|
|
#21
02-11-2005, 01:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Long streak with no playable hands?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If I get nothing to play within three orbits [/ QUOTE ] That's silly, everyone knows you're more likely to get good cards in the next three orbits now. [/ QUOTE ] Disagree. Independent events theory. 
|
|
#22
02-11-2005, 02:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Long streak with no playable hands?
Switching tables probably helps stop tilt somewhat, and it doesn't cost anything except the chance to play against that particular batch of opponents. It can't really hurt, unless you're at a particularly amazing table.
If you're feeling affected enough that you have to switch tables to avoid tilt, it's most likely better to just stop playing poker for at least a few hours...
|
|
#23
02-11-2005, 02:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Long streak with no playable hands?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If I get nothing to play within three orbits [/ QUOTE ] That's silly, everyone knows you're more likely to get good cards in the next three orbits now. [/ QUOTE ] Disagree. Independent events theory. [/ QUOTE ] Inda event what?!? Whatever, all I know is that if I fold the next 50 hands and I have a VPIP of 18%, then I'll get 36 playable hands in the next 50 I'm dealt. Right? Right!
|
|
#24
02-11-2005, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Long streak with no playable hands?
I was in California last week so wanted to get in some "live" play. Went to the Commerce and made my first BB at 3-$6 hold'em at 10:00 pm. The game was great and the players were terrible, but I won my 1st pot at 1:30 a.m. Won 3 or 4 pots after that, went home at 4:15 am down $61
Thinking 3.5 hours of nothing but folds set the stage for a comeback, went to the Bicycle next evening, posted BB in $3-6 at 9:00 pm, and won my first pot 3 hours 45 minutes later. Not counting bb's, probably entered 10 hands, only got to the river about 4 times in the first 4 hours. Went home at 4:00 am -$144. Including all my outings over 3 days (17.5 hours at the tables), had pocket K's once, beaten at show-down by pocket A's : Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], make set on flop and fold on river to a bet and a blank Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] board, : and lost with pocket jacks when board went rag [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and winner has 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. No other pocket pairs higher than 99, not bad beats, just the blinds and absolutely no hands winnable after the flop. I tried to console myself by saying "at least I held to my standards" but it seems when you have such lousy results you had to do something that caused them. My neighbor at the table at the Bicycle liked to let me see the cards he was playing after I folded, and I watched him go from $150 to $600 over a 1.5 hour period, playing Q-2s, 10-9o, A-3o, J-6s, etc, when he racked them up and headed home. Note he didn't win by aggressive or tricky play - he WON $450 by playing Q-5 offsuit and those other "great" starting hands. If it had been on-line, I would have charged that the site was rigged.
|
|
#25
02-11-2005, 03:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Long streak with no playable hands?
[ QUOTE ]
...I have found in playing about 20,000 hands that the great majority of the time, one can do better by switching tables than staying at one where you are not getting good cards or you are getting sucked out a lot.... -TomBk [/ QUOTE ] What you are seeing here is 'regression to the mean'... If you have an especially bad run of 100 hands, the odds are your next 100 hands will be better. This is not because the cards have a memory, it is because the especailly bad run is an unlikely event with a low probability of repeating. This would happen if you stay at the same table or switch tables.
|
|
#26
02-11-2005, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Long streak with no playable hands?
[ QUOTE ]
all I know is that if I fold the next 50 hands and I have a VPIP of 18%, then I'll get 36 playable hands in the next 50 I'm dealt. Right? [/ QUOTE ] The number of people on this board who can't grasp a simple concept like this astounds me. I'm starting to employ a very profitable strategy of grabbing the seats of people who've been on a cold streak as soon as they get up, and playing through the inevitable subsequent run of good hands that get dealt to that spot.
|
|
#28
02-11-2005, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Long streak with no playable hands?
[ QUOTE ]
grabbing the seats of people who've been on a cold streak as soon as they get up, and playing through the inevitable subsequent run of good hands that get dealt to that spot. [/ QUOTE ]My sister employs this strategy for playing slot machines. I in no way endorse playing the slot, I wouldn't play them if they were the last game on earth, but she swears by this technique.
|
|
#30
02-11-2005, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Long streak with no playable hands?
It is amazing looking at my PT stats how many loose and semi-loose (and the high side of semi-loose) passive players profit like this for a few hundred hands.
[ QUOTE ] I was in California last week so wanted to get in some "live" play. Went to the Commerce and made my first BB at 3-$6 hold'em at 10:00 pm. The game was great and the players were terrible, but I won my 1st pot at 1:30 a.m. Won 3 or 4 pots after that, went home at 4:15 am down $61 Thinking 3.5 hours of nothing but folds set the stage for a comeback, went to the Bicycle next evening, posted BB in $3-6 at 9:00 pm, and won my first pot 3 hours 45 minutes later. Not counting bb's, probably entered 10 hands, only got to the river about 4 times in the first 4 hours. Went home at 4:00 am -$144. Including all my outings over 3 days (17.5 hours at the tables), had pocket K's once, beaten at show-down by pocket A's : Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], make set on flop and fold on river to a bet and a blank Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] board, : and lost with pocket jacks when board went rag [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and winner has 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. No other pocket pairs higher than 99, not bad beats, just the blinds and absolutely no hands winnable after the flop. I tried to console myself by saying "at least I held to my standards" but it seems when you have such lousy results you had to do something that caused them. My neighbor at the table at the Bicycle liked to let me see the cards he was playing after I folded, and I watched him go from $150 to $600 over a 1.5 hour period, playing Q-2s, 10-9o, A-3o, J-6s, etc, when he racked them up and headed home. Note he didn't win by aggressive or tricky play - he WON $450 by playing Q-5 offsuit and those other "great" starting hands. If it had been on-line, I would have charged that the site was rigged. [/ QUOTE ]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
