I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).

[Spladle Master]

Dropped another 50 big bets at 2/4 over 100 hands. Brought it in 34 times, won 6 hands. Lost with two straights and a full house. Played well. Had extremely bad opponents. Stud not my game. Never run bad at NL hold 'em. Gonna go back to playing that now. Love you guys. Bye-bye.

[bigredlemon]

It's probably because you are playing too lose. You need to be super tight at party 2/4

[peritonlogon]

Never run bad at NL holdem? Must be great, if I never ran bad at NL Holdem I think I'd be buying out P diddy... but then again why would I, I could just play NL holdem.
On the other hand, 50 BB is nothing, today, at a stud table it took me 84 hands to finally win one.
I still think stud is better, more profitable and more fun.

[greenage]

[ QUOTE ]
Dropped another 50 big bets at 2/4 over 100 hands. Brought it in 34 times, won 6 hands. Lost with two straights and a full house. Played well. Had extremely bad opponents. Stud not my game. Never run bad at NL hold 'em. Gonna go back to playing that now. Love you guys. Bye-bye.

[/ QUOTE ]

Been there, done that. NL/PL HE are home for me and I always retreat there. Play some Stud/8 at a tight ante structure and just wait, it will come back.

NL HE can suck too ya’know.

GL, come back when you want an interesting game. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bigredlemon]

Yea I definetly agree. The swings at NL HE is going to be huge. I've had a 400BB downswing in SSNLHE and a 500BB upswing over 6 hours last saturday, and I doubt it's that rare. I don't think I've ever heard had a one day swing that wild at any limit game.

[BeerMoney]

You have NO heart!

[jon_1van]

Not to sound like a dick...but....

I laugh at your $200.


It does suck having big hands go down.


Last night some monkey called 2 cold on 3rd, a double on 4th from me showing AA with 2 4 A 6. He won.

The fact that you could lose 50 BB in just 100 hands is good though. Because it means you are getting action, and perhaps some lose raises. Just keep at it.

[MRBAA]

I play both stud and NLHE (and limit he as well), and enjoy 'em all. The 2-4 game at party is very beatable, and I don't think you do have to be that tight if you can limp. If you have to call a completion, then you should be tight. But variance in stud is higher because of the extra big bet round. I played 15 hours of 2-4 stud on my vacation. Broke even for 14. Won 75 BB in the other hour.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound like a dick...but....

I laugh at your $200.



[/ QUOTE ]

Right now, I'd blow the inmates of Cell Block D at San Quentin to only be down 50 BB's right now.

[PoorLawyer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound like a dick...but....

I laugh at your $200.



[/ QUOTE ]

Right now, I'd blow the inmates of Cell Block D at San Quentin to only be down 50 BB's right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone remind me to stop gambling before I get to this point

[djr]

are you sure you're not there already? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[BeerMoney]

MRBAA, limping in this structure is not as attractive as it is in 3/6 for obvious reasons.

I don't think you should be limping all that often.

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you should be limping all that often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but the 2/4 tables are much less aggressive in general. So when you limp you are less likely to get raised.

The problem is that there will probably be many limpers behind you. This may or maynot be good for your hand.

So why not fold, play really tight, but play 3 or 4 tables instead.

[FishInAPhoneBooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound like a dick...but....

I laugh at your $200.



[/ QUOTE ]

Right now, I'd blow the inmates of Cell Block D at San Quentin to only be down 50 BB's right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where Beer is at, but I am in the midst of a 150 BB freefall at card rooms 2/4 and 4/8, I hate the 3/6 structure. Although since it came on the heels of a 200bb up swing I can't complain too much.

This game is like a god damned rollercoaster ride.

[MRBAA]

This is a valid point, Jon. I don't enjoy multitabling stud, and rarely do it. I'll usually play a table of stud and one of holdem. I never play more than two tables total, since I don't find it enjoyable. Most of the folks I know who play poker for a living or as a side source of income do play four or more tables (unless they play much higher), and I agree that giving up a little marginal value by limping less in favor of playing more tables is almost surely more profitable.

