Playing v. Mr. Unlucky

I play in a weekly poker tournament. Same group every week for 75 weeks in a row. It follows we know each other very well, both personally and in playing style. We have one player who is "Mr. Unlucky". Consistenly gets his money in as a favorite and loses (game is No Limit Hold 'Em). 2 weeks in a row Mr. Unlucky flopped a set v. a gutshot straight, the other player put HIM all-in and the 4 outer came through. KK v. AQ, out. AK v. AJ, out. 88 v. 77, out. Overpair v. Open Ender, out.


Of course, this guys gets ribbed all the time for his misfortune, and has taken these losses pretty hard, because he plays well and rarely cashes out. Recently some people have made some comments that they play differently against Mr. Unlucky, specifically they are more likely to play hands that could be dominated when they have position, almost implying they have an edge because this player is unlucky.


I think this is incorrect but wonder what people's thoughts are on approaching a good but unlucky player. How do you adjust, if at all, to take advantage of this seeming bad luck? It is a logical error to treat this player any differently due to their results and not their play? What if you were Mr. Unlucky, what would you do to adjust to the fact that people might be playing differently against you?


Thanks in advance.


KJS

I have a saying that goes:When I think I'm going to win some times I'm right.When I think I'm going to lose I'm always right.Mr.Unlucky must shed his losing image.A few ideas:sit upright no sloching,throw chips into pot with a cocky like flair,no talking about any previous loses,or bad beats.As for playing against this poor fellow I'm keeping this to myself he's got enough troubles.

A simple, though radical, solution for Mr. Unlucky is to not go into the hand with the best of it but with an inferior hand. His expectation of winning the hand then becomes one of losing. If he then does in fact suck out and win he is now Mr. Lucky, if he loses then he was not unlucky since he had no expectation of winning and was the underdog to begin with.


Please offer my advice to Mr. (formerly) Unlucky and let me know how he does.


Jimbo

inferior hands??

Your argument is fallacious! If Mr. Unlucky continues to play well,making fewer mistakes than more than 50% of his opponents,then he will become a WINNING player.

He simply needs the bankroll to continue to play in this game. He needs to "ride out" the down spin--which MAY take another 50 weeks or more.

Note: Sklansky stated that a player who loses more than 2 consecutive months cannot beat the game he is playing.

Assuming a 6-Hr. session,this translates into about 300 Hrs. of play. It seems as if Mr. Unluckly has played about 400 Hrs so far.

If he has lost about 75% of his sessios,he is probably making MORE mistakes than MOST of his opponents are.


Happy pokering,


Sitting Bull

inferior hands? LMAO Of course not my serious friend! Did I disguise my humor with seemingly serious advice? I do apologize Larry. But now on to a statement you made, "If Mr. Unlucky continues to play well,making fewer mistakes than more than 50% of his opponents,then he will become a WINNING player." Would you mind elaborating on that somewhat? On it's surface it seems too squeaky clean to be entirely accurate. Doesn't this go towards your thread on -EV decisions with a possible positive expection, or rather the converse of that argument?


Jimbo

who was that? i dont remember that player...is it Dre? hahahaha sorry...couldnt resist /images/wink.gif


if hes good and isnt playing loose. but still playing solid, id say play him as a good player. you dont want to be on the recieving end when his cards start holding up.


id think the comments made were more for psychological reasons. but if they ARE really adjusting for him....readjust for their bad playing against him. but still be aware of him in the hand...


"What if you were Mr. Unlucky, what would you do to adjust to the fact that people might be playing differently against you?"


if hes not playing off his game, meaning hes playing solid and tight, and it's mainly that his hands arent holding up, nothing. the cards will turn eventually. just a matter of time...


however...tourney play is a little different, so he may tighten up too much for the format. in a tourney, there's no time really to wait for your turn to come. but id still play tight til the confidence comes back...


b

I didn't think I did that good a job of hiding it. Its Me! Those guys are handing me my hat, despite me being one of the more experienced players and consistently getting all-in with better cards. They call me "Unlucky Vinny" now. LOL! Honestly, Rob H. was putting some extra moves on me in the limit part (3 betting my AK w/KJs) and he said he thought the fact that I would fold correctly and my unlucky image, plus position, made his call OK. (This after he made a flush w/his dominated hand). This week I got all-in with Aaron with AK and lost to his AJs. Had a bit left until Louis went all-in with T4 and a 235 flop. I called with 77. River was a 6.


