled, so I'll try to post it this afternoon.

The quote in the subject line is from memory, so I may have a word or two wrong.

[Cooker]

I found the quote in context and he is discussing the group AA, KK, QQ, AK and AQ hands and not just AA. In the case of AA that statement is wrong as has been shown and argued by other posters and myself. The statement is probably correct about QQ, AK, and AQ and possibly even KK to some extent if you allow in weak aces cheaply. However, with regard to specifically aces the statement is clearly incorrect as has been discussed ad nauseum. The more players for more bets, the better with Aces.

[AKQJ10]

In the section entitled "The First Two Cards: Early Position" in [i]Hold 'em Poker For Advanced Players, David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth start a new paragraph on the topic of entering the pot from early position:

[ QUOTE ]
If no one has yet called, almost always raise with AA, KK, QQ, AK, and AQ. Part of the reason to raise with these hands is that they lose value as the pot gets more multiway (especially if your opponents see the flop for one bet rather than two). If there have already been callers, usually raise with hands in Groups 1 and 2, AQ, and perhaps some other hands at random. (Again, these random raises should be made only occasionally.) (1)

[/ QUOTE ]

A plain reading of the text indicates that a pair of aces are in the class of hands that "lose value as the pot gets more multiway." I'm not fond of argument from authority -- "Sklansky and Malmuth say XYZ, therefore it must be so," -- and in fact, I'm not sure that aces do in fact lose value as more opponents enter the pot. Perhaps the assumption here is that players enter the pot with reasonable hands like AJ and 99, not less-dominated hands like 92s and 54o that I see in the games I frequent, but even so I don't see how that would make the aces less durable. Perhaps the intent was to say that (for example) only queens, AK and AQ lose value, but aces and kings are best raised for other reasons. However the passage doesn't make this distinction and there's no obvious reason to infer it.

I think the real truth requires an inference from the parenthetical phrase "(especially if your opponents see the flop for one bet rather than two)." Intuitively it's probably better for the aces to play against, say, two opponents for two bets each than against four opponents putting in one bet each, even though the odds enjoyed by the aces are only half as good (4:2 instead of 4:1). So whereas I too believe Miller to be correct, that the dream scenario for aces would be to have nine opponents all-in, Sklansky and Malmuth's statement apparently presupposes that there will necessarily be fewer opponents in a raised pot than in an unraised pot. (Obviously Sklansky and Malmuth play in games very different from the ones I play in, where there may well be equally many opponents in a raised pot!) Still, this doesn't really resolve why aces are included among the hands that, "lose value as the pot gets more multiway." If the multiway pot results from incorrect cold-calls with dominated hands -- that is, by any hand against AA except the case aces -- I don't see how that can possibly reduce the value of the aces.

So as it happens, I'm not entirely convinced of the veracity or universal applicability of the passage I cited. Nonetheless, I still believe that the idea expressed in that passage is plausible, just not totally convincing. The idea that aces "lose value as the pot gets more multiway," though possibly erroneous, is hardly absurd.

(1) David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, Hold 'em Poker For Advanced Players, third edition (Henderson, NV: Two Plus Two Publishing, March 2004), 22.

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
The statement is probably correct about QQ, AK, and AQ and possibly even KK to some extent if you allow in weak aces cheaply.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the other points in your reply. Obviously, aces do not lose value. Hopefully they'll fix that error in a future printing.

I wanted to say something about the part of your statement I quoted above though. I don't think AK & AQ lose value either because you WANT weak aces to come in - you have severe domination in those cases.

With KK and QQ, you'd love to have as many weak aces coming in as well because the more crummy aces in other hands the less likely one will come on the board. These hands still maintain equity far greater than their fair share.

Regards,

T

[Me and You]

Keep in there

Just some stats from my Poker Tracker (rounded of course)

AA win % = 60
QQ win % = 40

BB won per hand
AA 2.87
QQ 2.07
so I gt QQ 100 times I only win with it 40 of those times yet it has made me over 200 BB even though it is a "losing hand" (loses more than it wins)Just remember the most important rule in poker Win Big and Lose Little.

So you have lost 10 pots with 20 BB in it (5 of which are your own) You only need to win 1 in 4 of these pots to break even. Play tight aggressive and those wins will come and so will the money. Remember time is your friend not enemy, don't play crap because you havn't been winnning this session it will only amplify your losses.