Accepting Loss At The Poker Table.

[Spademan 94]

This run-on sentence works a lot better with a colon or dash.

Technically, yes.Functionally, no.I own grammar, I type the way I do for a reason. bigger

[Spademan 94]

Some intersting arguments have taken place in this thread. Let me clarify. It was in fact Phil Ivey and David Oppenheim who told me that I need to take responsibility for my losses. I wasn't being condemned. In fact the conversation had very little to do with me. It was two people talking about poker players making excuses for their losses. It was something that I had done for years, and finally realized that I needed to change. Perhaps some of you are already light years beyond me. I usually figure things out the hard way. I also stated to David once that I thought that I was a world class player. He said then why aren't you playing the 4-8k mix games. That was a reality check.I guess now the question is, does my thread mean more because I am an established member as opposed to a newer poster. Honestly I don't know, nor do I care. The truth is, I play in some rather high limit games. I choose to share certain advice or stories from my own life. Often times I will pass that info on to people in s7s as opposed to the general forum. In this case I felt like trying to do something that I thought would help everyone. If in fact I have helped a person, great. If the thread has no meaning to you, simply move on.I welcome anyone and everyone to contribute to this forum as much as possible in a positive way. I have found that most people are in denial, bitter or angry about their losses. That is the reason that I created this thread. Hopefully as you progress through the ranks in poker this topic will make more sense. Like I said, it took me nine years to TRULY understand the concept of taking full responsibility for a loss.

Yes, I know, you're playing higher than most people and your posts mean more in that sense.That's what I was pointing out.Doesn't change the fact that the lessons contained therein are rudimentary.Therein lies the losing arguments made in this thread.Good stuff though, "don't tilt", "examing your play win or lose", "variance is statistical", ect.

[Czech Razor 0]

All this nonsense is still better than a Ryland post.

[vbnautilus 48]

Yes, I know, you're playing higher than most people and your posts mean more in that sense.That's what I was pointing out.Doesn't change the fact that the lessons contained therein are rudimentary.Therein lies the losing arguments made in this thread.Good stuff though, "don't tilt", "examing your play win or lose", "variance is statistical", ect.

I kind of know where you're coming from here Spademan, even though you are coming off as a bit disrespecting. However, I think there is value in Steve's point even though it may be rudimentary from one perspective. My understanding of Steve from reading his posts is that he feels that attitude and psychological approach are the most important things to improve in becoming a winning player. We spend a lot of time on these forums dealing with the technical issues of poker, and I think it's nice to spend some time focusing on the psychological side. The thing about changing how you think and respond to circumstances in life is that it's much easier to talk about than it is to do.

[Zach6668 513]

I am confused on how you lost 140BB's if you were the only player at that limit. Glad that you didn't go on tilt. Couple of things. I know that you multi-table. Take a good hard look at that. It might seem like the safer way to go, and you get bonus, rakeback, etc. But it "could" be the wrong approach. Second, just because you didn't go on tilt, doesn't mean that you didn't make mistakes. Not trying to rain on your parade. Just giving a different perspective.

Oh, I certainly made mistakes.It happens every time I, and I think pretty much everyone, plays.When you only win 35% of the time you see the flop, and 47% at showdown, you're not going to win a lot of money. I only managed to get to showdown 34% of the time, which is low as well.I'm not sure if you use PokerTracker or anything like that, but these numbers pretty much confirm that it was running bad, foremost.That's not to say that I didn't make mistakes, or subconsciously develop a leak, maybe play a bit more passive than normal, etc, but for the most part, this was simply running bad.The nature of SH LHE online leads to swings like this quite frequently, unfortunately.Anyways, again, your post was great, I wasn't being fecetious or anything like that in my original reply, as it was certainly good timing, for helping me accept such a large loss.Cheers,- Zach

[fatman 1]

Some intersting arguments have taken place in this thread. Let me clarify. It was in fact Phil Ivey and David Oppenheim who told me that I need to take responsibility for my losses. I wasn't being condemned. In fact the conversation had very little to do with me. It was two people talking about poker players making excuses for their losses. It was something that I had done for years, and finally realized that I needed to change. Perhaps some of you are already light years beyond me. I usually figure things out the hard way. I also stated to David once that I thought that I was a world class player. He said then why aren't you playing the 4-8k mix games. That was a reality check.I guess now the question is, does my thread mean more because I am an established member as opposed to a newer poster. Honestly I don't know, nor do I care. The truth is, I play in some rather high limit games. I choose to share certain advice or stories from my own life. Often times I will pass that info on to people in s7s as opposed to the general forum. In this case I felt like trying to do something that I thought would help everyone. If in fact I have helped a person, great. If the thread has no meaning to you, simply move on.I welcome anyone and everyone to contribute to this forum as much as possible in a positive way. I have found that most people are in denial, bitter or angry about their losses. That is the reason that I created this thread. Hopefully as you progress through the ranks in poker this topic will make more sense. Like I said, it took me nine years to TRULY understand the concept of taking full responsibility for a loss.

