How Do You Measure Luck
Bing
For the last few months, I have started to wonder if I
am the unluckiest poker player in the world or what. It
seems to me that the suckouts against me are almost
constant.
For example, my records show that I see the flop in about
1 out of 5 hands, but I only win about 1 in 5 of those
hands. Roughly, I have won about 1 hand an hour over the
last 3 months. That seems to be way below expected.
I see people post bad beat stories here all the time. In
most of them, they tell the story as if no one has ever
sucked out on them before. I often shake my head because
I see those same kind of bad beats 2-3 times an hour.
I get nailed by one- or two-outers every 4 or 5 hands
that I play.
And, it seems like I miss the flop about 9 times out of
10. It's fairly common to go three hours without seeing
the turn once. In other words, the only decision I make
is whether to fold before or after the flop.
Now, I have to consider whether I am really being unlucky
or whether I am just perceiving it that way (like it
"always" raining when you wash the car). Is there any
real way to tell actual bad luck from just skewed
perception? How many bad beats in a day is normal?
How often do you miss the flop? What is a typical
number of hands to go between wins?
People write all the time about how to recognize tilt and
what to do about it, and people write about how to take
advantage of a hot streak, but how about a similar treatment
for a run of bad luck.
Knock wood,
-- Bing Monopoly Expansion Set
Visit us at http://www.paxentertainment.com
Gary Carson
>Well, Friday the 13th seems appropriate to discuss luck.
>
>For the last few months, I have started to wonder if I
>am the unluckiest poker player in the world or what. It
>seems to me that the suckouts against me are almost
>constant.
>
>For example, my records show that I see the flop in about
>1 out of 5 hands, but I only win about 1 in 5 of those
>hands. Roughly, I have won about 1 hand an hour over the
>last 3 months. That seems to be way below expected.
>
>And, it seems like I miss the flop about 9 times out of
>10. It's fairly common to go three hours without seeing
>the turn once. In other words, the only decision I make
>is whether to fold before or after the flop.
That's your problem right there. You give up too easily, and you
probably play too passively.
>
>Now, I have to consider whether I am really being unlucky
>or whether I am just perceiving it that way (like it
>"always" raining when you wash the car). Is there any
>real way to tell actual bad luck from just skewed
>perception?
Yes.
Write down the details of a hand. Go home. Set up profiles to mimic
the other players in the hand (that's part of the details you wrote
down, right?), set up a profile to mimic your behavior. Study the
output from a sim of the hand. Tweak your hehavior. Study it. See
if you can figure out how you might have played the hand differently.
You are less likely to get sucked out on the river if you play
aggresively.
Bing
(Gary Carson) wrote:
> >In other words, the only decision I make
> >is whether to fold before or after the flop.
> That's your problem right there. You give up too easily, and you
> probably play too passively.
It's possible. But I do think that the laydowns I make are
legitimate. Say for example, I have 9c-Tc and raise from
the button. Three callers. What to do with the following flops,
1. As-Qd-7s. UTG bets. Two callers.
2. As-Ts-6d. UTG bets. One other caller.
3. As-Ts-6d. Three checks to me.
4. Ts-9s-8d. A bet and raise to me.
5. 4c-4s-5d. Middle position bets. One caller.
6. 8s-5d-2h. Three checks to me.
7. 9s-8s-9h. Blind bets. One caller.
In cases 1, 2, and 5, I'd fold without a second thought.
In case 3, I'd probably check, since that Ace always means
trouble.
In case 6, I'd check.
I'd just call in cases 4 and 7. There are way too many
way to be beat.
> You are less likely to get sucked out on the river if you play
> aggresively.
Good thought. I'm not sure how to reconcile that thought with
the fact that I see most of the aggresive players go home broke
each night.
How does aggression keep the few calling stations from sucking
out? I often seem to find 1-2 people in every game that just
live for the opportunity to check-raise.
Octo the Genarian
> > That's your problem right there. You give up too easily, and you
> > probably play too passively.
>
> It's possible. But I do think that the laydowns I make are
> legitimate. Say for example, I have 9c-Tc and raise from
> the button. Three callers. What to do with the following flops,
>
So you're raising a loose limper? I'll assume these pots are 4-handed.
> 1. As-Qd-7s. UTG bets. Two callers.
Muck.
