Why do people get mad at their money?

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you certainly are trying. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I suspect you and I have a very different Philosophy of Language.

My point is that, even if everyone until now has used "tilt" to only describe instances in which someone becomes a looser player, that does not mean that, if they thought about it, they would not or should not include all instances of someone's play becoming less optimal in response to past bad luck. My argument is that the correct conception of tilt includes all those instances--this is because the essential element of the concept TILT is "a poor response to past bad luck, manifesting in suboptimal play."

[/ QUOTE ]


you are of course correct

[BugSplatt]

Post Extras:

Firstly, thank you all for your responses to my post. It has certainly opened my eyes to a much broader definition of the word "tilt." However, "bragging and bravado" were not the two things that came to mind when I posted this. I am a slightly better (and I do mean slightly) than break-even player. I have nothing to brag about. And I do understand your point(s).

And, yes, I am putting down a weakness some players have, I admit it, so shoot me. When a Q 10 becomes a raisable hand under the gun because you have just suffered a bad beat, or you cap a pot with the same hand when you would have folded it two minutes prior to suffering a bad beat, that is, to me (the break even player) a far greater drain on your bank roll than mucking a potentially playable hand. And I am not using the word "potentially" loosely here. We all have our definitions of "playable" don't we? Some players find any two suited cards playable, others will find a reason to play an 8 6 off suit in early position, some will play any two face cards or a small pair, even others will defend their blinds regardless of what they have or the action that has taken place before them.

I think everyone that has responded to my post is aware of the detrimental effects playing like a maniac can have. Either you have experienced it yourself (and given the responses, I find that unlikely) or have witnessed it from someone else. Also, I believe you all appreciate that the biggest chip spillers are maniacs. Don't tell me you don't try and get in on a loose cannon's game. They build nice pots. To that I will say this: if I am going to build a big pot I will do so because I think I have a better chance of winning it than you or any other player does, not because I am so mad about having my AA run over by a Q8 that I have lost complete control of what I constitute to be a good starting hand in a given situation. Does tightening up mean I am going to limp in with big starting hands? Of course not. I hate limping in. I have always tried to live by two things when playing holdem. Firstly, I want to be the hammer, not the nail - if I can't raise or re-raise going into the hand, I am probably better off mucking. Secondly, it is not the hands you play where you make money; more often, it is the ones you stay away from where the true profit lies. Apparently, to some of you, I am wrong in that mindset - fair enough. But if you want to talk about "bragging and bravado" I offer you this:

I am good enough to know that I am not yet good enough.

Thanks,

Bug

[Graham]

there's merit to playing tighter after taking some beats, and playing looser after/while on a rush. It's to do with your opp's perception of your image and how likely they are to now currently go after you.
Playing the same regardless of your recent run and how that affects (note the correct spelling TT....) their image of you is not optimal. Changing your tightness/looseness/aggressiveness according to recent history is a big enough part of poker. The original poster may likely be doing the correct thing by tightening up after a series of beats.

I think Mason has an essay or two on this somewhere.