Poker is Luck
Cwkace
of low limit and 738 hours of 1020 and 102040. I have read all the books, and
most of Cardplayer since that time. My favorite books and Lee Jones and
Sklansky, and have also read Malmuth, Brunson and Krieger.
I am -5.16 at white chip and -5.51 at red chip hold'em. My record is
consistent for any time slice over the years that can be analyed. I lose at
poker, regularly and with an amazing consistency(sp?).
After about 1000 of white chip I came up with the following thesis concerning
poker. Good, lucky players beat bad players. Yes, this is a modification of
the Mad Moron's thesis, and I believe is more accurate. Lifetime winning
players have some skill. I've believed for several years that the intelligence
level required to play accurate poker is about the same as needed to master
checkers, but I have amended that - if you can handle tictactoe you have the
necessary IQ for poker - the rest is luck.
I don't base this solely on my own record. I know a few other good players who
lose regularly. I watch the good players who win. We get the same cards
against the same players and make the same hands. So what's the explanation
for the difference in results? Their hands hold up and the unlucky players'
hands don't. I have a good friend who never plays above the 48 level in
hold'em and he wins in the same games I play. This is over at least 1500 hours
of play. The cards don't run over him, he loses sometimes, he takes bad beats
sometimes and he's a very good player - but he wins because his hands hold up
more than mine.
I believe this is true at all levels of limit hold'em and may be true for all
forms and stakes of poker in general. Yes,
Sklansky,Caro,Reese,Brunson,Jones,Malmuth,Cooke,Krieger,Capelletti,Ciafone
,Ungar,Hellmuth,Chan ... all of them, the ones I didn't name and the many
working pros ... without exception, win because of LUCK. The skill necessary
(and I do believe skill is required - bad players don't win in the long run,
lucky or unlucky) is easy to acquire.
I am a lifetime winner at blackjack, a game that is even easier than poker to
learn. In 869 hours I'm $15.68 per hour ahead, and that includes 450 hours and
very low bet amounts of 5-20 (450 hours, 4.00 per hour). I believe the same
about blackjack as poker - one thousandth part skill, the rest luck. I just
get lucky at blackjack and unlucky at poker.
I post this note to hopefully start a thread of some interest. I may sound
bitter but I'm not. I have gotten a lot out of poker, including new friends
and I hope some character development. I plan to play on a very limited basis
the rest of my life (about 100 hours per year is all I can afford), and am
still trying to learn how to enjoy the game even though losing. The odd thing
is I don't play blackjack much anymore because I don't like the game, even
though I beat it like a drum. My only hope to ever win at poker is for some
cardplaying angel to demonstrate to me why I'm a rotten poker player and then
tell me how to improve. I'm ready and willing to learn, I just don't think
there's anything significant left for me to learn. I genuinely hope I'm wrong.
Asha34
folks get bitter over being unlucky and quit poker. You sound like you are a
pleasure to play with. If you are ever in Connecticut at a casino and see a
guy in a respirator, please stop by and say hello.
Ashley
minus200
is: some players are luckier than others and some of them win. Most of these lucky
player expect to be lucky all the time and are surprised when they are not. They
are lifetime losers at the game instead of big winners. They are not able to
handle the poor luck that comes to us all.
The flaw in this post is rather simple. Winning players manage the bad runs and
make the best of good runs. It is no more difficult than that. The people reading
are also more important than you give credit. For most of us that plod thur good
and bad cards at the lower limits, we have some people skills. We manage to be
winning players by how well we handle the bad run of cards. It is not just how we
play those hands but how we let it affect our mental approach to the game.
I am sure that many will want to shoot holes in my statement about luck. They will
not change my mind about some people are just simply luckier than others. I am
lucky in life and have a fine family and some success in the business world. I
find that I can not make too many mistakes and win at poker. I would not want to
play poker as a source of income but, I admire those who do. They are true
business people that have all the problems that come with being self employed. For
those of you that have never been self employed, you will have a difficult time
grasping the depth of the problems of running your own business. Poker is not that
much different.
minus200
my name describes my game
Gary Carson
Cwkace wrote in message <19991024175126...@ng-cq1.aol.com>...
>After about 1000 of white chip I came up with the following thesis
concerning
>poker. Good, lucky players beat bad players. Yes, this is a modification
of
>the Mad Moron's thesis, and I believe is more accurate. Lifetime winning
>players have some skill. I've believed for several years that the
intelligence
>level required to play accurate poker is about the same as needed to master
>checkers, but I have amended that - if you can handle tictactoe you have
the
>necessary IQ for poker - the rest is luck.
>
>I don't base this solely on my own record. I know a few other good players
who
>lose regularly. I watch the good players who win. We get the same cards
>against the same players and make the same hands. So what's the
explanation
>for the difference in results? Their hands hold up and the unlucky
players'
>hands don't.
You should go back and read those threads where Jeff was talking about how
much he hates to lose a hand. He was so busy trying to insult Badger that
he never understood a word anybody was saying -- but you should read some of
the things people suggested to Jeff.
The difference in results comes from getting in an extra bet or saving an
extra bet. Poker is about individual bets -- it's not about winning or
losing a pot.
Your thoughts appear to be focused on the luck of whether or not a hand
holds up. That has almost nothing to do with whether or not you end up a
winning player. If you put your money in the pot when you have the best of
it, and don't put your money in the pot when you don't have the best of it,
then you'll be a winning player.
Gary Carson
I have a good friend who never plays above the 48 level in
>hold'em and he wins in the same games I play. This is over at least 1500
hours
>of play. The cards don't run over him, he loses sometimes, he takes bad
beats
>sometimes and he's a very good player - but he wins because his hands hold
up
>more than mine.
No, he wins because he gets his money in the pot when he has the best of it.
It has nothing to do with whether or not his hands hold up.
>I believe this is true at all levels of limit hold'em and may be true for
all
>forms and stakes of poker in general. Yes,
>Sklansky,Caro,Reese,Brunson,Jones,Malmuth,Cooke,Krieger,Capelletti,Ciafone
>,Ungar,Hellmuth,Chan ... all of them, the ones I didn't name and the many
>working pros ... without exception, win because of LUCK. The skill
necessary >(and I do believe skill is required - bad players don't win in
the long run, >lucky or unlucky) is easy to acquire.
I don't know what you mean by skill, but the skill to be able to determine
when you've got the best of it isn't all that easy to acquire.
>I am a lifetime winner at blackjack, a game that is even easier than poker
to >learn. In 869 hours I'm $15.68 per hour ahead, and that includes 450
hours and >very low bet amounts of 5-20 (450 hours, 4.00 per hour).
And what do you have to do to be a winning blackjack player? You've got to
get those $20 bets on the table when the count suggests that you have the
best of it. Just apply those same principles to poker. It's just a little
more difficult to know when you have the best of it than counting cards
(except maybe in stud).
>I post this note to hopefully start a thread of some interest. I may sound
>bitter but I'm not. I have gotten a lot out of poker, including new
friends
>and I hope some character development. I plan to play on a very limited
basis
>the rest of my life (about 100 hours per year is all I can afford), and am
>still trying to learn how to enjoy the game even though losing. The odd
thing
>is I don't play blackjack much anymore because I don't like the game, even
>though I beat it like a drum. My only hope to ever win at poker is for
some
>cardplaying angel to demonstrate to me why I'm a rotten poker player and
then
>tell me how to improve. I'm ready and willing to learn, I just don't think
>there's anything significant left for me to learn. I genuinely hope I'm
wrong.
Gary (angel) Carson
Cognitive Dissident
Paul950 <pau...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991024204633...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
: I agree with you. I am a professional mathematician and statistician. I
have
: played about 1,000 hours of 10-20 and 15-30 HE over the past year. I do
not
: believe it is possible to beat the house take over the long run.
::::snip nonsense::::
: In any case, I totally agree with you concerning your comments.
:
: Paul
How closely related to Doogie are you? Obviously this and Cwkace's post's
are weak subsets of Doogies's universe.
--CoDi
Gary Carson
Pugum wrote in message <19991024224504...@ng-fo1.aol.com>...
>You're all wet about your "lucky" thesis. First of all, you have to do more
>than just read a few poker books. You must actually read and re-read and
then
>re-read again the good instructional books that are out there. Secondly,
most
>good instructional books emphasize strategy that is NOT pertinent to white
chip
>play
No book that suggests that strategy is not pertient to white chip play is a
good instructional book. What book claims that? I can't think of one that
does.
Gary Carson
Cwkace
solution I had to my losing was my attitude, which was occasionally about as
bad as it can get. Another player told me I had a bad attitude, to which I
smartly responded, "What does attitude have to do with having your Aces craced
on the river by pocket 2s?" I was finally desparate and had tried everything,
so through a sheer act of will, I changed my attitude. Though my results are
not any better, I do enjoy the game, if I don't play too much (getting reamed
on a daily basis is only fun for a masochist). I will be more than happy to
let you beat up on me if I'm ever your way. Thanks
Paul950
played about 1,000 hours of 10-20 and 15-30 HE over the past year. I do not
believe it is possible to beat the house take over the long run.
In his recent book, Roy Cooke states that only 1% of players win 90% of the
money in poker, and that even these players do not typically last more than 3
years before busting out of the game. He does not mention how much money this
"90% of the money" actually amounts to. His statement is essentially the same
as saying that only 1% of players win, end even here for relatively short
periods of time. Cooke also admits elsewhere in his book that a win in 20-40
hold'em of $1,500 or so in a single hand can significantly alter a person's win
rate "for a month, a year, or even a lifetime."
From a statistician's point of view, these are very depressing statistics. In
fact, at a game like 20-40 HE (this is what Cooke plays most of the time) it
does not take many hands to make one a winner for the year. Just a 10 or 20
big hands per year can make you a significant winner. Luck could easily
account for a person being a winner over several years.
Since there are so many people playing poker, of course, after the fact, their
are going to be 1%-5% who are winners over a few years. The same applies to
the slots, but nobody would claim that there is any skill there.
I honestly do not believe that given the size of the house take/tokes/jackpot
drops, that skill alone would enable a person to beat this game.
No one has ever produced a model that can accurately annalyze the statistical
process involved in poker. There are only annecdotal comments, Skalansky
included.
Also, I would give very little credence to people claiming they win at poker.
I play in a room where the house takes some $2 million a year out of the game.
But everyone in the room I have polled (about 40% of the people playing there)
claims that they are a "winner". Someone is losing $2 million per year. I
wonder who it is?"
Poker players/compulsive gamblers are notorious pathological liars. The
"winning" players who write books about poker remind me of those hucksters who
make those infomercials about making millions buying real estate with "no money
down."
Pugum
than just read a few poker books. You must actually read and re-read and then
re-read again the good instructional books that are out there. Secondly, most
good instructional books emphasize strategy that is NOT pertinent to white chip
games. Third, you didn't mention the Bible of poker as one of the books you
have read so there's no wonder you are a loser at the game. Fourth, there is
much more to winning poker than merely having your initial hand "hold up" as
you put it. Length of play is not determinative of poker knowledge or success.
From your own admissions I can unequivocally state that you have not begun to
seriously study this fine game. Sorry.
