Ever fold KK preflop?

[McHonts]

I have been in a downswing lately as well. I would cap/call with KK and maybe try and peel one off to see the turn with a pot that sized. I try and reread sshe or read through the hand quizes once a month. I learn or re-learn something every time. I also have been looking at my stats and reviewing everyhand I am involved in to see if (where) I could have played better. I have had my share of aa and kk cracked recently. I will be hitting the sshe highlights again.

[ QUOTE ]
I also have been looking at my stats and reviewing everyhand I am involved in to see if (where) I could have played better.

[/ QUOTE ]

ditto. That's part of the reason I laid that hand down. Over that last 2700 hands, I've been dealt KK 14 times, raised it every time, but only won 28% of the time. That 28% would be even lower if I had called last night.

Now on the other side of the coin, Q's have been *very* kind to me. I win with QQ 80% of the time, and with AQ ~63% of the time. All these numbers go very "contrary" to what the theoretical numbers show. Because you are running contrary to what theory dictates, should you vary your play accordingly? Conventional wisdom says no, but is it really wrong?

I'm an engineer, and a data driven guy. So based on the data I have available, it seemed like a good laydown. It's kind of Bayesean thinking, but given that KK hasn't been paying off in the past, and all the action preflop, it seemed like the prudent thing to do. And based on the flop results, it certainly *was* the prudent thing to do.

I guess what it really boils down to is do you base your decisions on what the "theoretical" results should be or what "actual" results are. Theoretically, I should have played KK. Based on actual performance, I should have laid it down. I made my decision based on actual performance, and it turned out to be right. But over the long haul, this should hurt me.

Something else just occurred to me... You don't hit KK all that often. I think it was Ed Miller in one of his posts here that said something along the lines of "a mistake on hand that doesn't happen very often is a small leak". So if you make a decision based on texture of the game, and the way the cards have been running for you, is that really wrong? I mean, it's not like I lay down KK every hand. First time I've ever done so, in fact. And it turned out to be the right thing to do [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[shant]

You are being results oriented and it definitely is wrong. You can reason it all you like, but you just said yourself, your sample of KK losing is over 14 times having it. That is meaningless. Over 14 hands you only won 28% of the time, that means you lost 10/14 times with KK. Yes, it's a bad run, but it really has nothing to do with the long run.

Over a significant sample of hands, I have won with KK 75% of the time and average 2.25BB. That means if I fold KK preflop I should just burn ~1.69 BB. That's a pretty decent sized mistake.

You need to clear your head of results oriented thinking. If you are running bad and it is affecting or changing the way you would normally play a hand you are on tilt and should not be playing because you are playing sub-optimally.

[ QUOTE ]
You need to clear your head of results oriented thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Several folks have said this, and I'm not sure I really understand what it means. I mean, we're playing poker for results, right? The result being, hopefully, to make money (and have fun, win etc...). Isn't all poker results oriented? Or am I looking at something wrong?

thanks

[Eeegah]

[ QUOTE ]
Several folks have said this, and I'm not sure I really understand what it means. I mean, we're playing poker for results, right? The result being, hopefully, to make money (and have fun, win etc...). Isn't all poker results oriented? Or am I looking at something wrong?

thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

We are interested in the long term results. However, since poker is a game of statistics, fluctuations are inherent. We win at poker by ignoring the fluctuations and focusing on hard, cold statistics, logic and psychological analysis. Most importantly, we realize that poker hands are independent events: losing with KK fifteen times in a row has no bearing on how it will fare this time or the next fifty, unless we alter our play in some misguided attempt to compensate.

The OP is not playing poker. He's practicing Voodou.

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You need to clear your head of results oriented thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Several folks have said this, and I'm not sure I really understand what it means. I mean, we're playing poker for results, right? The result being, hopefully, to make money (and have fun, win etc...). Isn't all poker results oriented? Or am I looking at something wrong?

thanks

[/ QUOTE ]
Poker is a long run game. If you continue to play, you will play KK thousands of times. Some people who play lots of hands will someday play it millions of times. What happened with KK the last 10 times you played it is meaningless. If you are remembering that you lost the last 3 pots with KK and are changing your play because of it, you are being results oriented.

