Beginner; playing poorly or just running unlucky? |
|
Posted Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:25 pm GMT by Matt T
If you are a beginner, how do you know if you're playing poorly or just having a bad run of cards? An example could be Lederer vs. Moneymaker in the "You're favorite poker player" thread. LOTS of folks posted that they like Lederer but IIRC he finished in the money at the WSOP for only the first time in 16 years last year. Moneymaker won the thing yet several posts in that thread say he plays horribly. For the record, I like Lederer, a lot but I have nothing against Moneymaker either. He did beat 838 other players over the course of what, 6 days. Seems you'd need a little more than just luck to do that. I tend to blame my losses purely on poor decision-making. It's NEVER the card's fault, is it?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:09 pm GMT by racquet000
Uh Moneymaker sucks. Here Ill personaly give you this. If he ever makes it to a final table and he is one of the last 2 people. I will give you my address. And you can come over here and chopy my wee wee. The plays he was making were the worst. He caught cards on the river. He never outplayed anybody. Catching cards doesnt make you the best poker player. Now on the other hand. Poker is a skill game. But its also a skill game that you need some cards to work with depending on your limit and players at the table. You can have cold cards. I have had them for 2 months, Im just starting to get the good ones back and it does feel good....lol
Posted Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:25 pm GMT by Matt T
I have to admit, after losing yesterday I felt MUCH better after watching that Celebrity Poker Challenge (or whatever it's called) last night for the first (and probably last) time. There were people that really had no clue about the game that were doing OK, moneywise. I just ran into a couple of maniacs yesterday that seemed liked they would play anything (they DID play anything!). It seemed that they kept hitting gut straights and getting miracle river cards. I don't want a day like that to make me 'gun shy' with legit hands. I think maybe I played tight enough, but not aggressive enough. Thanks.
Posted Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:00 pm GMT by Fat Tony
racquet000 is 100% CORRECT. just because you lose, doesn't mean you played it wrong and conversely just because you win, doesn't mean you played well. cards do have an impact even for the best players. keep in mind thou that better players know how to minimize their losses and maximize their winnings which is part of what makes them successful players. many times someone playing a hand incorrectly has been saved by the river. won't be the first or last time. if you've got a high quality hand, you've got to get your money in. by the same token, don't gamble your whole roll on a longshot.
Posted Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:22 pm GMT by thepheonix
I hate to sound mean or like I am cutting down people's play, but in the long run there is NO such thing as luck. Sadly, people catch miracle cards (or Birthday cards as I like to say). Luck, however, or lucky people would suggest that they constantly are beating the odds which is impossible. One can catch a gut draw straight, or go runner-runner flush only so many times. We see what we want to see. If we see someone catch a gutshot on the river we take mental note of it, but if they have the best hand the whole time and win with it, we often disregard it.
I don't think Moneymaker is the best player in the world, but people point out the hands that he caught long shots on, however, people don't take note of the hands that he played well or rather missed his draws. Catching a gutshot straight if fishing on the turn/river is only a 1:5 chance. Sometimes pot odds might even justify the call if at a limit table in good position and drawing to the nut straight. You see, when playing people who constantly fish you see them as lucky because you note all the hands you win, but take note of all the times they fold after the river and those are likely the times they missed.
Essentially there is no excuse for my losing sessions other than my poor play. Actually, I should see that my opponents are drawing to inside straights and when they bet hard on the river because they catch, I shouldn't call. People will complain because the fish caught something on the river, but they don't realize that they called the bet or bet into someone who had what they suspected a better hand.
What I am getting at is that luck is a silly concept. Everyone sees superstition as something that does not exist, and if you really think about it luck does not exist either. Everyone is equally lucky even over the coarse of just an hour. Think.... how many times have you beat a superior starting hand (someone who had the odds on you)? Did you get lucky? Well.... you beat the odds, just as a person who caught their straight. Bad cards for two months is a crazy concept. Actually we should only get two playable hands out of every ten at a table. I am sure that most people have gotten such. Everyone gets their share of good and bad cards. The matter of winning poker is focused on minimizing your losses, and some people lose more than necessary (sp?) when they get "bad cards."
