Something I have been thinking about

[DocMartin]

[ QUOTE ]
Almost all of my off nights have featured, getting my ass handed to be for -30BB to -50BB on a single table. I really can only remember a couple times when I have come storming back and taken my vengence on the asstards who thumped me in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP to describe myself. I play about half as much (about 3K/week) and I find it very difficult to leave what I perceive to be good tables with asstards when I have lost money. I am a champ at leaving bad tables (ahead or behind), and I can leave a good table when I am ahead and feel like doing something else.

There is quite likely some subtle tilt going on. Knowledge that I am a winning player and perceived +EV opportunity and refusal to accept the wrong side of variance. I hadn't put much weight on the "image" factor but should have.

I had considered a "stop loss" number of 30BB but thought "thats only for people who tilt, I dont think I' tilting".
How do you know when it is subtle? Is going through sessions looking for subtle signs of tilt vs certain opponents worthwhile?

A stop-loss wouldnt be hard to implement, I often set goals when I am up (say 30BB) after playing awhile, that I will leave at +/- 15BB, lock in the win and call it a day.

I'm always a step or two behind Flair, same questions and then some.

Is a stop-loss a reasonable solution in this case? Just how big a role does image play? Is there any good literature about it?

[Mike]

If you are a very good player and another player suddenly has your game in his/her back pocket, it doesn't matter what his/her level of play is. What I see is other players notice and start taking their shot at you too, and then you can't win because you are collectively overwhelmed - just like ants or bees.

For example, in a hand they would just call another player, they raise you. You can't beat them collectively at this point, they smell the blood and play even more aggressively against you.

Only a good run will save you, and we know how often that happens when you want it to.

[ncboiler]

[ QUOTE ]

You are at a good table, maybe even a great table.


[/ QUOTE ]

And you would want to leave why? It either great and you need to stay or its not and you need to leave.

[El Tigre]

i think you should stay as long as you feel you can play your best. an example of this is tonight, i was down 110BB in the 3 tables i was playing in 1 hour!!!! i felt i was playing well though and wasn;t going to tilt. I finished the night up 2 BB. Stick with it at a good table!!!

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Almost all of my off nights have featured, getting my ass handed to be for -30BB to -50BB on a single table. I really can only remember a couple times when I have come storming back and taken my vengence on the asstards who thumped me in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP to describe myself. I play about half as much (about 3K/week) and I find it very difficult to leave what I perceive to be good tables with asstards when I have lost money. I am a champ at leaving bad tables (ahead or behind), and I can leave a good table when I am ahead and feel like doing something else.

There is quite likely some subtle tilt going on. Knowledge that I am a winning player and perceived +EV opportunity and refusal to accept the wrong side of variance. I hadn't put much weight on the "image" factor but should have.

I had considered a "stop loss" number of 30BB but thought "thats only for people who tilt, I dont think I' tilting".
How do you know when it is subtle? Is going through sessions looking for subtle signs of tilt vs certain opponents worthwhile?

A stop-loss wouldnt be hard to implement, I often set goals when I am up (say 30BB) after playing awhile, that I will leave at +/- 15BB, lock in the win and call it a day.

I'm always a step or two behind Flair, same questions and then some.

Is a stop-loss a reasonable solution in this case? Just how big a role does image play? Is there any good literature about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

See I have reaaly been thinking about this a lot.

I like Mike's post about the ants and the bees...being collectively overwhelmed. Because that is how I percieve these situations to.

The stock answer is "never leave a good table". I understand that logic. What I am trying to figure out is how much my EV at a table is diminished by running bad. I've been around long enough now, not to get upset by having a set cracked by a runner runner flush. Or top Two killed by a gutshot.

I don't think those are the hands that put you in the ground.

Think about a sequence like this:

1. You get sucked out on by a bad player.

2. IN one of the next few hands you open raise light from MP say something like A8s. The suckout player calls from one of the blinds. The flop comes a couple face cards... no solid draws or even backdoor draws for you. He checks, you bet, he raises... you fold.

Now maybe he had a hand or maybe he did not. You made the right play... but the problem is this suckout guy is now presuming ownership of you. He thinks... yeah I beat his ass in that big pot... now he is folding.

