Rushes!

[astrodon]

Luck is where opportunity and preparation meet. Nothing more, nothing less. A person or organization makes their own 'luck'; good, bad or indifferent. If you play 'perfect poker' and still lose it is a matter of 'opportunity' not luck. If you play stupid and win; it's still an issue of opportunity: you stayed when you shouldn't have and the most 'opportune' cards imaginable came, AKA you sucked out! But in the long run this kind of play makes you a loser.

That is (usually) why if you have PE, PO and IO you should play the hand regardless of the outcome - in the long run, you win. It's called Central Limit Theorom and/or Law of Large Numbers. Never luck. This is where preparation comes in, you must first be willing to learn and willing to risk, second be sufficiently funded, third have strict money management rules and NEVER break them, last set at the table and get your money in the pot. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
...here's a concept that has been lost due to the scientific approach...

[/ QUOTE ]

As is bleeding people who have a fever. Let's leave it that way shall we, until science supports it.

[mtdoak]

how many BB are you going to waste in going for a rush? Play any two hole cards as long as you are winning? That is pure gambling. While poker is gambling (because you do not know the outcome), you can control your EV (expected value) by only playing hole cards that have a positive expectation. By playing any two cards, you might as well go buy a lotto ticket.

On the fact that 'rushes' frustrate the other players. Sure, players get frustrated, however, by playing any two hands when things are going good, you are starting a bad habit. You are taking what is a game of percentages and odds and turning into a 'hope i get lucky' game. And, this has happened to me, you will start chasing runner runner draws more often, and, espically if you are tired, will start playing like an idiot. It only takes a few sessions where this happens to decimate your bankroll.

[PaultheS]

I think there is an important point that hasn't been clearly made so far in this thread.

There are clearly streaks where players are incredibly lucky and win several hands. In this sense, "rushes" do exist. However, it's impossible to know or tell that you're in one. That is to say, the fact that you've won a few hands in a row means absolutely nothing about the next hand. Only analyzing afterwards can you pick out your rushes and cold streaks. So, it's not worth changing your play assuming that you will make a good hand on the next flop.

That being said, you can certainly take advantage after hitting what was clearly a hot streak. If you showed down a ton of good hands, you can try to steal more, or if you showed down trash (for some reason, blinds?) then you can tighten up.

[Yawkey]

So I pulled out Sklansky's "The Thoery of Poker" to see if I could find some insight into this from an author who is well respected at this forum. Although I found nothing specific to rushes I do have a couple sections I would like to focus some of your attention on.

The first is Chapter 8 entitled "The Value of Deception", this section deals specificly with the problems in playing cards based solely upon their expected value (playing cards with EV- this seems to be the main argument against rushes). By playing only cards with positive EV's you give the advantage described by the Fundamental Theorem of Poker to your opponents, by broadcasting the true value of your hand to the table. By playing for rushes, you in turn keep your opponents off gaurd handing you an edge that cannot be described by expected value equations. (Note: this is an exceptional chapter as it has an example of Doyle Brunson making a brilliant play against a player who gave the strength of his hand away by playing it in terms of it's EV).

Next turn to page 241 and look in the section titled "Psychology and Future Impressions". This section deals with intentionally making incorrect plays to influnce other players impressions of you. In the original post I gave a fairly detailed description of how playing for a rush makes you look (Very loose lucky player that doesn't know what's going on). This is certainly the most profitable table image a SOLID player could have.

I'm going to concede my argument on luck to the scientists for two reasons, one I can scream until my head turns blue and it won't change their minds and two I have no "credible" evidence to back my hypothesis up (yes I used the word hypothesis just for you scientists).

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to concede my argument on luck to the scientists for two reasons, one I can scream until my head turns blue and it won't change their minds and two I have no "credible" evidence to back my hypothesis up (yes I used the word hypothesis just for you scientists).

[/ QUOTE ]

You can scream until your head turns blue without changing my mind, but you can change it if you can show me 'created luck' in a strictly controlled environment. Not only will you convince me, I can point you in the direction of someone who will pay you $1 million for any evidence of supernatural powers. (Which creating luck strictly speaking would be.)

[LockLow34]

Let me add to this taking a slightly different perspective.

I play mostly live 3/6 and 4/8 hold'em and Omaha8. This past Thursday I started noticing I wasn't hitting cards. I was playing the same type starting hands but nothing was working out or holding up. I recognized almost immediately that I was entering what might be considered a "cold streak." This streak reached its apex on Saturday evening when over the course of about 8 hours playing, the following hands didn't hold up for me: AA lost to straight, TPTK lost to 3-outer, flopped set of 5's lost to river flush, small full house lost to larger full, top 2 pair to runner-runner flush, and on and on.

The streak was VERY frustrating, BUT holding the belief (true or not) that one can be in hot or cold streaks allowed me to deal with it psychologically and NOT go on tilt or change my play. I managed to endure the streak with a positive outlook and only ended down about 40 bets (from Thursday through Saturday...about 300 hands or so). Then on Sunday in about 150 hands I could tell the streak was over (hands started holding up again, draws were hitting, etc) and finished up around 30 bets.

I guess what I'm getting at is what I alluded to earlier. If one believes (regardless of the scientific validity of the concept) that rushes and cold streaks occur, then one can use that belief to deal psychologically with those times when things are not working out over an extended number of hands.