Another part of being results oriented is using the outcome of a hand to reason that you played the hand correctly. Like if I raise preflop with AA and checked it down and lost to 73o that made a straight. I can reason that I played the hand correctly because my opponent would've got there anyway and made a better hand. That is obviously incorrect and I'm just using the results of the hand to justify my bad play. That's being results oriented.

The reason you are playing poker is to play as best you can in all conditions. Variance is a bitch, but you need to adapt to it or you won't be successful in poker.

[McHonts]

When I look at every hand, I look at each one individually and play them back. Do I think I am behind? What can I put them on. Is my hand in need of protecting and given where the aggression is can it be protected? All those questions that you should be asking during the hand but cannot process fast enough. Do not draw from the over all stats for that hand that it is not a winning hand. look instead at how each instance was played. Did you have an opportunity to knock out the JJ that caught the set on the turn? This happened to me with two pair aces and queens recently. I raised preflop with AQ in late pos, and called a bet from the small blind after catching the flop. the jj were behind me. I waited to raise the turn becasue with only one person left to act after me, I did not think forcing him to face 2 small bets was enough to protect my hand. After he won he told me he would have folded to two. I think he was being honest. check back through each hand and try and think like ed. no easy feat but something I strive for.

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it was Ed Miller in one of his posts here that said something along the lines of "a mistake on hand that doesn't happen very often is a small leak". So if you make a decision based on texture of the game, and the way the cards have been running for you, is that really wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Folding a preflop monster hand is a really huge error. Ed Miller would certainly agree. You probably make over half your money on these premium hands. Check yr PT database.

Well, that's part of my problem: KK is not a big winner for me. I've played a total of ~5k hands. It's a pittance, I know... I'm a complete newb, which is why I'm posting these <sometimes stupid> questions and exposing myself to the heavy artillery fire of the more experienced, and sometimes merciless, posters [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Anyhow, out of those 5K, my top winners are:

AQ won 54% for 42BB
QQ won 72% for 35BB
AQs won 64% for 31BB
then wayyyyy down the list
AK won 45% for 6BB ( to be fair, the BB should be higher here, but I misplayed some of the hands...)
KK won 44% for 2BB (most of these losses came within the last 2K hands)

I mean, I've won with Q5s out of the BB (62%) more often that KK. So that's what I've been trying to reconcile.

But from what I gather, the answer is not in folding big hands just because they've been losing for you in the past. I can understand that. It just seemed like sound reasoning to say "well, this has lost for me a lot before, and this action is pretty heavy, so it'll probably lose again". I need to quit thinking that way. Question now is, how do you make yourself quit thinking that way? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Agthorr]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm an engineer, and a data driven guy. So based on the data I have available, it seemed like a good laydown. It's kind of Bayesean thinking, but given that KK hasn't been paying off in the past, and all the action preflop, it seemed like the prudent thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm an engineer, too, so I understand your concern for having hard data. I spend a fair bit of time writing little scripts to extract data from my Poker Tracker database to analyze my play.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what it really boils down to is do you base your decisions on what the "theoretical" results should be or what "actual" results are.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, you need to take into account two things:
<ul type="square">[*]How much reason you have to believe that the theory is accurate[*]How many samples you think you need for the actual results to converge to the theory[/list]It turns out that a deck of randomly shuffled cards can be modeled perfectly. We can compute exactly the probabilty that you will win with a given set of hole cards, assuming no one folds (including you). So, we have very strong reason to trust the theoretical results.

As for your empirical data, you have only 14 data points, and you had 4 wins (4/14=28%). Lets say you flipped a coin 14 times, and it landed heads only 4 times. Someone else flips the coin 1000 times and it landed heads 501 times. Do you really think you should conclude that the coin is weighted... only when you're holding it?