At Wits End

[CaptSensible]

I've been on a losing streak for the last 6 weeks. I've lost 2 months worth of profit and am down about 1200 bucks. the last two days I've seem to come out of it but my recovery was short lived. This is basically what's been happening:


1. Losing every coin flip,
2. Having hands like trips, two pair cracked by runner runner on a regular basis
3. Having hands like KK only to find someone has AA on a regular basis.
4. Having hands like AA only to be cracked by JJ on a regular basis.


I play a tight game. I see at most 25% of the flops. Often times less.
When I have a great hand I play it aggressively. I don't fish. and more importantly I've only tilted about 2 days over this last month. I've kept my emotions in check etc etc etc.. But I really don't know what to do. I've seen so many runner runner flushes and runner runner straights that I'm beginning to think that poker needs it's own math. Seperate from true match, lol. Sure I laugh but then it turns into maniacle crying. I'm beginning to think some people are just lucky and others aren't.
I corresponded with Jennifer Harmon via email when I first started playing. She said she had this one horrible year where she lost everything but a friend loaned her like 50grand for a bank roll and she then became the pro she is now.
My game keeps getting better and better but my bank roll keeps going down. I question whether or not I should keep going with poker. I love the game. I have a true passion for it and a real desire to learn it. When I'm not on a losing streak I have a win rate of around 30% but I keep hitting these bad streaks that wipe me out. My win rate is now about 20% which is killing me because coming in 3rd place doesn't cover two losses. I'm down about 6 grand over the last year. The first 6 months of losing I chalk up to not knowing enough about the game but these last 6 months my game has improved 300 fold but all that translates to really is losing less.
I play only 20-50 dollar sit and goes. In casinos I play low limit cash games. I also play online and live tourneys. I've played in 3 live tourneys. the first one i busted out before the break. the 2nd one I had trip 8's cracked by quads. The third I came in 8th out of 80 to win 400 bucks. I think I have potential and am a good novice player but these losing streaks have me throwing my hands up in the air and thinking "what the hell am I doing? I just just give up this absurd game!!!"
Any advice, encouragement, shared experience would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for letting me vent

[olavfo]

Take a few days off. Do other stuff, relax and clear your mind. When you return to the tables you'll feel better, play better and the cards will seem more friendly.

I'm not saying you're tilting, but sometimes it's best to just stop and hit the reset button.

olavfo

[MasterShakin]

I believe that the tourney route is particularly difficult, especially the lower dollar sit&go's. Here's my logic, though I haven't worked it out entirely, so I'd love to have some feedback.
Point 1: Sit&Gos typically have a 10% rake. I haven't done all the math, but $3 on a $30 buy-in, if it is comparable to a cash game is extremely high.
Point 2: Much like low-limit cash games, with the minimal "buy-in" many players stand between you and your money who (a) don't know how to play & (2) don't care if they lose... aka: are willing to make absurd moves in hopes of getting lucky. One or the other gives you an edge, but the combination of both & the volume of these types become prohibitive in an environment where the blinds are increasing steadily. This second point is based largely on game-theory, namely, that your opponents must be of a certain type and that even when far weaker than you, if they are similar in their aggression and maniac-like play then they will prohibit you from gaining an advantage... unless you get powerful hands which hit the board early. This final caveat, of course, is dependant on chance and thus cannot be expected over the long run.
Point 3: Unlike cash games, it is difficult to select your opponents. If particular cash game has a difficult mix of opponents then you can walk away, anytime without penalty. Obviously, the same is not true of tourneys... at best you may elect not to play a tourney before it begins, otherwise, it is your loss.

I think I have on or two more points to make, but I haven't quite flushed out the ideas yet & will restrain until I have. I will say though, that I think the larger payout/larger entrant tourneys may be profitable & would be worth participating in given adequate funding from cash games. Also, you will probably find that PL & NL cash games are particularly well suited to the style you have cultivated for tourney play, given some minor modifications.

peace,
MasterShake

[CaptSensible]

Some good thoughts MasterShakin. I've been questioning the payout math on the SnG's lately. If i come in 3'rd 50% of the time I will lose money because of the rake. That makes it very difficult to make money even though my "making the money" ratio is very high.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the tourney route is particularly difficult, especially the lower dollar sit&go's.

[/ QUOTE ]
Low buy-in SNGs are relatively easy to crush. For the same bankroll, a good player can work up from cheap SNGs much more rapidly and safely than by playing limit ring games.

[ QUOTE ]

Point 1: Sit&Gos typically have a 10% rake. I haven't done all the math, but $3 on a $30 buy-in, if it is comparable to a cash game is extremely high.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is backwards. The rake is much lower for SNGs, basically because you pay the rake on the net rather than the gross amount won.

Do you not realize how much rake you pay in cash games? On average, players pay about 2.5 BB/100 ($10/100) at $2-$4 limit online. (The rake is much higher in live casinos.) At NL $100, players pay a similar amount, $8/100.

