PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.


No announcement yet.

What do i do?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What do i do?

    Great, had a come back from my poor BR, and took it to $25.

    Back down to about $18, however not through bad beats, not through bad play, but down too that for two days, I am missing every time except the occasional bottom pair.

    No draws, no sets, no 2 pairs, just the occasional bottom pair.

    By occasional I mean occasional,

    So ok, heres the bit im wondering about, and I am trying to word it carefully not to have my post closed again when I am asking a question.

    I am playing a high vpip, as lose as you could possibly be,

    So why am I not hitting the expectancy of the flops?

    I just clicked on, this is how i lose my money on stars, not necasarily card dead but deck dead.

    Is this possible in poker to not hit the expentancy of flops and run dead like this?

    Is this the norm?

    Is this what you call a downswing?

    I know I have mentioned something similar before, but this is why I loose and I have just noticed!

    And no Im not saying anything dodgey is going on, I just think I see variance.
    Last edited by holdemace486; Mon Sep 10, 2012, 08:02 PM. Reason: typo

  • #2
    Hi Holdem!

    Playing a higher number of hands will NOT make a player hit more flops. Playing loose, if you don't outplay your opps post-flop, is an easy way to lose $$ continually.

    This is NOT a downswing. That's when you have already made hands and lose to better ones.

    Playing more hands WILL make you miss more, as you'll have more opportunities to miss.

    That's why, especially for ring games, I want to sit at a table where the opps are playing loose. They keep putting their $$ in over and over.. and I'll gladly take it when they miss.

    John (JWK24)

    6 Time Bracelet Winner


    • #3
      Thank you John for the enlightenment, I always thought playing more hands meant hitting more flops.

      But yes I see your point, that yes it does the opposite.

      So shall I just put this down to running bad, somedays it works, some days it doesnt? meaning if im running well, a high vpip could be good, or if im running not so good, play tighter,

      or again as this got nothing to do with it?

      The reason I ask is that I played loose to build my BR back up, won quite well taking $1 to $11 for example,

      Yet the last 2 days its all gone pete tong, I played some great LAG and did well, but now for 2 days its just stopped working thats the only way I can word it.

      Hence the I think I see variance quote,

      I can see that if I had switched to tag for the two days maybe my BR would still be up there towards the $25 mark.

      Is it good to change style, for example play Tag for a week then switch to LAG etc, or is that a bad thing to do?

      Or have i just had some good old donk luck?
      Last edited by holdemace486; Mon Sep 10, 2012, 08:16 PM. Reason: punctuation


      • #4
        Yes, you can go "deck dead," as you put it. We all have that horrid run where the other guy holds lady luck's golden horseshoe. Had a game where an all-in maniac took out seven players in seven different hands with group 8 hands against pocket aces. My pocket aces fell to 8 - 3 off suit when the community came up 5 - 6 - 7 - 4 - 4.

        If you check my "Stats to Drown In" thread in the education section, you'll see what I mean. Pocket tens going more than 3,000 hands without an appearance? How about close to 4,000 hands for Ace-Queen suited? It happens.

        As you read, playing more hands does not translate into more wins. I play tight and win close to 40% of the hands played. Sounds good. Then you see I'm playing just 20% of the hands, which is 8% of all hands.

        If I played 75% of the hands, it does not mean I'll win 40% of them. It means I'm being far too speculative.

        Try this experiment. Continue playing your current style, but make a notation about the hands you didn't play. What percentage of them gave you powerful hands? Of those hands going to showdown, how many were winners?

        A "what-if" rate over 30% on showdown hands would tell me I'm too tight.

        Playing on a wing and a prayer might work in a game, or for a short-term gain, but the person who holds to the odds and plays the better hands will win in the long-term. Problem is, every game is a short-term adventure.

        To go back to that game with the maniac, I'll go all-in against his all-in every time if I have pocket aces. I know the odds favor me 85 - 15. Yes, I'll lose some hands, like I did. However, I'm playing with the odds in my favor. Sure, he made the money that game, but how about over 400+ games. I'll lay real cash that our all-in maniac has a success rate well below my ITM percentage if he plays every game that way.