Great op Steve. It has sparked some good debate that most people can learn from. I hope you continue sharing your thoughts with FCP regardless of some of the childish comments some make.

[NoSup4U 0]

I see what you mean here.Also,I have always been a little skeptical of the idea of game choice. I have a hard time seeing how you can really know how a game is running without investing a few hours watching it. (unless you know the players) So to say that you should go to a casino, and watch a game for an hour, and if it's not a 'god' game move to another table, where you watch for an hour, etc. doesn't work out in real life. So really game choice means knowing the players at the games and only playing with the ones you can beat. Which should result in many days of not playing, which will earn you the title of nit.I am a recreational player so maybe this is not for me.

BG, I can tell you this unequivically, that you can look at a NL game and know if is more likely to be better to sit in than others, without even having seen any of the players ever before. I'm not saying that I can look at 10 tables running online and tell you for sure which is the fishiest. But I can tell you which ones are much more likely to have the fish in them, and if I watched them for 10 minutes, I could tell you without a doubt.Mark

[Balloon guy 158]

BG, I can tell you this unequivically, that you can look at a NL game and know if is more likely to be better to sit in than others, without even having seen any of the players ever before. I'm not saying that I can look at 10 tables running online and tell you for sure which is the fishiest. But I can tell you which ones are much more likely to have the fish in them, and if I watched them for 10 minutes, I could tell you without a doubt.Mark

That is a skill I do not possess, nor do I know what it takes to possess it. I guess it's a really good thing I am a rec player for small stakes. Or do you just look for any table Scott is on? It's okay, he's on Maui.

[NoSup4U 0]

Spademan - I don't know if I like you, or don't like you, or what. You do seem a little trolly in this thread though, but maybe I'm just biased for Steve.I do believe that without a doubt in my mind, the single hardest thing for poker players to learn is what Steve posted about. Taking responsibility for your losses, and understanding winning is variance too, is something that we all fail at constantly. It might be the most elementary concept in the world, but the fact is that its SO easy to be like: 'zomg I'm the best thing ever' when we are winning, and 'zomg I can't believe how unlucky I'm getting' when we lose.Mark

[NoSup4U 0]

That is a skill I do not possess, nor do I know what it takes to possess it. I guess it's a really good thing I am a rec player for small stakes. Or do you just look for any table Scott is on? It's okay, he's on Maui.

lol @ hidden text Think of how juicy Scott's tables will be once he gets is govt pension and has money to burn... :)Even just simple things make it easy in NL. Like, lets say you're playing 5/10NL, with a max buyin of 1000 online. If there are 3 players sitting with $700, one guy with $1000, and one guy with $4500, I can guarentee you that the guy with $4500 is good. The 3 guys that have $700 probably are bad, or else they would have reloaded. Just simple stuff like that you don't even need to see them play. If you see a guy with a vpip of 55%, there is almost no way that he is a good player in NL.Mark

[Balloon guy 158]

lol @ hidden text Think of how juicy Scott's tables will be once he gets is govt pension and has money to burn... :)Even just simple things make it easy in NL. Like, lets say you're playing 5/10NL, with a max buyin of 1000 online. If there are 3 players sitting with $700, one guy with $1000, and one guy with $4500, I can guarentee you that the guy with $4500 is good. The 3 guys that have $700 probably are bad, or else they would have reloaded. Just simple stuff like that you don't even need to see them play. If you see a guy with a vpip of 55%, there is almost no way that he is a good player in NL.Mark

The ONLY thing I use to determine table choice is the hands per hour rate.I hate sitting at a table that everyone takes 10 seconds each time to fold a hand because they are 10 tableing idiots.

[TB17 0]

Spademan - I don't know if I like you, or don't like you, or what. You do seem a little trolly in this thread though, but maybe I'm just biased for Steve.I do believe that without a doubt in my mind, the single hardest thing for poker players to learn is what Steve posted about. Taking responsibility for your losses, and understanding winning is variance too, is something that we all fail at constantly. It might be the most elementary concept in the world, but the fact is that its SO easy to be like: 'zomg I'm the best thing ever' when we are winning, and 'zomg I can't believe how unlucky I'm getting' when we lose.Mark

I don't think he's being trolly, it's just the kind of person he is. Which is kinda sad to a degree, but whatever.I agree whole-heartedly on the 2nd part of your post.

