Is poker just not for me?

[Cooker]

It sounds like you are having a bit a tough luck with the cards lately. I too am having a sort of dry spell. I think a slight winning player can easily have a bad run of 5000 hands where they end up down. There are some estimates in Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason on this, and I am just trying to roughly remember.

Still, post flop play is more important than many people think. Being tight and raising correctly preflop is good, but will probably only give you a slight edge, you really need to look at how you play postflop. In a loose game, you should know when and how to build big pots. Often after a tough run of cards people tend to become a little passive and become more self weighting (this basically means that you try and get to showdown cheaply with your strong hands). I know this sounds obvious, but winners must get much more on winning hands than they lose on losing hands (this is non-self weighting). I bet you are missing key big pot building hands and so your wins aren't quite covering the times your big hands get beat.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been playing limit .20/.50 on Ultimate Bet and Carribean Poker (which no longer counts low limit rakes towards your bonus - major suck). I can't count the ways I've lost money the last two days;

- I flop an Ace, but the board is suited and someone else flopped a flush.
- I flop a straight, someone else hits a miracle river for a full house (paired 10s on the turn, paired Kings on the river, he had a King).
- I flop a set, someone else hits the turn for a better set.
- I flop two pair, and get outdrawn by someone hitting a gut shot straight draw.
- I flop a pair with a flush draw. I still lose to a higher pair and I never hit my flush.
- AA, KK, QQ, JJ lose 90% of the time. I raise preflop, keep betting and raising down to the river. Do they hold up? Of course not.

It almost seems like the game is a crap-shoot. Usually 4-8 people per flop, with about 3 calling with anything all the way down to the river. I kid you not, someone called a raise and continued calling down to the river with 72o only to hit a straight and win. I've seen two 93o split a pot which was raised preflop.

I try so hard to play the way SSH says to play. Check-raise here for value, Raise here to try and get drawing hands out of the pot, raise here for value, so on and so on. Don't fold in an insanely large pot, even if drawing slim. Call when pot odds permit it on a draw, or raise (flush draw w/ pair) for value.

I have reexamined my playing, I have reread some parts of SSH and Theory of Poker, I have asked questions here on the forums about certain situations. While I'm not perfect, and I definitely make mistakes at times (which I carefully examine so I can learn from them), overall I would have to say I'm playing well. But of course, I'm not winning. So that logic has to be flawed. If I'm losing, I obviously can't be playing well.

So this leaves me frustrated to no end. Is there a luck factor in poker that I just don't have? I try to play based on skill and odds, but I have to say so far it hasn't been going so well.

I'm not sure what else to say except... I'm looking for guidance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This all reminds me of the other thread somewhere else on this board (Poker Theory I think) about folding A-A preflop. Actually with many people in the pot even two aces despite being favorite against every single player become a huge underdog. The more players are in the pot the better the pot odds get for everyone. Seemingly idiotic play automatically gets rewarded once they make it to the river. I think Sklansky describes the same phenomenom under the topic "Important concept borrowed from Razz".

There are three things you can do:

A. Try No Limit SnG where you can shut down the draws
B. Look for tables with less players in the pot on average - usually at higher limits than 0.5/1
C. Continue what you are doing now hoping it was just a streak of tough luck

[Cooker]

Seems like you have some misconceptions. If you have AA in holdem, the most +EV situation you can have on average is every player playing a capped pot preflop. This will make more money in the long run than ending up heads up or 3 way. Tables with weak calling stations are more profitable than those without and the more weak players the more profitable the table. Still, you must make some strategy adjustments, but at the lower limits, a good player can easily make 4-5BB /100. You should be seeking these tables out, not running from them. The variance might be a little higher, but the profits should be as well.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like you have some misconceptions. If you have AA in holdem, the most +EV situation you can have on average is every player playing a capped pot preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fairness, the other poster didn't say that playing them was -EV, just that they become a "huge underdog". Every hand is less than even odds in a family pot, so I suppose winning the pot is always an underdog to losing the pot (i.e., has probability < 0.5). I wouldn't call that a huge underdog -- to me that implies they have less than a 10% probability of winning -- so it does sound like he has misconceptions. Of course the point is that you're getting 9:1 on your aces, and will win about 30% of the time, or so I've read.

I don't think the idea that aces lose value in a multiway pot is absurd, though. I seem to remember reading that from Sklansky somewhere (HEPFAP?). Of course even if the aces lose a little value, they're still more +EV than kings, jack-ten suited, or what have you. The question is whether they're more +EV with say 4 opponents or 9, and I don't know if anyone's published a definitive answer. My intution agrees that the family pot is better but intuition can be tricky.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the idea that aces lose value in a multiway pot is absurd, though. I seem to remember reading that from Sklansky somewhere (HEPFAP?).

