Reasons for downswings?

[johnzzz]

I've just read a long sequence of posts on a downswing in the Party beginner's tables in the micro-limits forum. It got me wondering how to tell what is the cause of a downswing.

Of course I know there is no such thing as a downswing - every hand that is dealt is RANDOM and INDEPENDENT. Therefore downswings just exist in player's imaginations. But what causes them?

Some possible reasons:
1. Hero's poor cards.
2. Villains' good cards.
3. Flops, turn and river cards.
4. Hero's bad play.
5. Villains' good play.
6. Other reasons.

Ok, these are some possible causes but if I've had a 100bb downswing how can I tell which one is the main cause?

There is so much knowledge about other aspects of the game surely there must be a way of analysing the hands to discover the reason for the downswing.

We've all had sessions where we just fold, fold, fold... That's the fault of the hands we have been dealt.

How about six or seven top pairs loosing at the showdown, every pocket-pair misses the flop, and every flush-draw fails? Again this is just chance.

Is there is a systematic way of finding out? Can PT be used? What about the online stats?

[Bez]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course I know there is no such thing as a downswing - every hand that is dealt is RANDOM and INDEPENDENT. Therefore downswings just exist in player's imaginations.



[/ QUOTE ]


This is incorrect. Of course you have downswings. They are not imaginary at all. You've listed some reasons as to why they occur yourself.

Post hands in the appropriate forum to try and plug leaks in your game and continually critique your own play.

If you think you're tilting because of a downswing, stop playing for a while.

Then wait for the glorius upswing.

[smoore]

I explain it as luck. Luck is cyclical, sometimes you run goot, sometimes bad. Anyone who doesn't believe in luck will instantly shoot me down as a bad player. I have yet to see an explanation of up/down swings without either skirting around the concept of luck or outright "blaming" it.

If someone reading this doesn't believe in luck, consider the case of wild west lawman Wyatt Earp. He was in dozens of gunfights and never even got wounded. He went up against some of the most deadly outlaws of the era and not one of them managed to hit him. It wasn't due to opponent skill that he prevailed in such a manner, so I call it luck. He just "ran good" his whole career.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
I explain it as luck. Luck is cyclical, sometimes you run goot, sometimes bad. Anyone who doesn't believe in luck will instantly shoot me down as a bad player. I have yet to see an explanation of up/down swings without either skirting around the concept of luck or outright "blaming" it.

If someone reading this doesn't believe in luck, consider the case of wild west lawman Wyatt Earp. He was in dozens of gunfights and never even got wounded. He went up against some of the most deadly outlaws of the era and not one of them managed to hit him. It wasn't due to opponent skill that he prevailed in such a manner, so I call it luck. He just "ran good" his whole career.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like downswings, luck only applies to the past. Random events can't individually be predicted, but after the fact if they happened to clump one way or the other we can say someone was lucky or unlucky or they had a downswing. When you're "in" a downswing you never know if you're at the start of it or the middle of it or if it ended two hands ago. You can only tell when you look back at it. All we know about future hands is that over a big enough sample all the luck will even out so as to approach zero eventually.

So sure, luck is real, but it's also worthless since it only applies to the past. Earp was in a profession where he had a much higher chance than normal of being shot. He wasn't as it turns out but I still wouldn't have offered him life insurance 2/3 of the way through his career because he was "running good" - that can end at any time and there is no way of predicting it. Fortunately for Earp, his sample size really wasn't as big as you might think.

Show me someone who "is" lucky and I'll show you someone who actually "was" lucky. We'll have to wait until tomorrow to find out if he still is.

edit: I meant to add luck is definitely NOT cyclical. A downswing is just as likely to be followed by another downswing as it is an upswing. In poker, we can still win because we shave off the bottom of the downswings and pile onto the top of the upswings so our average comes out positive.

[johnzzz]

Poker players on 2+2 who believe in luck! I hope you're playing at the same table as me.

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker players on 2+2 who believe in luck! I hope you're playing at the same table as me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you better believe in it. Just don't think you can ride it like a surfer.

Regards,

T

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
I've just read a long sequence of posts on a downswing in the Party beginner's tables in the micro-limits forum. It got me wondering how to tell what is the cause of a downswing.

Of course I know there is no such thing as a downswing - every hand that is dealt is RANDOM and INDEPENDENT. Therefore downswings just exist in player's imaginations. But what causes them?

Some possible reasons:
1. Hero's poor cards.
2. Villains' good cards.
3. Flops, turn and river cards.
4. Hero's bad play.
5. Villains' good play.
6. Other reasons.

Ok, these are some possible causes but if I've had a 100bb downswing how can I tell which one is the main cause?

There is so much knowledge about other aspects of the game surely there must be a way of analysing the hands to discover the reason for the downswing.

We've all had sessions where we just fold, fold, fold... That's the fault of the hands we have been dealt.

How about six or seven top pairs loosing at the showdown, every pocket-pair misses the flop, and every flush-draw fails? Again this is just chance.

Is there is a systematic way of finding out? Can PT be used? What about the online stats?

[/ QUOTE ]

With knowledge and experience you learn why you are losing. For example if you can see your opponents making maistakes and they are beating you then that points to variance. Also if you analyze your play and you are losing hands that you played correctly then that points to variance. If you can't tell the defference between variance and poor play then you need to read study post and learn until you can.

Pokertracker can help you determine whether you are experiencing variance but it is not a tell all. You could be losing more than your fair share of pocket aces because of variance or you could be failing to protect your hand adequately. You could also be losing too much with your losing bullets and not collecting enough with your winners. The only way you can tell this is by picking apart your game hand by hand.

[Dave H.]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker players on 2+2 who believe in luck! I hope you're playing at the same table as me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely we believe in luck! Is it luck or skill that causes your pocket Aces? Is it luck or skill that forces you to fold 10 hands in a row before the flop? Is it luck or skill that makes your low pair a set on the flop? We could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.

The whole idea is to continue to play correctly and in the end your luck will even out and your skill will then cause you to be a winner.

The worst mistake that is made for those possessing the proper skills is to tilt when luck runs bad. But what is tilt other than simply NOT PLAYING CORRECTLY (to the extreme, I might add).

You won't find a single experienced player on this forum who doesn't believe that luck plays a part in poker. If you doubt that, take a poll to convince yourself.

[Bluffoon]

Luck plays no part in poker

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
Luck plays no part in poker

[/ QUOTE ]

You should read Poker Essays Volume II where Mason actually says it's better to be lucky than good. Of course then he goes on to say you can't control being lucky so you have to be good, but regardless in a game with a SD frequently around 16 BB/100 and winrates of < 4 BB / 100, luck is very very important in the short term.