Going Bust

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Seems like the fact that he's a nutjob is more likely the reason he's gone bust so many times.Not because it's inevitable.

He's a nutjob, yes. I hope I didn't imply that going broke is inevitable. It's probable for most players, but not inevitable. It's not something that bestows honor, either. But going broke isn't something to be hyper-ashamed of, either, in most cases. You should feel the stigma if you have to borrow, but you should also make it your goal to NEVER go busto again. Some players play too conservatively. Some play too aggresively:Define you situation, and decide how to play. Abbaddabba is gay.Wang

[Actuary 3]

Abbaddabba is gay.Wang

he grows on me.

[TheCinciKid 0]

I sorta wish I had the balls to go bust. Of course, I don't have anybody to stake me, so it would be pretty stupid for me to put myself in that spot.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

he grows on me.

"It puts the lotion on the skin, or else it gets the hose again."

[pkr_emprr 0]

I'd be curious to know why you think this.It seems to fit the definition of vulnerable hand, easily out drawn (or likely behind), with lots of action to call. If we assume the pot was small and we have a lot of chips left.Now, perhaps I got something wrong in reading: by "flush draw" showing, if we mean 3 of same suit or two of suit, that would make a difference. I presumed a flush may have already been made.

First of all, I read his example to mean a two flush flop, not a three flush flop. That could be the problem in my reading of it. On a three flush flop I suppose you could argue the point of reverse implied odds because you could either be behind now and if not behind they have a zillion outs to catch up.I also don't like how the poster called it flopping a sucker straight. I don't know if thats standard analysis when you flop the low straight, but in my mind you can't flop a sucker straight. Say I have 6 7 flop comes 8 9 10, Im not going to classify that as a sucker straight, im gonna call that the third nuts, usually the second nuts based on villian position because most vililans don't have J 7. And Ill take that information, whether 2nd or 3rd nuts and push the hell out of it in almost any situation.So on a two flush flop, I almost see no reason to call it reverse implied odds with a smaller straight, its very unlikely you are behind at the moment and you can charge them a very expensive price to continue.My example and the most common example of reverse implied odds would be top pair weak kicker on a draw heavy flop. J 4 on a flop of J 10 6 with two spades, lets throw in being out of position as well just makes it more fun to see how much that sucks, there is absolutely no reason to go on in the hand facing pressure - reverse implied odds - you are either behind now, or they have a zillion outs to catch up and you can't do a damn thing about it on the flop because you would be crazy to get your money in with that hand in most situations.edit- to me sucker straight is 67 on a board of 8 9 10 J , i think it can only be on turn or river, you need four card straight on board to be the sucker, ive never felt like a sucker when they need two cards for their straight as well

[mtdesmoines 3]

First of all, I read his example to mean a two flush flop, not a three flush flop. That could be the problem in my reading of it. On a three flush flop I suppose you could argue the point of reverse implied odds because you could either be behind now and if not behind they have a zillion outs to catch up.I also don't like how the poster called it flopping a sucker straight. I don't know if thats standard analysis when you flop the low straight, but in my mind you can't flop a sucker straight. Say I have 6 7 flop comes 8 9 10, Im not going to classify that as a sucker straight, im gonna call that the third nuts, usually the second nuts based on villian position because most vililans don't have J 7. And Ill take that information, whether 2nd or 3rd nuts and push the hell out of it in almost any situation.So on a two flush flop, I almost see no reason to call it reverse implied odds with a smaller straight, its very unlikely you are behind at the moment and you can charge them a very expensive price to continue.My example and the most common example of reverse implied odds would be top pair weak kicker on a draw heavy flop. J 4 on a flop of J 10 6 with two spades, lets throw in being out of position as well just makes it more fun to see how much that sucks, there is absolutely no reason to go on in the hand facing pressure - reverse implied odds - you are either behind now, or they have a zillion outs to catch up and you can't do a damn thing about it on the flop because you would be crazy to get your money in with that hand in most situations.edit- to me sucker straight is 67 on a board of 8 9 10 J , i think it can only be on turn or river, you need four card straight on board to be the sucker, ive never felt like a sucker when they need two cards for their straight as well

