Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

I am curious how the people who make money regularly deal with the long streaks.

I am familiar with probability theory. And if in general I play only 15% of the hands, and fold half of those at the flop, then I am playing only 5% past the flop.

Clearly, with such a small percentage of winnable hands, the distributions can be considerable over the course of 400-500 hands.

What I am curious about is how a person can maintain that long streak of tight play, and when it should be loosened.

For example, last evening I sat for ~150 hands at Party. I played about 20 total. I hit a playable flop about 4 times. I won only one of those. I had AK beaten after it flopped AKT. I wasn't sure how to play that one, and sure enough a Q hit the turn and J3 took it.

Ironically, I won two hands from the BB that got checked out to me.

I won a total of 3 pots, all of which were for minimal value since I only hit a good hand one time and that was in the SB against a single player. I chased one hand with 66 after it made a low straight (not the nuts) that was a pure mistake on my part. All of this is within the bounds of a single evening of randomness.

Now, ever since I began to play this level of tight, I have experienced considerable slowness in winning hands. I was curious about what was a reasonable expectation over the course of a few hundred hands.

I figure that of the 5% of the hands that end up okay, I will get killed by the river/turn on 25% of those, resulting in the need for a very small number of hands to pay off all those antes.

So, what I am curious about is some advice for handling all this randomness, and whether or not I am playing too tight or not.

- Lex

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

think of it this way: 5% of the time i will win a big pot, 10% i will lose a small pot, 85% i will lose nothing (except the antes or blinds). and remember that every pot you win should cover at least three or four pots you lose. that should help you out.

it sounds like you're playing about the right amount of hands, but you would need to be more specific to really get an analysis.

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

I do feel that the numbers must generally work out.

However, lately I seem to only be winning on those rare flukes or small pots. I am an aggressive raiser in a number of situations, and that rarely thins out the pot, but it does produce some nice big wins.

I play a mix between Jones and S&M, with a tendency to fold things that they aren't both in agreement on. This is a new trend, and ever since it was started I have been on a long and painful streak in ring games.

I am more curious if I should loosen up any at all. I don't play suited connectors much except in late position most of the time. I have a tendency to play low pairs in early position at Party since everybody tends to call, but I am quickly adjusting that because I am getting raised a lot (even at tables with few raisers). I am moving away from playing unsuited big cards, particularly things like K9o and such. Basically, the more I play the less hands I play. I am concerned that might be leading to over-tight play.

Basically, I am fairly close to a 'textbook' player, which I figure right now is probably good since it helps me develop the foundations while I learn all the exceptions.

In all fairness, I do think I have just been unlucky. I have been missing flops about 80% of the time, haven't made a winning straight or flush with much of anything, and have been dealt very few AXs. So essentially I am getting very few of the kind of hands which tend to produce big winners at Party.

- Lex

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

Okay, I did an analysis of my starting hand list, and figured I would give it for examination.

This list includes all hands played.

Early Positions:
AA-22,AK-JTs,AQ,AJ,KQ,QJ

I am strongly considering moving AJ and QJ to middle position only. I am also considering moving 77-22 to middle or later. I consider my tendency to play pairs in early position to be a flaw in my game that I am changing.

Middle Positions:
87s-54s (with several callers at a passive table, otherwise these move to late)
JT,ATs,A9s,KJ

I am thinking KJo needs to go by the wayside.

Late Positions:
AXs

My rules to call a raise are much higher. Until very recently, I had not generally reraised though I am adding this to my arsenal.

A lot of these suited connector and low pairs calls are based on the typical calling station game I see at Party. I am steadily requiring more and more players involved and better position to play these. I tend to toss A5-A2s in most cases even in late position.

I tend to try to be aggressive. Basically, I am going for the tight-aggressive play with growing willingness to be tighter. Being a newbie, my aggressive weapons are not sharp.

In general, after the flop, I toss almost every pair that doesn't hit a set unless there are no overcards on a large pair. I try to follow the 'hit it or fold it' rule, and play very, very few middle and low pairs on the flop, and of late don't play if just on overcards. I end up folding a lot of my hands, which I am told is correct. I tend to be aggressive if I flop top pair. I press extremely hard if I hit a top pair with good kicker.

Thoughts and comments are welcome.

- Lex

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

these lists are pretty good. i personally don't play QJo or KJo at all except in shorthanded unraised pots in late position. i assume you are in a typical low limit game where the flop% is 45-50 and preflop raising is rare. otherwise you should move small pairs to middle-late position.