        Don't believe me, why not play the fool with chips and see if you're coming out ahead.


        • #5
          Thank you Cairn some great points there to be read and understood.

          Im tryng to create a style somewhere in between the LAG and the TAGS etc, as like you said some times the maniacs have the day, but in the long run the disipline prevails.

          However if we could determine when to be a LAG or when to be a TAG, we would be unstoppable as players.

          As sometimes variance favours the maniacs, at other times it favours the TAGS.

          Sometimes for example, LAGS win tourneys, then they lose tourneys, but maybe if the LAG had switched to TAG, he may win that tourney which the LAG approach failed him.

          I know it is probably impossible to ever predict when in fact the community cards would favour the LAG or TAG approach.

          But I see this as variance, I spotted my LAG was failing me,Variance was not in my favour, where as somedays I see that the community would favour my LAG.

          People see variance as one thing, I have variance split into several catergories, and soon will try to make a post on it and explain all my findings for debate.

          AND also lol I will put a disclaimer on it telling people not to try this out as its only a theory, but to me it makes sense.


          • #6
            Hey Holdem!

            Yeah, you're right with the luck part. The problem with playing a very large number of pots is that if you're getting lucky.. you can accumulate a bankroll. However, if you're not an expert post-flop player, you'll lose it back 10X faster than you made it.

            It's not variance either.... if you're not ahead and lose to worse hands continually, then it's not variance.

            Don't ever go into something saying that you will play LAG or TAG. That is not what I want to do. I want to see how the others at a given table are playing... and do the exact opposite. BUT, to be playing more hands in a LAG style, I need to be 100% certain that I can outplay everyone else at the table post-flop... if not, then be ready to punt my stack doing it, as it won't work.

            John (JWK24)

            6 Time Bracelet Winner


            • #7
              Yes JW the last two days I have found out this, and yes thinking about it my mind was not on the opps as much as it should of been.

              And yes maybe my wins were luck in the previous days, but I was favoured by the poker gods playing some of the craziest hands.

              So I see this as variance favouring me, if I had played my normal game I would of never increased my br as i did, as i didnt have or sore premium content to do it.

              Where as the opposite, if I had sat TAG for the following two days my loses would be less.

              So im trying to determine for my next years play wether or not to concentrate on the LAG or TAG approach that at times both serve me well.

              To be honest looking back,the last two days I think maybe I went more into the super loose catergory, which, well ,grr, just does not work to be honest so that theory I shall forget about.

              Sorry JW if i sometimes do not get the point of the post, my game is so mixed up, sometimes it works , sometimes it doesnt.

              I find it hard to adapt sometimes from my set ways.

              But in honestly JW do you think sometimes that you have sat there playing TAG, you wished you were playing looser after folding countless winning hands?

              or do you just and only decide your play based on your opps and not how the cards are running? And i mean this in live play as well and not just online.

              IS it the fact you win more because you spew less, or the fact that aces do hold up so well etc, but often i find aces only win the blinds?


              • #8

                Most people who have not studied statistics will make mistakes when presented with statistical problems. There are academic papers dealing with the subject. There are two Thengs you should remember about variance and poker.

                The first is the law of large numbers. If your sample is large enough the variebce from expected outcome will be small. Another way of putting it is luck evens out in the long run.The long run in poker is hundreds of thousands of hands. So don't hold your breath, but if you play that many hands your luck will almost certainly be very close to average.

                The other thing that you have to remember is that if something is possible it will occur if there are enough chances. Today on PokerStars several unlucky players will start on a bad run of cards that the odds against happening re at least one in a million. It could be you or me or one of the pros. With over 85 billion hands dealt you will take a very long time finding a good or bad sequence of hands that are one in a million chances of happening that have not happened. In fact most of the billion to on longshots have occurred. Trillion to one lucky or unlucky streaks have happened.

