Has this ever happened to you?
 

Lately I have had the following problem ... looking for thoughts, ideas, solutions.

Every night I sit down at PS 1/2 or 2/4 and begin to play my solid, well thought out game. I get some good cards and some bad cards. I have a few lucky hands and a few unlucky hands and after a while I find myself up anywhere from $50 - $250. Then, inevitably, I get some unacceptably bad beat, which is usually a combination of some terrible bad luck with I could have avoided this better if I made a tough laydown or bet the turn more aggressively.

From that point on I experience something which for the longest time I did not realize was tilt. It's not anger. It's not frustration. It's just a pall over my play. It's a "I'm doomed, I suck, I can't ever get good cards" kind of feeling. My play continues, and I don't do anything irrational or stupid, but looking back it seems I go into tight passive mode. Everyone seems aggressive, nothing feels like it is going to work, and I slowly bleed off my entire stack for the night and end up losing my initial investment.

The worst part about this is that I usually start this process either up or only slightly down for the night. By the time it is over, I'm bust. And, while this process is happening I cannot for the life of me tear myself away from my seat and take the loss. Therefore, once I enter this phase I am guaranteed to lose because I cannot leave the table if I am making money or treading water. The only thing that sends me to bed is if I completely clean out my stacks (lose it all).

So, I feel like to take my game to the next level (and not go broke) I need to (a) take a break, and (b) learn more about my tilt process. All thoughts are welcome.

-RSS

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

I think this happens roughly every other time I play, with the exception being that I rarely bust my 50BB buy-in (which I set as my loss limit). More often, I'll play tight passive until I catch a few decent cards, win back up to about 75% of my buy-in, then quit.

Although, I don't know if I'd really attribute the initial big loss to bad beat. Yeah, quite often, it's someone making his hand on the river (and I usually know it as it happens, resulting in a crying call). It's more a matter of the odds doing what they said they would, and me taking it far too personally.

It's really hard to say what to do, but it sounds like your suggestion - take a break (and the loss) at the first sign of trouble will, in the long run, be cheaper than chasing cards while in a pall.

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

I really think you should stop focusing on individual sessions and just take each hand individually. Post hands that you had trouble playing or that bothered you in the Micro or Small Stakes forums. Focusing on individual sessions is counterproductive and arbitrary--just take each hand as it comes and play well; positive results will follow in the long-run.

Are you adequately bankrolled for the games you are playing? Do you track your play?

Also, why do you play on PokerStars and not PartyPoker?

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

thanks for the suggestions ... I am adequately bankrolled (see my name) but hate to lose (see my name) and like to win at all costs (see my name) ... so it annoys me that I am LOSING and BADLY.

Regarding the question of why Stars and not Party, no reason, what are your thoughts?

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

[ QUOTE ]
thanks for the suggestions ... I am adequately bankrolled (see my name) but hate to lose (see my name) and like to win at all costs (see my name) ... so it annoys me that I am LOSING and BADLY.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. We all like to win, but the truth is even the best limit players have a surprisingly high session loss rate. It really, really doesn't matter; it's all just one long session. Losses are inevitable, and handling them is an important part of being a winning poker player.

There's no real secret to this, but I would suggest you purchaes PokerTracker or track all your play manually. It really helps keep things in perspective and allows you to objectively evaluate your game. Even 5,000 hands (100 table hours online!) is a relative drop in the bucket in terms of sample size. Limit hold'em tends to be an incredibly streaky game, which is one of the hardest things for new players to realize and accept.

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the question of why Stars and not Party, no reason, what are your thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

The general consensus is that the games on Party are much, much easier and more profitable than the games on Stars, because the opposition plays worse on Party than on Stars.

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

thanks again ... one thing I thought I would add is that I play NLHE not Limit, I suppose that only makes everything you said all the more pertinent!

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

[ QUOTE ]
thanks again ... one thing I thought I would add is that I play NLHE not Limit, I suppose that only makes everything you said all the more pertinent!

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's another thought: Learn limit. I used to play NL, but I found the same thing happening to me. If I got up a bit, I would dread seeing something like KK or AA, because I knew I'd have to play it aggressively, and risk all my profits.