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

My opinions of QJo and KJo decrease everyday. About the only thing I can say about them anymore is they manage to be part of straights that generate a lot of action when they happen. More and more I find myself folding them, or playing them later and later in the hand. I think I am beginning to understand just how often these hands are dominated.

My view of medium and small pairs is changing of late. I play mostly low limit at Party. I don't consider myself an expert player, and figure that I shouldn't go playing above my bank account. I did that early on enough. I am playing them less and less in early position. My original reason for playing them was they got plenty of calls. But I am beginning to understand the problem of how to play them after a raise.

My biggest problem of late is dealing with a painful streak of bad luck at ring games. My luck at SnG tournaments seems to be completely normal. I played two today and ended up 2nd in both cases. I get good hands, and they win most of the time and lose some of the time. I usually win more than I lose.

But in ring games, it has been a struggle. Some nights it seems that 50% of the time I get killed on the river. Other nights I wonder if I am going to be able to play a hand.

I do know that I make mistakes. And it is the mistakes that end up being most of the problem. I figure I will continue making them but that each day I need to look and find ways to stop making them.

However, with the small number of hand I am playing, the effect of those mistakes is often considerable. What would have been a small gain for the evening becomes a medium loss. Additionally, I am finding it hard to deal with the ugly streaks without tilt. After AA gets beat 3 times in a row, and KK gets beat twice during a session where none of my pairs makes a set I just want to shoot something.

The theory and concept of PosEV makes total sense to me. I totally buy into the need to pick hands with PosEV. What concerns me is how to deal with the fact that playing tight can result in extremely long sessions without winning a pot. I am curious how others deal with this problem, and how to handle it mentally when it happens. I also need to know how to distinguish bad luck from bad play over a short interval.

Thanks for the responses.

- Lex

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

while it is likely that you are running into bad cards, you should also realize that you're playing a very high-variance style. even in a quite loose game, a suited connector is not that profitable a hand, but it will add a lot to your swings since you will either be charged for your draw or win a big pot with it.

if your bankroll is running low it may be correct to play much tighter than you normally would. i often do this when i'm on auto-pilot, not looking to take big gambles. just avoid marginal hands and you can greatly decrease your variance without lowering your win rate very much.

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

I am no expert, also a newbie, but I also thought I was playing too tight. I did some studying, but I also now only play in short handed games, pokerroom offers tables with a 5 player max, what I have noticed is that the players at these tables tend to stay put for a while, which gives u an oppurtunity to track there betting habits etc... I have seen a great increase in my winnings since making this adjustment. Obviously the pots arent as large but I win more pots so it balances out.

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

For example, last evening I sat for ~150 hands at Party. I played about 20 total. I hit a playable flop about 4 times.

Wild guess is that you may be playing a bit too tight post-flop, but you need to post a few hands to be sure.

Example would be you call 2 limpers in MP with AJo. Only the C/O and blinds call. 6 see the flop which comes T-8-3 rainbow, checked to you, you check and the button bets, blinds fold, and one caller back to you. Are you normally folding in this situation? If so, this is a bit weak-tight. Not only do you have 6 overcard outs, but the pot is offering 8-1 on the call and you may well have the best hand more than 11% of the time as it is.

Again, this scenario is just a wild guess, but if you're playing so tight up front that you're seeing 13% of the flops (20/150), I can't conceive that you wouldn't be able to see the turn for at least one small bet on 3/4 of them.

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

You are just going to have long streaks where you get no cards to play and your good hands don't win. It will happen repeatedly. Honestly, it still demoralizes me, but I try to continue to play well even when it is happening. Think about how much more you would have lost if you loosened your standards.

If you want to win, you have to play tight. On numerous occasions I have gone 5 or 6 hours without winning a pot - it is no fun. You've got to deal with this if you want to win.

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

Thanks for the advice.

- Lex

Two tables
 

For low limit online play, I find playing two tables helps a lot. You see twice as many nands per hour, and those pocket deuces under the gun are a lot less tempting when you have AK on the other table. The downside is you have less time to observe your opponents, and are likely to make more mistakes.

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

I just want to tell you that I really appreciate your post. Your play and level sound identical to me. I also get frustrated with long periods of no action, with the action I do get, someone hits a card on the river.

I also crave action, but so far I can seem to wait it out. My problem is that I can't spend alot of time at each session. I can only play for 1/2 to an hour at a time (usually after the wife and kids go to bed).

I just wanted to say thanks for the post.

