Why I play so crazy

[CrisBrown]

Hi All,

For those who wonder why I play the way I do, it's really quite simple. I know I have to win thirty small pots for every one big pot I get into, because I know I will lose most of the big pots. According to PokerTracker, I'm ahead about 77% of the time when the money goes in. I win only 56% of my showdowns. That means I get outdrawn so much more often (when I'm ahead) than I outdraw my opponents (when I'm behind) that even being ahead in the hand is a net -EV for me ... UNLESS I CAN BET MY OPPONENT OUT OF THE POT.

Given that, I'm better off playing trash cards that I can lay down to a reraise, rather than good hands that will only get outdrawn if I get all-in with them.

And that's why I play so crazy.

If it comes to showdown poker -- having to put the best hand out there at the river -- I will consistently lose, regardless of how patient I am, regardless of what starting cards I play. This isn't a matter of thinking I'm unlucky. This is a matter of knowing I'm unlucky, and having 4000+ hands worth of stats to prove that out. I know I can only win with my bets, because my cards will lose if I'm called. That's why I rarely if ever call into a pot, why I rarely if ever call a reraise, and why I expect to win 99% of my pots with bluffs.

Now ... if you win ~50% of your coin-flips, and most of the time when you're ahead in the hand, your strategy and mine will necessarily differ. I don't. And I don't even expect to. I know I am not only playing against my opponents, but also playing against the dealer, and I don't expect either to give me an "even break."

Cris

[byronkincaid]

Are 4000 hands enough to prove anything? I'm not trying to be clever but asking a serious question. Like a lot of poker players I think, I used to be a blackjack player. I'm not one of the maths guys but when I used to read about people doing computer sims they were always playing through millions of hands. I think if you did a blackjack sim of 4000 hands and said it proved anything you'd get laughed at.

Is it perhaps the same for poker?

[CrisBrown]

Hi All,

All were all-in showdowns at the point where the hand is given:

88 vs. A9o on flop of 4-8-9 ... lost to A-A turn-river.
AQ vs. QJ ... lost to J on flop.
TT vs. QJ ... lost to J on flop.
AJ vs. KJ ... lost to runner-runner flush.
QQ vs. JT ... lost to runner-runner straight.
44 vs. AK on A-6-4 flop ... lost to A-K turn-river.
64 vs. 77 on 7-5-3 flop ... lost to 5 at turn. (I was in this for free in the BB.)

KQ vs. A4o ... won with Q at river.
QJ vs. TT ... won with J at river.
QJs vs. A3 on A-x-x flop (I had four-flush) ... won with flush at river.

I count three times that I outdrew a better hand, and seven times that I was outdrawn. This was not an "unlucky" day. It was a typical day for me.

And that's why I play to win with my bets, not my cards.

Cris

[AleoMagus]

You cannot be entirely serious with this post.

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a matter of thinking I'm unlucky. This is a matter of knowing I'm unlucky, and having 4000+ hands worth of stats to prove that out. I know I can only win with my bets, because my cards will lose if I'm called.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to understand a few things here. First, 4000 hands is not really that big a sample.

More importantly though, even if you had a 100,000 hand sample, you cannot use that sample as a guide for how you should play - Not if you truly believe that the game is fair.

Now, if I had a 100,000 hand sample, And I won showdowns a lot less than I should, then I might start to doubt the integrity of the game. If you beleive the game is fair though, you cannot let these kinds of stats sway your willingness to get into a race with the best of it. Stats can show that we have gotten unlucky, but are no indication whatsoever about how lucky we will be in the future.

To suggest that you are somehow playing with a cloud of bad luck over your head is a very negative and self-defeating attitude. I saw a bit of this attitude today in our SNG and I think it cost you a money finish.

I assure you. The poker gods have not singled you out. If you really beleive they have, then why would you play poker at all.

I hope your luck improves
Brad S

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a matter of thinking I'm unlucky. This is a matter of knowing I'm unlucky

[/ QUOTE ]


this is a matter of me wanting to stab myself in the eye every time i read this garbage.

[William]

Interesting, though I just cannot take seriously anyone saying that he/she is playing a certain(wrong) way because he/she is too unlucky.

Perhaps if you looked Pockertracker a little closer you would find out that the times you had the best hand, you were only a slight favourite, thus the high % of suckouts; and the times when you were the dog, you were a big dog, thus the small % of suckouts in your favor.
That way you are not as unlucky as you think you are.
Just a thought of course, but the little bird on my shoulder tells me I am probably right /images/graemlins/wink.gif

William

[Ulysses]

This is just about the most ridiculous post I've ever read on this forum. I hope you're joking, but based on past posts I don't think you are.

Then again, I'm really good at making flush draws and flopping sets, so maybe I just don't understand.

[Ulysses]

I bet you're right, William. Plus, it also sounds like she is folding in some situations rather than calling a bet when she is likely to be ahead, potentially further hurting her win rate.

[Utah]

I hope you were joking with this post. Otherwise, it is quite disturbing and you might want to step away from the game for a while.