> 2. As-Ts-6d. UTG bets. One other caller.
Probably fold but raising is a definite possibility against some opponents.
You are getting 10:1, and if your opponents are really loose you may have 5
outs, or quite possibly the current best hand. On the other hand if your
opponents are tight you really have to fold, because you're likely looking
at some combination of Ax/JTs-QTs-KTs/66, which would have you drawing
extremely thin.
The board is not that threatening, but my fear would be that I'm probably
drawing and some of my outs are blocked by either a flush draw or a
dominating T.
On the other hand if the middle player is super loose and might have any
crap hand, a raise seems better to me.
> 3. As-Ts-6d. Three checks to me.
Fold. Just kidding, bet.
> 4. Ts-9s-8d. A bet and raise to me.
3-bet and hope for the best.
> 5. 4c-4s-5d. Middle position bets. One caller.
Call. You probably have 6 outs plus the backdoor flushdraw, and your're
getting 10:1. You may be up against a draw and an unimproved Ax, in which
case you may be able to steal the pot.
The only reason I don't like raising is if the first position bettor has a 5
or 67s, he may be quick to 3-bet you.
How likely is either person to have a 4?
> 6. 8s-5d-2h. Three checks to me.
Bet.
> 7. 9s-8s-9h. Blind bets. One caller.
>
Raise.
> In cases 1, 2, and 5, I'd fold without a second thought.
>
I disagree, but mainly with the "without a second thought" qualifier.
Folding may be right in all of those situations, but 2 and 5 are not as
obvious as you seem to think.
> In case 3, I'd probably check, since that Ace always means
> trouble.
>
WEAK! SO weak. What that A actually spells is "I will be taking the pot now,
thank you." Even if you get called, you've probably bought yourself a
freecard on the turn - if you want it.
You may be giving up a ton of EV by not betting when you raised preflop and
an A hits the board. The A is good for you. All low cards would be much
worse, since your opponents would call your correctly with overcards.
It's true that you'll probably get called by KJ/QJ hands taking their
gutshots, but so?
> In case 6, I'd check.
>
A bad move against most opponents, I think. A bet here and on the turn
should take the pot down.
But if you're against tight-tenacious-aggressive opponents (that is tight
preflop, so likely to have big cards or pairs), who will call down with
aces, checking could be right... my big fear would be getting check raised
by some hand like QJ or Ax or 77 and making a bad laydown.
> I'd just call in cases 4 and 7. There are way too many
> way to be beat.
>
You have got to be kidding me!!! In case 4 you are beaten by
TT(1)/99(1)/88/(3) and QJ(16 or 4 if they would only play it suited) and
J7(judge for yourself).
There are so many draws out, not to mention one pair hands, that a bet and a
raise is no concern at all. How likely is it that either would play the
straight that aggressively on the flop anyway? You should be jamming on the
flop and quite possibly the turn as well. Make JT and the flushdraw(s) pay.
This hand convinces me that you are too passive...
And hand 7 absolutely proves it. I just can't believe you don't think you're
a favorite to raise here. That is insane! You're convinced someone has
higher trips??? Or quads or a boat???
If your point is that you feel you can confidently put your opponents on a
narrow range of draws and so want to defer a raise until the turn when those
draws miss, that is reasonable. But I don't think that's what you meant.
Normally the only reason to call here is to slowplay, which would be a
mistake.
Also, if you're going for the deferred raise consider that you're missing
the opportunity to jam vs. JT or a flushdraw and trap some other guy in the
middle.
> > You are less likely to get sucked out on the river if you play
> > aggresively.
>
> Good thought. I'm not sure how to reconcile that thought with
> the fact that I see most of the aggresive players go home broke
> each night.
>
Please. So can we take this to mean you advocate passive play?
> How does aggression keep the few calling stations from sucking
> out? I often seem to find 1-2 people in every game that just
> live for the opportunity to check-raise.
>
Against loose players it won't necessarily improve your odds of winning, but
it will make you more when you win, and it will often save you bets, via
freecards, when you lose. It will also allow you to pick up pots, by raising
for a freecard instead of folding on the flop, or by bluffing.