But since I'm not interested in maximizing the money I make, but rather in maximizing the amount I win at my single table, I think limping lots of hands is +EV for me since the other players generally will pay me off if I hit, the game's not that aggressive and I'm much better than almost all my opponents so I want opportunities to play with them. The big difference between this and 3-6 (which I also play alot) is that it's much less worthwhile to raise to try to thin the field or win right there, since the underante at 2-4 vs. the overante at 3-6 drastically changes your risk/reward equation.

[bholdr]

I just got over a month-and-a-half long slide where nothing held up and the fish crushed me. now, i can't seem to lose a hand. who knows? keep at it.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I just got over a month-and-a-half long slide where nothing held up and the fish crushed me. now, i can't seem to lose a hand. who knows? keep at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here.. Same exact thing.

[perfecto]

If you are "eternally" running bad at low-limit stud, AND, as you insist, you are playing well, then I can come to only one conclusion...you are delusional.

It's not possible to play well at low limit stud and lose on a consistent basis.

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not possible to play well at low limit stud and lose on a consistent basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on your definition of consistant.

I've played 1000 hands and been even.

[perfecto]

We're talking low-limit here which I take to be 5-10 or under.

I seldom have a losing session and is seems to me that I can say the same about most of my respected opponents.

Low-limit stud is where I return to gather the funds that I can lose elsewhere.

I'm not trying to brag or aggrandize my poker abilities. I freely admit to struggling at higher limit stud or at other limit games.

However, low-limit stud is, or should be, a slam dunk.

[Roland]

[ QUOTE ]

I seldom have a losing session and is seems to me that I can say the same about most of my respected opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]


I think you are the one who‘s delusional.

[perfecto]

You are no doubt correct. However, not about this subject. Come play with us and find out for yourself.

[Roland]

[ QUOTE ]
Come play with us and find out for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thank you, maybe I’ll do that. Where do you play?

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
We're talking low-limit here which I take to be 5-10 or under.

I seldom have a losing session and is seems to me that I can say the same about most of my respected opponents.

Low-limit stud is where I return to gather the funds that I can lose elsewhere.

I'm not trying to brag or aggrandize my poker abilities. I freely admit to struggling at higher limit stud or at other limit games.

However, low-limit stud is, or should be, a slam dunk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Screenname?
Winrate?
Samplesize?

[perfecto]

PP 5-10 stud when I need money. Table 26313 right now!

[perfecto]

You first.

Sorry. I'm not giving that information out. I don't really care if you don't believe me. In fact, I'd prefer if you didn't.

[jon_1van]

here is a post about finding the confidence interval around your winrate.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=inet&Number=1342415&fpart= &PHPSESSID=


Notice how the confidence interval stays very very large despite the number of hands you play.

And the frequency with which you have winning sessions can depend a whole lot on any number of things.


But you are an idiot if you think losing x BB (when x <= 150) over y hands (when y <= 10k) means ANYTHING about how well you play. There is just not enough information in that statement to determine anything.

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
You first.

Sorry. I'm not giving that information out. I don't really care if you don't believe me. In fact, I'd prefer if you didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

PsychoSmurf - This is already public knowledge
4.8 BB / 100 in the 2/4 game
sample size of ~9k hands (which is tiny as hell)

Now you

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
Never run bad at NL holdem? Must be great, if I never ran bad at NL Holdem I think I'd be buying out P diddy... but then again why would I, I could just play NL holdem.
On the other hand, 50 BB is nothing, today, at a stud table it took me 84 hands to finally win one.
I still think stud is better, more profitable and more fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I should be more specific. I run bad at NL hold 'em but it doesn't matter because I am a very, very good NL hold 'em player and my winrate is ridiculous. Whereas at stud I am likely only a marginally winning player even at low stakes. Of course, stud hi/lo is a different animal.

[perfecto]

Ahh...the old ad hominem attack. I would have respected your reply far more if you had not implied that I was an "idiot".

How did that add to your argument?

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound like a dick...but....

I laugh at your $200.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the money. $200 doesn't bug me. 50 big bets does. It's the LOSING that bugs me, y'dig? And at 2/4, no less.

[ QUOTE ]
It does suck having big hands go down.