OK, I see your point(s), and I'm not even going to argue about it. But realize that while our holding here is the third nuts, it can ONLY get worse -- the hand has zero chance of improving, while the set, straight draw, flush draw, two pair, over cards to fill the straight .... all can outgrow us. So, I fully understand your desire to push this hand around, but at lower limits, where there are often "call happy" players, I'm not in love with it. Don't get me wrong, depending on who's involved in the hand, I'll take the "win" if the board at the river or villain doesn't scare me, but in my mind, there are better spots to push all your chips in with.

[pkr_emprr 0]

OK, I see your point(s), and I'm not even going to argue about it. But realize that while our holding here is the third nuts, it can ONLY get worse -- the hand has zero chance of improving, while the set, straight draw, flush draw, two pair, over cards to fill the straight .... all can outgrow us. So, I fully understand your desire to push this hand around, but at lower limits, where there are often "call happy" players, I'm not in love with it. Don't get me wrong, depending on who's involved in the hand, I'll take the "win" if the board at the river or villain doesn't scare me, but in my mind, there are better spots to push all your chips in with.

while the set, straight draw, flush draw, two pair, over cards to fill the straight .... all can outgrow us.

but in my mind, there are better spots to push all your chips in with

I agree with their range, but I disagree with your conclusion. No limit, you can be certain you have the best hand, getting your money in on the flop is the optimal play, theres nothing to be worried about.Now, compare that to an easier example of J 4 on J 10 7, they have that same range, but look how even if you are ahead, the number of outs they have against you has greatly increased because you are so vulnerable. Now when they have two overcards and a flush draw, their overcards are outs too. For you to be worried when you flop a straight, they have to have the perfect two cards, like a straight and a flush draw, but being weary of that is the same as being weary of getting in with a set on a board of 9 8 2 with 88 because they might have J 10 with flush draw.Anyway, this could all be just word games anyway. There is obviously a delicate line somewhere that separates something from reverse implied odds from something thats, well, not considered one of those situations. I think I just wanted to point out that in my mind, considering reverse implied odds when flopping a straight is kind of silly because you should be in their pushing, but I really don't think it matters what you call it as long as you read the situation right, and I would venture to say we both agree on whats possible in this hypothetical example.

[navybuttons 15]

It's not something that bestows honor, either.

I disagree. i think it builds character. it makes you hungry.if you never folded the arkansas end of the straight your game needs a lot of improvement.

[hblask 1]

OP, my advice would be to get HOH v2 pronto. It's basically the only poker book I've ever read where I've felt like I got a huge insight that I wouldn't have possibly figured out on my own. Required reading for NLHE tourney players of all stripes.

I thought I was the only one who felt this way!(I know people think it's a great book, I'm more thinking about the other part about figuring the rest out on my own *eventually*)

[Shimmering Wang 1]

I disagree. i think it builds character. it makes you hungry.if you never folded the arkansas end of the straight your game needs a lot of improvement.

Are both of these things supposed to apply to me, or just the first?I wouldn't be PROUD of the fact that I've gone broke, but I do believe it teaches valuable lessons some people may never learn, otherwise.Wang

[Abbaddabba 0]

It's like touching a seering hot frying pan.The valuable lesson you learn is... dont touch it.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

It's like touching a seering hot frying pan.The valuable lesson you learn is... dont touch it.

Yesish. I know plenty of people that knew not to touch a hotplate, but didn't REALLY know until they did it.Wang

[antistuff 0]

ide just like to chime in and brag that ive never went bust. and ive had some pretty nasty periods where my play just sucked and i just lost and lost. i think its that ive always been willing to step back and play lower when im not doing great. its one of my poker accomplishments that im actually pretty proud of. and i dont think that going bust is like some rite of passage or something.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I went bust from takin some shots in games I had a small advantage in but now the br for...honestly ive lost more money attempting to rebuild underolled then when i actually took the time to build it up properly...

