Question about poker droughts

[dogmeat]

"Droughts", or periods when the cards just don't fall right can indeed last for long periods of time. In the past year and a half (I play for a living), I never had a losing month, but playing mostly online, I had a period of 37,000 hands where I only won $750. That's a hell of a long drought. Online that's about 6 weeks for me, but if I had been playing at a local B&M casino and only getting 40 hands per hour, well, that would have been 925 hours. For most players, that hourly amount would be about a half a year. Ouch!

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[skp]

Your 3k loss has nothing to do with the fact that you incurred them in short sessions (subject to the exception noted below). The fact is that you lost the 3k over say 12 hours. You say you were card dead and continually missed flops. That can occur in one 12 hour session, 12 one hour sessions, 2 six hour sessions etc. The length of the session has nothing to do with it.

Exception: If you walk into the casino knowing that you have an hour or two to play, you may play suboptimally if you get stuck in order to get even for the session. If that is happening to you, then indeed playing short sessions may be having a negative impact on results. But that "I have to get even" feeling shouldn't really be there for 4 to 5 hour sessions. Well, it shouldn't be there ever but hey, we are all human.

[KCFire105]

[ QUOTE ]
You say you were card dead and continually missed flops. That can occur in one 12 hour session, 12 one hour sessions, 2 six hour sessions etc. The length of the session has nothing to do with it.


[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts were that if I were card dead for the first 4 hours of a 15 hour session, I can eventual begin to catch if sticking to my game. Much more difficult to recover if I'm only there for 5 hours. (and I don't play to get even when I'm stuck, I just stick to my game).

Still don't understand why the "length of the session has nothing to do with it"

Can you expand that for me?

Thanks

[dreddie26]

follow up question: can there be an indication in your statistics that you are having a bad run and its not because your playing bad. (even when i lose in a session i can still have (9% hands won, with 50% wins after flop seen)

ps i'm a beginner (and not losing at the moment, but not winning also [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
follow up question: can there be an indication in your statistics that you are having a bad run and its not because your playing bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check whether you're winning or losing (and by how much) with AA, KK, QQ and JJ. That's a good start in figuring out whether a particular session was bad luck or bad judgement.

[royaltrux]

I could be wrong but what I think he's trying to say is that the cards have no idea that you have been playing for 4 hours or 20 hours. They are pieces of paper that are randomly dealt to you.

There is no written rule that you will run cold for 5 hours but will hit a streak if you just stick it out. You could sit there for 3 days and still catch nothing.

I have the opposite going on with my sessions right now. I seem to make several BBs right off the bat and either stay in that range for the session or slowly get back even. But I have had the reverse happen as well.

To sum it up, we're basically saying that the cards have no brains and they can't determine if you have been there for 3 hours or 12. Just concentrate on making good poker decisions and the money will come your way.

[skp]

[ QUOTE ]
My thoughts were that if I were card dead for the first 4 hours of a 15 hour session, I can eventual begin to catch if sticking to my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Royaltrux basically said what the problem is with your reasoning. Essentially, if you think that you are due to catch up after 4 bad hours, you will be due just the same whether you continue playing that night or go home and come back the next day.

It's all one lifelong session. If it is too hard to think of poker as one lifelong session, try and at least think of it as being weekly sessions rather than daily ones. So, you have 4 sessions each month. If you think that hours 5 to 15 in a "session" will be good because hours 1 to 4 have been bad, it makes no difference that you play hours 5 to 15 on a day other than the one when you played hours 1 to 4.

[dogmeat]

Your percentage win is an indication of how many pots you have won, nothing more. We have all been in games where we raised with top hands (AA,KK,QQ,AK etc.) and win only the blinds, then get in deep with them other times only to lose to aa better hand. So, yes, you can win 9% of your hands and still lose money. You can also win 5% of your total hands and do great because one or two hands that you won had huge jackpots.

Aside from playing poorly (and everybody does this at times)which does not always punish you, the only indication of a good or bad streak is your money won.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Orpheus]

Recently, I drilled myself in basic strategy in Blackjack, which I haven't played in pver a decade.

BJ has far less volatility than poker, and a robotlike basic strategy. Further, I was playing on drill software that told me when I was making a mistake, and let me correct my play (using the program's own perectly accurate card count).

Yet one day I hit a 1000 hand drought. My splits and doubles almost never panned out, I consistently got tens on the third or fourth card instead of the first or second, and the dealer developed uncanny knack for hitting 5s on 16.

Fortunately, 1000 hands of computer BJ is less than a morning of play. In live casino poker, it could take a month of driving to the casino after work on Fridays. In some friendly weekly games, it could be two months or more.

If that can happen with BJ [I don't recall the exact number, but I think the SD/100 of Basic strategy is something like 1/10th of a decent NLHE player), even when the correctness of my play/count was constantly verified and corrected, it's easy to see how poker droughts could last many months.

It's a terribly depressing notion--and you're right: when you are winning in your "usual" fashion, or even breaking even, a monster drought seems incomprehensible. The coverse it true, but to a lesser degree, because if winning consistently seemed impossible, you'd simply never pick up a deck again. In fact, that has happened to me: there have been times in my (longer than I like to admit) life when I simply gave up on a game because I lost faith. I wasn't even losing. I just decided "this can't go on", and quit. It's easy when you're consistently up: you have nothing to prove.

(Disclaimer: I'm only a passable poker player, but many friendly games are fishier than Party, and during my travels in my youth, I played "that cowboy game" regularly with locals and expats who only knew it from American movies. In fact, unless the world has changed, that could be an easy way for a college kid to tour the world: meeting and beating affluent fish at the international hotels. Just make sure to stick to those hotels: the world has enough unidentified corpses washing ashore already.]

[Orpheus]

I should clarify: *I* never lived off poker. I was worse back then than I am now (if you can imagine that). It amazed me that I didn't lose my shirt every game.

I was just reminiscing, and realizing anew how truly bad my opponents must have been. Expats often had more free time than sense; retirees abroad often had a lot of 'today' to kill, and not much tomorrow to save for; and in some countries, a college grad could make 100x the bare costs of living, which left a lot of cash to throw at the exotic thrill of an "authentic American card game".

Dang, if I'd read a few poker books back then, I'd probably still be living off the pots I undoubtedly left on the tables in the 1970s. (Or else, I'd be buried in one of the pots that were hanging from the ceiling.)