Last night some monkey called 2 cold on 3rd, a double on 4th from me showing AA with 2 4 A 6. He won.

The fact that you could lose 50 BB in just 100 hands is good though. Because it means you are getting action, and perhaps some lose raises. Just keep at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll probably come back because I am determined to become world-class at all the games. But I'm going to take some time off and study some more. Maybe stick to hi/lo for awhile.

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are "eternally" running bad at low-limit stud, AND, as you insist, you are playing well, then I can come to only one conclusion...you are delusional.

It's not possible to play well at low limit stud and lose on a consistent basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh. I was exaggerating.

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
Ahh...the old ad hominem attack. I would have respected your reply far more if you had not implied that I was an "idiot".

How did that add to your argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, just back off. jon_1van > you.

[perfecto]

I beg your pardon.

So did you have a valid point or were you just whining about losing?

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]

I seldom have a losing session and is seems to me that I can say the same about most of my respected opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love these people. They are the Mike McDermott's of low limit tables. Always making the right folds, and never behind in a hand.

If you are as good as you say you are at low limit stud, you wouldn't play low limit stud.

Just from making a statement like that, I know you have no understanding of poker.

[perfecto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I seldom have a losing session and is seems to me that I can say the same about most of my respected opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love these people. They are the Mike McDermott's of low limit tables. Always making the right folds, and never behind in a hand.

If you are as good as you say you are at low limit stud, you wouldn't play low limit stud.

Just from making a statement like that, I know you have no understanding of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know who Mike McDermott is and I never said I was never behind and always made the right fold. I also admitted that I have a much harder time winning at higher limits. All I really said was that I can regularly beat low limit stud. Why is that so hard to believe? I play with other folks who can as well.

I really don't understand the vituperative attacks based on those statements.

I apologize if I've offended.

I won't post again.

PS...I also wouldn't blow the inmates of any cell block no matter how far down I was. Classy!

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
Ahh...the old ad hominem attack. I would have respected your reply far more if you had not implied that I was an "idiot".

How did that add to your argument?

[/ QUOTE ]


Oooooh a big word - ad hominem - wow, I'm impressed.

To answer your question, implieing you were an idoit did not add to my augument. However, you still have not provided the information that you implied you would when you wrote "you first".

So I'm still waiting to see some numbers.

However, impling you were and idiot did not change that fact that making assumptions based on small sample sizes is ill-advised.

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the LOSING that bugs me, y'dig? And at 2/4, no less

[/ QUOTE ]


I definetly feel for you here.

The difference in "happiness" I feel when I book a +10-15 BB win vs booking a -5 BB lose is soooo much bigger than the difference between +10-15 vs +50-70. Even though this should not be the case.

I play to "win" (However much that will bother Jeffage and a 2nd poster I respect that I can't remeber right now (beta or Blumpkin))

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
I beg your pardon.

So did you have a valid point or were you just whining about losing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whining about losing. That should have been obvious from the NO CONTENT remark in the subject line.

[Roland]

[ QUOTE ]

Whining about losing. That should have been obvious from the NO CONTENT remark in the subject line.

[/ QUOTE ]

It DID make for an interesting thread. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Whining about losing. That should have been obvious from the NO CONTENT remark in the subject line.

[/ QUOTE ]

It DID make for an interesting thread. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[SA125]

You played 100 hands at 2-4 and lost $200. You lost $25 on the antes and $34 on the bring-in for $59. So you lost another $141, or 35 BB's, on the hands you played.

I've had more sessions than I can remember where I've won 1-2% of my hands after 150 hands. That's 5-7 hands out of 150. Usually they're folded to me with no pots. I've had exactly 2 long winning streaks that would even come close to the losing streaks I've had. If poker was fair, I'd be up hundreds of BB's. Instead, I've always been slightly above break even, can't figure out for the life of me how and looking at you complaining about a bad session.

If you're a real player, get back in the game and prove it.

[fishsauce]

[ QUOTE ]
PS...I also wouldn't blow the inmates of any cell block no matter how far down I was. Classy!

[/ QUOTE ]

Your internet privileges should be revoked for not being able to recognize a joke.