[mase_gotsem 0]

. I also stated to David once that I thought that I was a world class player. He said then why aren't you playing the 4-8k mix games. That was a reality check.I

Do you beleive that in order to be "World Class" you have to be playing in the 4K-8K game ? Becouse I beleive that there are far better players in the 200-400 - 1K-2K games, just becouse there playing for 5 times the money makes them more rich not any better in my opinion

[Painter567 0]

Btw, I readily admit when I am ignorant of something, and have no clue what your avatar is.Enlighten me?

Not really sure who it is. Someone linked a football article a week ago and this dude was in the margin. It struck me as an odd pic and started using it. Probably will have it a few more days.

[silkyjonson 1]

Spademan has a point that this should be secondd nature for anyone that has played for a decent amount of time. Maybe he does'nt realize how many people, even really experienced players just blame bad results on luck or variance. If everyone on here was completely absorbed in analyzing every mistake in every session while playing and before, and was completely honest with themself all the time then there would be a forum full of guys making 200k+ a year.

[Actuary 3]

i Spademan, tbh.he's going to go kill some bad guys so I'll cut him lots of slack.he talks tough; but he's got fears, tooironically, many more people got to read the OP due to his "trolling"yes, i wrote my post like this on purpose***************************************And, to Asimo and others, no one really cares about personal anecdotes in these threads, esp ones that are so long.For some reason a post like Steve's seems to give Carte Blanch (Sp?, I dont care) to otherswe likeshort phrases.like Smasharoo Spademan uses.UFC is on now.see you all later.

[Spademan 94]

Spademan - I don't know if I like you, or don't like you, or what.

Irrelevant. It does have to do with your bias though.I'm right, as I am 97% of the time.I know, "it's sad". (Love it when people think my life is sad, when all I do is be awesome, have fun, and save lives doing it.)Final point, Actuary is a shrewd fellow, though he is wrong about the "fears" part.Only thing I fear is dying before my mother does.Wouldn't want her to have to deal with that.Well, that and spiders.Scary litte fucks.

[Jordan 1]

Scary litte fucks.

swing-n-a miss :x- Jordan

[Spademan 94]

swing-n-a miss :x- Jordan

Wait, are you saying I'm not right 3% of the time?Set 'em up, knock 'em down.You thought were were playing baseball when we're really playing T-ball.(Won me a bet btw, danke)

[Czech Razor 0]

Do you beleive that in order to be "World Class" you have to be playing in the 4K-8K game ? Becouse I beleive that there are far better players in the 200-400 - 1K-2K games, just becouse there playing for 5 times the money makes them more rich not any better in my opinion

Right. Obv you don't have to be in that game currently to be of world class caliber because world class players have to move up levels.

[Czech Razor 0]

Wait, are you saying I'm not right 3% of the time?Set 'em up, knock 'em down.You thought were were playing baseball when we're really playing T-ball.(Won me a bet btw, danke)

So you criticize someone for not holding the shift key yet you don't catch typos in consecutive posts? Hypocrite.

[Actuary 3]

he's going to go kill some bad guys so I'll cut him lots of slack.he talks tough; but he's got fears, too

Final point, Actuary is a shrewd fellow, though he is wrong about the "fears" part.Only thing I fear is dying before my mother does....and spiders.

I give this one to me.

[doublemeup 0]

If you are losing for any length of time, you are doing something wrong.

I dont completely agree with this. Its basically saying that there is no such thing as running bad. In a form of poker with as much high variance as tournaments, you will often play "perfect" poker and still go through a streak of not cashing for several tournaments. Now granted after you go say 20 tournaments without cashing your mind set going into the next couple tournaments might be negative which can cause you to make mistakes but to say that for each and every tournament you played you didn't get unlucky, you just played bad is ludacris. I think you can be choosing the correct tournaments for your bankroll, play "perfect" in them and still lose for a long streak of tournaments. People overuse you the term "running bad" but I dont agree with saying it doesn't exist at all.

[onlyme386 0]

If playing "perfect" were possible, I'd agree with double. But I doubt that any of us (or anyone ever) has played a tournament perfectly. Guarantee there were times you got bluffed, times you missed a chance to bluff, etc. This would have led to further chip accumulation and you would have survived when you got sucked out on later.

[Balloon guy 158]

If playing "perfect" were possible, I'd agree with double. But I doubt that any of us (or anyone ever) has played a tournament perfectly. Guarantee there were times you got bluffed, times you missed a chance to bluff, etc. This would have led to further chip accumulation and you would have survived when you got sucked out on later.

Uh hem.