Blah Blah.


I didn't write the post to vent, moreso to see if I could use it to some advantage, other than just playing my "A" game. Its hard to wait for the long run in tournaments, at least for me. I have been playing a bit more loose to try to be a bigger force. I think I was playing too tight, consider my post-flop game is solid. It worked pretty well, I have been in the top 3 after the break quite a bit lately. If my head-to-head match ups turn out like the percentages say they should, I will be cashing out.


Come join us again! Mel and I are moving 10/1 so you should play at least one in September.


KJS

damn...i almost forgot your moving....


ill be there eventually...


one thing about tourneys...there isnt a long run. the game ends. its not neverending. this is one reason i took a breakk long ago. i told ya about that though...i wanted to make my limit ring game strong THEN transfer...


anyway...i always thought a good combo for the tourney would be a cross between bert and your style. i think bert has a decent tourney style if he shifted down gears a little at times...he's tough to put on a hand at times...


i noticed when i played, you seemed to play more-so like a ring game a little. probably different now...


i remember now how you seemed to get rivered alot and beat holding great, dominating starting hands. mr. unlucky does fit a little now that i think about it.... /images/wink.gif


if its any consolation, im sure youd kick the hell out of all of em in a ring game.


horn toot time...


speaking of tourneys...i played at mucks tourney.. their big one that we were clocking hours for...the $100,000 freeroll


i came in 15th out of the final 130+ field that qualified. nice cash for 15th too. $800.


i came back when about 45 players were left and i had T200 in the BB. BB was T500. i won the allin, a couple more, soon i had T7500. from the felt to manhattan as they say.


then played timid and folded into 15th. haha didnt really get any hands, but i know i couldve played better once i got into the money brackets. probably couldve bluffed a little and used my stack size. but my main goal was to hit the payout. min payout was $500.


we'll talk more when i see ya...


b

there are a total of 7 players.

Let's say U are making fewer mistakes,on the average, than 4 of your opponents,but more mistakes than the other 2 players.

The money will flow from the 4 players who are making the most mistakes into your stack and into those 2 players who are making fewer mistakes than U.

But since U have 2 opponents who are making fewer mistakes than U are,some of your money will flow into their stack too.

Hence,even though U will lose to 2 of your opponents,U will win against the other 4.

Therefore,your overall net result will show a long-term profit if U continue to play under the same conditions long enough.


Sitting Bull

Wow bernie... congrats on your freeroll result...

with that last post of yours. It is not the number of mistakes but the size of those mistakes. Here is my example though there are hundreds more (if not more) just as common:


You have AA and raise preflop in the Cutoff, the button 3 bets with KK and I call in the BB with 72 sooooted. You cap it and we all call. Flop comes A72, naturally it is capped again and the button finally gives up hope after 6 small bets in the pot. The turn is a 7, capped again then the BOOOOOtiful river is the case 7. Bet to you, raised, 3 bet and you finally just call.


How many mistakes did I and the Button make compared to how many mistakes you made? Yet you lost money and I won. Why? Other than the fact it was my example /images/smile.gif because it is the size of the mistakes not the cumulative number that matters!


Jimbo

bernie,


Nice job! A chip and a chair is all it takes I guess. That payout will be a nice cushion in the BR. Keep it up.


KJS

variable "Mistake" is a vector M(N,G) where N= No. of mistakes and G=magnitude of each mistake.

I did neglect "G". I was assuming an ideal condition where ALL mistakes were of constant "G".

Thanks for clarifying.

Sitting Bull