In limit, you can take comfort in the fact that a bad beat or poorly played hand will never cost you more than 12 BB or so.

Also, if you're going to play limit, DEFINITELY get over to Party.

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

I think I know what this is.

You have solid skills, but you allow yourself to be led by impulses not conducive to good poker. While you are playing.

[ QUOTE ]
I...set out to play my solid, well thought out game...

[/ QUOTE ]

then, this...

[ QUOTE ]
I experience [a bad beat]...which is usually a combination of some terrible bad luck which I could have avoided this better if I made a tough laydown or bet the turn more aggressively.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems that you are taking responsibility for your game, AND you know you are being impulsive, AND you feel bad about it after ... because you blame yourself (which is the responsible, accountable thing to do).

And then accordingly you feel the guilt from being responsible for the implusive-driven results, and your game goes directly to hell.

So it looks like what is happening here is, with the bad plays, you are purposely beating yourself up. You are choosing poker as the place to get "punished".

Alot of people do this. In fact, it's painfully commonplace. This is why I say:

Consistent Poker Winners are Superhuman

Consider this:
"Normal human tendencies are traits that cause you to do poorly. Therefore, to be successful (as a trader) you need to condition abnormal responses."
-Mark Minervini, from the book: STOCK MARKET WIZARDS

Fixing this self-beat problem is hard. A strong desire to win will help you, leading to self-examination and ultimately, extensive knowledge and understanding of your (largely unconscious) beliefs. Most of these problem beliefs you discover are about ...."guess who"?

No wonder there are so few, truly consistent winners.

There is quicker technique that does not fix, but rather "patches" this problem. It may help you learn to keep a lid on impluses, and repeat the winning behaviors. From there you can dig into the real work on the larger issues.


The Player You Respect the Most

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

Dan,

Thanks for the terrific response. It's very helpful. You seem to have quite a feel for the psychological aspects of the game. I like your quick fix but want more. I need to start with your quick fix and dig deeper.

I completely agree with the notion that my play represents an issue bigger than simply good or bad play. Something is going on upstairs.

Now, I also took a look at PrimatePoker, your web site. It got me thinking. I have read Sklansky's book and of course never had the guts to execute the strategy myself, but did generally take the point to heart. Here is my point.

Many new players (including myself) start these days with NLHE tournaments and then graduate to ring games. I myself had quite the success early on in my tournament career racking up close to 20k in wins. I have since lost most of it back to ring games. What is my point?

Well, NLHE tournaments teach you to go bust! That's right. Unless you win, you go bust. If you took second, you went bust. In fact, during the tournaemnt generally everyone at some point or other puts all their chips on the line with a hand like A-10, which unless it is up against A-8 is generally no more than a 60-40 favorite. This is going to produce wild swings in ring games. Also, it conditions the player to believe that success and going bust are not mutually exclusive. In short, NLHE tournaments develop terrible money making skills and don't really associate going bust with anything too, too terrible.


Thanks.

-RSS

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

Many otherwise very solid players have this massive leak.

Characteristics:

0. The player knows the game much better than most players.

1. The behavior usually manifests itself in a just a few hands per session. These are typically very close misses resulting in significant losses. In other words, an otherwise good player just “seems” to implode on 1 or 2 specific, dramatic hands.

2. These episodic hands are typically a dramatic emotional experience for the player with this leak.

3. Other knowledgeable players who are friends may express confusion over "why you did that" when discussing the play.

Ironically when the root of this problem is addressed, emotional content vanishes, there is no drama, and great (sometimes, phenomenal) performance "effortlessly" happens.

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

I am overwhelmed by the insight in this thread--Thank You and Luck To All!

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

I am too and I thank everyone who has participated. I still wonder how Dan proposes to fix this rather massive leak. What are some of the emotional issues that drive this implosive instinct and what is the best way to address it? Therapy? Tony Robbins?