Jim Jamison, Atlanta. GA
Richard John Cavell
Someone loses consistently at poker and they figure that it must be bad
luck, because after all how could a genius like them lose?
Face it... some people are better than others. If you can't win
consistently, no hard feelings but you're a bad player. Simple as that.
The way you speak flippantly of the books indicates that you don't really
understand (that is believe in) mathematics. A lot of gamblers are like
this. The minute you find yourself saying 'screw the laws of probability,
I raise!', then you're a fish. Whether you've read the books or not.
> My only hope to ever win at poker is for some
> cardplaying angel to demonstrate to me why I'm a rotten poker player and then
> tell me how to improve.
Maybe that's exactly what you need.
Richard.
m...@acm.org
> I don't base this solely on my own record.
> I know a few other good players who
> lose regularly.
Your definition of good and my definition of good must be radically
different. A good player can lose on a day/week/month/... timeframe
but if they have played for a statistically signficant period of time
and are still a loser...well then they are not good. If OTOH you are
saying they lose sessions regularaly but they have a net positive bank
roll growth then I think you are valueing the wrong things.
> I watch the good players who win. We get the same cards
> against the same players and make the same hands. So what's the explanation
> for the difference in results?
I'm not sure how you've determined they get the "same cards" but
instead of looking at the cards they get and the hands they make have
you bothered to look at how they play those hands? A player that
loses less bets on seconds bests and makes more bets when he has the
best hand often looks to play very similar to other losing players but
is a long term winner.
> Their hands hold up and the unlucky players'
> hands don't. I have a good friend who never plays above the 48 level in
> hold'em and he wins in the same games I play. This is over at least 1500 hours
> of play. The cards don't run over him, he loses sometimes, he takes bad beats
> sometimes and he's a very good player - but he wins because his hands hold up
> more than mine.
Sounds like he might win because he plays better then you. Tough
medicine but have you considered it?
mph
Cwkace
logic is ultimately circular, and keeping things on the micro level, you are
simply saying that if you win you are good and if you lose you are bad. This
in counter to Cooke's belief that you can't be results oriented in poker, but
must play correctly. Try again.
Cwkace
Cwkace
fell apart from too much use. Same for Jones.
Cwkace
hours - gimme a break.
Cwkace
>>No one has ever produced a model that can accurately annalyze the statistical
process involved in poker. There are only annecdotal comments, Skalansky
included.
I have run literally billions of simulated rounds of blackjack using what I
believe are very accurate programs, and find that they accurately model the
real world of blackjack. On the other hand, a silly program like Texas Turbo
Holdem is totally unbelieveable. I consistently crunch all the TTH lineups,
and would gladly compare my results there with anyone, but there is no
connection between TTH and the green felt.
Thanks much for this input. You forgot to say - do you win?
Steve BIA
Cwkace wrote:
>I began playing poker seriously in 1995 and since then have played 2182 hours
>of low limit and 738 hours of 1020 and 102040. I have read all the books,
>and
>most of Cardplayer since that time. My favorite books and Lee Jones and
>Sklansky, and have also read Malmuth, Brunson and Krieger.
>
>I am -5.16 at white chip and -5.51 at red chip hold'em. My record is
>consistent for any time slice over the years that can be analyed. I lose at
>poker, regularly and with an amazing consistency(sp?).
>
>After about 1000 of white chip I came up with the following thesis concerning
>poker. Good, lucky players beat bad players. Yes, this is a modification of
>the Mad Moron's thesis, and I believe is more accurate. Lifetime winning
>players have some skill. I've believed for several years that the
>intelligence
>level required to play accurate poker is about the same as needed to master
>checkers, but I have amended that - if you can handle tictactoe you have the
>necessary IQ for poker - the rest is luck.
>
>I don't base this solely on my own record. I know a few other good players
>who
>lose regularly. I watch the good players who win. We get the same cards
>against the same players and make the same hands. So what's the explanation
>for the difference in results? Their hands hold up and the unlucky players'
>hands don't. I have a good friend who never plays above the 48 level in
>hold'em and he wins in the same games I play. This is over at least 1500
>hours
>of play. The cards don't run over him, he loses sometimes, he takes bad
>beats
>sometimes and he's a very good player - but he wins because his hands hold up
>more than mine.
>
>I believe this is true at all levels of limit hold'em and may be true for all
>forms and stakes of poker in general. Yes,
>Sklansky,Caro,Reese,Brunson,Jones,Malmuth,Cooke,Krieger,Capelletti,Ciafone
>,Ungar,Hellmuth,Chan ... all of them, the ones I didn't name and the many
>working pros ... without exception, win because of LUCK. The skill
>necessary
>(and I do believe skill is required - bad players don't win in the long run,
>lucky or unlucky) is easy to acquire.
>
>I am a lifetime winner at blackjack, a game that is even easier than poker to
>learn. In 869 hours I'm $15.68 per hour ahead, and that includes 450 hours
>and
>very low bet amounts of 5-20 (450 hours, 4.00 per hour). I believe the same
>about blackjack as poker - one thousandth part skill, the rest luck. I just
>get lucky at blackjack and unlucky at poker.
>
>I post this note to hopefully start a thread of some interest. I may sound
>bitter but I'm not. I have gotten a lot out of poker, including new friends
>and I hope some character development. I plan to play on a very limited
>basis
>the rest of my life (about 100 hours per year is all I can afford), and am
>still trying to learn how to enjoy the game even though losing. The odd
>thing
>is I don't play blackjack much anymore because I don't like the game, even
>though I beat it like a drum. My only hope to ever win at poker is for some
>cardplaying angel to demonstrate to me why I'm a rotten poker player and then
>tell me how to improve. I'm ready and willing to learn, I just don't think
>there's anything significant left for me to learn. I genuinely hope I'm
>wrong.
Steve N
Tommy Kristiansen
Luck will be equally shared among all players in the long run. Therefor
the good players will win in the long run.
Luck or unluck is what we say when the unprobable happens. But the
unprobable does not happen to certain players. In time it will happen to
all players, shared equally.
Jfraser375
someone mentioned turbo holdem as a means to determine a playing strategy that
might win...i know of a much better technique, and it worked for me
i play planet poker about 30 hours per week, and i record the results of every
hand that i play (hands in which i put some chips in the pot, even if only a
folded small blind)....i track the hands on an excel spreadsheet and summarize
them in ten hour and 100 hour segments.... a critical part of the tracking is
to calculate average win amount per winning hand and average loss amount per
losing hand.....i then work to maximize the former and minimize the latter.....
after five consecutive 100 hour segments of winning, i am comfortable that i am
now a winning player...even after paying approximately $8 per hour in
rake.....i have no desire to communicate my playing strategy but will tell you
this...for hands that i lose, my average loss is only $18.00 in 10-20
holdem.....
winning players give less action than they get
Ken Gordon
bad luck for their loses. It keeps bad players coming back for more. No
offense Cwkace, but you have a leak in your game that you can not see. With
most players it is a lack of discipline.
Kodiak Ken
Cwkace wrote in message <19991024175126...@ng-cq1.aol.com>...
Cwkace
>bad luck for their loses. It keeps bad players coming back for more. >No
>offense Cwkace, but you have a leak in your game that you can not >see. With
>most players it is a lack of discipline.
About 2000 hours of poker ago, it dawned on me that either I was a bad player,
or an unlucky player, or both. The thought that I was a bad player is what
motivated me to continue studying and working very hard to improve my game.
Not to toot my own horn, but I am one very stubborn person, and have taught
myself many disciplines, including 4 computer languages (can you program in
Windows, Visual C++?) and how to win at blackjack(I use +- counting system). I
have never put so much time, energy, effort and sheer bone grinding
determination into anything as I have into poker. I could not believe I
couldn't win at poker, and was totally determined to do so. I have never
experienced so much pain and absolute agony from anything (girlfriends dumping
me, motorcycle accident that shattered my wrist, getting fired from a job) as I
have from poker. Only the death of my mother qualifies as more painful.
After every losing session, I would playback the session in my mind and try to
detect my mistakes. I could usually charge at least 10 to 20 percent of my
losses to bad play (this is being very strict, and when in doubt, call it a
mistake).
For the next 2000 hours of poker I tried to find out why I was a bad player. I
can assure you that I have no lack of discipline. One losing session (-1200 at
102040), I played for 7.5 hours (yes, Virginia, seven and one half hours)
before winning a pot, and only entered about 1 pot per hour. It was a very
juicy game (one good player took down 3500 in 6 hours of play).
You can trust me that tilt is not the problem. I do sometimes get tilted, and
when I do, I quit and go home. I have some very short sessions in the record
book.
Like you, every day I would tell myself I was doing something wrong. I tried
everything and have read everything of relevance that I can find.
I'm sorry to tell you, that't not it. Try again.
I would dearly love for someone to tell me, not that I have a leak in my game,
but what the #@ ing leak is - many good players have watched me play, many are
my friends, none can say what it is I'm doing wrong.
POKER IS LUCK.
JohnnyD
Cwkace wrote:
>About 2000 hours of poker ago, it dawned on me that either I was a bad
player,
>or an unlucky player, or both
When people say things like this, "it dawned on me that I was...an unlucky
player", it just makes me laugh. If you believe one player is lucky and
another is unlucky, then you must believe there is a higher power
controlling luck. I don't want to get into a religious discussion, but if
there is a god, I don't think he would get involved in what cards come up in
a poker game.
I have seen players play solid "by the book" poker and lose on a regular
basis. They are too predictable. Everybody knows when they have the best
hand and they don't get paid off. They play only a few pots, usually
starting with the best hand, the pots are either small if they win or they
get drawn out on and lose.
Other players may play much more loose, but they know how to hide their hand
and how to play well after the flop. Therefore they extract the maximum
numbers of bets. At the end of the day, this player probably has done
better than the "by the book" player.
In summary, I believe luck may play a short term part, but creative play
will beat luck in the long run.
JohnnyD
Cwkace
I have seen players play solid "by the book" poker and lose on a regular
basis. They are too predictable. Everybody knows when they have the best
hand and they don't get paid off. They play only a few pots, usually
starting with the best hand, the pots are either small if they win or they
get drawn out on and lose.
This is self-contradictory, a la the Mad Moron. If I'm too predictable and
don't get paid off, I can run over the table because nobody calls me. If I get
out drawn, it's because they're calling me. Can't have it both ways.
I assure you, I can't run over the table. The reason I lose, as I stated in my
original post, is I can't make my good hands stand up.
Sorry, wrong answer. Try again.
POKER IS LUCK
Andrew Prock
According to Paul950 <pau...@aol.com>:
>I agree with you.
The funny thing about this post is:
1) you claim to be a mathematician
>I am a professional mathematician and statistician. I have
>played about 1,000 hours of 10-20 and 15-30 HE over the past year. I do not
>believe it is possible to beat the house take over the long run.
2) you then go on to use anecdotal evidence to support your claim
>In his recent book, Roy Cooke states that only 1% of players win 90% of the
>money in poker...
