Why I play so crazy

[CrisBrown]

Hi All,

For those who wonder why I play the way I do, it's really quite simple. I know I have to win thirty small pots for every one big pot I get into, because I know I will lose most of the big pots. According to PokerTracker, I'm ahead about 77% of the time when the money goes in. I win only 56% of my showdowns. That means I get outdrawn so much more often (when I'm ahead) than I outdraw my opponents (when I'm behind) that even being ahead in the hand is a net -EV for me ... UNLESS I CAN BET MY OPPONENT OUT OF THE POT.

Given that, I'm better off playing trash cards that I can lay down to a reraise, rather than good hands that will only get outdrawn if I get all-in with them.

And that's why I play so crazy.

If it comes to showdown poker -- having to put the best hand out there at the river -- I will consistently lose, regardless of how patient I am, regardless of what starting cards I play. This isn't a matter of thinking I'm unlucky. This is a matter of knowing I'm unlucky, and having 4000+ hands worth of stats to prove that out. I know I can only win with my bets, because my cards will lose if I'm called. That's why I rarely if ever call into a pot, why I rarely if ever call a reraise, and why I expect to win 99% of my pots with bluffs.

Now ... if you win ~50% of your coin-flips, and most of the time when you're ahead in the hand, your strategy and mine will necessarily differ. I don't. And I don't even expect to. I know I am not only playing against my opponents, but also playing against the dealer, and I don't expect either to give me an "even break."

Cris

[byronkincaid]

Are 4000 hands enough to prove anything? I'm not trying to be clever but asking a serious question. Like a lot of poker players I think, I used to be a blackjack player. I'm not one of the maths guys but when I used to read about people doing computer sims they were always playing through millions of hands. I think if you did a blackjack sim of 4000 hands and said it proved anything you'd get laughed at.

Is it perhaps the same for poker?

[CrisBrown]

Hi All,

All were all-in showdowns at the point where the hand is given:

88 vs. A9o on flop of 4-8-9 ... lost to A-A turn-river.
AQ vs. QJ ... lost to J on flop.
TT vs. QJ ... lost to J on flop.
AJ vs. KJ ... lost to runner-runner flush.
QQ vs. JT ... lost to runner-runner straight.
44 vs. AK on A-6-4 flop ... lost to A-K turn-river.
64 vs. 77 on 7-5-3 flop ... lost to 5 at turn. (I was in this for free in the BB.)

KQ vs. A4o ... won with Q at river.
QJ vs. TT ... won with J at river.
QJs vs. A3 on A-x-x flop (I had four-flush) ... won with flush at river.

I count three times that I outdrew a better hand, and seven times that I was outdrawn. This was not an "unlucky" day. It was a typical day for me.

And that's why I play to win with my bets, not my cards.

Cris

[AleoMagus]

You cannot be entirely serious with this post.

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a matter of thinking I'm unlucky. This is a matter of knowing I'm unlucky, and having 4000+ hands worth of stats to prove that out. I know I can only win with my bets, because my cards will lose if I'm called.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to understand a few things here. First, 4000 hands is not really that big a sample.

More importantly though, even if you had a 100,000 hand sample, you cannot use that sample as a guide for how you should play - Not if you truly believe that the game is fair.

Now, if I had a 100,000 hand sample, And I won showdowns a lot less than I should, then I might start to doubt the integrity of the game. If you beleive the game is fair though, you cannot let these kinds of stats sway your willingness to get into a race with the best of it. Stats can show that we have gotten unlucky, but are no indication whatsoever about how lucky we will be in the future.

To suggest that you are somehow playing with a cloud of bad luck over your head is a very negative and self-defeating attitude. I saw a bit of this attitude today in our SNG and I think it cost you a money finish.

I assure you. The poker gods have not singled you out. If you really beleive they have, then why would you play poker at all.

I hope your luck improves
Brad S

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a matter of thinking I'm unlucky. This is a matter of knowing I'm unlucky

[/ QUOTE ]


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

[William]

Interesting, though I just cannot take seriously anyone saying that he/she is playing a certain(wrong) way because he/she is too unlucky.

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.
Just a thought of course, but the little bird on my shoulder tells me I am probably right [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

William

[Ulysses]

This is just about the most ridiculous post I've ever read on this forum. I hope you're joking, but based on past posts I don't think you are.

Then again, I'm really good at making flush draws and flopping sets, so maybe I just don't understand.

[Ulysses]

I bet you're right, William. Plus, it also sounds like she is folding in some situations rather than calling a bet when she is likely to be ahead, potentially further hurting her win rate.

[Utah]

I hope you were joking with this post. Otherwise, it is quite disturbing and you might want to step away from the game for a while.

You cant control the cards. However, if you let "vodoo" creep into your game then you need to step back. Odds are odds. You might have been sucked out way more than your share. It might continue to happen. But if you keep playing the odds the money will come to you long term. That long term is measured in months and years - not weeks or days. 4,000 hands is nothing.

Good Luck.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi All,

For those who wonder why I play the way I do, it's really quite simple. I know I have to win thirty small pots for every one big pot I get into, because I know I will lose most of the big pots. According to PokerTracker, I'm ahead about 77% of the time when the money goes in. I win only 56% of my showdowns. That means I get outdrawn so much more often (when I'm ahead) than I outdraw my opponents (when I'm behind) that even being ahead in the hand is a net -EV for me ... UNLESS I CAN BET MY OPPONENT OUT OF THE POT.

Given that, I'm better off playing trash cards that I can lay down to a reraise, rather than good hands that will only get outdrawn if I get all-in with them.

And that's why I play so crazy.

If it comes to showdown poker -- having to put the best hand out there at the river -- I will consistently lose, regardless of how patient I am, regardless of what starting cards I play. This isn't a matter of thinking I'm unlucky. This is a matter of knowing I'm unlucky, and having 4000+ hands worth of stats to prove that out. I know I can only win with my bets, because my cards will lose if I'm called. That's why I rarely if ever call into a pot, why I rarely if ever call a reraise, and why I expect to win 99% of my pots with bluffs.

Now ... if you win ~50% of your coin-flips, and most of the time when you're ahead in the hand, your strategy and mine will necessarily differ. I don't. And I don't even expect to. I know I am not only playing against my opponents, but also playing against the dealer, and I don't expect either to give me an "even break."

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Cris,

Pokertracker has bugs. Lots of 'em. Consider that before drawing conclusions about your vibrational xeenu field affecting your long-term luck.

I loaded two hands with AQs in them history today, and my count for playing AQs didn't change. I triple checked. Pokertracker is just wrong. It's probably wrong with your stats as well.

eastbay