You've been moping on RGP about how unlucky you are for a while now... you
might consider actually taking some advice to heart instead.
pokermike3
After looking at them I'd have to say he's on the mark. Example 1 - OK
Example 2 - is totally dependent on the players involved, but to say you
would fold without a second thought would be a mistake. Example 3 - Big
mistake. You are forgetting that YOU raised before the flop. That A should
scare THEM. If your not willing to bet this flop you shouldn't be raising
with 109s. Example 4 - Just calling here isn't horrible if you're
planning on raising the turn when a safe card rolls off. But it sounds like
you're just calling because you think you might already be beaten. It's far
more likely that you have the best hand but your opponents have draws to
beat you. You need to make them pay a steep price. I would three bet this
hand on the flop. An added bonus to playing it this way is that if a bad
card comes on the turn you might get a free card and you would still have
four outs. Example 5 - OK Example 6 - OK, but understand that when you
raise with suited connectors you can't check every time you miss the flop.
Example 7 - I seriously hope you are kidding when you say "there are too
many ways to be beat" This is your DREAM flop. What could you be afraid of
here? Overall I'd have to say you are playing too passively. One last
thought : against 2-3 limpers and the blinds you shouldn't be raising with
109s all the time - just to vary your play against opponents who will
notice. If they are not the type who will, limp and see the flop cheap.
Take care. Mike Minetti
"Bing" <pax...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3eea1aef...@news.fu-berlin.de...
PacPalBuzz
From: pax...@yahoo.com (Bing)
Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 09:27
Message-id: <3eea05ec...@news.fu-berlin.de> >>
<<"It's fairly common to go three hours without seeing
the turn once.">>
Bing - Me too. But somehow I don't think of that as "bad luck." Rather, it's
just the way the cards run, just part of the game.
<<"Now, I have to consider whether I am really being unlucky or whether I am
just perceiving it that way">>
When things are not going my way, perhaps I could have earlier done something
differently to have better control over my destiny. That's how I think about
life in general and also about poker.
A "bad beat" in a poker game may inspire me to learn something I otherwise
would not have learned - something that will yield a greater reward later. I
might not have prepared myself to deal with some future situation without
taking the "bad beat." If I look at what seems an unfortunate result as a "bad
beat," I don't learn anything.
There are so many mini-events you encounter as you go through the day that it
is mind boggling. Change one of them a tiny bit and everything may be
different. Glance right and see something you would not have seen had you
glanced left - something that affects your train of thought.... You can think
of each of these mini-events as "luck" There are a zillion of them each day.
Cards are the same way. Change one card a little bit, appear a bit different to
an opponent, have one opponent raising you instead of another. Everything is
"luck" if you want to look at things one way.
But "luck" is just a word. It could go by the term "fate" or "karma" equally as
well. Whatever it is that affects our lives is whatever it is.
But in terms of daily events, we're not like pieces of driftwood in a current.
In truth, we have considerable control over what happens to us, in terms of
daily events. When something doesn't go right, it may be because we didn't
handle another thing leading up to it. We continually have various options.
When dealing with other people, we can be prepared or not. If we are prepared,
we can be superbly prepared or fairly well prepared.
Whether I win or lose playing poker doesn't really make any difference in the
quality of my life, except that I like winning much more than losing. Since I
do prefer winning to losing, I try to *prepare* myself for various situations
that might occur - but you can't be ready for *everything* that might happen. I
suppose it's "bad luck" when I'm not well enough prepared and "good luck" when
I am.
Luck? Fate? At least in terms of playing cards and handling others (including
opponents in a poker game) I believe you can exercise substantial control over
it.
You can't control the cards (unless you are cheating), but you can control how
you play them and you also can affect how your opponents play them.
Just my opinion.
Specifically, have you wondered if you might be playing *too* tightly?
Buzz
La Ciclon
this some time ago too. Mine lasted 8 straight months at the 20-40 level
(B&M). I didn't book a winning month for those 8 straight months.
I questioned my play, my ability to read players, etc.
I can tell you this: Sometimes, poker runs in streaks. Sometimes, the cards
just don't come. I discovered that, oftentimes when players get cold-decked
over a long period of time, they become more timid about their play, lay
down the best/winning hands more often, and overall doubt their ability,
which their more astute opponents can literally "smell".
Without a positive mental outlook - EXPECTING to win - EXPECTING to do
well - KNOWING it'll turn out positively for you, you can just about check
your game at the door. Nothing will overcome an emotional state of
negativity.