3) you elevate the anecdote to the level of statistics
>From a statistician's point of view, these are very depressing statistics. In
>fact, at a game like 20-40 HE (this is what Cooke plays most of the time) it
>does not take many hands to make one a winner for the year. Just a 10 or 20
>big hands per year can make you a significant winner. Luck could easily
>account for a person being a winner over several years.
4) you then attack anecdotal evidence
>No one has ever produced a model that can accurately annalyze the statistical
>process involved in poker. There are only annecdotal comments, Skalansky
>included.
That kind of logic is the furthest from mathematics you can
get.
I'll agree with you on one point though, the number of people
who can make *more* money at poker than they can at some other
endeavor is probably very very very few. How do I back this
up? I don't.
- Andrew
Andrew Prock
Cooke's "you can't be results oriented" doesn't apply to durations as long as
1000 hours. It applies on a per hand or per session basis. I've never seen
him write, "you can't be results oriented" after discussing a player who has
had a losing year.
- Andrew
Krmin
C++, I don't have the concentration to count cards at blackjack, and I've been
beating poker for 40+ years. I don't really think I'm still on the positive
side of the standard deviation. (I can talk a very little techie).
I haven't met you, so please don't be offended, but I have seen many, many
players who sound exactly like you do in this post. Let me describe one of
them at the table.
He knows all the odds and he knows everything in the books. He sits rigidly at
the table watching every card come off. He rarely speaks, he is too busy
concentrating. He doesn't play many hands, but when he does, either he wins a
small pot or he gets creamed.
My favorite game is three or four loose players and a couple of these techies.
The loose players build the pots, the techies provide stability, and you aren't
going to get ambushed. You have to watch out for the loosies, but the techies
are easy. You always know what they have.
Try playing very low limit stud for a while. Don't try to win, just try to
figure out what the other player's hands. Decide how loose or tight the game
is. Decide if if is a good or bad game. Identify the pigeons.
Rank the players. Who is worse than you and why? Who is better than you and
why? Who tries to steal pots? Whey did that player make that play?
Have some fun. Gamble a little bit (not a lot). See what happens.
Andrew Prock
>
>For the next 2000 hours of poker I tried to find out why I was a bad player. I
>can assure you that I have no lack of discipline. One losing session (-1200 at
>102040), I played for 7.5 hours (yes, Virginia, seven and one half hours)
>before winning a pot, and only entered about 1 pot per hour. It was a very
>juicy game (one good player took down 3500 in 6 hours of play).
Ahh, the truth comes out. You are too tight. I'll assume that by juicy you
mean loose. Over 7.5 hours you should have played about 200 hands or so. This
being the case, you should have seen somewhere between 40-80 flops. Even if
you were at the low end of the spectrum, losing 40 hands on which you have seen
the flop is pretty rare.
Maybe this was a rare sit for you. My guess though is that you play closer to
20% of your hands. Is this correct? The other problem is that you played too
long. Playing for 7.5 hours at a time is horrible. I do this regularly on
IRC, and I can tell that my play deteriorates horribly after even just three or
four hours.
>You can trust me that tilt is not the problem. I do sometimes get tilted, and
>when I do, I quit and go home. I have some very short sessions in the record
>book.
It sounds like you *do* have a tilt problem. If you are going on tilt at all
you have a tilt problem. It might not be big, and most of us have things
happen which rattle us to the core.
>Like you, every day I would tell myself I was doing something wrong. I tried
>everything and have read everything of relevance that I can find.
Did you read the people you were playing? Did you pay them off when you *knew*
what they had.
Here are three guesses as to what your leak is:
1) You play too tight
2) You play too predictably
3) You play too long
4) You play too passively
If you want to get better at poker, my first piece of advice would be to
go play poker on IRC. These are the best free games on the internet.
Sometimes they are easy sometimes they are hard. Overall they are more
realistic than *any* free option out there. (Although the 7stud option
at Paradise Poker can be fairly realistic too).
Do you keep hour by hour records of your sessions? If not, start doing that.
Are you beating the lower limits? What is the rake? Is it a 5% rake or a 10%
rake? Any 5% raked game is *much* easier to beat than a corresponding 10% raked
game.
- Andrew
Gary T Philips
only on what you have mentioned below, I can only come up
with two suggestions that might (underscore might) help. And
I do think there is hope for you simply because of your
determination and persistence.
The time you were playing 7.5 hours before winning a pot in
a self described juicy game, why were you playing only one
hand per hour? You play this tight and you will definitely not
get any action when you do, especially with knowledgeable
opponents. Loosen up those starting requirements some.
Next I suspect you have a tendency to play more when you
are losing and quit early after booking a small win. You played
7.5 hours without winning a pot. Maybe you could have called
it a day a lot sooner once you were convinced it was just not
your day. Amirillo Slim Preston once very wisely stated that
if you can't play when you're winning, when can you play? There's
lots of reasons for doing so. I won't go into them now. However
if that is your tendency, reverse it. Play longer when winning and
shorter when losing.
Gary (hope this helps) Philips
Cwkace wrote:
> >This is the beauty of poker, IMHO. Even people who should know >better blame
> >bad luck for their loses. It keeps bad players coming back for more. >No
> >offense Cwkace, but you have a leak in your game that you can not >see. With
> >most players it is a lack of discipline.
>
> About 2000 hours of poker ago, it dawned on me that either I was a bad player,
> or an unlucky player, or both. The thought that I was a bad player is what
> motivated me to continue studying and working very hard to improve my game.
> Not to toot my own horn, but I am one very stubborn person, and have taught
> myself many disciplines, including 4 computer languages (can you program in
> Windows, Visual C++?) and how to win at blackjack(I use +- counting system). I
> have never put so much time, energy, effort and sheer bone grinding
> determination into anything as I have into poker. I could not believe I
> couldn't win at poker, and was totally determined to do so. I have never
> experienced so much pain and absolute agony from anything (girlfriends dumping
> me, motorcycle accident that shattered my wrist, getting fired from a job) as I
> have from poker. Only the death of my mother qualifies as more painful.
>
> After every losing session, I would playback the session in my mind and try to
> detect my mistakes. I could usually charge at least 10 to 20 percent of my
> losses to bad play (this is being very strict, and when in doubt, call it a
> mistake).
>
> For the next 2000 hours of poker I tried to find out why I was a bad player. I
> can assure you that I have no lack of discipline. One losing session (-1200 at
> 102040), I played for 7.5 hours (yes, Virginia, seven and one half hours)
> before winning a pot, and only entered about 1 pot per hour. It was a very
> juicy game (one good player took down 3500 in 6 hours of play).
>
> You can trust me that tilt is not the problem. I do sometimes get tilted, and
> when I do, I quit and go home. I have some very short sessions in the record
> book.
>
> Like you, every day I would tell myself I was doing something wrong. I tried
> everything and have read everything of relevance that I can find.
>
JohnnyD
off on the river when you have the best hand. You probably lose big when
somebody draws out on you.
Your comment, "Sorry, wrong answer. Try again", at then end of each
message, I believe demonstrates an attitude that is probably adding to the
possibility that you will continue to lose.
Saying POKER IS LUCK is just like a husband coming home and telling his wife
he didn't get the promotion because ______ (whatever - you fill in the
blank). When all the time he really knows the reason is because he is a
wimp at work - he didn't prepare - he wasn't as good with people - he didn't
maintain control, etc, etc. It all applies to poker too. And these people
who don't get the promotion can justify it to the end of time - but being
able to justify it is not as good as not having to justify it. You have to
focus on winning, not on excuses. And I believe not everybody is cut out
for poker - not because of luck - but just because people are all different.
JohnnyD
Cwkace wrote in message <19991025132740...@ngol04.aol.com>...
Cwkace
(Steve BIA) writes:
>Ok, I'll take my stab at this. Why don't you give us specific examples of
>hands you "can't make hold up?" What are your starting hand requirements in
>which games and in which positions? Are you married to hands? Will you lay
>down the best pre-flop hand when you know someone else has hit a good flop?
>Do
>you only play premium hands, and never drawing hands in a loose/aggressive
>game? Have you analyzed yourself for tells? Do you play the same hands the
>same way every time? In order to come up with the right answers, you need to
>start with the right questions.
I thought you'd never ask. Three examples from my last two sessions. Keep in
mind this is standard for me, I could give you thousands like the following.
All of these are 36 or 48, loose, either typical or passive.
Case Number One: Middle poisition, KK, raise, LB calls with A5o, flops wheel.
I folded on turn after he check raised on flop.
Case Number Two: AKo early,I raise, LB has 77, flop is AA7, he bets, I raise,
he calls, then he check calls to the showdown.
Case Number Three: AsAd early, I raise, late poistion calls with red 57o, flop
is 89cTs, blank club on turn, 6c on river, I'm betting all the way, she bets
into me on river, I fold thinking she has flush, she shows the bottom end of
straight. BTW, BB is in hand with QQ, never bet or raised, didn't have club
either.
I may or may not have tells, but they aren't obvious if I do (I regularly play
with a friend of mine who is a very good player, and I can assure you he has
more tells than me, we often discuss it - I finally got him to stop giving
poker clack, except when he has a monster, and BTW, it usually works in the
games we play).
I pretty much play Sklansky's start chart, very very tight early, loosen up in
later positions - will sometimes go as low as JXs on button if several callers.
Really, I do know pre-flop theory.
Do I mix it up? Last session I won two small pots with pure bluffs, got caught
once.
Thanks for trying.
POKER IS LUCK
Cwkace
(Krmin) writes:
>Try playing very low limit stud for a while. Don't try to win, just try to
>figure out what the other player's hands. Decide how loose or tight the game
>is. Decide if if is a good or bad game. Identify the pigeons.
Gee, I never thought of that.
Seriously, thanks for the response, but that's not it. I read well, the
problem is, what I read is they've got me beat.
Nice try.
POKER IS LUCK
Cwkace
Cooke's "you can't be results oriented" doesn't apply to durations as long as
1000 hours. It applies on a per hand or per session basis. I've never seen
him write, "you can't be results oriented" after discussing a player who has
had a losing year.
I agree with this totally on one condition.
Prove it's not possible for a good player to have a 3000 hour losing streak.
Better yet, tell me what I'm doing wrong.
Cwkace
Here are three guesses as to what your leak is:
1) You play too tight
2) You play too predictably
3) You play too long
4) You play too passively
If you want to get better at poker, my first piece of advice would be to
go play poker on IRC. These are the best free games on the internet.
Sometimes they are easy sometimes they are hard. Overall they are more
realistic than *any* free option out there. (Although the 7stud option
at Paradise Poker can be fairly realistic too).
Do you keep hour by hour records of your sessions? If not, start doing that.
Are you beating the lower limits? What is the rake? Is it a 5% rake or a 10%
rake? Any 5% raked game is *much* easier to beat than a corresponding 10%
raked
game.
******************
That's four guesses, but who's counting?
I'll give you some more. I play too loose. I call too much. I don't call
enough. I raise too much. I don't raise enough. I play in bad games too
much. I play in good, loose games too much. I play too long. I don't play
long enough. I play when I'm tired. I play too much in low limit games. I wear
jeans. I have a beard. I'm too old. I'm too young.