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

I'm in the middle of an extended streak (2 1/2 weeks) of generally rotten luck, and I've been demoralized to the point where I'm playing a lot worse than I was when the streak started. I've lost money at the poker tables, but because of bonuses I'm actually ahead about $500. So I whole-heartedly recommend chasing every bonus possible for bankroll stability during bad swings. As far as emotional stability goes, I could use some tips myself.

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

If you crave action, consider dropping down to micro levels and playing more aggressively there. This should accomplish two things for you: satisfy your craving to play more hands, and also show you that it's better to play tighter if you want to win, because most likely you'll be losing money. You can experiment more and see for yourself, while only risking a dime or less per bet.

As far as other posters' comments about how to keep an even emotional keel, I'd suggest going to a bookstore and buying (or taking an hour to skim through) Zen and The Art of Poker by Larry Phillips. I don't agree with all that book has to say, but getting the mindset that folding often is a sign of strength, not weakness, was an important concept to me.

Website at Zen and the Art of Poker

Good luck!

Dagrims

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

Thinking this over, I figure I am probably 50/50 on this. Your argument about the situation is sound. Unfortunately, with the style of play I see a lot at Party, it is not uncommon for even those pot odds to produce losing pots.

The most common is for A8o A2o to be playing a junk hand.

But, I often fold in this situation not because I truly believe it to be in that kind of trouble, but simply because I find that I lack the experience to really play this situation correctly and lay down the losing hand.

This last point raises an issue I am trying to overcome in my game. I understand that a proper tight-aggressive will play hands that I currently fold. In practice, I am probably in that middle between tight-passive and tight-aggressive. But I am doing that to preserve my morale while I learn. There are just a specific range of bad beats that are just too frustrating to deal with right now. So there are some hands that probably have mild PosEV that I am simply tossing. As I gain more experience, I expect to be more comfortable with these hands. I am also playing at the lowest Party limit, where people play awful hands. I specifically recall my AA playing against a hand that I was pretty sure was KK against a flop of QXX, both of us capping each round with one guy who stayed in with Q7. Needless to say, when the 7 hit the turn he got away with a nice pot.

In all fairness, I do know that what goes around, comes around. I was playing in one of the truly crazy 10 player SnG's using my 'don't play much of anything for 20 hands' strategy. My first hand was KK and I was in LP. I raised All-In with a few limpers (textbook beginner play I admit) and got called by the SB and an EP. SB had AA, EP had J2o. K hit the turn and winning the small tourney was pretty easy after that. Not only did the idiot calling with J2o get his due but I got lucky and beat AA for once.

- Lex

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

This is a great post. I enjoyed reading the advice coming your way as much of it is excellent. I'll just second a few ideas: 1) your hand selection should stay tight 2) you should post a few hands to let us see if we can help or learn something and 3) the psychological realities of pounding out one-two big bets per hour in a 1-2 or 2-4 online game are important. It's hard to do and not the most thrilling experience. When I started tracking my "streaks" I found a few gems. First, my losing streaks were not caused by strings of bad cards, they were caused by hand selction. Second, when I played properly and got aweful cards, I tended to break even or lose a little. Third, I shouldn't play after going through two bottles of wine with a few friends at dinner. Turns out that alcohol really does impair judgement. Sounds like you're doing fine.

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

[ QUOTE ]


Early Positions:
AA-22,AK-JTs,AQ,AJ,KQ,QJ

I am strongly considering moving AJ and QJ to middle position only. I am also considering moving 77-22 to middle or later. I consider my tendency to play pairs in early position to be a flaw in my game that I am changing.

Middle Positions:
87s-54s (with several callers at a passive table, otherwise these move to late)
JT,ATs,A9s,KJ

I am thinking KJo needs to go by the wayside.

Late Positions:
AXs

I tend to toss A5-A2s in most cases even in late position.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok a few comments. I'm a micro limit player myself but I've tinkered with my game and have been very successful over the last 88 hours of play. Now that's far from the long term so take my insights with whatever grain of salt you think appropriate...

As far as dumping the small pairs in early position...the starndard advice would be to do that. I'm not so sure its a mistake to play them in early position--depending on the game. If there's not a lot of preflop raising you can take a shot with them. Just understand that whatever position you play them from you are looking to flop a set or get out.
The only problem playing them early is a raise behind you, because you don't want to blow off two bets chasing a set if you don't have to. Of course if you limp in with a small pair late--say one off the button--there are still three guys who might raise you and trap you in for two bets so that's a risk anytime you play a small pair.