BTW Beer, drove by San Quentin the other day and told the guys that you were on your way. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[lstream]

Hey Beer - you shoulda said Alcatraz.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Whining about losing. That should have been obvious from the NO CONTENT remark in the subject line.

[/ QUOTE ]

It DID make for an interesting thread. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I post here all the time, but, interesting, maybe,but definitely uncharacteristic of the usual cordial posts of the stud forum. I don't really remember a pissing contest here. We're all acting like holdem players.

[MRBAA]

As some of the best poker players have said, the game is not about winning in the short term, it's about making good decisions. As long as you do that, you are going to win in the long term. It's really important to get away from worrying about your session results, because it can lead to two things -- the first and most serious is going on various forms of tilt. The second, and more insidious, can be developing a "low variance" (aka weak tight) playing style that can mean you'll have more winning sessions but win less overall. Both of these issues, related to being results oriented, can and do turn players with excellent knowledge from winners to losers. It's really just a mental thing, like having the discipline to fold your split 10s when a K raises and a J calls in front of you.

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Whining about losing. That should have been obvious from the NO CONTENT remark in the subject line.

[/ QUOTE ]

It DID make for an interesting thread. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I post here all the time, but, interesting, maybe,but definitely uncharacteristic of the usual cordial posts of the stud forum. I don't really remember a pissing contest here. We're all acting like holdem players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's much less "I'm better than you" and much more "I don't believe you very rarely lose"

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
As some of the best poker players have said, the game is not about winning in the short term, it's about making good decisions. As long as you do that, you are going to win in the long term. It's really important to get away from worrying about your session results, because it can lead to two things -- the first and most serious is going on various forms of tilt. The second, and more insidious, can be developing a "low variance" (aka weak tight) playing style that can mean you'll have more winning sessions but win less overall. Both of these issues, related to being results oriented, can and do turn players with excellent knowledge from winners to losers. It's really just a mental thing, like having the discipline to fold your split 10s when a K raises and a J calls in front of you.

[/ QUOTE ]


I know, I know. I try not to let it affect me play. And weak tight is the last thing I'd be. I'm much closer to LAG.

[MRBAA]

Becoming LAG in response to a losing session is a form of tilt, as you know. I actually hear people say, in live games, "I can't win with my good hands, might as well play my bad ones". That is tilt, plain and simple. After all, if your goal is just to win pots, you'd play every hand!

The low variance thing is more subtle, and when I hear someone like th poster who claims to almost never have a losing session, I think (a) his statement does not conform with reality as I understand it and (b) to the extent it may be true, it could be he's playing a lower variance but lower long term EV style because it makes him feel better short term.

Assuming your are adequately bankrolled and psychologically stable, it's pretty much always best to play the most +EV way possible.

[Michael Emery]

I just wanted everyone to know that this entire thread totally sucks. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Mike Emery

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
Becoming LAG in response to a losing session is a form of tilt, as you know. I actually hear people say, in live games, "I can't win with my good hands, might as well play my bad ones". That is tilt, plain and simple. After all, if your goal is just to win pots, you'd play every hand!

The low variance thing is more subtle, and when I hear someone like th poster who claims to almost never have a losing session, I think (a) his statement does not conform with reality as I understand it and (b) to the extent it may be true, it could be he's playing a lower variance but lower long term EV style because it makes him feel better short term.

Assuming your are adequately bankrolled and psychologically stable, it's pretty much always best to play the most +EV way possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean to imply that I get LAG when I lose. I was saying that in general I'm LAG and not WT. Losing doesn't change my play much (I don't think).

[MRBAA]

Judging from your win rate at 2-4, I would say you don't have too many holes in your game. I haven't tracked my rate per 100 for awhile, but when I did I was winning about 3BB/100 at party 3-6 stud for about 5,000 hands, and I thought I was likely running good and my longer term rate would be lower.

btw, another significant hole for many players is game selection. I believe I'm a bit better than many players, but to overcome the rake I really need at least a couple of really loose, terrible players. I see alot of players sit at tables with tiny average pots or mainly decent players. Online, there's just no excuse for doing this.

[r3vbr]

you run bad because you suck..