Do I keep records? I have date,results and time played for every session of
poker I've ever played. I can say that over 2200 hours of low limit my overall
result is -$5.18 per hour, and every 100 hour segment of that 2200 hour period
is a loser. I'm also behind in red chip, but not as much. LIfetime, I'm only
-$2500, thanks to some jackpot money.
POKER IS LUCK
Cwkace
<lvd...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Not having sat behind you and watched your play and going
>only on what you have mentioned below, I can only come up
>with two suggestions that might (underscore might) help. And
>I do think there is hope for you simply because of your
>determination and persistence.
>The time you were playing 7.5 hours before winning a pot in
>a self described juicy game, why were you playing only one
>hand per hour? You play this tight and you will definitely not
>get any action when you do, especially with knowledgeable
>opponents. Loosen up those starting requirements some.
I really appreciate this reply. At least someone takes me seriously. About the
7.5 hours, that was just the first part of the session, I actually played 15
(Please, please don't tell me the reason I lose is I play too long, pretty
please). I cited that example to indicate I don't loose because I tilt, or
because I'm too loose, or play too many hands. That was my personal record for
length of time without winning a pot. But this was a very good game, I ended
up losing $1200, but came back from $1200 down twice to about the -$700 level.
I was only about 3 or 4 wins away from even, but just couldn't get there.
>Next I suspect you have a tendency to play more when you
>are losing and quit early after booking a small win. You played
>7.5 hours without winning a pot. Maybe you could have called
>it a day a lot sooner once you were convinced it was just not
>your day. Amirillo Slim Preston once very wisely stated that
>if you can't play when you're winning, when can you play? There's
>lots of reasons for doing so. I won't go into them now. However
>if that is your tendency, reverse it. Play longer when winning and
>shorter when losing.
Last session I was up (48 game) $240 after 5 hours, kept playing (very good
game), and came back to -$1.00 after 10 hours - no, I didn't lose because I was
tired, see the other note about my AK and AA.
Just talked to a friend of mine who said I should have quit when I was up the
$240. Who's right? Neither because
POKER IS LUCK
Cwkace
writes:
>Saying POKER IS LUCK is just like a husband coming home and telling his wife
I was going to respond to this but I forgot what I was going to say.
Oh well,
POKER IS LUCK
xMarc
That explains why you're a loser (to date, there's always hope for the
future). However, there is the problem of talent. Some players have got it.
Others do not.
I once got hooked on tennis. I took lessons. I got a ball machine. I went to
tennis camps. I read books. I got video tapes. I joined leagues. I played
matches. Most of the time I got beat. I achieved a 4.0 level, which is not
very high among serious tennis players. The problem was talent. I finally
realized I could only go so far, and I was already there. I still play
tennis and love the game, but I know I'll never be a league champion.
The same thing has apparently happened to you in poker. You've maxed out
your talent, but it may not be enough. Winning poker requires more than the
analytical skills you have developed. It requires a native gut instinct
about people. You have to be able to read them. You have to have the
sensitivity to pick up on where they're at. You need that sixth sense.
Really good poker players are born, not made. As are really good competitors
in all arenas.
Here's some evidence that it is not about luck. A lot of the sames names
appear and re-appear in poker tournament standings. Names like Layne Flack,
Daniel Negreanu, Huck Seed, et al. They do not keep winning because they're
lucky, or because they're hands "stand up" longer than yours.
If I simply place Huck Seed in your shoes through every hand you've ever
played, he'd come out a winner. He'd fold the losers quicker. He'd wring
more money out of the winners. He would win with your "unlucky" hands.
It's about TALENT, not LUCK.
Have you ever tried tennis?
-Marc
Krmin
street four times (a hell of a good night for catching Aces). The Aces lost
three times and won once (a hell of a night for bad beats too). I went home a
winner. It isn't the cards - it's how you play the cards.
Read what these guys have to say. If you are absolutely certain that we are
all wrong, then it would be a good idea to dump some ego and start learning to
play from scratch.
Krmin
Mkolstad
*****
I may or may not have tells, but they aren't obvious if I
do (I regularly play with a friend of mine who is a
very good player, and I can assure you he has
more tells than me,
*****
Thanks for the topic. I've been struggling with the
luck factor also. However, just curious, in case I
missed it. In your opinion, What makes your friend a "good player". Also, not
to play with words, but you
did mention "good player", not "lucky player".
Thanks again,
Marc
Ron Carey
just like I did. Once you learn the basics there isn't much skill at all.
Only luck. Just like poker.
Rounder
intelligence to master. You have be careful about the kind of games
you r sitting in to loose is no good and t many maniacs is bad too.
You have to stop the nonsense of playing drawing hands and suited one
gappers. Play tight to the late positions then losen up a bit - learn
to dump hands when you don't flop to it. stop drawing to over cards
and under pair. If you follow this adivce you'll have a winning
experience and think your luck has changed.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
xMarc
actually played 15
>(Please, please don't tell me the reason I lose is I play too long, pretty
>please).
Sorry, but no. If you played 15 hours, you're out of control. And for
approximately 73% of the session, you were unable to concentrate at a
sufficiently high level to be an effective player.
If you're playing winning poker, you should be quite tired after 4-6 hours.
You should quit at that point. The fact that you play for 10-15 hour
sessions is absolute proof that you are not in control of your game. Your
ignoring the central tenet that poker is one long game that lasts your
entire life. If you're ignoring this most basic of lessons, how may others
are you ignoring?
And don't tell me you weren't tired cause that's bull. Look at every other
form of competition, intellectual or athletic. The longest contests don't go
much beyond 3 or 4 hours. There's a reason for that. Human beings are not
designed to operate at full concentration under competitive stress for very
long periods of time.
If you're going 10+ hours in a poker game, you can't possibly be sharp from
the 6th hour forward. Therefore, one of your leaks is your playing too long.
I'll bet you a nickel to a dog turd that you're one of those players who
can't get up when you're stuck. This a common affliction among bad players.
This weekend I played 5 sessions at the Tropicana in AC. I planned my
schedule in advance. A 3 hour Friday night session (after a 2 hour nap when
I arrived). A 4 hour Saturday afternoon session. A workout and 2 mile run.
Dinner. Another nap. A 6 hour Saturday night session. Bed. Breakfast. A 4
hour Sunday afternoon session. Another workout (the Tropicana has a very
nice health club). Dinner. A 2 hour nap. A 6 hour Sunday night session. Bed.
Breakfast buffet at 8AM. Back to my job Monday late morning. I won $223 for
the trip. 3 sessions I won. 2 sessions I lost. The two losing sessions I was
stuck $155 and $161 when the pre-ordained quitting time arrived. Did I have
an urge to stay? Of course. But I didn't play 1 minute past the planned
quitting time. Because I won't give my competitors that edge. If you notice,
my schedule guarantees that I'm very well rested for each session. I'm never
playing tired. And I'm always at full concentration and on full kill. Poker
is a war. And whenever I sit down, I know that I'm ready for battle.
By the way, I disagree with those who say you should do overtime in a game
just because it's good. I have found that with a little basic table
selection, you can always find a loose game, if not at $10/20, then
certainly at $5/10. I only needed 1 table change the whole weekend to get
out of an overly tight/tough game. So, I never the feel the need to blow my
schedule to take advantage of some perceived great opportunity. There's
always tomorrow.
-Marc
Cwkace
Nice post. I can accept this. What you're saying is I'm a bad player and
there's no hope. I've come to the same conclusion myself many times, and there
is nothing objective about determining I'm bad.
I read Roy Cooke, if nothing else in Card Player. This guy is impressive, and
over the years, it has occured to me that he has a sixth sense about poker, an
instinct that can't be taught. If you read between the lines (some of what he
says is absurd), and reconstruct what happened in the hand, you get the idea
he's either insanely lucky, or is pyschic.
Now the only bone I have to pick is why don't the books tell you how long you
should beat the dead dog before taking up tennis?
Cwkace
(Krmin) writes:
Which guys? The ones who say I'm too tight or the ones who say I'm too loose?
The ones who ... ah, never mind.
POKER IS LUCK
Cwkace
(Mkolstad) writes:
>Thanks for the topic. I've been struggling with the
>luck factor also. However, just curious, in case I
>missed it. In your opinion, What makes your friend a "good player". Also,
>not
>to play with words, but you
>did mention "good player", not "lucky player".
Excellent post, shows real insight that I'm not a looney.
My friend and I are almost mirror images of each others style. We've discussed
this many times. We started playing serious holdem at about the same time,
have read the same books, read the same players the same way, have almost the
same starting requirements, and play very much alike after the flop. He thinks
I'm slightly more agressive than he is, but DOES NOT attribute my losing to
being too agressive. He has no explanation, he just keeps saying the cards
will change.
I didn't say he was lucky, because that's included in the premise. I don't
claim that bad, lucky players win in the long run. Good lucky players beat bad
players and good, unlucky players. My friend is an excellent player, and if he
wasn't scared of the money(he has plenty, just hates to lose), he could beat
any but the toughest limit games in this country - I know because he recently
made a trip to Vegas and Reno, never played above 48, and paid for the trip
with his winnings.
What makes him a good player is what makes all good players good. Patience,
some math skills, reading of players, game selection, patience, a love for the
game, patience, good starting standards.
BTW, I'm beginning to convince him that I'm just unlucky. I've known him for 4
years, we make poker trips together, he's seen me play many times, and is just
now beginning to admit I may be unlucky. He's offered all the reasons offered
so far in this thread, but agrees none of them really fit my situation.
Thanks for post.
Cwkace
a8ska...@aol.comNoSpam (Ron Carey) writes:
It's your starting hand selection, no wait you were too loose, no wait you
didn't read Brunson, no wait you're too tight, no wait you have tells, no wait
you play tilted, no wait you don't keep your head down, no wait you don't hit
enough practice balls, no wait you're bending your left arm, no wait you need
new clubs, no wait you should take some lessons, no wait .......
POKER IS LUCK
Gabe
> it, and don't put your money in the pot when you don't have the best of
it,
> then you'll be a winning player.
Perhaps, but unfortunately you don't always have a choice. You must put your
money in at least one in nine hands or so, and you must pay the house.
Gabe
pat gilvary
>
> I never won at golf. I was unlucky. Everybody always beat me and they played
> just like I did. Once you learn the basics there isn't much skill at all.
> Only luck. Just like poker.
You've sold me. I, too, believe that golf is luck, especially putting!
--
Pat Gilvary
"Cubem autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos
quadrataquadratos, et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum
protestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas est dividere."
PdeF
Cwkace
<guzaldo...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>Sorry Charley your just flat wrong. The game is complex and takes high
>intelligence to master. You have be careful about the kind of games
>you r sitting in to loose is no good and t many maniacs is bad too.
>You have to stop the nonsense of playing drawing hands and suited one
>gappers. Play tight to the late positions then losen up a bit - learn
>to dump hands when you don't flop to it. stop drawing to over cards
>and under pair. If you follow this adivce you'll have a winning
>experience and think your luck has changed.
All Right, now I get it. Problem solved. Thanks.