There is also an often overlooked advantage to playing the small pair in early position in low limit. If you do hit the set one of the guys to your right may bet first allowing you to raise to two bets. This may actually thin the field (and believe me with a set in low limit, thinning the field is a good idea--slow playing a set is not an option in low limit). Two bets won't get rid of anybody with a flush draw or open ended straight draw but it may get rid of the idiots drawing to an inside straight or anybody playing A-7 who flopped a seven and might turn or river a third seven to beat your smaller set. There are a lot of ways to get sucked out on with a set and in low limit people will show you all of them. The original bettor will call your two bets as will anybody with top pair big kicker and so will any flush draw....so you'll still get paid off if your set holds up...just try to limit the improbable suck outs. One small bet simply does a lousy job of thinning the field in low limit and a raise in late position simply gets all the one bet callers to call the second bet. (Note some people may say that keeping the guys in who are drawing at an inside straight or need a runner runner to beat your set is a good thing because they are so unlikely to make it and thus will be paying you off. I think you don't want six or seven people drawing at ways to beat your set)

I'd move QJ-off to late if I played it all. You either want a very big field with that and look for a straight, or a very small field (preferably heads up) where a pair is more likely to hold up. You need to be in late position to know if either of those conditions applies. Wouldn't hurt you to dump it altogether quite frankly...but I play it occaisionally given the right situation.

A-J I think you can keep playing in early position. Raise with it, two bets early may narrow the field and if you flop a pair you want a smaller field. Admittedly if you can't narrow it so that you do have a large field you really do like to act late in subsequent rounds--but I still think its playable early. Plus early position may let you probe a bit--if you flop top pair (jacks) with your ace kicker and your bet gets raised that tells you a lot more than if you raise a single bet late and the original better calls.

Ax suited in late position. I can take it or leave it, but I would rather have the A2-A5 suited than A-middle card suited. At least you have two ways to win with the smaller--a flush or a straight.

More generally and it seems to me most importantly: One of the keys for me is to chase as little as possible pre-flop and post flop. Its important to blow off as few chips as possible so that you don't have to win two or three bigish pots just to get into positive territory. Pre-flop that means not getting involved in anything mariginal.
Me I stay away from smaller suited connectors (anything below JTs) because those hit so infrequently. Now I know those straight and flush possibilities are very attractive because it seems like you need those monster hands to win in low limit. But get those monster hands with the large suited cards--your A-Qs your A-J suited, where you may flop top pair top kicker and have the nut flush possibility. And in the end, no matter how many straights, flushes and boats you see top pair top kicker is how you make your living in Hold em (even in low limit...Lee Jones says so in his book and my experience bears him out).

Also, if you spend 5,6,7 small bets seeing flops with these long shot (though powerful when they hit) hands, then a win doesn't do you as much good. Also you can afford to miss or get sucked out on more often with your A-Q and Ak or whatever--a loss or two doesn't hurt as much if you haven't already blown off a bunch of chips on long shot starting hands.

Finally, beware of chasing when you know you are beat. Recognize betting patterns. Sure people bluff but betting in low limit tends to be fairly straightforward. You can't always tell but often you can. If a guy has been checking and calling all the way to the river in a hand with four people in it and a third flush card hits on the river
and he leads out betting--he hit a flush. Simple as that.

Raises are very telling, not as telling as that flush bet but still telling. If you bet out with top pair top kicker and get raised there is a decent chance the raiser has something better than pair. It may not be the time to lay down the hand, but it may be the time to get cautious.

If there are four cards to a straight, or four suited cards on the board and some action...get the hell out.

Having said all that, be aggressive until you know or strongly suspect you are beat. With your A-K when you flop a king bet or raise. (If you raise and are re-raised though--slow down). If you have the nut flush draw (or probably even a lesser flush draw) put in a bet on the flop. etc etc.

Finally, you speak about playing 150 hands. I like to have at least 4-6 hours available to play and really like having more than six hours available. I know thats tough for some people, but I feel like, no matter how few good cards you have, nor that that the few you did get got sucked out on so far, given enough time and right play, the vast majority of times its going to turn around for you. The key is being patient until it does.

I love to fold pre-flop. I love it. Every bad hand I throw away saves me money. Every marginal hand that I don't play even though it looks like a monster because its been so long since I've seen a good hand, gets me that much closer to a really good hand. So I like to be able to play three hundred fifty or fourhundred fifty hands---no matter how few good cards I'm seeing, given those numbers I know I will see some good cards--and probably win my share of pots.

Geez I have more to say but I'm sure I've gone on way too long. Sorry about that.

--Zetack

Re: Tight Play and Long Streaks
 

Your advice is excellent and I thank you for it.

- Lex