winning players with bad cards

[Guruman]

I see a lot of statistical theory around here that demonstrates how you can play excellent poker and still theoretically lose 1,000,000 straight hands due to bad cards. Here's my question:

Excellent poker play involves occasionally winning pots with a weaker hand than an opponent's through aggressive bets at opportune times.

1)how often does this usually occur with winning poker players? (can this even be caluculated accurately?)

2)can this element of play be enough to offset a major downturn in cards?

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I see a lot of statistical theory around here that demonstrates how you can play excellent poker and still theoretically lose 1,000,000 straight hands due to bad cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not even close to true. I don't think you read this here. You can play good poker and still be down money after 10,000 hands, though it doesn't happen too often. The idea that you could actually lose all those hands is ridiculous. You would have a far better chance of winning the lottery.

HTH,
gm

[Guruman]

I'm sorry if I worded that poorly. What I meant was that you could play excellent poker and still get losing cards (not necessarily lose money) over that span of time.

Ex: it would never happen, but you could theoretically be dealt a 72o 100 times in a row. improbable, but not impossible.

[elmitchbo]

72o 100 times in a row is pretty close to impossible.

good players loser less with their bad cards, and occasionally win with them. that is often what separates a winning player from a losing one. as to how often that happens, it's hard to quantify because in those situations you rarely see player's cards. the defintion of winning with bad cards is shaky too... do you include semi-bluffs where a player is a long shot but still has a draw?

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Ex: it would never happen, but you could theoretically be dealt a 72o 100 times in a row. improbable, but not impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theoretically, anything is POSSIBLE. It's POSSIBLE that you could buy a lottery ticket every week for the rest of your life and win every time. But the odds of this happening are so astronomically low that it is better to simply call it impossible. In this practical sense, 72o 100 times in a row is not possible.

[FredJones888]

I think what you are getting at is how much control does a player have over his destiny. Theoretically, could a really good player be profitable even if he got only crap cards ?

[Leo Bello]

Actually it seems to me a pretty straightforward question that no one got to answer until now.

Is there players that really can win while having a run of bad cards?

[d10]

I doubt it. If you're playing with bad players, they'll never fold enough to make stealing pots from them profitable. If you're playing with good players it's hard enough to win even when you have playable cards.

[The Goober]

It all depends on how you define bad cards. There are certainly players who could turn a profit while only getting slightly below-average hands (that is, over time the average strength of his starting hands is less than that of his opponents). I don't think anyone could turn a profit long-term only getting 72o. I think for every winning player there is a threshold of how bad his cards can run before his EV goes negative.

[CORed]

If you play a tight game, a run of bad starting hands doesn't cost you much: Just blinds.

Getting good starting hands that mis the flop gets a little more expensive: You raise preflop, sometimes bet the flop, fold on the flop or turn.

The situations that really cost you money are geting good draws that don't catch, and especially geting strong hands that come in second best. In loose games, a run of opponents catching with bad draws can also be expensive.