You cant control the cards. However, if you let "vodoo" creep into your game then you need to step back. Odds are odds. You might have been sucked out way more than your share. It might continue to happen. But if you keep playing the odds the money will come to you long term. That long term is measured in months and years - not weeks or days. 4,000 hands is nothing.

Good Luck.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi All,

For those who wonder why I play the way I do, it's really quite simple. I know I have to win thirty small pots for every one big pot I get into, because I know I will lose most of the big pots. According to PokerTracker, I'm ahead about 77% of the time when the money goes in. I win only 56% of my showdowns. That means I get outdrawn so much more often (when I'm ahead) than I outdraw my opponents (when I'm behind) that even being ahead in the hand is a net -EV for me ... UNLESS I CAN BET MY OPPONENT OUT OF THE POT.

Given that, I'm better off playing trash cards that I can lay down to a reraise, rather than good hands that will only get outdrawn if I get all-in with them.

And that's why I play so crazy.

If it comes to showdown poker -- having to put the best hand out there at the river -- I will consistently lose, regardless of how patient I am, regardless of what starting cards I play. This isn't a matter of thinking I'm unlucky. This is a matter of knowing I'm unlucky, and having 4000+ hands worth of stats to prove that out. I know I can only win with my bets, because my cards will lose if I'm called. That's why I rarely if ever call into a pot, why I rarely if ever call a reraise, and why I expect to win 99% of my pots with bluffs.

Now ... if you win ~50% of your coin-flips, and most of the time when you're ahead in the hand, your strategy and mine will necessarily differ. I don't. And I don't even expect to. I know I am not only playing against my opponents, but also playing against the dealer, and I don't expect either to give me an "even break."

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Cris,

Pokertracker has bugs. Lots of 'em. Consider that before drawing conclusions about your vibrational xeenu field affecting your long-term luck.

I loaded two hands with AQs in them history today, and my count for playing AQs didn't change. I triple checked. Pokertracker is just wrong. It's probably wrong with your stats as well.

eastbay

[CrisBrown]

Hi Aleo,

As for self-defeating attutides, you can call it that, or you can call it simple realism. I had trash for the last 20 or 30 hands of the 2+2 SNG. With two short stacks who would be getting correct odds to call, I couldn't play any hand that I wasn't willing to take to an all-in showdown. I simply was not getting cards that I wanted to take to a showdown.

From the time the blinds hit 300/600 (the point at which I said "I guarantee I will not make the money") to the end of the tourney, my hands were: 23o, KJo (folded to 3xBB preflop raise), Q7o, 72o, J4o, 54o, 43s, J9o, 92s, 32o, Q5o, Q7o, 44 (wins the blinds), Q2s, J2o, T9s (wins the blinds), J4o, AJo (wins the blinds), ATo (loses to AQ), AQo (wins the blinds), T6o, K7o, 73s (2xBB remaining, all-in and gone).

I played every hand that I thought had a chance. All but two of the times I played, I took the blinds, but never more than the blinds. The two times I was called, I lost. With the short stacks keeping each other alive by trading chips back and forth, and the blinds eating me alive, and trash cards hand after hand after hand, I knew there was no way I could win the tournament unless: (a) I caught a big hand; (b) someone caught a big enough hand to call, but a second-best hand nonetheless; and, (c) I didn't get outdrawn. Coz I sure as hell wasn't going to win many showdowns with Q7o, J3o, etc.

Now, someone will doubtless come along and say that of course I should've called half my stack on on KJo, or that I should've tried to steal more. But if I'd called half my stack in on KJo and went bust on that hand, or I'd been caught stealing with my entire stack on a hand like J4o, I'd be hearing about how I should be more patient and wait for better cards.

Fact is, the cards weren't there. I played the few I had, but there simply were not enough premium hands to keep up with the blinds, and I wasn't getting any other hands that I was willing to risk my entire stack with on a steal. I was patient ... and I patiently lost. That's not to say I should've been less patient. There was no way I was going to finish in the money with what I was dealt.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi William,

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps if you looked Pockertracker a little closer you would find out that the times you had the best hand, you were only a slight favourite, thus the high % of suckouts; and the times when you were the dog, you were a big dog, thus the small % of suckouts in your favor.

That way you are not as unlucky as you think you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the case. When I'm ahead, it's usually a very narrow edge (e.g.: top two pair vs. a pair-plus-four-draw). And when I'm behind, I'm almost invariably buried, although it may not be apparent (e.g.: TPTK vs. a flopped set, or AK on an A-J-A board when my opponent has AJ). That's why I almost never call a reraise. If I get reraised, no matter how good my hand looks TO ME, I am probably not only behind but buried. The few times when I do call tend to prove the above rule.

That doesn't stop me from wanting to get all of my opponent's chips in the middle pre-flop when I have AA or KK, or on the flop when I've hit top two pair or a set, etc. I do try to do that. But I want to have won enough small pots along the way that I'm not the one all-in, for the very reason that I expect to lose every showdown. And that's why I want to be the one to move all-in (giving me at least a chance that my opponent will fold) rather than calling an all-in (guaranteeing that I'll have to survive all five board cards).

