Why I play so crazy

[CrisBrown]

Hi All,

For those who wonder why I play the way I do, it's really quite simple. I know I have to win thirty small pots for every one big pot I get into, because I know I will lose most of the big pots. According to PokerTracker, I'm ahead about 77% of the time when the money goes in. I win only 56% of my showdowns. That means I get outdrawn so much more often (when I'm ahead) than I outdraw my opponents (when I'm behind) that even being ahead in the hand is a net -EV for me ... UNLESS I CAN BET MY OPPONENT OUT OF THE POT.

Given that, I'm better off playing trash cards that I can lay down to a reraise, rather than good hands that will only get outdrawn if I get all-in with them.

And that's why I play so crazy.

If it comes to showdown poker -- having to put the best hand out there at the river -- I will consistently lose, regardless of how patient I am, regardless of what starting cards I play. This isn't a matter of thinking I'm unlucky. This is a matter of knowing I'm unlucky, and having 4000+ hands worth of stats to prove that out. I know I can only win with my bets, because my cards will lose if I'm called. That's why I rarely if ever call into a pot, why I rarely if ever call a reraise, and why I expect to win 99% of my pots with bluffs.

Now ... if you win ~50% of your coin-flips, and most of the time when you're ahead in the hand, your strategy and mine will necessarily differ. I don't. And I don't even expect to. I know I am not only playing against my opponents, but also playing against the dealer, and I don't expect either to give me an "even break."

Cris

[byronkincaid]

Are 4000 hands enough to prove anything? I'm not trying to be clever but asking a serious question. Like a lot of poker players I think, I used to be a blackjack player. I'm not one of the maths guys but when I used to read about people doing computer sims they were always playing through millions of hands. I think if you did a blackjack sim of 4000 hands and said it proved anything you'd get laughed at.

Is it perhaps the same for poker?

[CrisBrown]

Hi All,

All were all-in showdowns at the point where the hand is given:

88 vs. A9o on flop of 4-8-9 ... lost to A-A turn-river.
AQ vs. QJ ... lost to J on flop.
TT vs. QJ ... lost to J on flop.
AJ vs. KJ ... lost to runner-runner flush.
QQ vs. JT ... lost to runner-runner straight.
44 vs. AK on A-6-4 flop ... lost to A-K turn-river.
64 vs. 77 on 7-5-3 flop ... lost to 5 at turn. (I was in this for free in the BB.)

KQ vs. A4o ... won with Q at river.
QJ vs. TT ... won with J at river.
QJs vs. A3 on A-x-x flop (I had four-flush) ... won with flush at river.

I count three times that I outdrew a better hand, and seven times that I was outdrawn. This was not an "unlucky" day. It was a typical day for me.

And that's why I play to win with my bets, not my cards.

Cris

[AleoMagus]

You cannot be entirely serious with this post.

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a matter of thinking I'm unlucky. This is a matter of knowing I'm unlucky, and having 4000+ hands worth of stats to prove that out. I know I can only win with my bets, because my cards will lose if I'm called.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to understand a few things here. First, 4000 hands is not really that big a sample.

More importantly though, even if you had a 100,000 hand sample, you cannot use that sample as a guide for how you should play - Not if you truly believe that the game is fair.

Now, if I had a 100,000 hand sample, And I won showdowns a lot less than I should, then I might start to doubt the integrity of the game. If you beleive the game is fair though, you cannot let these kinds of stats sway your willingness to get into a race with the best of it. Stats can show that we have gotten unlucky, but are no indication whatsoever about how lucky we will be in the future.

To suggest that you are somehow playing with a cloud of bad luck over your head is a very negative and self-defeating attitude. I saw a bit of this attitude today in our SNG and I think it cost you a money finish.

I assure you. The poker gods have not singled you out. If you really beleive they have, then why would you play poker at all.

I hope your luck improves
Brad S

[CrisBrown]

Hi Aleo,

As for self-defeating attutides, you can call it that, or you can call it simple realism. I had trash for the last 20 or 30 hands of the 2+2 SNG. With two short stacks who would be getting correct odds to call, I couldn't play any hand that I wasn't willing to take to an all-in showdown. I simply was not getting cards that I wanted to take to a showdown.

From the time the blinds hit 300/600 (the point at which I said "I guarantee I will not make the money") to the end of the tourney, my hands were: 23o, KJo (folded to 3xBB preflop raise), Q7o, 72o, J4o, 54o, 43s, J9o, 92s, 32o, Q5o, Q7o, 44 (wins the blinds), Q2s, J2o, T9s (wins the blinds), J4o, AJo (wins the blinds), ATo (loses to AQ), AQo (wins the blinds), T6o, K7o, 73s (2xBB remaining, all-in and gone).

I played every hand that I thought had a chance. All but two of the times I played, I took the blinds, but never more than the blinds. The two times I was called, I lost. With the short stacks keeping each other alive by trading chips back and forth, and the blinds eating me alive, and trash cards hand after hand after hand, I knew there was no way I could win the tournament unless: (a) I caught a big hand; (b) someone caught a big enough hand to call, but a second-best hand nonetheless; and, (c) I didn't get outdrawn. Coz I sure as hell wasn't going to win many showdowns with Q7o, J3o, etc.

Now, someone will doubtless come along and say that of course I should've called half my stack on on KJo, or that I should've tried to steal more. But if I'd called half my stack in on KJo and went bust on that hand, or I'd been caught stealing with my entire stack on a hand like J4o, I'd be hearing about how I should be more patient and wait for better cards.

Fact is, the cards weren't there. I played the few I had, but there simply were not enough premium hands to keep up with the blinds, and I wasn't getting any other hands that I was willing to risk my entire stack with on a steal. I was patient ... and I patiently lost. That's not to say I should've been less patient. There was no way I was going to finish in the money with what I was dealt.

Cris

[Ulysses]

Maybe you're running bad. Maybe you're playing badly. Either way, playing in a non-optimal fashion to counter your "unluckiness" is not going to help anything.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Ulysses,

Please see my new post "A Month's Worth of Insanity" for a more complete statistical breakdown. It actually wasn't a bad month, but it sure could've been a lot better.

Cris

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a matter of thinking I'm unlucky. This is a matter of knowing I'm unlucky

[/ QUOTE ]


this is a matter of me wanting to stab myself in the eye every time i read this garbage.

[CrisBrown]

[ QUOTE ]
this is a matter of me wanting to stab myself in the eye every time i read this garbage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do.

Cris

[William]

Interesting, though I just cannot take seriously anyone saying that he/she is playing a certain(wrong) way because he/she is too unlucky.

Perhaps if you looked Pockertracker a little closer you would find out that the times you had the best hand, you were only a slight favourite, thus the high % of suckouts; and the times when you were the dog, you were a big dog, thus the small % of suckouts in your favor.
That way you are not as unlucky as you think you are.
Just a thought of course, but the little bird on my shoulder tells me I am probably right [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

William