Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

In their book, the authors make a number of excellent statements. In one place they say "As long as you understand fundamental gambling concepts and make correct decisions, winning will be inevitable." They also say "Ignore the results and focus on making decisions that maximize your expection." My question is how long may it be before the inevitable arrives? I have looked back over 3000+ plus hours (182,312 hands) and the results are hard to ignore. I am losing a about 1 BB per hour primarily in 2-4 limit at Party Poker. I really feel good about my play at the end of each session; however the results seem to indicate otherwise. In looking at my hand histories, I really like what I see. Other than the BB, I am ahead prior to the flop 93% of the time. After the flop, I am still ahead 78% of the time. I seem to have an excellent understanding of hand selection and position. My two biggest problems are that my opponents are hitting their outs at a much greater rate than they should and I am not hitting my outs at the rate that I should. Pocket Aces are winning at an 11% rate. I still attack with them, but it is hard to fight the frustration. I have paid off on the river many a 2,3 or 4 out miracle card to my opponents. I was just wondering if I expect another 3000+ plus hours of this?

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Pocket aces winning only 11% of the time after 182K hands seems statistically impossible to me. It sounds like you have a case of the tilt.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

If you are "happy with your play" and are losing this badly you need to retire. Sriously, I am not kidding. You have a large sample and are clearly a losing player. Stop now or pay someone to teach you how to play.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Have somebody else review a good sample of your hands. If you feel something is the right play, then reviewing the hands and seeing you perform that play you think you are right, when you may clearly be wrong.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Keep on playing! Actually you are probably doing a poor job of protecting your hands and staying with your good draws. But you'd have to probably work with somebody to figure out what you're doing.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you are "happy with your play" and are losing this badly you need to retire. Sriously, I am not kidding. You have a large sample and are clearly a losing player. Stop now or pay someone to teach you how to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say retire, but it is apparent you are not a winning player after 180K hands.

It is time to be honest and make a decision.

Either work on improving your play by reading more books, discussing hands with friends, or hiring a coach...OR

Just play for fun, #'s be damned and continue to lose.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

It's just a bad run. PLEASE DON'T QUIT PLAYING POKER! Pretty please?

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Actually I do a good job of protecting my hand. In my statistics, I am below what one expect of his drawing hands. After flopping four to the flush, you have a 34.97% chance of catching your flush with two cards to come. In this and all areas of drawing, I am drawing at a rate of less than 50% of the expected rate. The only starting hand of 169 that I am doing above the expected value is 99. I am continually getting outdrawn by the hands that I would not start with, especially considering position and odds. AK goes down continually to the people playing Ax. I raise with AK 90% of the time preflop. I guess people have programs to tell them what type of player they are up against online. I have been informed that I am a Tight- Aggressive-Aggressive type. In the last 700 hands I played, I had AA(twice), KK(twice), and AK (6 times). All ten hands lost. I look at my statistics, shake my head a few times and wonder when things will move closer to the expected odds. The fact that the numbers look terrible does not cause me to change the hands that I start with based upon position, odds and opponents makeup. But it does make it frustrating when I look at the results.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Thanks for your post. Actually, I have a rather extensive library of both poker and blackjack books. I read each of them numerous times and study quite a bit. I read all the articles in numerous magazines such as Card Player. I play about 6 hours per day and study another 6 hours.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

I would agree with you that the number sounds improbable;however, I have kept very good records of all of my play. I have seen about every bad beat. I do not tell them, I just say "ditto". Yes, I have had AA, flopped four-of-a-kind and lost. (Not in a bad beat game). It has prepared me well for some of 989-1 knockouts that I have sustained in WPT and WSOP events.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

The one thing I can tell about the 2/4 game at party is table selection is key .I imagine this is true of almost any game at any site, but I know it to be true of Party's 2/4. If you use tools like pokerace or pokeredge (damn I miss PE [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] ) you'll know there is a often huge difference in quality of play at one table vs another. Part of being a successful poker player is playing the best games you can find. Buddy list a few maniacs and follow them around. When a table goes TAG swallow your pride and leave.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Dude, it's called "running bad" and you seem to be experiencing an extreme case of it, especially if your drawing rate is as bad as you say. I once ran bad for about 50k hands so i know what u are going through, but 182k is a very very bad run, it almost strains credulity. Have some one else review your hand histories to see if u are making any errors. But don't quit.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would agree with you that the number sounds improbable;

[/ QUOTE ]
In fact, it represents a net loss of $12,000 at 2/4, which is a lot of money to be throwing at that level (10 entire bankrolls worth!).

If you still love poker and want to work on your game, you might consider playing at a lower level for a while. And no multitabling, at least until you can consistently beat a single table. And take advantage of the microlimit and small stakes forums here, for posting hands and getting advice.