[homnig 0]

Man, Abba has some sick posts.

[Actuary 3]

Man, Abba has some sick posts.

don't encourage him.He's quite proud of himself as it is.

[homnig 0]

don't encourage him.He's quite proud of himself as it is.

I want him to be encouraged, so he can make more posts.

[Dratj 0]

I think he was playing like 500 NL both times this happened. He's got like 900K now, and probably couldn't go broke if he wanted to. The third time he took a shot, he played in a 25/50 NL game and won 22K after he lost about 15K on his last hand with 8hTh on a 7h9xJh when the board paired and JJ was good.

Seriously? Wow, that's impressive.

[Dratj 0]

I recently went bust this week losing my small yet hard-earned bankroll (pokerstars) of $1300.00 over about a months time.I play a lot of $20, $30, and $10 Sit and Goes. Mostly multi table No Limit Holdem Tourneys as of late; although I am competent at all games.I missed a lot of big draws this week and I lost my last $5 on a 22 outer open end straight draw, flush draw, with a pair.I consider myself fairly adament at reading other players, but I am also a person who relies heavily on odds and plays my big draws aggressively. My friend poker player just told me that it is better to play against these odds and outs than with them. He said I rely too much on odds and outs in my game.My Question to all you FCP members is to offer any suggestions and words of advice to what actions should be taken when going broke. It would really be helpful! Thanks!-Gus.

Obviously there is a leak in your game. reread some of your poker books, take a break and come back fresh.

[Spence 0]

I am intrigued by this discussion. With heavy betting by multiple opponents on a dangerous board with the sucker straight you hardly ever want to get all your money in the middle.Of course it makes a huge difference whether you're holding 67 or 68. (yes, i feel like a major sucker w/ 67 or 56 on a 89T or 789 board with heavy betting, even though they need 2 specific cards to win, with the way action has unfolded theres a high probability they have it)Not to mention once your all-in reverse implied odds mean squat. I guess that was the main focal point of your argument.I will be posting more on these boards in the future. Hope I have time over the holiday season, doubt I'll get to play any poker, and I'll go nuts without even being able to discuss it.

[No_Neck 0]

I am intrigued by this discussion. With heavy betting by multiple opponents on a dangerous board with the sucker straight you hardly ever want to get all your money in the middle.Of course it makes a huge difference whether you're holding 67 or 68. (yes, i feel like a major sucker w/ 67 or 56 on a 89T or 789 board with heavy betting, even though they need 2 specific cards to win, with the way action has unfolded theres a high probability they have it)Not to mention once your all-in reverse implied odds mean squat. I guess that was the main focal point of your argument.I will be posting more on these boards in the future. Hope I have time over the holiday season, doubt I'll get to play any poker, and I'll go nuts without even being able to discuss it.

what if you are playing against a maniac? Of course you want to get your chips in the middle.

[litlebullet 0]

Try my bankroll management method. When you lose half of your bankroll, put the other half in (1) game of blackjack. You either get it back, or shrug your shoulders and redeposit lol. This is assuming that you know how to play black jack. That's my style anyway...

[iggymcfly 0]

This is a terrible strategy. What if you get a double down hand? You're losing tons of value. You need to think ahead and do this when you've only lost 1/3 of your BR, and bet 1/2 of what's remaining. As a bonus, if you keep only betting half of your remaining BR, it's impossible to go broke.

[litlebullet 0]

thanks i never thought of that before. 1/3 of the bankroll huh? I only rebuy for 100 dollars so I end up popping 50 on blackjack, I'll try to cut it down to thirty and see if that works better.

[Zach6668 513]

lol iggy.