In $2-$4, the standard win rate of a solid player is comaprable to the rake. In NL $100, a solid winner should win 2-3 times the rake. In $30+$3 SNGs, a solid winner might win 4 times the rake (36% ROI).

[ QUOTE ]

Point 2: Much like low-limit cash games, with the minimal "buy-in" many players stand between you and your money who (a) don't know how to play & (2) don't care if they lose... aka: are willing to make absurd moves in hopes of getting lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is what makes poker profitable. You get to put your chips in as a favorite, or getting favorable odds, over and over again. You don't always win, but you win far more than your fair share because there are bad players who win less than their fair share.

If you would win more if everyone played like you, you must be a loser.

Welcome to the forums.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been on a losing streak for the last 6 weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bad luck happens because this is poker, not chess. However, you need to consider the possibility that you are not a winning player yet. It sounds like you have a lot to learn.

I've had a really bad streak in my last couple of months, but I still won more than I did in my first year as a winning poker player.

[ QUOTE ]

I play only 20-50 dollar sit and goes.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should read the Single Table Tournament forum.

You should also consider moving down until you establish that you are a winning player. Get in the habit of winning, and then move up.

If you are playing on a Party skin, you might want to try playing on PokerStars (there is a deposit bonus until June 2nd that can be cleared by playing SNGs), UltimateBet (SNGs do not clear bonuses), Bodog (SNGs are great for clearing bonuses), or PokerRoom (bonus means a partial refund of SNG fees). These sites have slower structures than Party, making it easier to have a higher win rate, though each tournament will take longer than on Party. It's also nice to get a 7-18% boost to your ROI from bonuses.

[MasterShakin]

I'm not sure I disagree with you, but then I can't be sure I agree either.

I will take your comments on the rake at face value and agree for now. I am not sure how you came to your conclusions, but until I do the calcs myself I will assume you are correct.

With regard to the bad player/good player point I think we have a misunderstanding, mostly because I wasn't clear enough. My point is that while having poor players as opponents is nearly always a positive thing, at times it can be a negative because of the collective effect these poor players can have on your odds in specifically structered situations.

Let's see if I can make an example by taking my thought to its logical extreme. Assume: 1 table of ten, NL S&G, chips begin at $1000, blinds start at 5-10 & double every ten hands.

Poor players are those who put money into a pot when they do not have the best hand (I am simplifying this without, I think, hurting my point). And, in the S&G NL format many players will make moves nearly as ridiculous as going all-in (1000) with only a $15 pot. This happens, and many times they get an all-in call. I recently saw three people go all-in on the second hand of a S&G. The victor had QTs & one of the losers had 44.

A good player commits money & gets called when they have the best hand (among other things). And, this is applied over the course of up to four betting rounds. With many poor-playing, early aggressive types at a table this advantage is reduced, for the simple fact that so much money is committed early that the good player has less time to out-play their opponent.

Returning to the example, if the pot is extremely expensive pre-flop, somewhere between 3-5 times the BB, and there are numerous entrants (I believe) the best play is to only enter with premium hands. Obviously, with many entrants pairs fall in value and drawing hands increase in value. However, pre-flop play must be relatively tight.

Now, with the blind structure as stated in the example (granted, a bit over-stated), one must make money within the first seven rounds or the BB in the eighth round will put you all-in. And, even before then one will be prohibitively short-stacked.

So what then is a winning strategy? Betting pre-flop with less-than premium hands is too expensive & tight play tends to lead to short-stacked blinding-out (save the relatively infrequent occasions when you are dealt monsters very early). Post-flop play is often reduced, by my experience, to an all-in decision on the turn, or worse. Bluffing is all but worthless until at least half the field has been cut. And, while in cash games one can observe the play in advance of participation no such opportunity is afforded in tourneys (save good note-taking on previous play of opponents & selecting tourneys with only players you know). The advantage of the limit games is that playable hands expand because of the betting caps.

I have attempted a number of different styles and have tried to adapt those styles to tourney poor-player created conditions... with little success. Ultimately, I found the S&Gs to be minimally profitable, if that. My suspicion, given the fluctuations, is that regardless of my style I could play winning poker and win 1st or 2nd about 20% of the time, taking 3rd maybe another 3% (usually, when I had advanced this far making 1st or 2nd became relatively easy).
This might be profitable, but it depends on the payout structure. I don't really care for a 4th or 5th prize in a tourney of 20-30 because I almost never place 4th or 5th. If I make it that far I am probably coming in 1st or 2nd & the 4th/5th monies are reducing my payout.
I think then that one can potentially make money at the S&Gs but it is not as simple as just playing good poker. And, it is possible I have not discovered the correct balance of play but optimal play will necessarily change based on the pool of opponents. For these reasons alone I believe that S&Gs should be used as an educational, but not profit-making, experience for beginning-intermediate players.

peace,
MasterShakin

p.s. I think it's an interesting topic and I do not have all (or even most of) the answers, but let's not degrade one another by stating the obvious... good players generally like bad players in the game should be obvious.