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

OK, your journey begins here:

[ QUOTE ]
The inner game includes items such as your beliefs about yourself, your beliefs about poker, your actual motivations for playing, your beliefs about the strength of your own poker play, how you personally value winning and losing at poker, and your beliefs about the morality (“rightness” or “wrongness”) of playing winning or losing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Inner Game of Poker

You now have the complete roadmap. Take the trip.

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The general consensus is that the games on Party are much, much easier and more profitable than the games on Stars, because the opposition plays worse on Party than on Stars.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which might be a bad thing in this case.

I recently started playing on Party after only playing at Paradise. Yes, Party players are worse on average, no doubt about it. But I also find the game to be much more stressful because of the suckouts and less fun because the big fields and mindless calling reduce the scope for creative play.

Party is not a good place for a confirmed tilter to seek refuge.

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

[ QUOTE ]
thanks again ... one thing I thought I would add is that I play NLHE not Limit, I suppose that only makes everything you said all the more pertinent!

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a huge detail. Talented tight-passive players are often winners at low-level limit hold'em. It's not the best way to play but it's usually good enough to make a little something because most everyone else is much worse.

At the worst they rarely manage to lose their stacks.

But the bet is a much more powerful weapon at no-limit. I suspect that those who refuse to wield it don't do well at all.

Unless you master your pessimism-tilt, you seem to be playing a very unsuitable game for your personality. Do regular NL players agree?

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

Let me preface by saying all I know is what you wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, once I enter this phase I am guaranteed to lose because I cannot leave the table if I am making money or treading water. The only thing that sends me to bed is if I completely clean out my stacks (lose it all).

[/ QUOTE ]
You sound like a compulsive gambler.

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

I am not sure if you meant this to be (a) funny, (b) sarcastic, or (c) serious, but I am curious what your point is.

I would say that there are elements of what we all do in poker that are similar to the characteristics of compulsive gamblers and that that particular affliction is no doubt something that affects us all to greater or lesser extent (consider some of the poker greats, Stuey Unger, for example). Perhaps a key difference is that I am driven to be a good poker player but have huge leaks in my game that prevent me from consistently winning. I wrote into this forum to try to get insight to help me plug the leaks. I would say that the vast majority, but not all, of the responses, have been enormously helpful.

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

It's interesting that you are completely skipping over and not responding to the passage StellarWind quoted. I'll snip it further. This and this alone are what he (StellarWind) was referring to:

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that sends me to bed is if I completely clean out my stacks (lose it all).

[/ QUOTE ]

All he is saying is that this behavior alone is troubling, since it a lot to do with being a compulsive gambler and nothing at all to do with being a successful poker player.

Just trying to focus the discussion here, no judgments on my part.

Re: Has this ever happened to you?
 

[ QUOTE ]
NLHE tournaments develop terrible money making skills and don't really associate going bust with anything too, too terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is this widespread belief that hold'em poker tournaments are usually either limit hold'em or no-limit hold'em.

This is both true and wrong. I busted out of a limit sit-n-go last night because I made a very serious error. I tried to steal the blinds from the button with a somewhat marginal but legitimate hand. This is a standard play for me and would have been correct in a ring game. It was only afterward that I reflected that I was too shortstacked to do this. I didn't have enough chips left to bet every street. Without this threat to inflict additional losses it became much too easy to call my preflop and flop bets. My hand lacked showdown value and consequently I didn't really have a very good chance to win.

The point? When someone in a HU situation has less than about 3 big bets left, as so often happens in a tournament, NL-type considerations start to strongly intrude into so-called limit hold'em tournament play. The blind is approximately right to view my steal as he would an all-in raise at NL. Once he calls the pot odds will automatically suck the rest of my money in anyway, so what's the difference?

The reverse is also true. NL tournament play begins to resemble limit play when you or your opponent's whole stack is only a few big blinds. The de facto betting limit is that you just don't have much money. A flush draw is great at limit but not much use in NL after your opponent makes a pot-size bet. But often in a NL tournament the flush draw is golden after all because either you can't make a pot-size bet or he can't call the whole thing.

My point is that tournament play does not fully prepare you for NL ring play because the underlying form of poker only looks the same.