POKER IS LUCK
Cwkace
>I'll bet you a nickel to a dog turd that you're one of those players who
>can't get up when you're stuck. This a common affliction among bad players.
Send me the nickel.
POKER IS LUCK
pat gilvary
>
> He knows all the odds and he knows everything in the books. He sits rigidly at
> the table watching every card come off. He rarely speaks, he is too busy
> concentrating. He doesn't play many hands, but when he does, either he wins a
> small pot or he gets creamed.
>
It kind of reminds me of the squirrelly guy in The Cincinnatti Kid, when
busting out insisted that "The bet was proper".
Andrew Prock
>*********************************
>Cooke's "you can't be results oriented" doesn't apply to durations as long as
>1000 hours. It applies on a per hand or per session basis. I've never seen
>him write, "you can't be results oriented" after discussing a player who has
>had a losing year.
>********************************
>I agree with this totally on one condition.
>
>Prove it's not possible for a good player to have a 3000 hour losing streak.
This condition is silly. How about this condition.
Prove to me elephants don't fly. Sure I could prove
it. But it has no bearing on whether or not "you can't
be results oriented" applies to a run of 3000 hands.
>Better yet, tell me what I'm doing wrong.
Ok, what you're doing is wrong.
Glad we could settle that.
- Andrew
Cwkace
writes:
>This condition is silly
I'm a little slow today. Some of you think I'm permanently slow.
Please give a detailed explanation of why this condition is silly.
Remember, this is be kind to idiot's week.
POKER IS TALENT
Badger
a fundamental logical error which is probably similar to others you make at
the table. Another example is you saying you lose because your good hands
"don't stand up." That's just such an illogical way to look at poker, and
winning and losing, that it's hard to know where to begin. But skip that,
and consider Prock's statement below, and the reasons you didn't see the
obvious meaning in this.
Andrew Prock <jeffy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7v25s4$d...@spool.cs.wisc.edu...
> According to Cwkace <cwk...@aol.com>:
> >This is a circular argument. Not to get too deep into the fact that all
human
> >logic is ultimately circular, and keeping things on the micro level, you
are
> >simply saying that if you win you are good and if you lose you are bad.
This
> >in counter to Cooke's belief that you can't be results oriented in poker,
but
> >must play correctly. Try again.
>
> Cooke's "you can't be results oriented" doesn't apply to durations as long
as
> 1000 hours. It applies on a per hand or per session basis. I've never
seen
> him write, "you can't be results oriented" after discussing a player who
has
> had a losing year.
>
> - Andrew
>
Badger
will lose if you play that bad. Luck has nothing to do with it.
Andrew Prock <jeffy...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> According to Cwkace <cwk...@aol.com>:
> >
> >For the next 2000 hours of poker I tried to find out why I was a bad
player. I
> >can assure you that I have no lack of discipline. One losing session
(-1200 at
> >102040), I played for 7.5 hours (yes, Virginia, seven and one half
hours)
> >before winning a pot, and only entered about 1 pot per hour. It was a
very
> >juicy game (one good player took down 3500 in 6 hours of play).
>
> Ahh, the truth comes out. You are too tight. I'll assume that by juicy
you
> mean loose. Over 7.5 hours you should have played about 200 hands or so.
This
> being the case, you should have seen somewhere between 40-80 flops. Even
if
> you were at the low end of the spectrum, losing 40 hands on which you have
seen
> the flop is pretty rare.
Badger
or Omaha. The below beats are just typical for Holdem.
Cwkace <cwk...@aol.com> wrote in message ...
> I thought you'd never ask. Three examples from my last two sessions.
Keep in
> mind this is standard for me, I could give you thousands like the
following.
> All of these are 36 or 48, loose, either typical or passive.
>
> Case Number One: Middle poisition, KK, raise, LB calls with A5o, flops
wheel.
> I folded on turn after he check raised on flop.
> Case Number Two: AKo early,I raise, LB has 77, flop is AA7, he bets, I
raise,
> he calls, then he check calls to the showdown.
> Case Number Three: AsAd early, I raise, late poistion calls with red 57o,
flop
> is 89cTs, blank club on turn, 6c on river, I'm betting all the way, she
bets
> into me on river, I fold thinking she has flush, she shows the bottom end
of
> straight. BTW, BB is in hand with QQ, never bet or raised, didn't have
club
> either.
>
> I may or may not have tells, but they aren't obvious if I do (I regularly
play
> with a friend of mine who is a very good player, and I can assure you he
has
> more tells than me, we often discuss it - I finally got him to stop giving
> poker clack, except when he has a monster, and BTW, it usually works in
the
> games we play).
>
> I pretty much play Sklansky's start chart, very very tight early, loosen
up in
> later positions - will sometimes go as low as JXs on button if several
callers.
> Really, I do know pre-flop theory.
>
> Do I mix it up? Last session I won two small pots with pure bluffs, got
caught
> once.
>
> Thanks for trying.
>
> POKER IS LUCK
Cwkace
I've thought some more about this post of yours, and I think you may be on to
something here. I remember Lee Jones saying that George Will and Yo Yo Ma had
to work long and hard to excel at their chosen professions. Surely others have
worked just as long and hard at writing and cello playing, but without success.
The difference then is probably, as you say, that undefinable and unattainable
quality, TALENT.
I have tried other things. When I was in my teens, I got hooked on tennis
also. I played every day for 10-12 hours a day, and got to where I could hit a
tennis ball as good as the number one player on the high school tennis team,
but he could regularly beat me 6-0. Why? I'm slow as molasses. I could
occasionally ace him, and if I could get to the ball, I could sometimes pass
him, but I was TOO SLOW.
I've had similar experiences with golf and trumpet playing. I was 1st chair
trumpet in high school, but maxed out and could never compete with the really
good players, and believe me, I tried.
So if poker is an unlearned, untaught TALENT, ultimately, then we have
discovered a real truth - play if you enjoy the game and can afford it,
otherwise, try gin or chess.
I have considered this answer before, and posted the original message here to
get some thoughts on why people who thoroughly understand the theory, have some
reading skills and a lot of patience, and try REAL HARD to win, just never do.
If it isn't luck, if it isn't God, then it must be TALENT.
I would like to hear other thoughts along this line and what it means for us
poker slugs.
POKER IS TALENT
Andrew Prock
>Andrew wrote:
>**********************
>Do you keep hour by hour records of your sessions? If not, start doing that.
>Are you beating the lower limits? What is the rake? Is it a 5% rake or a 10%
>rake? Any 5% raked game is *much* easier to beat than a corresponding 10%
>raked
>game.
>******************
>
>poker I've ever played. I can say that over 2200 hours of low limit my overall
>result is -$5.18 per hour, and every 100 hour segment of that 2200 hour period
>is a loser. I'm also behind in red chip, but not as much. LIfetime, I'm only
>-$2500, thanks to some jackpot money.
Well, it looks like you *don't* keep hour by hour records of your
sessions. My advice is to start, you just might be surprised.
- Andrew
xMarc
>there's no hope. I've come to the same conclusion myself many times, and
there
>is nothing objective about determining I'm bad.
No, I don't believe that there isn't any hope. You certainly have the
tenacity to become a winning player. But you have to stop feeling sorry for
yourself. See my other post regarding playing time. Of your 2920 total hours
of poker played, how many of them were past my recommended 4-6 hour limit?
Throw them out, you couldn't have been playing anywhere near your best game.
Of the remaining hours, how many times did you rest up and seriously prepare
for the first 4-6 hours? If you didn't, you can throw out those hours too.
I don't think you'll be left with too many "good" hours after you've removed
these "bad" ones.
Those hours are the objective proof you're looking for. They are the hours
when your emotions took over your intellect. You can't win once this
happens.
I suggest you re-start your poker career. First, don't underestimate how
tough this game is. It's very tough, at all limits. It demands your best,
prepared, rested effort. Keep new stats. Don't play tired ever again. Stuck
or not, get up after your planned quitting time. Treat the game like an
Olympic event or the World Series. Prepare, execute, quit, rest. Do this for
a 1000 hours or so.
I know that your results will improve dramatically. Mine did almost
immediately. When you're controlling the game, rather than letting the game
control you, you get a mental boost that makes losing sessions much easier
to take and recover quickly from.
-Marc
Cwkace
long, but what is too long will depend to some extent on the individual.
I just rechecked my records, and for the last 2159 hours of white chip my
average session was 7.4 hours.
My last 5 sessions look like this:
-250 in 7 hrs
-300 in 6 hrs
-100 in 9 hrs
-100 in 4 hrs
-1 in 10 hrs
I know that I have played too long at times, but not very often, and I can show
you many, many short losing sessions.
I really wish it was that simple. For the last 400 hours or so, I have paid
special attention to my condition, emotionally and physically during a session.
I know that's not it.
POKER IS TALENT
Badger
2) You have a losing attitude
3) You are prone to extreme logical errors
4) YOU PLAY TOO LONG. You ask for input then you want us to dismiss
obvious lunacy. Losers play 15 hours. Some winners do to, but almost with
fail these are winning players who would win more if they exercise
self-control.
5) You have an obvious answer, 4), that you instantly diminish. Poor, even
delusional, analysis.
These five reasons alone should explain why you are a losing player. There
likely are others.
Cwkace <cwk...@aol.com> wrote in message >
>
> I really appreciate this reply. At least someone takes me seriously.
Sean Duffy
>I thought you'd never ask. Three examples from my last two sessions. Keep in
>mind this is standard for me, I could give you thousands like the following.
>All of these are 36 or 48, loose, either typical or passive.
What is the rake or time charge in your 3-6 or 4-8 games? It's
possible that the charge makes these games unbeatable or barely
beatable.
A huge part of getting an edge in loose passive games is raising
preflop when your hand is more likely to win than the amount of your
raise, and playing your strong draws aggressively. If you hold KQh
and the flop is T9hx, you should be doing whatever possible to get the
maximum amount of money in on the flop if there are lots of people in.
You have 1 out to the "immortal nuts," the straight flush, 3 outs to
the nut straight, and 8 outs to the 2nd nut flush. You also have 6
outs to overcards that might be good. I believe you'll make a flush,
straight flush, or straight about 45-46% of the time, and while you'll
occassionally lose to a higher flush, or split the pot if you make a
straight, you still need to jam that flop if there are several people
in because you'll win such a disproportionate amount of the time.
With said holding in early position, if a tight player raises in late
position, most players would just check to the preflop raiser, and
call along with the rest of the field. It's better to bet out,
knowing that the late position player will probably raise, and then
you should reraise if these players will call 2 more bets cold. With
luck, the preflop raiser will cap it.
>Case Number Two: AKo early,I raise, LB has 77, flop is AA7, he bets, I raise,
>he calls, then he check calls to the showdown.
It sounds to me like you're very lucky that he had "AA paranoia." AKo
vs. 77 is about an even money proposition; in this hand you got
unlucky that the flop hit you both hard, him harder than you. But it
cost you about the absolute minimum that it could.
>Case Number Three: AsAd early, I raise, late poistion calls with red 57o, flop
>is 89cTs, blank club on turn, 6c on river, I'm betting all the way, she bets
>into me on river, I fold thinking she has flush, she shows the bottom end of
>straight. BTW, BB is in hand with QQ, never bet or raised, didn't have club
>either.
