Accepting Loss At The Poker Table.

[onlyme386 0]

Uh hem.

ok, maybe you did... that one time...

[fatman 1]

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.

I read the op as having to do with cash games not tournament play.

[Czech Razor 0]

I read the op as having to do with cash games not tournament play.

That's only because it was about cash games.

[fatman 1]

That's only because it was about cash games.

Oh........no kidding.The post that I was referring to was about tournament play.

[Czech Razor 0]

Oh........no kidding.The post that I was referring to was about tournament play.

Me too. I thought it was funny that 100 replies deep, someone posted that. Hugs.

[fatman 1]

Hugs.

obv

[checkymcfold 0]

forgive me if this doesn't make sense--i haven't had coffee yet and i'm severely hungover. :)steve and i have talked a lot about this sort of thing with respect to my own game. i'm going to leave aside the game selection part of things for now.short version: i think he's right, but it's often extremely difficult to admit that he's right with respect to yourself, and it's sure as hell a lot more complicated than those dismissing it as a long-winded version of "examine your play, regardless of variance." long version: i've come to realize--albeit a lot later than my bankroll would have liked--that what steve's talking about here is EASILY my biggest weakness with respect to poker. like, it's not even close. anyone who talks to me probably knows this, or has seen a joke around here to the effect of "checky runs so bad, LOL," etc. (aside: if you see me playing along with these, pls slap me and tell me i'll have to trade in my diesels for sevens if i don't stop). what i constantly fuck up, though, isn't that i don't properly acknowledge the role of variance in my short-term results. rather, what i constantly fuck up is that i keep thinking variance is even worth mentioning at all. imho, what steve's getting at here is that even bothering to talk about variance, luck, whatever really annihilates your ability to examine your own game as much as your bankroll deserves. as people have said above, no one can possibly play perfectly, except for balloon guy or that idealized version of yourself you have in your head. we all know that to be true in theory, but talk to any poker player and they sure as hell won't admit it in any concrete, practical way. take a hand like the one steve gave in his OP: top set loses to running quad deuces in a shorthanded LHE game. how many of us would have gotten in some raises on the river holding the second nuts? i know i would have--hell, all we lose to is running deuces, right? in that hand, sure, there was some shitty variance at work. but that's boring as hell, and not worth talking about. what IS worth talking about is that there was apparently enough info around for steve to just call the end, or that he was able to really trust his gut enough to go with that feeling and try to save a few bets. in different contexts, he may have even found a fold in that gut of his (not likely, obviousy, but i'm making a point). i played a similar hand once--i had flopped a set of queens on a Q27 board in a 3 way pot, gotten it capped, turn came a king, cap, river a deuce. i check/called. i obviously came in third place to KK and 22, but what i did WRONG in that hand was that i knew i was beat, and i didn't fold. i had to see that variance got me on that one. i was 100% sure i was not taking that pot down, and i did not fold. that is a HUGE mistake, and breaks one of the fundamental theories behind winning limit poker. my reads told me i was behind all of the time, i did not have proper odds to draw, and i did not fold. but what did i do? i didn't talk about how i failed to save at least one or two bets; i talked about how i took a hilarious double beat. that's stupid, and didn't make me a better player. it's that last sentence that is what steve is getting at here, i think. of course variance exists mathematically, and insofar as people want to view poker as fundamentally probabilistic, variance is going to exist for them. for steve, for ivey, and hopefully soon if i keep working at my biggest weakness, for me, that's not what poker is at all--poker is a game that is steve's, ivey's avenue of making you their bitch, plain and simple, and that has nothing to do with math. imagine steve mucks 1010 face up in his spot. imagine i muck QQ face up in mine. and imagine you're the guy/girl holding 22. now imagine what it would feel like to know you're that outmatched at your table. you don't learn how to make those sorts of plays by talking about variance--indeed, you CAN'T. you learn them by taking your time, thinking about everything in front of you, and replaying all of that after each and every session you play, no matter how many times you got one outed. interestingly enough, i started winning like i did in 2005 again when i figured the above out. take that for what you will.

[TB17 0]

Nice post Jamie, but you're gonna get many replies on how you can't fold sets, etc, it's -ev, it's just variance. You also deserve about 54354647 slaps for playing along or starting the joke about how bad you run.

[checkymcfold 0]

Nice post Jamie, but you're gonna get many replies on how you can't fold sets, etc, it's -ev, it's just variance. You also deserve about 54354647 slaps for playing along or starting the joke about how bad you run.

it's not ALWAYS -ev. of course it's the wrong play 99% of the time, but if you're not folding them that last 1% you are making a mistake. the hand with the QQ that i posted was part of that 1%, and i did **** up the hand because i didn't fold. that doesn't mean it was a huge mistake, but it was a bet i could have saved, and that's no different in terms of my BR than paying someone off with ace high on the end. a bet is a bet is a bet.and i know i started the joke, but that was a ****up too. as you recall, that was about when steve started giving me shit about saying i run bad, etc. i just wish i listened to him better earlier on. for the record, i've been a whole lot better about it lately, and it really has coincided with me making a whole lot of money lately, a lot more than i was making when i was talking about running so bad all the time.it's also probably not that many slaps--you just want to touch me. but don't worry, they all do.