Just keep plugging away, do some analysis on your game, and KNOW that these
are merely "swings" that are to be expected in the long run.
La Ciclon
"Bing" <pax...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3eea05ec...@news.fu-berlin.de...
<*snip*>
Linda K Sherman
> For the last few months, I have started to wonder if I
> am the unluckiest poker player in the world or what. It
> seems to me that the suckouts against me are almost
> constant.
Yeah, been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
You're playing scared. You're playing not to lose rather than playing
to win. You're checking when you should be betting, calling when you
should be raising, and folding when you should be calling or raising.
Drop down to a limit where bankroll isn't an issue (some online sites
have .01/.02 games), start playing more aggressively, and don't give up
so easily after the flop.
Lin
Bing
<octothe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Tc - 9c
> > 6. 8s-5d-2h. Three checks to me.
> Bet.
I can see that. But, part of the reason for my post is
that I feel that bad luck is hanging over my head. If
I bet here, I'm surely not ahead (any one overcard is
ahead of me). I have just as many outs as the A-Q or
K-J. I always thought it was a poor idea to bet when
you are not ahead and do not have a better draw than
anyone else.
> > 7. 9s-8s-9h. Blind bets. One caller.
> Raise.
Yeah, I agree. And, I usually do raise in this
situation, even though I said I'd probably just
call. The problem I see is that there are
dozens of hands that will call and about a third
of the deck can make someone's straight or flush.
You are ahead, but that darn Sword is hanging over
your head.
> > In case 3, I'd probably check, since that Ace always means
> > trouble.
> WEAK! SO weak. What that A actually spells is "I will be taking the pot now,
> thank you." Even if you get called, you've probably bought yourself a
> freecard on the turn - if you want it.
Maybe it's the games I play in, but almost every
opponent I face will call the blind, or one bet,
before the flop with any Ace. And when an Ace flops,
they won't bet unless their kicker is a Jack or
better. They won't fold either. Any flop with an
Ace is a dangerous minefield.
> You've been moping on RGP about how unlucky you are for a while now... you
> might consider actually taking some advice to heart instead.
I did, last night. I played about as aggressive as I've
ever played. I found myself at a passive table and
raised almost every halfway decent hand I got. If I
hit anything on the flop, I pretty much raised all the
way to the river.
I had mixed results. I raised before the flop 50 times
in the first 5 hours. In 40 of those cases, the entire
table folded and I won 1 or 2 blinds. In the other 10
cases, exactly 1 opponent called me each time and called
me all the way down to the river. I lost 9 of those
hands.
I changed tables. This one had more action. I raised
preflop a lot (not as much as the first table, though).
I was almost always ahead before the flop and after.
But, the turn and river almost always hit someone's
hand and I was check-raised constantly. I felt like
I had a huge target on my chest. Some of the highlights
were,
Me (blind): J4, Flop: J-4-4. I bet all the way and
am beaten by K-T when T-T comes runner-runner.
Me (blind): 5d9d, Flop: 9cTc9s. I bet and get 2 callers.
Turn is 9h. I bet and get one caller. River is Kc and
I am beaten by JcQc. And I don't win the bad beat pot
because my kicker didn't play.
Me 67s: Flop is 8-9-T. I bet all the way. Board is
harmless otherwise. I am beat by J-Q who slowplayed
me until a check-raise on the river.
And plenty of large pocket pairs and flopped sets
torpedoed.
The end result was that I played 330 hands in 9.1
hours. I saw the flop 50 times and won 11 of those
hands. I won 40 more hands before the flop for
just the blinds.
On the bright side, those 40 stolen blinds did
help to offset the beats I was taking. I only
lost 20 BB instead of 50 or so if I had played
more passively.
Bing
wrote:
> When things are not going my way, perhaps I could have earlier done something
> differently to have better control over my destiny. That's how I think about
> life in general and also about poker.
True. But you can't change the past. You can say you should have done
it differently, but you can't change it. The best you can do is to
look for a similar situation in the future. But, you won't ever see
the EXACT same situation.
You may have learned that you should have raised last time, but
this time, the opponent may be in a different mood or have
different cards.
> Specifically, have you wondered if you might be playing *too* tightly?
It's hard to say. About half the people I talk poker with
consider me to be an aggressive player and the other half
consider me to be too tight.