                I was extremely lucky and extremely unlucky in a tournament I played over a year ago. It was a round one razz freeroll. I could get nothing but bricks on seventh street and the losses betting on sixth then folding on seventh were eating my stack. So I decided to fold on sixth whenever I did not have a hand that would not win with a seventh street brick. For the rest of the tournament, every hand that went to showdown, I bricked seventh street.

                What were the odds against bricking every seventh street? I don't know, but there were a lot of hands, so they were obviously one in a million or probably much longer. A lot of hands, because you see, I won the tournament! The odds against winning the tournament playing six cards against seven cards are much longer than bricking every seventh street.

                Don't worry about how your luck is running. I know, a lot easier said than done. But it does even out over a long enough stretch.

                3 Time Bracelet Winner


                • #9
                  Originally posted by holdemace486 View Post

                  But in honestly JW do you think sometimes that you have sat there playing TAG, you wished you were playing looser after folding countless winning hands?
                  Not for even one second. That is being results oriented, which is the last thing that I want to do. Once I fold my cards, I forget the hand even happened... unless I want to make a note on the opp.

                  John (JWK24)

                  6 Time Bracelet Winner


                  • #10
                    Great stuff bearing, but what about trying to beat luck, meaning variance.

                    I am not saying I can beat luck, but what about if with a bit of thought can help avoid it.

                    Example look at your own poker graphs, if on them spikes that go down, on those days, if you had just not played , your spikes would only go up, would that be a correct statement?

                    Therefore all ready you would have beat negative variance.

                    Im not saying I play this way, im just looking at it as a concept, and yes concepts are there to be critised and torn apart until a full understanding can be seen.

                    I agree variance could never be beat out right, but with maybe some lucky guessing can be stabled out.


                    • #11
                      Result orientated thinking is not what I am on about,

                      I see the point to that, and truly understand what you are saying, but dont you see that sometimes lady muck is favouring you?

                      ISnt thinking TAG play wins result orientated thinking?

                      I cant honestly see the difference in the two ways of thinking.

                      The flop comes high the TAG is often good

                      The flop comes low the LAG is smiling knowing the TAG as the aces

                      Thats how i see it 50/50 wether the flop will be low or high or is that off the maths?


                      • #12
                        The problem appears to be a lack of communication. You are using the words "varience" and "luck" as if they were synonyms. These words are not interchangable.

                        LUCK --- Something that would either defy the odds, or is the short end of those stated odds. For example, luck will rely on the 15% odds against pocket aces pre flop. The best drawing example would be a runner-runner win where a player manages to get the two cards needed to fill a winning hand.

                        VARIENCE --- This is the statistical norm where the short end of odds will win over a limited time frame. In a game of roulette, it would be the odds of red hitting consecutively if you play black. In poker, it would be similar to losing pocket aces repeatedly when betting all-in pre flop or an opponnent hitting a hand better than yours.

                        Now the old hedgehog is known for his lack of intelligence regarding certain poker terms and conditions, but I do believe these definitions accurate. Anyone like to correct the prickly buffoon?


                        • #13

                          I to have run up my BR. I started with 50$ and got as high as 64$ and now I sit at 44$. With such a small BR I obviously play more for the fun. Is that the same for you? If so I think you should play like your having fun. Don't sweat a down swing and keep on playing. It will turn around. I do think, after reading some of your posts that you over analize hands to death.
                          Finding out where you went wrong (which usually you can figure out right away) is one thing but I think you lost why you started playing, FOR THE FUN!

                          Your best teacher is experience and you have a good teacher, just listen to what she is saying



                          • #14
                            Playing tag is way easier and requires less concentration to win money so how about giving the TAG approach a go holdemace ?


                            • #15
                              Thx chris, and yes TAG is good and as served me well in the past, its still my number one choice of my game when i need some more BR, lol,and my chips are down.

                              2013 i will play proper,if the earth does not fall apart this year lol,

                              Im happy with my game but experimenting I do like to do.



                              X Cookies Information

                              We have placed cookies on your computer to improve your experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.