The difference between success and failure

[kamrann]

A fantastic post for those just starting out I think. One of the easiest mistakes to make in poker is to think you deserve to be winning more than you are doing. It's easy to see how this comes about, with skilled players often getting their chips in ahead and being outdrawn. Easy to overlook the fact that you often should be outdrawn, and this combined with the number of times your hand needs to hold up in a tournament for you to cash brings an important conclusion: a good player doesn't have much of an edge over a bunch of bad players, no matter how much better he feels he is.

I actually moved from mainly MTTs to SNGs recently because I was fed up of the variance in MTTs and wanted something more consistent. It's not taken me long to realise that the variance can be huge with SNGs also. Although I would say that it's easier to take without getting too annoyed with how you're running. I briefly moved back to play some MTTs this weekend. I effectively bubbled for an EPT seat when someone reraised my A9 with J8 and hit, then I played the Stars $500 yesterday and beat 1200+ players before losing a big pot with AQ v KQ allin preflop. The point being, in MTTs single hand outdraws can cost you such large amounts and are therefore that much more painful. When multi-tabling SNGs you just load up another and start again. But anyway, I seem to have sidetracked somewhat... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

One question though Irieguy. Your post touches on the idea of swings so long that you think think you're running average when in fact you're running good, and of course you could experience an equally extended bad swing also. But then you bring up the good news with the old "It'll all even out in the end" idea. Where exactly do you stand on this? Will it, necessarily? I'd be interested to get some idea of the extent of swings you've had playing SNGs, since I switched to them only recently. I certainly believe in the field of large MTTs, there are many people who, if not lucky/unlucky for their entire poker playing career, at least finish up with hugely skewed results positively or negatively from what would be the expectation from the way they played during that time. And I'm talking stretches of many years solid playing. I don't know if this is possible/likely with SNGs though.

[TheAmp]

"There are winners, and there are whiners"....

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe this is just a brilliant guerilla campaign for fish retainment and restocking

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, this is the dichotomy of the thread. 90% for some, 10% for the others.

Excellent thread, Irieguy.

EliteNinja, thanks for your reply as well. Printed and posted on my monitor.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Miyamoto was a famous swordsman who lived in Japan from 1584-1645.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats fairly impressive most of the people who lived by this philosophy only lived into their early twenties. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Regards Mack

[PrayingMantis]

I'd like to add a few thoughts to this philosphical/mental thread. These are thougts I've found myself telling myself, sometimes repeating, especially when during bad runs.

a. All poker hands suck. Good poker is about who's dealing better with the usual ugliness of the cards.

b. Be always ready to bust. At any second. This is particularly relevant for MTTs, in which busting is obviously more frustrating than in SNGs, but it's true also for SNGs. I try never to be surprised or disappointed when I'm busted, whether it was a terrible bad beat, a huge mistake that I did, or just a hand one can't get away from. Busting is a natural thing. You WILL bust! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] (But on the other hand, some disapointment is natural too, and it's also part of playing this game).

c. I see every bad beat as an opportunity to improve my ability to tolerate bad beats. Sometimes when I suffer a bad-beat I actually think: "oh, nice! now let's see how I manage to not give a damm about it, and just keep my normal game". At some point I was typing "nh" every time someone sucked out on me. It wasn't easy, I'm sure you know that, but it was a good practice. That's the way I try to treat bad-streaks in general. I see it as the "fish time", I don't mind losing some, it's part of the game. And it's a brutal game (although I admit that during the worst runs It's almost impossible not to start really hating poker...).

[zaphod]

As always an excellent post Irieguy!
There are some points i wont to mention:
-If you let our average winning player have even luck for some period of time, and the ask him if he has been lucky or unlucky, i would think that most would say that they have been a little bit unlucky. It is so much easier to remember the bad beats, than the times when you outdrew someone else.

- I think more players should be willing to move up and down in what limits they play according to current results. When you are having a really bad run it is possible that this is just bad luck. But it is also possible that the stress from loosing affects your play and prolongs "IT". By moving down you get softer oponents, reduces stress and hopefully reduces the length of "IT". Even if it doesn't it at least reduces your losses during the bad period.

- It is very dangerous when you feel that you might be playing badly and having bad luck at the same time. Example: Your last x SNG's have been OTM. You get a few big hands early in an SNG which gives you almost no chips. With four players left you are now desperatly shortstacked. You take a 50-50 shot vs another shortstack and lose. How does you feel now? You feel like the unluckiset player ever, but know deep inside that if you hade played that early hand better you would still be playing, instead of booking yet another 4'th place.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Irieguy,

I have been running bad for 2 1/2 years now but you have given me the courage to carry on from my $374,356 loss. I know that this is just a streak, and that statistics are on my side and will return what is rightfully mine.

Sometimes I begin to lose hope that the variance will smooth out and return me my rightful earnings. But I fear no more. Six more credit cards will bridge the gap, and then it will all be gravy.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that for many players, consistent losing is a sign of bad play, not "that which we will not speak of."

I know you know the difference; I also know many beginning to intermediate players do not, and may be tempted to ascribe their losses to "that which we do not speak of" rather than the truth which is that they're playing like crap.

Just a note of temperment and fair warning to the casual reader.

Or maybe this is just a brilliant guerilla campaign for fish retainment and restocking. Who knows. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for the counterpoint, Eastbay. Much of the statistical content on this forum has to do with deciphering whether or not a player is a winner or a loser. I really don't find this to be very difficult. I can tell whether or not I am playing well.

When I start watching HHs on the replayer for somebody I am considering backing, I can tell what kind of player they are within 100 hands. The only reason I ask for people's stats is so that I can determine if they know how to keep them. I can tell more from 2 tournament summaries than I can from 300 SNGs worth of data.

Also, I don't find losers to be particularly interesting. I prefer to start from the premise that my opinions will find the ears of the winners. I don't feel like I should put a disclaimer on all of my posts saying "The following information may not apply to you if you commonly make bad decisions."

If you are a losing player, and you can't tell... you have no future in this game. If you are a winning player, but you are not sure if your bad results are due to variance or bad play... you will not find the answer in your spreadsheet.

You said one of the most brilliant things I've ever read on this forum once... something like "poker is not and endless collection of 'what should I do here?' situations, but rather a finite collection of sound concepts that, when properly applied, allow the winning player to handle an infinite number of decisions." You said it better than that... I can't remember the exact words but I'll never forget the message.

My point is that my post was directed towards the winning players who are destined to fail unless they get their heads on straight. If some losing players read it and mistakenly think my advice applies to them... well, so be it. I have to eat, too.

Irieguy

[Scuba Chuck]

FWIW, Irieguy, the quote you're looking for was directed at me. This comment, along with one other thing changed the way I approach SNGs (and made me a better player).

Here it is.

[ QUOTE ]
In this case it may be that the answer is dominated by those estimates - those are the interesting poker problems. But I'm quite certain Scuba doesn't even know how to approach it, otherwise he wouldn't be asking these questions. So I'm trying to get him to ask the right questions, so that he can begin to see that this game isn't a disconnected infinite grab bag of "what do I do here" questions, but rather just a few principles, once mastered, that answer most questions one could reasonably ask, especially of these endgame situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

...from the following link.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...mp;o=&vc=1

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Miyamoto was a famous swordsman who lived in Japan from 1584-1645.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thats fairly impressive most of the people who lived by this philosophy only lived into their early twenties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the downer Mack. I'm sure you're right tho...

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]