Dealing with Downswings (Long/Ramble)

[swolfe]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you guys get those pictures? Does pokertracker have a graphing option I'm not aware of or do you just have to export the data into excel?

[/ QUOTE ]

i keep a spreadsheet that incorporates all of my internet, bank account, and live play money. i just update it with my balances after a session.

[crosse91]

well, you lost a buy-in. if this strange you aren't playing right.
Also, i've turned 50 bucks into 3000 in 6 months (today is 6 months exactly i think)
and have numerous downswings, down to 18 bucks, and a couple of 4-5 buyin nights/days...it sucks but play through it.

Also, it sometimes helps to change sites.
Try it out.

I really appreciate all the replies. I'm doing a lot better today and have almost completely erased the deficit. I'm playing more aggressive and have been running relatively well today. I think that when I go on a frustrating downswing like this I need to force myself to take a break and analyze problematic hands. There was really only one hand that I noticed that cost me because of bad play, and that fact seemed to lift my spirits. Thanks again.

swolfe's reply is perfect.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
I really appreciate all the replies. I'm doing a lot better today and have almost completely erased the deficit. I'm playing more aggressive and have been running relatively well today. I think that when I go on a frustrating downswing like this I need to force myself to take a break and analyze problematic hands. There was really only one hand that I noticed that cost me because of bad play, and that fact seemed to lift my spirits. Thanks again.

[/ QUOTE ]

yay! i get to join the clusterfcuk too!:

my first three hours today had me losing 6.5K.

sounds like you're getting it. keep chugging.

fim

[SydPokerFan]

I know what it feels like. You're right when you say it's an emotional thing. If you analyze it you know it isn't a problem but how do you deal with it in a practical sense?
My preferred option is to play in a cheap tournament and have a bit of a laugh raising rubbish OOP.
It works for me!

[Malachii]

Haha, I was running very poorly these last two weeks as well, moved my account from Party to Pokerstars as a way to break out of the rut.

Sounds like SSNL needs to have a group hug.

[kurto]

I don't know if people are going to think I'm crazy... but I think, depending on your style of play, there's less variance at the higher tables.

Last night, I make $300 at the $100. And tonight I lost $200 player the $50 tables.

I have no complaints about my style of play. Nearly every hand I lost, I was raising not only with the best hand, but often knowing what the other player had. In each case I correctly guessed that they would call as big underdogs and continually was 'sucked out' by really bad calls.

Though you may not get paid off quite as often at the higher stakes tables, you also may not suffer as many bad beats because there won't be as many bad calls.

I know we want people to make bad calls, but when the cards aren't running 'even' for you, you'll suffer more beats when half the table is calling stations.

I'm sure many will think this is nutty, but I actually think I win more against a table of 'average to good players' then tables with a bunch of fish.

Don't get me wrong... when you're running hot, you'll probably have a higher win rate at the lower tables since people don't fold. But you will experience more bad beats.

I believe I read an article one (about limit) where a table full of bad players can mathmatically give an edge to bad players (If I remember correctly, it was a numbers thing... ie, if 1 calling station is in the hand, he may only have 3-4 outs in a hand to beat you. But if you have 5 calling stations with all sorts of draws, overcards, etc... it doesn't matter if you dominate any of them individually; collectively as a group, they may have so many outs together that your hand becomes an underdog.

Therefore, in many situations, a 'school of fish' can put you from favorite to underdog. In these situations, you will have a lot of beats.

[edge]

I agree, because you don't need cards to beat a higher-stakes table. At the $100 buy-in level and below, you must hit cards to win. Above that, you can win even when you're not running well.

[baronzeus]

200NL is just as weak as 100NL in my experience.

But then again I'm a nut peddler.