In fact, I recall one hand where I raised from the button
with Q4s. I don't recall whether I won or lost that hand,
but afterwards, one friend came up and asked how I could
make money always playing that trash so aggressively. A
few minutes later, a different friend comes up and said
he almost fell out of his chair when I played that hand.
I can see it both ways. If I'm running well, I am aggressive.
If things are running bad, I'm tight.
Bing
<p0we...@suckspam.excite.c0m> wrote:
> Bing - your story isn't unlike many others. I ran into some "luck" like
> this some time ago too. Mine lasted 8 straight months at the 20-40 level
> (B&M). I didn't book a winning month for those 8 straight months.
Well, I probably shouldn't be complaining too much,
since I have booked a win in almost every session
up until last night.
I guess my chief complaint is that the bad luck that
I'm currently fighting is very draining. I usually do
end up booking a small profit for the night, but it
usually feels like I've gone 25 rounds with Mike Tyson.
I walk out thinking, "Damn. Of the 35 or so times I
got rivered tonight, if just one or two of those people
had missed, I'd be walking out of here with a big wad
of cash instead of just enough profit to fill the
gas tank."
I just need to know how to deal with the batterings
and keep my sanity.
arlo payne
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:07:32 -0500, "Octo the Genarian"
><octothe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Tc - 9c
>> > 6. 8s-5d-2h. Three checks to me.
>> Bet.
>
>I can see that. But, part of the reason for my post is
>that I feel that bad luck is hanging over my head. If
>I bet here, I'm surely not ahead (any one overcard is
>ahead of me). I have just as many outs as the A-Q or
>K-J. I always thought it was a poor idea to bet when
>you are not ahead and do not have a better draw than
>anyone else.
You have more outs than just two overcards.
>> > In case 3, I'd probably check, since that Ace always means
>> > trouble.
>
>> WEAK! SO weak. What that A actually spells is "I will be taking the
pot now,
>> thank you." Even if you get called, you've probably bought yourself
a
>> freecard on the turn - if you want it.
>
>Maybe it's the games I play in, but almost every
>opponent I face will call the blind, or one bet,
>before the flop with any Ace.
So? They'll see the flops with a lot more hands that don't have an
ace than with hands that do.
Bing
<linsh...@dimsbam.att.net> wrote:
> Drop down to a limit where bankroll isn't an issue (some online sites
> have .01/.02 games), start playing more aggressively, and don't give up
> so easily after the flop.
Well, I did that. I played Friday and Saturday evenings and played
pretty darn aggressively. Overall, I played at two different casinos
and five different tables.
I've discovered a few revalations about playing aggressively.
They occured at every table in each casino. It was the same
pattern each time.
First off, everyone hates you. I pretty much raised from UTG or
late position whenever I had a hand that I would even consider
calling with. I folded otherwise. It's the old raise or fold
strategy.
Every time I did that, the whole table would look at me with
disgust, often accompanied by unflattering comments. It was
kind of like the time where I played "Don't Pass" all
evening at the Craps table.
Second, the aggressive strategy produced tons of very small
wins and a big loss every 10 hands. Once every two hours,
I'd get a big win. Overall, it amounted to a steady loss
of chips.
What would happen is that I'd play aggressively and, for the
first 30 minutes, everyone would fold every time. It's like
I was the big, mean Ogre who lived outside of town. When I
walked into town, everyone would lock themselves in their
houses and just let me have any scraps laying in the street.
I'd usually win just the blinds.
If I folded, all the villagers would come out and play. If
one player bet, he'd get 3-4 callers. Everyone would laugh
and have fun. Someone would win a pretty big pot.
Once in a while, someone would call my bet, but only if they
had a Type-1 hand. They'd never raise, except to check-raise
at the river. I'd aggressively bet each round and get beat
when he calmly turned over his excellent hand. I'd lose
all the blinds that I had won from the previous ten small
wins. It was like the little boy with a sling bravely taking
on the mean old Ogre and hitting him square between the
eyes 70 or 80% of the time.
And the villagers watched from the safety of their homes
and cheered on the lone challengers. They realized that
the best strategy to beat the Ogre was to send only one
person at a time out to challenge him, to minimize
their losses if the Ogre should win.
And so it went. After about an hour or so, whenever I'd
raise, I'd get exactly one caller, usually whichever one
of them had the best hand (I think they compared cards
and made decisions through group telepathy).