[Cliff Dweller]

definitely take some time off. the last time i went on a bender i felt exactly like you did. i happened to go on a business trip for a week and then decided to not play, read or think about poker for a 2nd week. when i started playing again after those two weeks off it was night and day difference. i think it's healthy to do every now and then even if you aren't going through a bad run.

the other thing i do is tighten up my opening hands and/or go down a level in stakes. so if you usually play about 25% of your hands, start playing about 20% by throwing out some marginal hands you usually play. then when you get your feel back, you can work some marginal hands back in if you want to. none of this is rocket science but it works for me.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

I will take your comments on the rake at face value and agree for now. I am not sure how you came to your conclusions, but until I do the calcs myself I will assume you are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
For the estimates on the rake, I used a PokerTracker database with thousands of hands at each level over multiple sites. Individual sites may have slightly different rake structures or typical pot sizes.

For the win rates, I used the comments and PokerTracker results of experienced players in the SS, SSNL, and STT forums.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that while having poor players as opponents is nearly always a positive thing, at times it can be a negative because of the collective effect these poor players can have on your odds in specifically structered situations.

[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you are complaining about bad players. Your arguments are one-sided. Bad players make low buy-in SNGs profitable with low risk. They are a great way to build up a bankroll and to gain skills. Higher buy-in games have fewer bad players and are much tougher to beat for the same ROI.

If someone will call you down with any pair, you value bet with top pair or better, and you profit tremendously on average. If you bluff a calling station and get called with bottom pair, you have been outplayed.

[ QUOTE ]

A good player commits money & gets called when they have the best hand (among other things). And, this is applied over the course of up to four betting rounds. With many poor-playing, early aggressive types at a table this advantage is reduced, for the simple fact that so much money is committed early that the good player has less time to out-play their opponent.


[/ QUOTE ]
In tournaments in general, the stacks are short. It is common to be all-in preflop or on the flop. Nevertheless, there is plenty of time to have a big advantage over poor players. In fact, you can be a winning SNG player at Party without playing post-flop. If you are willing to play post-flop, you can gain an even larger advantage.

[ QUOTE ]

So what then is a winning strategy? Betting pre-flop with less-than premium hands is too expensive


[/ QUOTE ]
No, it isn't. Don't call a raise with junk, but you can raise with a decent, nonpremium hand, and pick up the blinds or get called by worse. On average, you win by doing that.

[ QUOTE ]

& tight play tends to lead to short-stacked blinding-out


[/ QUOTE ]
Not always. You can win by playing tightly for a long time. The AleoMagus guide to beating $10+1 SNGs is much too tight, but it works.

[ QUOTE ]
The advantage of the limit games is that playable hands expand because of the betting caps.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the consensus is against you. In many contexts, more hands are playable in NL because of implied odds and the increased importance of position. In limit, who started with a better hand is much more important than in NL.

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately, I found the S&Gs to be minimally profitable, if that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Others have found SNGs to be extremely profitable.

SNGs are one of the easiest ways to build a bankroll rapidly from $100 to $1000. It is easy to learn to be a winning player and to get valuable experience for MTTs and NL cash games.

That the original poster has lost dozens if not hundreds of buy-ins does not mean there must be a flaw in the SNG format. It is a strong indication that the original poster is not as good a player as he could be.

[ QUOTE ]
let's not degrade one another by stating the obvious... good players generally like bad players in the game should be obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]
It should be, and yet time and time again people come up with arguments for why they think bad players make some game impossible to win, while many good players are crushing that game.

[TheQ]

A different angle:
It sounds like you're playing a lot of different games. NL sit and go, tourneys, limit, ect. Each one has it's own nuances, starting hand strategy, and on and on.
Try mastering one at a time.

I just started playing on-line about a month ago, and lost initially. Even after reading this forum, and having read books, and books, and books. I'd played online for play money for a year. Creaming everyone in sight. The initial loss hurt. Pulled my hair out almost, because nothing worked the same.
Advice: (if you like) Sit down, and pick a game: Limit, or what have you. Don't play anything else until you feel strong. Winning will build yur ego. Decide on your starting hand strategy, and think about WHY you are playing those hands. If you're playing low-limit .50/1 and everyone calls to see the flop without much raising, you are going to need better hands to prevent from getting drawn out on so much. Raise your agression to force out those call-stations on the flop and turn. Don't buff at the showdown.

I fell into that stupid luck-trap too, almost. Even though I KNEW better. I'd say it's a sign of "soft-tilt"

I completely re-vamped my playing, carefully chose my tables, and seat. Selected my starting requirements BASED on my opponents general style of play. I've won every cent back now, and can't wait to move up, when I have 300BB saved for the next level. I'm already casing the turf, and planning my strategy. heh heh heh.

Poker tracker tells me I'm loose aggressive agressive. I don't really care, cause I'm wasting my competetion. When I move up, I'm gonna have to play a lot less hands, and re-tool everything all over again. But then I'll know, I started from the bottom, and beat these bizzaro-world low limit games.

Get yourself back in the zone and start controlling the table. Destroy the weak, and let your confidence grow.

Relax.