So now maybe the suckout player starts leading into you a few times (remember you don't play a lot of hands so having the ones that are normally easy now play difficult is a problem) also the suckout has now changed his style... so whatever read you had is for [censored] now.

So you start folding more than you would like... cause your card dead and missing every damn flop. Now the semi-observant players start to notice. Pretty soon, more people are taking more shots than normal. You start to notice that people are pushing you a bit more... but how hard are they pushing? You start to try to take a stand...oops one of them had the hand that time.

You are zigging when you should zag and ducking when you should jump. But all-in all you are not playing bad. It is just like Mike said in his excellent post in this thread, collectively there are too many bullets flying.

I think this is a real phenomena, guys. And I think it happens more at the higher level of small stakes than at 2/4 or 3/6. I think this type of thing might have a stronger effect then we give it credit for.

I have not made a decision on this yet, but I am thinking pretty hard about it. Because there is something to this... I just don't have any idea how to quantify it.

Doc, I share your concern about stop loss. I don't like having absolute rules... I think they are bad. But at the same time, I think what we are talking about here has some quantifiable effect. I just don't know how to do it other than by "card sense". And that bothers me.

[QTip]

Flair:

It's been a while... Hope you're doing well.

So, it seems most of my thoughts have been discussed here. Just how much does table image affect you in your game, and how does running poorly affect the way you play.

Personally, I just plan on losing money and buying in for about 200 bets. Now people can talk about how stack size affects play in limit holdem [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Anyway, my thoughts are that the better your game is, the less your table image will truly become a factor, and the less likely I'm going anywhere.

[Evan]

Do you really buy in for 200 bets? I can't tell if you're joking.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't tell if you're joking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey! You stole my line from joker's screenplay! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I'm joking. Online though, I like to buy in for 40-50 bets. Just saves me the hassle and [joking]fun[/joking] of reloading.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]


Anyway, my thoughts are that the better your game is, the less your table image will truly become a factor, and the less likely I'm going anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of an oversimplification, but I get your point.

Problem is many times you are not playing bad. I have no problem saying "Hmmm just can't get it right tonight, can't shake this mild case of retardation...I think I'll grab a bowl of cheerios and goto bed."

Think about this. Most bad players that I stalk, play one maybe two tables. These people may not understand poker concepts to the level that we do. But they are not retarded IRL. I think that they can observe certain things and try to make a few moves. This puts the blood in the water for some of the better players, and I think there is a point where your EV goes night-night.

Anyway, the best thing I can come up, with is this. When you are starting to actively second guess what should be routine decsions against bad (especially passive) or otherwise predictable players... it may be best to find a new table.

[DocMartin]

Well I pulled out the bibles of poker psychology (Inside the Poker Mind & The Psychology of Poker) for anything related to the discussion. (I mean I was really tempted to invest all my thought into how to play AA at a donkfest like all the cool kids but figured I could get to that later).

What I got out of it.

So you are playing a solid game and not hitting so your image becomes that of a tight semi-aggressive player that can be pushed off hands. Or you suffer from "AK syndrome" where they always put you on AK and bet any flop not including an A or K just calling down if you continue to be aggressive. Bad news when the non-retarted players pick up on it and decide to use it. It means more bluffs and more aggression with their marginal hands.

If you can figure out who has pegged you this way (I believe you referred to them as "asstards", usually the 30-40vpip semi-thinkers) use your new image to your advantage. These changes should be player specific.

1) I think you have to tighten up a bit and bluff less against them
2) Use more passive lines with marginal hands (invite more bluffs, more check raising with strong hands. Let them know the c/r means business.
3) Slowplay big hands getting the bets in on the later streets
4) Use 2) and 3) to set up similar lines when you want to pull off some timely bluffs once your image improves

[ QUOTE ]
When you are starting to actively second guess what should be routine decsions against bad (especially passive) or otherwise predictable players... it may be best to find a new table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this. I think it may be important to redefine what a "good game" is. I always thought of it in terms of vpip/pfr av. pot size and position on poor players. A game where you have been targeted as an easy mark by the weaker players you prey upon is no longer a "good game" regardless of their stats/tendencies and position.