All of those "crazy" little pots I pick up along the way are my cushion against the inevitable outdraws, misreads, and periods where I don't catch any playable situations.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

[ QUOTE ]
this is a matter of me wanting to stab myself in the eye every time i read this garbage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do.

Cris

[Prickly Pete]

This sounds more like a pathetic "unlucky" roulette player. Thanks for the comic relief, Cris.

[Ulysses]

Maybe you're running bad. Maybe you're playing badly. Either way, playing in a non-optimal fashion to counter your "unluckiness" is not going to help anything.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Ulysses,

Please see my new post "A Month's Worth of Insanity" for a more complete statistical breakdown. It actually wasn't a bad month, but it sure could've been a lot better.

Cris

[allenciox]

I cannot believe nobody has pointed this out yet... you are getting almost exactly the results you should expect to get...

Assume for instance, that 75% of the time you are ahead and 25% behind when the money goes in. If you assume that you are on average a 2:1 favorite when you are the favorite and a 1:2 dog when you are behind, then you would expect to win:

2/3*.75 + 1/3*.25 = 58.3% of the showdowns. The reason: As a good player you are going to get outdrawn more than you will outdraw. It's in the percentages.

[CrisBrown]

Hi allen,

Thanks for doing the math! Actually it makes me feel better because I'd been told that in NLHE, a good player should win about 80% of his/her showdowns. That was my benchmark for disappointment with my 56% figure.

Cris

[talkinghead]

SNG's are not typical NLHE. Players stack off far more frequently, they have to coz of the blinds.

If a player was getting anywhere near 80% of showdowns won in SNG's they wouldn't be playing nearly aggressive enough towards the end of tournament.

Just for a laugh looked up mine (it's 50.8%) but my ROI is around 40% so I make decent money

[t_perkin]

[Bozeman]

Random thoughts/questions:

I have 54% W$@SD. Am I playing too loose?

At 300/600 and 50/100 level my W$@SD drops below 50%. Others it is 52-65%.

How many bb/hand do you make? I average 0.06, + at all levels, but varying from .01 (300/600) to .14 (10/15) in a non-monotonic fashion.

Bad beats happen. They happen more to good players, since they more often are the favorites when money goes in.

Where in PT do you get the numbers you are quoting?

Take my PT #'s lightly, I have only been using it for ~120 tourneys.

Craig

[talkinghead]

0.05 BB/hnd for me

I think the won at showdown % is lower than I expected it would be as, with a decent stack, you'll put in steal raises and someone will go all-in and you have the odds to call him even though you've the worst hand, self weighting both the initial raise and the call. This sorta thing comes up a lot and I'd be interested to hear if anyone (winning player) had a won@showdown % greater than 65% at SNG's. Personally, i don't think they would.

[Steven Punk]

This is a scary post. The "unlucky" part can be so destructive to newer players if they adopt this.

If you want to make the point that you are trying to gain your chips in an easier fashion than having to commit a big % or all your stack to a thin edge that is fine. Blind steals or flop steals can be quite profitable if you are playing the players rather than your cards.

If new people that aren't as experienced as you in taking advantage of reads and situations will go broke adopting your innitial post and if you played ring with this attitude you wouldn't last a month.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Steven,

This post is over two months old, and was written while I was in a terrible funk. As allen pointed out in his reply, my W$SD percentage was exactly what I should have expected given the percentage of times I was ahead vs. behind when the money went in. I'd previously read a post suggesting that in NL play, your W$SD percentage should be around 80%, and once I read allen's reply to my post, I realized that 80% figure was a pipe dream.

I don't know why someone decided to resurrect this dead horse. *shrugs* Entertainment value, I guess.

Cris

[Steven Punk]

Sorry didn't notice the dates. Please disregard my rantings. (Most do anyway)

[ThaSaltCracka]

yeah where did this thread come from???? /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MrDannimal]

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[LinusKS]

I guess that's what you get for believing everything you read. But, wow. 80%?

I guess if the mythic nl player played nothing but AA... maybe.


Allen's post was interesting.

I'd never quite thought about it that way... but winning just 58% of the time when you're a 2-1 favorite three out of four times you go in... is pretty sobering.

Puts a new light on winning less than you "deserve."


Btw, YOUR POST MAKES ME WANT TO STICK A FORK IN MY TESTICLES.

(j/k)



[ QUOTE ]
Hi Steven,

This post is over two months old, and was written while I was in a terrible funk. As allen pointed out in his reply, my W$SD percentage was exactly what I should have expected given the percentage of times I was ahead vs. behind when the money went in. I'd previously read a post suggesting that in NL play, your W$SD percentage should be around 80%, and once I read allen's reply to my post, I realized that 80% figure was a pipe dream.

I don't know why someone decided to resurrect this dead horse. *shrugs* Entertainment value, I guess.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]