This is a really scary board for AA, as the flop could hit them a ton
of ways, the turn gets uglier, and the river gets the ugliest. Your
check-fold is certainly correct, and with what your opponents had, the
bet is certainly correct on the turn, but I don't know if I would bet
there. I might just check-fold, because the pot is small (I think
there's only 9 small bets in the pot) and my implied odds stink.
>I pretty much play Sklansky's start chart, very very tight early, loosen up in
>later positions - will sometimes go as low as JXs on button if several callers.
> Really, I do know pre-flop theory.
Sklansky recommends playing relatively loosely early in loose passive
games, which I agree with. Do you modify the "very tight early" for
loose passive games. His offsuit recommendations in late position are
a bit loose IMO; even in the looser games, I usually don't play
anything less than KJo and QJo in an unraised pot, and they get mucked
if a tight player happens to limp into that pot. I don't know about
Jxs, although I'll play down to Q4s with 6+ limpers, and on the button
after a ton of limpers, you can probably raise most of your playable
hands.
>Do I mix it up? Last session I won two small pots with pure bluffs, got caught
>once.
Pure bluffs are less important to "mixing it up" than playing draws
aggressively.
Rounder
I just don;t believe in luck -
Cwkace
<steveb...@SPAMhotmail.com> writes:
>Limit Holdem has more luck than any other game. Switch games. Learn Stud
>or Omaha. The below beats are just typical for Holdem.
Both stud and omaha have higher SDs(Standard Deviations) than most holdem
games.
POKER IS TALENT
Cwkace
<steveb...@SPAMhotmail.com> writes:
>1) You don't play enough hands
>2) You have a losing attitude
>3) You are prone to extreme logical errors
>4) YOU PLAY TOO LONG. You ask for input then you want us to dismiss
>obvious lunacy. Losers play 15 hours. Some winners do to, but almost with
>fail these are winning players who would win more if they exercise
>self-control.
>5) You have an obvious answer, 4), that you instantly diminish. Poor, even
>delusional, analysis.
See my post on time played.
As to number of hands, what if I don't get but one playable hand every hour for
7.5 hours. Play unplayable hands? Good advice, but you probably should ignore
it yourself.
What logical errors? I'm an Aristotelian and deny the lack of logic. Thought
I was supposed to be a techie. Aren't we techies overly logical?
POKER IS TALENT
Glen Johnson
>As to number of hands, what if I don't get but one playable hand every hour
for
>7.5 hours. Play unplayable hands? Good advice, but you probably should
ignore
>it yourself.
>
If you play again, write down every hand and the position you are in. I
also
write down how much money I have after the hand if my stack has changed.
Then post this to RGP. It only takes a couple seconds to write 52 or 73s
for 52 off suit or 73 suited. Then we will see how unlucky you are and
believe you.
xMarc
hour average must include plenty of 9 and 10 hour sessions. Way too long. I
don't care who you are.
One of the reasons to let the clock dictate your departure is you can't be
objective about your own alertness. When I was a loser, I played 20-30 hour
sessions from time to time. And I would often get second and third winds
after 10 hours where I felt alert for an hour or two. It usually happened
after two or three winning hands. Of course, I was deluding myself.
Knock it down to 4 hours/session max for the next 100 sessions and get back
to me. If it has no effect at all and you remain a $5.34/hr loser, you'll
still save $1,816 (7.4-4.0 x 100 sessions x $5.34/hr), which we can split
$907.50 apiece.
-Marc
Sean Duffy
>>About the 7.5 hours, that was just the first part of the session, I
>actually played 15
>>(Please, please don't tell me the reason I lose is I play too long, pretty
>>please).
>
>Sorry, but no. If you played 15 hours, you're out of control. And for
>approximately 73% of the session, you were unable to concentrate at a
>sufficiently high level to be an effective player.
>
>If you're playing winning poker, you should be quite tired after 4-6 hours.
>You should quit at that point.
Huh? I can easily play Hold'em for 10 hours straight as long as I
don't get bored. I do tend to stick to shorter sessions, but that's
because I'm bored, not because I'm tired or off my game. I can see
that Stud would tire one out quickly, but Hold'em in loose or
weak-tight games isn't exactly rocket science, and Omaha/8 in loose
games is even easier.
>And don't tell me you weren't tired cause that's bull. Look at every other
>form of competition, intellectual or athletic. The longest contests don't go
>much beyond 3 or 4 hours.
Back in high school I was on the debating team, and it wasn't uncommon
for longer tournaments to begin at 9 in the morning and end at 9 at
night. There would be a lot of "down time" between rounds, but we'd
still spend at least 6-7 hours actually debating. I used the same
techniques to stay alert then as I do now. I'd make sure there was
food in my stomach and I was properly hydrated, and I'd drink a fair
amount of Pepsi and Mountain Dew to keep the sugar/caffeine flowing.
I'd take a walk to psych myself up whenever necessary.
This isn't to say that your approach is wrong, as I also enjoy the one
session followed by a break/nap and another session approach. But I
think it's shortsighted to assume that people can't play their A game
for 10+ hours straight, because it's not like your full concentration
is required at every moment.
>By the way, I disagree with those who say you should do overtime in a game
>just because it's good. I have found that with a little basic table
>selection, you can always find a loose game, if not at $10/20, then
>certainly at $5/10. I only needed 1 table change the whole weekend to get
>out of an overly tight/tough game.
The operative word being "weekend." Even if you can always find a
loose game, you might not be able to find a game *that* loose later at
10-20 or higher. The other night I played from 2am to a little after
12pm (and only left because my girlfriend paged me with a crisis on
her hands) because there were 4 really awful players and 2 highly
predictable weak-tights in the game. One guy who would try the most
hopeless bluffs, one guy who'd raise and re-raise with KQo, and play
aggressively when a king flopped and an ace turned, one guy who'd cap
my tight reraise with KJs, etc. Even a bit tired and slightly off my
"A" game, I'd wager that my EV in that game was higher than a typical
10-20 game.
Sean Duffy
<guzaldo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>Sorry Charley your just flat wrong. The game is complex and takes high
>intelligence to master. You have be careful about the kind of games
>you r sitting in to loose is no good and t many maniacs is bad too.
Yes, you want to look for a game in which everyone dumps AQo to an
early position raise. Seriously, where the hell do you think you make
your money from, if not from the loose players and the maniacs? The
looser and more overly inappropriately aggressive the players, the
more profit there is to be made. Loose games require different
techniques that tighter games, but that doesn't make them bad games.
>You have to stop the nonsense of playing drawing hands and suited one
>gappers.
Yep, those nonsensical types like that Skaolanski fellow and that
nomad Abdul who recommend playing them in loose games don't know what
they're talking about.
>Play tight to the late positions then losen up a bit - learn
>to dump hands when you don't flop to it. stop drawing to over cards
>and under pair.
Yep, always muck an unimproved AKo when I bet into you on the raggy
flop.
>If you follow this adivce you'll have a winning experience and think your
>luck has changed.
Yep, simply playing tightly preflop and always mucking overcards and
pocket pairs when an overcard falls is the key to getting the money.
TheRobNJD
never fold games. but while luck is a part of poker if you know how to get the
most out of your good hands and minmize what you drop on poor cards you will
lessen the luck factor..
Josprung
TriGhost
>chess is luck too
Oh please....
John
"Ad astra per aspera"
"A rough road leads to the stars"
xMarc
>don't get bored. I do tend to stick to shorter sessions, but that's
>because I'm bored, not because I'm tired or off my game. I can see
>that Stud would tire one out quickly, but Hold'em in loose or
>weak-tight games isn't exactly rocket science, and Omaha/8 in loose
>games is even easier.
I know you CAN play 10 hours. I'm saying you're not at your best after 4-6.
You may think you are but you're not. If you get bored, well, to me, that in
itself indicates a failure of concentration. I never get bored during a 4-6
hour session. I'm always "locked in".
And, are you saying that hold'em requires less concentration then stud? I
would have to doubt that. There are different things to concentrate on in a
hold'em game, but the level of intensity is about the same for my money. The
mechanics of stud are a bit more complicated, but I think the intangibles in
hold 'em more than make up for the simpler mechanics. Back reading the board
to figure out probable holdings of several different opponents on the turn
requires as much or more concentration then memorizing a few folded cards in
stud.
>Back in high school I was on the debating team, and it wasn't uncommon
>for longer tournaments to begin at 9 in the morning and end at 9 at
>night. There would be a lot of "down time" between rounds, but we'd
>still spend at least 6-7 hours actually debating. I used the same
>techniques to stay alert then as I do now. I'd make sure there was
>food in my stomach and I was properly hydrated, and I'd drink a fair
>amount of Pepsi and Mountain Dew to keep the sugar/caffeine flowing.
>I'd take a walk to psych myself up whenever necessary.
Artificially propping up your attention span with caffeine cannot possibly
be conducive to playing your best game. Listen, I put in 10-14 hours at work
all the time. Hours 8-14 are achieved through pushing. And I definitely make
most of my mistakes in the latter hours.
My point is simply that between the house rake and the overall increasing
level of play in public poker rooms, there's not much of an edge for a good
player. That edge is squandered by playing long sessions. And it's easily
controllable through self-discipline.
If you can tell me you play 10+ hours all the time and you're booking
1-2BB/hr, I'll just have to tip my cap to you and say: "Nice game, suh!" But
I think you're very talented and in the top 1 percentile of all players. The
rest of us have to fight to make a profit, and often that means fighting
ourselves.
-Marc
David desJardins
> Listen, I put in 10-14 hours at work all the time. Hours 8-14 are
> achieved through pushing. And I definitely make most of my mistakes in
> the latter hours.
But I'm more productive late at night, and don't have to "push". That's
when I find it easiest to write lots of code, and I don't make more
mistakes. On the other hand, I'm not very productive early in the day,
even when I'm well rested. Different people are different; it's a
fallacy to assume that everyone else is just like you.
David desJardins
North Shore Mike
>In article <3814a...@news1.prserv.net>, "JohnnyD" <john_...@usgroup.com>
>writes:
>
>>Saying POKER IS LUCK is just like a husband coming home and telling his wife
>
>I was going to respond to this but I forgot what I was going to say.
Hmmmm....maybe a lack of concentration contributes?
North Shore Mike
(remove x from e-mail address to reply)
I played poker once with tarot cards.
I got a full house, and four people died.
Zach
Sorry for putting this bluntly...maybe you just stink as a poker player. Sure,
luck is invlolved. I have been unlucky in the last few weeks not getting decent
starting hands...but for every bad swing, there have been numerous rushes where I
got more than my share of decent cards.
Just becasue you read a book doesn't indicate that you will be a great player. the
book should point you in the right direction, but YOU have to make it work. Can
you get the extra bet, can you get out of a hand when you re beat? Momre
importantly, can you recognize when you are beat?
A person can convince themselves of anything if they tell themselves a lie enough,
maybe you should get an honest appraisal of your game from someone else if you
can't do it yourself.
Good luck, I hope it works out for you.
