Don't screw with a winning game

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]

The result, -350BB in about 2500 hands, the absolute worst run I've ever had. Yea, I'm seeing more showdowns, but now I'm constantly going "I know I'm beat, but I fold too easy". I call...I'm beat.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can you think this has anything to do with any changes you made in your game?

Krishan

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The result, -350BB in about 2500 hands, the absolute worst run I've ever had. Yea, I'm seeing more showdowns, but now I'm constantly going "I know I'm beat, but I fold too easy". I call...I'm beat.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can you think this has anything to do with any changes you made in your game?

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Undoutably not all of it, but as I review lots of the hands, I have bunches of them where I'm calling (and losing) Ace high river or middle pairs that I can see I wouldn't have called before. Trying to get to showdown has made me more of a calling station on the turn/river, spewing chips I didn't use to spew.

2500 hands isn't enough to measure much of anything. But 1 hand played badly is enough to see you play that hand badly. Trying to shift my game, I can see lots of badly played hands in the last 2500. Focusing on seeing more showdowns has screwed up the way I normally play my reads.

I'm not suggesting there weren't places I was folding winners before, but I am suggesting making changes to winning game should be taken very carefully. I'd gotten convinced reading all the posts here about 40% WTSD type stats that my game was screwed up. Somewhat I'm sure, but trying consciously to adjust it during play has screwed it up substantially more.

I think this kind of change needs to be reflective, looking at hands played, determining odds based on really figuring out hand ranges, getting the brain to accustom itself to working through the problems so it comes natural later. Trying to work on it during live play, for me anyway, isn't a good idea.