[David_Nicoson 1]

it's that last sentence that is what steve is getting at here, i think. of course variance exists mathematically, and insofar as people want to view poker as fundamentally probabilistic, variance is going to exist for them. for steve, for ivey, and hopefully soon if i keep working at my biggest weakness, for me, that's not what poker is at all--poker is a game that is steve's, ivey's avenue of making you their bitch, plain and simple, and that has nothing to do with math. imagine steve mucks 1010 face up in his spot. imagine i muck QQ face up in mine. and imagine you're the guy/girl holding 22. now imagine what it would feel like to know you're that outmatched at your table.

Imagine you're the guy/girl holding 77 when one guy mucks QQ face up and you scoop a huge pot against some goof-ball with K2s. What are you getting their on the river? 20:1 ? Are you 100% sure or just 90% sure?I don't think you can let set-over-set convince you that you made a huge mistake and then the think you need to do is fold more rivers. I'll agree with your point that we shouldn't sit around moaning about how we got coolered in this hand. This is a shit happens hand. We need to focus on where we're going wrong in other hands, imho.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Nice post Jamie, but you're gonna get many replies on how you can't fold sets, etc, it's -ev, it's just variance.

Check.

[checkymcfold 0]

Imagine you're the guy/girl holding 77 when one guy mucks QQ face up and you scoop a huge pot against some goof-ball with K2s. What are you getting their on the river? 20:1 ? Are you 100% sure or just 90% sure?I don't think you can let set-over-set convince you that you made a huge mistake and then the think you need to do is fold more rivers. I'll agree with your point that we shouldn't sit around moaning about how we got coolered in this hand. This is a shit happens hand. We need to focus on where we're going wrong in other hands, imho.

my point was that hands that seem like supercoolers are sometimes supercoolers that a very talented player can find a fold in nonetheless. as i said, those are very, very rare, but in terms of results they're no less a pain in the bankroll. obviously i can't speak for steve, but in my QQ hand, i fully admit now that i didn't trust a read that was functionally 100% certain and i did indeed cost myself a bet that was unnecessary. as i recall, i was getting about 16:1, but i was a lot more than 95% sure i was beat.that. was. a. mistake. indeed, literally the same in terms of bets as paying someone off with ace high on the end, which happens more often, but when i write down my session in my books, i'm putting it in my notes just the same. are all my top set hands that i lose on that certain? of course not, but that one was, and it cost me a bet to make sure of something i was already sure of. that's stupid.edit: it's also worth noting that reads can become a WHOLE lot more certain if you really, really focus at the table. we all have those days when we feel like we can see into people's souls, right? there's no reason that those days can't be every day, and if you really are that clairvoyant, even if just for a bit, it's a whoopsie not to act on it with precision all of the time.

[psujohn 0]

if you see me playing along with these, pls slap me and tell me i'll have to trade in my diesels for Old Navy if i don't stop).

FYP

[Abbaddabba 0]

his willingness to go 'several' bets on the turn implies that he had at a set, and the fact that he slowed down on the turn and liked his hand even more on the river makes 22 the most probable hand. but if he went that many bets with bottom set, there is a good chance he does it with two pair- a hand that is of close to the same strength relative to a preflop raiser. Bottom set is losing to all of the same hands that two pair is losing to if he's assuming steve has a typical preflop raise range (and bottom two pair, therefor, is the same strength as top two because steve will almost never have a better two pair on a board like that). And if he did it with two pair, there is a chance that he was waiting for a safe river that didnt counterfit him to put in another raise. anyone who is passive and predictable enough where folding to a river raise is prudent isnt going to go enough bets on the turn to give you the kind of certainty you'd need to make that kind of a fold.

[Actuary 3]

anyone who is passive and predictable enough where folding to a river raise is prudent isnt going to go enough bets on the turn to give you the kind of certainty you'd need to make that kind of a fold.

I love you.****************************notice how, if people make a "bad call" but happen to be correct, others will say: "Well, yeah, but you got lucky and should be folding that hand, 99.999% of the time". However, if you make a "bad fold", based on "reads" that happens to be correct this time, you get all sorts of "Atta-boys, good read!". Not sure why saving 1-2 BB is more noble than calling for 15 BB, all else being equal.

[checkymcfold 0]

anyone who is passive and predictable enough where folding to a river raise is prudent isnt going to go enough bets on the turn to give you the kind of certainty you'd need to make that kind of a fold.

this is not correct. there are plenty of aggressive players who are profoundly predictable.

