Long streak with no playable hands? - Page 2

Token · #11 02-10-2005, 07:09 PM

Yes... they confound me.

davelin · #12 02-10-2005, 07:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I get nothing to play within three orbits

[/ QUOTE ]

That's silly, everyone knows you're more likely to get good cards in the next three orbits now.

tiltaholic · #13 02-10-2005, 07:23 PM

i just spent a long time searching for one of bisonbison's old posts in which he describes an exercise in articulating outloud the reasons for the decisions one makes at the poker table. i couldn't find it...but thats what i try to do if i'm alone and feel the cards are short. otherwise, i just talk to whoever is in the room (cat included)..will continue looking now...
-t

yellowjack · #14 02-10-2005, 07:30 PM

At one point I had flopped sets with 4 out of 5 of my pockets last night. I guess I have you to thank for that.

Anyhow I played these as aggressively as I was playing them because even though opponents were seeing the trend, I just did the usual thing.

So with opponents seeing the trend, they are going to call you down if you raise PF a lot of the time.

Anecdote aside, maximize wins when you're "running good", minimize them when you're not getting any playable hands and your drawing hands aren't hitting anything on the flop. [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Token · #15 02-10-2005, 07:32 PM

You could also use the time to watch the action, get reads on opponents, and take notes.

tiltaholic · #16 02-10-2005, 07:33 PM

session exercise

not that it matters...but it helped my game tremendously.

Catt · #17 02-10-2005, 09:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I get nothing to play within three orbits

[/ QUOTE ]

That's silly, everyone knows you're more likely to get good cards in the next three orbits now.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's good, and I'm surprised no one gave you any credit for it. A birdie in my view, and without doubt a solid par.

Ranged · #18 02-10-2005, 10:20 PM

Well my luck changed tonight. Got pocket AA three times at one table and up 15.2BB over what I had lost. Too bad the women is running me off the computer. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

TomBrooks · #19 02-11-2005, 12:04 AM

Although many, relying on logic and statistics, believe there is no reason to leave an otherwise good table if you are not getting good cards, I have found in playing about 20,000 hands that the great majority of the time, one can do better by switching tables than staying at one where you are not getting good cards or you are getting sucked out a lot. Preliminary indications of my hands-on intuitive research, while not conclusive, so far indicate that even going to a tighter table is better than staying at the one that you are not getting good cards at.

-TomBk

dangerous_badman · #20 02-11-2005, 01:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Although many, relying on logic and statistics

[/ QUOTE ]

Fools that we are..

[ QUOTE ]
one can do better by switching tables than staying at one where you are not getting good cards or you are getting sucked out a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this deadpan sarcasm? A table I'm getting sucked out on a lot at is one I want to stay at, as opponents must be continually drawing thin against me for this to occur.

[ QUOTE ]
going to a tighter table is better than staying at the one that you are not getting good cards at.

[/ QUOTE ]

How? Taking the view that "I am not getting good cards at this table, therefore I will change tables" is silly. The random number generator doesn't care which table you're sitting at.