Why I play so crazy

[CrisBrown]

Hi Aleo,

As for self-defeating attutides, you can call it that, or you can call it simple realism. I had trash for the last 20 or 30 hands of the 2+2 SNG. With two short stacks who would be getting correct odds to call, I couldn't play any hand that I wasn't willing to take to an all-in showdown. I simply was not getting cards that I wanted to take to a showdown.

From the time the blinds hit 300/600 (the point at which I said "I guarantee I will not make the money") to the end of the tourney, my hands were: 23o, KJo (folded to 3xBB preflop raise), Q7o, 72o, J4o, 54o, 43s, J9o, 92s, 32o, Q5o, Q7o, 44 (wins the blinds), Q2s, J2o, T9s (wins the blinds), J4o, AJo (wins the blinds), ATo (loses to AQ), AQo (wins the blinds), T6o, K7o, 73s (2xBB remaining, all-in and gone).

I played every hand that I thought had a chance. All but two of the times I played, I took the blinds, but never more than the blinds. The two times I was called, I lost. With the short stacks keeping each other alive by trading chips back and forth, and the blinds eating me alive, and trash cards hand after hand after hand, I knew there was no way I could win the tournament unless: (a) I caught a big hand; (b) someone caught a big enough hand to call, but a second-best hand nonetheless; and, (c) I didn't get outdrawn. Coz I sure as hell wasn't going to win many showdowns with Q7o, J3o, etc.

Now, someone will doubtless come along and say that of course I should've called half my stack on on KJo, or that I should've tried to steal more. But if I'd called half my stack in on KJo and went bust on that hand, or I'd been caught stealing with my entire stack on a hand like J4o, I'd be hearing about how I should be more patient and wait for better cards.

Fact is, the cards weren't there. I played the few I had, but there simply were not enough premium hands to keep up with the blinds, and I wasn't getting any other hands that I was willing to risk my entire stack with on a steal. I was patient ... and I patiently lost. That's not to say I should've been less patient. There was no way I was going to finish in the money with what I was dealt.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi William,

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps if you looked Pockertracker a little closer you would find out that the times you had the best hand, you were only a slight favourite, thus the high % of suckouts; and the times when you were the dog, you were a big dog, thus the small % of suckouts in your favor.

That way you are not as unlucky as you think you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the case. When I'm ahead, it's usually a very narrow edge (e.g.: top two pair vs. a pair-plus-four-draw). And when I'm behind, I'm almost invariably buried, although it may not be apparent (e.g.: TPTK vs. a flopped set, or AK on an A-J-A board when my opponent has AJ). That's why I almost never call a reraise. If I get reraised, no matter how good my hand looks TO ME, I am probably not only behind but buried. The few times when I do call tend to prove the above rule.

That doesn't stop me from wanting to get all of my opponent's chips in the middle pre-flop when I have AA or KK, or on the flop when I've hit top two pair or a set, etc. I do try to do that. But I want to have won enough small pots along the way that I'm not the one all-in, for the very reason that I expect to lose every showdown. And that's why I want to be the one to move all-in (giving me at least a chance that my opponent will fold) rather than calling an all-in (guaranteeing that I'll have to survive all five board cards).

All of those "crazy" little pots I pick up along the way are my cushion against the inevitable outdraws, misreads, and periods where I don't catch any playable situations.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

[ QUOTE ]
this is a matter of me wanting to stab myself in the eye every time i read this garbage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do.

Cris

[Prickly Pete]

This sounds more like a pathetic "unlucky" roulette player. Thanks for the comic relief, Cris.

[Ulysses]

Maybe you're running bad. Maybe you're playing badly. Either way, playing in a non-optimal fashion to counter your "unluckiness" is not going to help anything.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Ulysses,

Please see my new post "A Month's Worth of Insanity" for a more complete statistical breakdown. It actually wasn't a bad month, but it sure could've been a lot better.

Cris

[allenciox]

I cannot believe nobody has pointed this out yet... you are getting almost exactly the results you should expect to get...

Assume for instance, that 75% of the time you are ahead and 25% behind when the money goes in. If you assume that you are on average a 2:1 favorite when you are the favorite and a 1:2 dog when you are behind, then you would expect to win:

2/3*.75 + 1/3*.25 = 58.3% of the showdowns. The reason: As a good player you are going to get outdrawn more than you will outdraw. It's in the percentages.

[CrisBrown]

Hi allen,

Thanks for doing the math! Actually it makes me feel better because I'd been told that in NLHE, a good player should win about 80% of his/her showdowns. That was my benchmark for disappointment with my 56% figure.

Cris

[talkinghead]

SNG's are not typical NLHE. Players stack off far more frequently, they have to coz of the blinds.

If a player was getting anywhere near 80% of showdowns won in SNG's they wouldn't be playing nearly aggressive enough towards the end of tournament.

Just for a laugh looked up mine (it's 50.8%) but my ROI is around 40% so I make decent money

[t_perkin]