You're clearly not just "running bad." You're missing something.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Someone mentioned table selection. I don't play online but one day ran across this:

<ul type="square"> Fish List[/list]
It's not for 2/4 but the webmaster welcomes e-mail and might be able to help you find info for that level. Also, there seem to be a number of links and maybe they can lead you in the right direction.

gl

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Thanks. I do not have anyone to look at my hand histories. What I do is compare my hands using tables in "Small Stakes Hold'em". It seems to be a good exercise in comparing what I did versus what they state one should do. My comparison shows that I am following their guidelines quite well.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Thanks. Actually, it is only $10,234. I do not play but one table at a time and I make my decision preflop and compare it to the tables in "Small Stakes Hold'em" prior to actually acting unless it is a very straight decision such as AA, KK, etc. Thanks again.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pocket Aces are winning at an 11% rate.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is when I stopped reading. If this one hadn't slipped in I might actually have believed you.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Thanks. I have not heard of these programs, however, I have been told by some players that I am a Tight-Aggressive-Aggressive Player. I guess they were using one of these programs. Where can you get them? Thanks again.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Thanks. I do not have anyone to compare my hand histories. Instead, I compare my hand histories to the tables in "Small Stakes Hold'em". Thanks again.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Thanks. Like the smell of my money?

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Would you believe that I just finished 250 hands without a winner? I keep very could records and work hard at being the best. That is why I find it very hard to understand these numbers when I compare them to everything I read. I am fairly intelligent. I scored 1596 on my SAT's when I took them 40 years ago. That is also why I work hard by comparing my play to the tables in "Small Stakes Hold'em". And yes, my pocket AA went down in flames when I did catch them today. Thanks.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

I do not know why you are posting this, but you are certainly looking for attention.

Frankly, you are full of [censored] -- you can not have scored 1596 on the SAT, since the scores move in increments of 10. If you are willing to so blatently and so ignorantly falsify one bit of information, it makes your entire story suspect.

Also, playing 100k hands while playing one table would take just under 70 days of continious play. At eight hours a day, that is about 7 months of play.

The way you follow SSHE to the word shows how little you understand the concepts in the book -- so even if all of the above was true, you still are not a good player regardless. Being ahead 78% of the time on the flop means you fold too many damn winners.

Would you like any more holes in your argument?

-K

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Agreed. This guy is full of [censored]. AA winning 11% of the time over 180K hands is bullshit, and should have raised red flags right there. Time to let this thread die...

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

Thanks. First, as I stated in my post, those SAT scores were from the early 1960's. At that time scores were in increments of 2. Secondly, the hands were for the period of 20 months from February of 2004 to date. Actually, I feel that I do have a fairly good understanding of the concepts in SSH. I use it primarily to insure that I am playing my preflop selections correctly. I do not fold too many hands as my results show that I am paying off a large number of players who catch their 1,2 or 3 outers on the river when they are calling my bet on the turn without the correct odds. I believe that they state that it is better to call one bet unless you are positive that your opponent made his hand. I usually will not bet in such a situation, but I will also usually call and pay them off. But thanks for your help anyway.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have looked back over 3000+ plus hours (182,312 hands) and the results are hard to ignore. I am losing a about 1 BB per hour primarily in 2-4 limit at Party Poker. I really feel good about my play at the end of each session; however the results seem to indicate otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've lost at least $12,000 over nearly 200K hands playing online 2/4. I am confident you are not a winning player.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I feel that I do have a fairly good understanding of the concepts in SSH. I use it primarily to insure that I am playing my preflop selections correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll probably regret getting involved in this thread, but perhaps you should start looking critically at your postflop play?

-McGee

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I feel that I do have a fairly good understanding of the concepts in SSH. I use it primarily to insure that I am playing my preflop selections correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll probably regret getting involved in this thread, but perhaps you should start looking critically at your postflop play?

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironically, one of the excellent statements in SSH is that postflop play is much more important than preflop play...

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

I use pokertracker and pokerace. Pokerace is a on the pokertracker website. PT is $50 and pokerace is free for a month then costs $25 (both are one time fees). There are trial versions of both. I imagine after you try them you'll want to purchase them.

Note: I wouldn't attibute a win rate of -1BB/100 to poor table selection only. But table selection coupled with the tracking of individual oppoents can make a pretty big differnce. It also makes 3-4 tabling much easier as you don't have to pay full attention to all tables to know who the stations/maniacs/tags/weak-tighties are. The next step which you may be missing is adjusting accordingly to individual players.

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

I'll state the obvious that everyone seems to be ignoring.

ONLINE POKER IS RIGGED

Re: Small Stakes Hold\'em
 

[ QUOTE ]
Other than the BB, I am ahead prior to the flop 93% of the time. After the flop, I am still ahead 78% of the time. I seem to have an excellent understanding of hand selection and position. My two biggest problems are that my opponents are hitting their outs at a much greater rate than they should and I am not hitting my outs at the rate that I should. Pocket Aces are winning at an 11% rate. I still attack with them, but it is hard to fight the frustration. I have paid off on the river many a 2,3 or 4 out miracle card to my opponents. I was just wondering if I expect another 3000+ plus hours of this?

[/ QUOTE ]


You are wasting 12 hours a day on poker.

You are losing money.

You gave it a good shot.

Quit.