Zach
Badger
>>>>>>>>>>
As to number of hands, what if I don't get but one playable hand every
hour for 7.5 hours. Play unplayable hands? Good advice, but you
probably should ignore it yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Your definition of playable hands is clearly excessively tight. Sure,
you might have an hour where you only play one hand, but two? You
never got T9s, KQo, ATo, 76s? All those can usually be played in a
loose, passive game. Even when you are not getting good cards, you
must find a few hands to play, to be sure you get action when you do
get a very strong hand.
>>>>>>>>>
What logical errors? I'm an Aristotelian and deny the lack of logic.
Thought I was supposed to be a techie. Aren't we techies overly logical?
>>>>>>>>>
I posted on this, as did Andrew Prock. Your statements about
results-oriented are illogical. You draw a uniquely skewed conclusion
from a fairly clear principle.
I wrote:
>>Limit Holdem has more luck than any other game.
>>Switch games. Learn Stud or Omaha.
>>The below beats are just typical for Holdem.
>>>>>>>>>
Both stud and omaha have higher SDs(Standard Deviations) than most
holdem games.
>>>>>>>>>
Another very illogical conclusion. There is no generic standard
deviation for all players. Mine is different than yours, and mine is
certainly lower in Omaha than Stud or Holdem, and lower in Stud than
Holdem, even though I'm not much of a stud player. Your overly tight
style is suited to Omaha, and will likely yield you a much lower
standard deviation.
More than that though, standard deviation doesn't necessarily relate to
"luck". Holdem has more random variables than Stud or Omaha. More
chances for weirdo luck to inject itself.
You are playing the game that poor players (fish to some) love because
they have so much a better chance to do well because of random luck.
Limit Holdem *is* a lot of luck. Winning in Limit Holdem, as some have
said, involves picking up a bet here and there, and several bets when
you have a great odds situation. It is not making good hands hold up.
Badger
agreeing with Gary Carson again
Gary Carson
Cwkace wrote in message
<19991025120209...@ng-co1.aol.com>...>myself many disciplines,
including 4 computer languages (can you program in
>Windows, Visual C++?)
No I can't. But, back when I was a programmer I wrote progams in COBOL,
FORTRAN, PL/I, BASIC, LISP, 360 BAL, SAS, 370BAL, RPG, and a few other
languages I've forgotten about. I also wired a few boards for card sorters
and could read the punch holes in a holerith card. Once you've learned one,
it's not that tough to learn another programming language.
It's easier to learn to play poker than to learn a programming language.
But, it's much tougher to learn to play poker well then to learn to program
well.
>I would dearly love for someone to tell me, not that I have a leak in my
game,
>but what the #@ ing leak is - many good players have watched me play, many
are
>my friends, none can say what it is I'm doing wrong.
I don't know what your leak is. But, I've told you twice already what is
causing your leak.
Gary Carson
Gary Carson
JohnnyD wrote in message <38149...@news1.prserv.net>...
>When people say things like this, "it dawned on me that I was...an unlucky
>player", it just makes me laugh. If you believe one player is lucky and
>another is unlucky, then you must believe there is a higher power
>controlling luck
I am a lucky player, Johnny.
But, I don't think there is a higher power controlling my luck. I control
my own luck.
Gary Carson
Gary Carson
Cwkace wrote in message <19991025154634...@ngol03.aol.com>...
>Case Number One: Middle poisition, KK, raise, LB calls with A5o, flops
wheel.
>I folded on turn after he check raised on flop.
If you folded only because he check-raised on the flop, then why did you
call the check-raise. Althought the result was okay for you, I'm not sure
why you folded on the turn. It seems to me that you either made a mistake
calling the check-raise, or you made a mistake folding on the turn. Whether
or not you made a mistake isn't determeined by what hand he actually had,
but by what hands he might have had given the action.
>Case Number Two: AKo early,I raise, LB has 77, flop is AA7, he bets, I
raise,
>he calls, then he check calls to the showdown.
This hand wasn't even a bad outcome. If I'd have been the LB then you would
have lost a couple more bets then you did. You were beat but I don't think
you lost any extra bets here, not a bad outcome at all.
It's not whether or not you get beat. It's whether or not the bets are
going in the pot when they should.
>Case Number Three: AsAd early, I raise, late poistion calls with red 57o,
flop
>is 89cTs, blank club on turn, 6c on river, I'm betting all the way, she
bets
>into me on river, I fold thinking she has flush, she shows the bottom end
of
>straight.
BTW, BB is in hand with QQ, never bet or raised, didn't have club
>either.
Against two players I wouldn't have liked your hand all that much at any of
the betting rounds. But, I don't see anything particularly bad about the
outcome of this hand.
>I may or may not have tells, but they aren't obvious if I do (I regularly
play
>with a friend of mine who is a very good player, and I can assure you he
has
>more tells than me, we often discuss it - I finally got him to stop giving
>poker clack, except when he has a monster, and BTW, it usually works in the
>games we play).
>I pretty much play Sklansky's start chart, very very tight early, loosen up
in
>later positions - will sometimes go as low as JXs on button if several
callers.
> Really, I do know pre-flop theory.
What the relationship between SKlanksy's hand groups and pre-flop theory?
>Do I mix it up? Last session I won two small pots with pure bluffs, got
caught
>once.
How do you know you didn't have the best hand? Did the other player show
his cards when he folded?
In all your examples, you focused on whether or not you won the pot. That's
just not whats important. In the second hand, for example, given the cards
that were actually out, your result was about as good as you could hope for.
Gary Carson
Gary Carson
Cwkace wrote in message <19991025132740...@ngol04.aol.com>...
>**********
>
>I assure you, I can't run over the table. The reason I lose, as I stated
in my
>original post, is I can't make my good hands stand up.
No, you don't win because 1) you don't know what a good hand is, and 2) you
think whether or not a hand holds up matters.
Gary Carson
>
>Sorry, wrong answer. Try again.
>
>POKER IS LUCK
Gary Carson
Cwkace wrote in message <19991025180220...@ngol06.aol.com>...
>Please give a detailed explanation of why this condition is silly.
>Remember, this is be kind to idiot's week.
>
No, it's not be kind to idiots week. It's give up on the troll week. I
give up. Good luck, sir.
Gary Carson
Gary Carson
Gabe wrote in message <7v2i4n$d...@news.service.uci.edu>...
>> If you put your money in the pot when you have the best of
>> it, and don't put your money in the pot when you don't have the best of
>it,
>> then you'll be a winning player.
>
>Perhaps, but unfortunately you don't always have a choice. You must put
your
>money in at least one in nine hands or so, and you must pay the house.
sigh.
No, you always have a choice. I wasn't talking about the blinds or time
collection, but the same principle applies anyway. If you aren't a favorite
in the game your in then just don't play.
Gary Carson
xMarc
14-hour sessions, you can keep your bug infested code to yourself. (I'm a
programmer and owned a software company, so don't presume to tell me that
you do your best coding starting around hour number 10).
-Marc
Gary Carson
Andrew Prock wrote in message <7v2vkf$3...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>...
>According to Sean Duffy <sean....@NOSPAMbbs.NOSPAMgoldengate.NOSPAMnet>:
>>
>>Huh? I can easily play Hold'em for 10 hours straight as long as I
>>don't get bored. I do tend to stick to shorter sessions, but that's
>>because I'm bored, not because I'm tired or off my game.
>
>think about how the current hand is going, I don't look for the kinds
>of mistakes that other players make habitually, I sometimes even lose
>track of the number of bets in a pot when I'm bored.
>
>I'm don't usually get tired at the tables. The gambling "high" is
>more than powerful enough to keep me away for dozens of hours at a
>time.
>I get bored, I lose interest.
>
>I am assuming that you can still beat the game when you are bored.
>This is a major accomplishment, and one that is required if you
>are going to be playing poker to win money.
>
>I can't play bored and win.
I have kept hour by hour records.
I can't play nolimit more than about 4 hours -- it just requires to much
intense thought and after 4 hours I'm worn out.
I can't play in a passive game for more than 4-6 hours, even juicy one, I
get bored.
I can play very long periods in a very loose/very aggresive game. That's
because 1) I don't get bored. and 2) most of my action in a game like that
is almost automatic, not requiring much intense thought.
However, even in a game I can play for many hours, my edge does drop off
after 4 hours. I do start missing little things that cost me money. But,
if the game is really seriousl loose and aggreive, there is so much money
getting pissed away that I can do just fine by getting only a little part of
my share.
My first hour in a game is usually not +EV, btw. It takes me that long to
figure out what's going on.
Gary Carson
Gary T Philips
mental attitude was not important? But it is as both you and I know...
in so many ways.
Here is a solid example in a hand I played recently at the Horseshoe.
The game was $4-8 holdem and I was stuck around $100 after 90
min of play. I was on the button with two red 10s. Everyone save one
called. I raised. Everyone called. Nine players preflop. I said to the
dealer, "Nine players? I'm sorry already." Flop come 9-8-3 rainbow
and everyone checked to me. I said to the dealer, "Did they all check
to me? Ok, I bet." Turn come a 5 making two spades on the board
and the straight possible. Everyone checked. To the dealer I spoke,
"Did they all check again?" I bet. Now by this time the pot is rather
large. Almost any kind of a draw is getting proper odds to chase. It
come around to the second best player at the table. He paused maybe
10 seconds and threw his hand away. Four callers. Last card was the
Ace of spades making a backdoor flush possible. Surprisingly everyone
checked and I, thinking it might be prudent, checked as well. The two
red tens were good. As I was raking in this huge mound of chips the
player who threw the winner away, (he had A-Ko) was explaining to
anyone who would listen why he threw his cards away.
The point of this story is simple. Positive mental attitude and therefore
a willingness to win = a nice pot. Negative attitude = one more
draw out on the end and the continuation of a long losing session.
Gary (chin up, smile, battle these guys for all your worth) Philips
Asha34 wrote:
> My comments were meant for you. It is refreshing to find a player who is as
> positive as you are. The world would be a better and more pleasant place if
> everyone developed the attitude you clearly have.
>
> GOOD luck!
>
> Ashley
>
> >I'm not sure this was meant for me, but if so, I can tell you that the last
> >solution I had to my losing was my attitude, which was occasionally about as
> >bad as it can get. Another player told me I had a bad attitude, to which I
> >smartly responded, "What does attitude have to do with having your Aces
> >craced
> >on the river by pocket 2s?" I was finally desparate and had tried
> >everything,
> >so through a sheer act of will, I changed my attitude. Though my results are
> >not any better, I do enjoy the game, if I don't play too much (getting reamed
> >on a daily basis is only fun for a masochist). I will be more than happy to
> >let you beat up on me if I'm ever your way. Thanks
Sean Duffy
<steveb...@SPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>Limit Holdem has more luck than any other game. Switch games. Learn Stud
>or Omaha. The below beats are just typical for Holdem.
I have plenty of experience in Hold'em but not Omaha/8, but I've
noticed that in Hold'em, it seems that the looser the game, the bigger
the short term luck factor, but in Omaha/8, the looser the game,
the smaller the short term luck factor, because a good scooper
type hand seems to get at least a piece of the pot a large
portion of the time, and it's easy to get off a hand that misses
the flop.