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that Aces lose value in a multway pot is totally absurd. A quote from page 126 of Getting Started in Hold'em by Ed Miller regarding playing AA, "Getting it all-in against all 9 players is actually your best result, but you will never be that lucky." This is actually an aside after saying that you would like to get all-in preflop with aces against 2-3 players. AA has such an enormous edge preflop, it plays well any way you want to play it. If you can find such a quote in a 2+2 book, then I will be very surprised. I keep seeing these pseudo quotes appearing and I don't like them. As so often happens, I suspect your pseudo-quote is putting incorrect ideas in someone else's mouth, which I doubt Sklansky would appreciate. If you think someone made a point, then find the source and quote them properly. It is bad form to pass incorrect ideas off as coming from a reputable source.

The point I was trying to make is that with Aces, your winning percentage goes down slower than the pot grows with multiple players. Aces with 10 players all playing for a raise is not only still + EV but higher + EV than Aces with 2-3 players playing for a raise. When you have AA you want everyone to call your raise, and hopefully someone to reraise so you can cap and still have everyone call. This is not only a +EV result, it is the BEST possible result.

You are only an underdog if you win less than your fair share and AA will only win less than its fair share in a few highly unlikely and contrived circumstances. For all practical purposes, before the flop Aces will never be an underdog and will certainly be the strong favorite. You want to win the most money not the most pots. More weak players = less pots but more MONEY.

Sorry if this comes off as a bit of a harsh rant, but the pseudo-quote thing is one of my pet peeves.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think the idea that aces lose value in a multiway pot is absurd, though.


[/ QUOTE ]
A priori, it is conceivable, but not after you look at real data. People keep saying AA is in trouble in multiway pots because they focus on winning pots rather than winning money.

[ QUOTE ]
The question is whether they're more +EV with say 4 opponents or 9, and I don't know if anyone's published a definitive answer. My intution agrees that the family pot is better but intuition can be tricky.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here are two sources of data:

GoCee: equity against random hands

Profit from every $1 put in preflop against n random hands, all-in:

n
1: 0.71
2: 1.20
3: 1.56
4: 1.80
5: 1.95
6: 2.05
7: 2.10
8: 2.12
9: 2.11

So, it looks like you want more random callers if you are all-in preflop.

How about actual play?

PokerRoom's stats

It's not clear how to use this data. Here is one possibility. Suppose you have AA in the big blind. Is this more profitable with many people at the table, or with fewer? More people at the table will mean more people limp or raise in front of the AA.

Here is how much AA is worth in the big blind against n opponents at $2-$4:

n
2: 0.81 BB
3: 1.49
4: 2.00
5: 2.22
6: 2.50
7: 2.22
8: 1.94
9: 2.40
10: 2.43

Here is the data from $5-$10:

2: 1.25 BB
3: 1.56
4: 2.02
5: 2.21
6: 2.51
7: 2.98
8: 2.44
9: 2.69
10: 3.70 (not 2.70)

Again, AA appears to be more profitable agaainst more opponents.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this comes off as a bit of a harsh rant, but the pseudo-quote thing is one of my pet peeves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point in wanting ideas properly attributed, but I don't think an encyclopedic knowledge of every 2+2 book should be a prerequisite for discussing these ideas either. Upon further review, perhaps I was a bit too casual in tossing that out there. Next time I'll try harder to phrase it in the form of a question: "Has anyone ever seen a reputable poker author say that blah blah blah?". But speaking up greatly increases the probability that someone will say, "You're wrong, it was really _____" or "You're right, it was on p. ____ of _____." Keeping quiet, though more appealing to the intellectual ueberpurist, is less likely to sustain a fruitful discussion about the value of aces.

If people read my half-remembered citation and conclude that it's gospel truth, then I'm disappointed that they do that. Unfortunately I can't force critical thinking on everyone who reads one of my posts. That said, I will see if I can find the passage I'm remembering and post it in context. Until then I certainly don't mean it as anything other than a vague recollection.

[amoeba]

if you are going to base results on such a small sample size where you can name specific hands than perhaps poker is not for you.

[pokers]

wow dude..I dont know but you cant lose 90% of the time with hands like that.


also UB isnt the way to go get out of there

[hotsauce615]

I think you need to read a little. Just the basics in the FAQ thread, and learn to deal with bad beats. It's not a crap shoot if your employ the proper strategies and not go on tilt. I have kings, queens, aces, etc cracked all the time, but you need to realize that in the BIG picture (Notice the emphasis on BIG), it will work out in your favor. It's going to be a long grind to get started, if it was easy everyone would do it.