[checkymcfold 0]

Not sure why saving 1-2 BB is more noble than calling for 15 BB, all else being equal.

saving bets when you're behind and getting value when you're ahead is the absolutely fundamental theory behind poker. even sklansky knows that. as you improve as a player, you will be able to make better reads and do this more often.or if you want, you can be absolutely content with winning 2BB/100 at whatever limit you're playing. that's fine, but the ceiling is much, much higher if you become adept at making reads.

[Royal_Tour 0]

I didnt know people had trouble calling it quits.out of my last 2 sessions, i've had AA once, KK twice, QQ twice, all of them lost. I also lost set over set with 10,10 on a Q,10,7 board.thats when i call it quits.BBFIDTS

[Actuary 3]

saving bets when you're behind and getting value when you're ahead is the absolutely fundamental theory behind poker. even sklansky knows that. as you improve as a player, you will be able to make better reads and do this more often.

Only in the context probability, yes?Sklansky isn't talking about the actual situation, i.e. the results are irrelevant.

or if you want, you can be absolutely content with winning 2BB/100 at whatever limit you're playing. that's fine, but the ceiling is much, much higher if you become adept at making reads.

I'm willing to bet that more people hurt their win-rate (at least initially) making pro folds.But, of course, there are times a fold would have been best; however, many of those are only "correct" after seeing the cards and then we try to tell ourselves how the read was there.btw, I completely agreee with your thoughts on "Even though variance exists, the point is that it's no use talking about it. It detracts from the self anallysis" Is solid.

[checkymcfold 0]

Only in the context probability, yes?Sklansky isn't talking about the actual situation, i.e. the results are irrelevant.

what are reads if not a different way of saying we can see the results before they happen? i know you tend to approach the game more mathematically than myself, and i think putting things this way might be better here.

I'm willing to bet that more people hurt their win-rate (at least initially) making pro folds.

this is probably true. but it's also true that the best players on the planet make pro folds correctly. the key is to understand why and how they do this.

But, of course, there are times a fold would have been best; however, many of those are only "correct" after seeing the cards and then we try to tell ourselves how the read was there.

perhaps, sometimes, yes. but that's not being honest with yourself, which kinda goes against everything i was saying before.

btw, I completely agreee with your thoughts on "Even though variance exists, the point is that it's no use talking about it. It detracts from the self anallysis" Is solid.

ty

[Actuary 3]

what are reads if not a different way of saying we can see the results before they happen? i know you tend to approach the game more mathematically than myself, and i think putting things this way might be better here.

Reads are based on math - in Large partIt's the exent that the read is based on some "gut feeling" which I'm discussing.When this "gut feeling" read begins to dictate too many decisions in huge pots, I think it gets away from TOP.so, I really don't think we are that far apart here.and...you can have the last word.You are an awesome fella and much better player (I'll assume!)

[checkymcfold 0]

Reads are based on mathIt's the exent that the read is based on some "gut feeling" which I'm discussing.When this "gut feeling" read begins to dictate too many decisions in huge pots, I think it gets away from TOP.so, I really don't think we are that far apart here.

probably not, but (and at the risk of sounding overly philosophical) i think that humans tend to experience a profoundly insightful instinct as a "gut feeling" or some such thing. malcom gladwell wrote a book on it--called blink--very interesting stuff, and it applies to poker pretty well imho.also, no worries, i'm not concerned with "last words" or winning or whatever. this is a good discussion and probably very helpful to at least some people reading it.

[Actuary 3]

also, no worries, i'm not concerned with "last words" or winning or whatever.

yeah, me neither, cool

[doublemeup 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.

I'd be willing to bet that a ton of people have played a tournament perfectly. If you're talking about winning a tournament or going deep then I agree but lets say you get AA first hand of 5 straight tournaments and guy open shoves and you call each time. You didn't play those tournaments perfectly? Supposed to fold the AA? If this is just relating to cash games then I agree but like I said with a form of poker with as much variance as tournaments, you absolutely can play a tournament perfectly and bust because you were unlucky.

[hblask 1]

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, 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

QFTI think this is something that lots of people THINK they have mastered, but really don't. I suspect that is why some people have responded with such bitterness to this thread: a little cognitive dissonance can go a long way.The lesson in the OP is one of the key things I learned from S7S training. Like the person being obnoxious in this thread, I thought it was obvious and intuitive and something I had mastered, but time and the challenges of s7s tore holes in that belief. After a couple months of losing with excuses ("I flopped a full house 3 times tonight and got outdrawn!!!") it finally sunk in, and has altered my game.For those of you who think this is too basic for you, think again. I suspect you are not being honest with yourself.PS: At the time I realized this stuff, I started a thread about it, and it didn't fare much better -- too many people are just SURE they only way they lose is due to bad luck, lol.