The Ogre would either win a very small pot (if no one
had anything) or end up playing heads-up against the best
hand out of the remaining nine.
After a while, the Ogre was badly beaten up and starving
and had to change tables. The exact same process repeated
itself five times over two days at five different tables.
Statistically, I had my worst night ever on Saturday,
winning only 12 hands (with at least two bets in it)
out of 350 and losing 45 (where I lost at least two
bets) in that same stretch. Granted, I did win 30
uncontested pots to steal the blinds and that did keep
the night, money-wise, from being horrible.
Now, it does turn out that I didn't suffer a lot of
suck outs Saturday, so, I guess that's a small victory.
Unfortunately, most of the time, I was behind the
whole way.
Gary Carson
>Now, it does turn out that I didn't suffer a lot of
>suck outs Saturday, so, I guess that's a small victory.
>Unfortunately, most of the time, I was behind the
>whole way.
Hmm. Most of the time you were behind the whole way. And you were
raising.
Maybe you need to do some fine tuning of this aggression idea.
Bing
(Gary Carson) wrote:
> >Now, it does turn out that I didn't suffer a lot of
> >suck outs Saturday, so, I guess that's a small victory.
> >Unfortunately, most of the time, I was behind the
> >whole way.
> Hmm. Most of the time you were behind the whole way. And you were
> raising.
> Maybe you need to do some fine tuning of this aggression idea.
Perhaps so. I had simply been taking some of the advice offered
earlier in the thread about how the Ace on the board was more
scary to the opponents and I should bet, how I should bet
boards where I miss and the board is pretty pathetic, and
so on.
I kind of thought that the whole point of aggression was to
bet in many situations where you may not have the best hand.
After all, every unimaginative player instinctively knows to bet
heavily when they have the nut hand. I thought the aggression
we were talking about here was something different.
If I back off whenever I think there may be a better hand out
there, I'm right back to the beginning of this thread.
La Ciclon
This is the part that makes it so difficult to play full-time, and why I
can't do it anymore. Too much stress. You become cynical after awhile.
I'd recommend playing less. It's what made it easier for me.
La Ciclon
"Bing" <pax...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3eeb7b0b...@netnews.attbi.com...
Bing
<p0we...@suckspam.excite.c0m> wrote:
> This is the part that makes it so difficult to play full-time, and why I
> can't do it anymore. Too much stress. You become cynical after awhile.
Perhaps so. But then, I don't play full-time...or even close.
I play once a week on Friday. About 3-4 times a year, I
play on a Saturday too. I've never played during the week.
> I'd recommend playing less. It's what made it easier for me.
How do you reconcile the feeling that that you are just
giving up and admitting defeat? Won't that make you even
more gun-shy when you do finally return?
La Ciclon
> How do you reconcile the feeling that that you are just
> giving up and admitting defeat? Won't that make you even
> more gun-shy when you do finally return?
No - I'm never gun-shy. Oddly enough, the experience of being on a long
loss streak may have made me think twice before putting in that bet, but I
still played pot odds and tossed it in when needed. Also raised when I had
what I thought was the best hand.
The problem with all of this is - simply - the fact that if you consistently
win, at some point you're going to consistently lose at some point.
What I mean by this is - say over the last year I've won MUCH more than the
usual 1 big bet per hour. Say it averaged out over that year to about 6 big
bets per hour. Could I be subjected in the future to an average loss over
an extended period of 5 big bets per hour? Absolutely, and that's exactly
what happened to me.
Much like having heart in no-limit hold'em, you've gotta have heart in limit
hold 'em and believe that the hand you hold IS the best hand, even when
faced with a big bet that may be a bluff.
La Ciclon
Russ Georgiev
> Well, Friday the 13th seems appropriate to discuss luck.
>
> For the last few months, I have started to wonder if I
> am the unluckiest poker player in the world or what. It
> seems to me that the suckouts against me are almost
> constant.
>
> For example, my records show that I see the flop in about
> 1 out of 5 hands, but I only win about 1 in 5 of those
> hands. Roughly, I have won about 1 hand an hour over the
> last 3 months. That seems to be way below expected.
If you are seeing the flop 20% of the hands, better tighten up. Your
luck will change.
Russ Georgiev