Andrew Prock
>Thanks for the post on time played. I agree that sessions should not be overly
>long, but what is too long will depend to some extent on the individual.
>
>I just rechecked my records, and for the last 2159 hours of white chip my
>average session was 7.4 hours.
>
>My last 5 sessions look like this:
>
>-250 in 7 hrs
>-300 in 6 hrs
>-100 in 9 hrs
>-100 in 4 hrs
>-1 in 10 hrs
>
>I know that I have played too long at times, but not very often, and I can show
>you many, many short losing sessions.
>
>I really wish it was that simple. For the last 400 hours or so, I have paid
>special attention to my condition, emotionally and physically during a session.
> I know that's not it.
You might be different. I just can't maintain the kind of intensity that I need
to win for a duration as long as seven hours. I find that after six hours, I am
pretty much worthless. After only three hours, I start to wander and flag.
When I play live poker, which is nowhere near as often as I like, I try to never
play for more than four hours at a sit. If for some reason I want to stay longer
six hours is pretty much it.
Your own personal limit may very well be different than mine. The best way to
determine you limit is to keep an hour by hour log of your profits. It *does*
require you to log data at the table, which can be a tell of some kind, but the
tell may well cost you less than the information which gain saves you.
I think you are probably a good enough player to win. Your task is to plug
your leak. The best way to plug a leak is to gather more data. There are
a lot of approaches to gathering data. Experiment, see which method helps you
find your leaks, if you haven't found them, gather more data.
Repeat till satisfied.
- Andrew
Andrew Prock
>
>Huh? I can easily play Hold'em for 10 hours straight as long as I
>don't get bored. I do tend to stick to shorter sessions, but that's
>because I'm bored, not because I'm tired or off my game.
For me bored is synonymous with "off my game." When I'm bored I don't
think about how the current hand is going, I don't look for the kinds
of mistakes that other players make habitually, I sometimes even lose
track of the number of bets in a pot when I'm bored.
I'm don't usually get tired at the tables. The gambling "high" is
more than powerful enough to keep me away for dozens of hours at a
time.
I get bored, I lose interest.
I am assuming that you can still beat the game when you are bored.
This is a major accomplishment, and one that is required if you
are going to be playing poker to win money.
I can't play bored and win.
- Andrew
Asha34
>detect my mistakes. I could usually charge at least 10 to 20 percent of my
>losses to bad play (this is being very strict, and when in doubt, call it a
>mistake).
>
This 10-20% may seem very small to you. But the difference between winning and
losing is probably found in what you did in that 10-20% of the time that you
thought you made bad plays or played bad. The difference betweena constent
winner and someone who loses is probably no more than 10%. So if you looked at
what you have already described as bad play, I suspect you will have the answer
to your question about where your leak is.
Ashley
Ashley
Cwkace
<pinx...@canada.com> writes:
>I played poker once with tarot cards.
>I got a full house, and four people died.
I bought some powdered water but I don't know what to add.
Cwkace
<garyc...@mindspring.com> writes:
>But, I don't think there is a higher power controlling my luck. I control
>my own luck.
I would really like to hear your definition of luck, which by definition,
concerns events outside of our control. How do you control what is outside of
our control?
Cwkace
writes:
>A person can convince themselves of anything if they tell themselves a lie
>enough,
>maybe you should get an honest appraisal of your game from someone else if
>you
>can't do it yourself.
Thanks for the post, but after all, I started this in the first place in hopes
someone could tell me why I stink.
Cwkace
<garyc...@mindspring.com> writes:
>No, it's not be kind to idiots week. It's give up on the troll week. I
>give up. Good luck, sir.
Thanks for proving your point. And good luck to you to sir, you'll need it.
POKER IS LUCK
Cwkace
<garyc...@mindspring.com> writes:
>If you folded only because he check-raised on the flop, then why did you
>call the check-raise. Althought the result was okay for you, I'm not sure
>why you folded on the turn. It seems to me that you either made a mistake
>calling the check-raise, or you made a mistake folding on the turn. Whether
>or not you made a mistake isn't determeined by what hand he actually had,
>but by what hands he might have had given the action.
>
Oh, I forgot to mention, he also bet the turn. I may be crazy, but it seems to
me if you always fold when someone check raises on the flop you set yourself up
to get run over - on the other hand, if someone who is not real agressive likes
his hand enough to continue betting into someone who raised pre-flop, you might
have a clue that he has you beat. Or I could be wrong, and I should have
called all the way to the river. Even better, I could have raised him on the
turn, hoping he was bluffing on the flop.
>This hand wasn't even a bad outcome. If I'd have been the LB then you would
>have lost a couple more bets then you did. You were beat but I don't think
>you lost any extra bets here, not a bad outcome at all.
One of my great skills is losing less than most. No, I agree, its a great
outcome to flop a set of Aces and lose. Do you ever play in Bossier?
>Against two players I wouldn't have liked your hand all that much at any of
>the betting rounds. But, I don't see anything particularly bad about the
>outcome of this hand.
See above.
>What the relationship between SKlanksy's hand groups and pre-flop theory?
Hmm, let's see now, maybe we can figure this one out. Sklansky's hand groups
are found in his chapter on pre-flop play, and in that chapter he goes into
extensive detail about how to play pre-flop, wherein he often refers to the
hand groups. Wait, I'm beginning to see the start of a possible relationship
here, hands to play before the flop, comments on how to play before the flop,
wait give me a few more minutes I know I can tie this together. Got it. No
that's not it. Wait, what about .....
>How do you know you didn't have the best hand? Did the other player show his
cards when he folded?
I have great reading skills, I know when I'm beat.
>In all your examples, you focused on whether or not you won the pot. That's
just not whats important.
What, in all the wide world of poker, is?
POKER according to Gary Carson IS LUCK
Asha34
Cwkace
(Asha34) writes:
>My comments were meant for you. It is refreshing to find a player who is as
>positive as you are. The world would be a better and more pleasant place if
>everyone developed the attitude you clearly have.
I truly appreciate your comment here, especially the reference to "positive".
I believe some of our group might tend to disagree with you about my attitude,
but I really am positive most of the time about poker, even though I no longer
expect to win.
Better to laugh than cry, and this game has brought a few tears to my eyes.
But I've had some laughs too, and more now than I used to. Doesn't help me
win, but at least I'm bearable at the table .... mostly.
Thanks again.
AaMarkHays
(Cwkace) writes:
>This is a circular argument. Not to get too deep into the fact that all
>human
>logic is ultimately circular, and keeping things on the micro level, you are
>simply saying that if you win you are good and if you lose you are bad. This
>in counter to Cooke's belief that you can't be results oriented in poker, but
>must play correctly. Try again.
What a wonderful illustration. Unfortunately for you it doesn't illustrate
your point. It does show how poorly you understand what you read about poker
and how twisted your application of the information becomes. Now, if you want
to go through life believing you're on the shitty end of a poker bell curve
there isn't anything anyone can say to prove otherwise. Of course, there isn't
anything you can say that's going to prove your point either. It's an
entrenched belief system that requires no proof and denies all dissent.
For the record, luck is no more than a relative description of past events.
And that's all it is. Nothing mystical, no benevolent and/or demonic entity
looking down on us and laughing, no mathematical graphs with "bad luck" on the
left and "good luck" on the right. Probability is what's going to happen,
chance is what's happening now, luck is what's already happened.
Mark
Happiness is a table full of optimists.
m...@acm.org
> This is a circular argument. Not to get too deep into the fact that all human
> logic is ultimately circular, and keeping things on the micro level, you are
> simply saying that if you win you are good and if you lose you are bad. This
> in counter to Cooke's belief that you can't be results oriented in poker, but
> must play correctly. Try again.
1) It wasn't a "circular argument". It was a definition.
2) I'm not sure what I'm suppose to be "trying" at. You post a whine
on RGP and receive some ideas which you attack. You don't happen to
have hair on your back and hide under bridges, do ya?
3) Cooke's comments _support_ what I said. He encourages you not to
focus on short term results so that your long term results are
positive.
Good luck with the poker.
Playr in
extremely predictable. My guess is a lot of your opponents know what you've
got by how you play. Playing big cards is good, but you will get drawn out on
sometimes. As someone suggested, play your big draws faster. And how do
you play those big hands once you've decided to get involved? Passively?
Aggressively? Always play them the same? Yeah, yeah, I know... based on
the 100 or so messages in this thread you're going to say you've looked at
these parts of your game, there's nothing there that could be it, poker is
luck.
One thing you said that demonstrates you're not understanding what's
important... you described a hand where you had AK vs 77 and flop came
AA7. A couple people tried in vain to explain that the way this hand played
out was about as good as it could have been for you. You posted a reply
that "No, I agree, it's a great outcome to flop a set of aces and lose."
You're
focused on the results of flopping a big hand and not dragging the pot!
Wrong focus! What the other posters were trying to tell you is **you actually
#won# on this hand**. True, you did not drag the pot... but the player who
flopped the full house should have gotten more bets out of you than they did.
You lost less than you should have on this hand, and since you've read all
your books to tatters, I know you've seen this before: Bets saved are as real
money as bets won. The hand is not unusual. Sometimes you'll be the one
with AK, and sometimes you'll be the one with 77. How few bets you lose
when you run into one of these situations is just as important as how many
bets you win when you have the best hand at the end.
Which leads to another point posters are trying in vain to drive home to
you...
you're playing too tight (and I suspect too predictable) to get paid off when
you do make a hand. My god man, 1 hand every hour? You could not be getting
no playable hands for 7-10 hours straight... Even the idiots can figure out
who
the rock(s) is/are at the table. Players pretty much know where you're at
after the flop hits, and they're only putting money in if they have a chance to
draw out on you. While you'd clean up like this if you get it heads up or 3
way
action regularly like this, if 3 or 4 (or more) are in, you're going to get
drawn
out on a lot by one of them. When posters are telling you that, based on how
you
describe your play, you're probably winning small pots and losing big ones,
this
is what they're talking about.
I played a session of 10-20 at the Horseshoe (LV) recently where I was getting
what I considered to be an unusually poor run of starting hands. In a 4 hour
15 minute session, I got KK once (which lost), JJ once (which won), AQ 2 times,
AJ 2 times, and I never once got Big Slick. All my other starting hands were
worse than these... but I loosened up when the situation was right, and made
a couple moves when the timing was right to do so. The players were pretty
easy to read... only one opponent I considered to be very tricky in the game,
and
I took a seat to his left, spewing some crap about "lucky seat" for the benefit
of the table, allowing me to simply avoid getting involved if he raised unless
I got
a big hand (1 nut flush, other than that, no real big hands that session!). I
ended
this session +573. This win was NOT due to lucky cards, as I had very little
of that. It was due to the ability to read my opponents, which allowed me to
make good decisions with proper timing, which allowed me to book a win
without making a bunch of monster hands. To the fish in the game, I'm sure I
seemed "lucky", but luck had nothing to do with it.
As someone else said in this thread... "luck" evens out for everyone over time,
and the good players get the money. Period.
Dave