[ QUOTE ]
If you can't see how ridiculous the quoted thinking is, then there's really not going to be any way for us to help you. It is simply preposterous to think that QQ (and AQ, for the love of Shania!) are better hands to play than KK.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that wasn't my point. My point was that the hands I've been getting are not falling where they theoretically should be. You're comment was exactly the point I was trying to make: because of variance/fate/luck whatever-you-wanna-call-it, my hand probability has run far outside what theory/models dictates. So my question was that since what I was seeing in reality was different than what theory dictates, do you compensate your play for that? I mean, everyone talks about this kind of stuff happening, so it's to be expected. So if you know you're in the middle of a downswing or whatever, it seemed like tightening up should soften that downswing, make it less severe so to speak.

As it turns out, that reasoning is flawed. You shouldn't change the way you play a hand simply because the deck is cold. I can accept that...

Now on a side note, there *is* a certain amount you can infer from the way things are running. If I know that the mean is 63% win rate for KK, and I'm currently at 28%, then eventually, I'm gonna go on a streak (all things being equal) where my KK will *not* get busted (just like I expect a "streak" where my QQ/AQ loose alot since they're running "hot" for me now). That *will* happen, it has to in order for win rates to reach the mean/expectation. Would it be wrong to alter your play based on that knowledge? Guess that question really belongs in the probability or variance forum, but it is something to ponder, no?


[ QUOTE ]
Let's make this simple: any decision that was the right decision based solely on anything at all that happened in the hand after the decision was made was the wrong decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try saying that 5 times with a mouth full of crackers [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]