If there is one thing that I know, it is that to be good at anything one must be honest with himself. Certain things such as "luck" cloud us from being honest with ourselves. We put off losses because of bad beats or bad luck. Bad beats are just setbacks that all good players and bad players must deal with.
I am sorry for such a long post. I just must express my opinion on such things as "Luck"
Posted Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:48 pm GMT by racquet000
Im agaisnt you there. Loosing sessions can be due to bad luck. For instance. Sitting at a 3/6 table. for 4 hours. Never once saw suited connectrs. Pairs, or double face cards. You can tell me i can take dwn pots with nothing at this limit with the players at my table. I couldnt establish a image b/c i couldnt get a hand to play. YOu need to the cards to make a move. Depending on your limits depends on how much luck you need. Higher lmit games require more skill less luck. Lower limit games are pretty much all luck no skill. The skill in low limit games is haveing your pot odds pay you off when you get your hand. Poker does involve luck. And for that. I think your wrong my friend......lol
Posted Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:45 pm GMT by karasz
| racquet000 wrote: | | Im agaisnt you there. Loosing sessions can be due to bad luck. |
thats the thing though pheonix said LONG RUN... yes your 4-flush draw off the flop may lose 10 times in a row...
but EVENTUALLY you will get on of those wins back... 35% is 7 out of 20 times so STATISTICALLY speaking you should win 7 of the next 10...
but of course there are nights when you catch 15 flushes, and everything is perfect...
| racquet000 wrote: | | For instance. Sitting at a 3/6 table. for 4 hours. Never once saw suited connectrs. Pairs, or double face cards. You can tell me i can take dwn pots with nothing at this limit with the players at my table.I couldnt establish a image b/c i couldnt get a hand to play. YOu need to the cards to make a move. |
yes but remember you are only going to get a random pair like 1 every 17 hands... just remember the times you get 20 in 4 hours worth of playing, and when you get none in 4 hours of playing...
the game is balancing itself out...
think KARMA
and pheonix, every so often when you go all-in with 99 on the button and are called by an AA in the blinds...
the particular moment when that 3rd 9 falls is what makes it lucky or just the odds doing their job... the 3 9's are lucky for you... and unlucky for the Aces...
because the 9 came to help you against the AA thats what makes it lucky... it could have come up when you had 99 against 22 and yes helpful but by no means as earth shattering great as the first 9...
Posted Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:23 pm GMT by racquet000
K, I see what your saying Karma=luck IMO. Low limit games are not skill based. except if you play the odds. I do agree that in the long run good player move foward and the bad keep looseing. But i think for the most part low limit games are luck thats it. You can't outplay a bad player with bottom pair all the way to the river where he catches his set. Higher limit games skill is involved.
Posted Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:11 pm GMT by thepheonix
Don't you see though. A bad player who plays underpairs to the river does not catch. When he does you notice and make mental note and pass it off as luck. How many times do you think he played underpairs and lost? Probably 4 out of 5. Which would be equivalent to his odds. What I am saying is that even over a 4 hours session at a "low limit" game, luck does not exist. People will hit their flush draws 37% of the time that they flop four of it. They will miss the rest. They will draw to inside straights and miss other times. It is not luck if they hit. It is that they hit their out. If you look at it from the opposite point of view, how many times have you hit the card/cards you need? Many. Here is the key to "luck" (if it exists):
Everyone is equally lucky!
Therefore luck doesn't matter. Your chances of drawing a straight are the same as his. So..... Luck cannot play a part in your game or be an excuse. If someone hits.... they do. If it was a wild shot, then they probablly have played poor and lost enough trying their wild shots and this time it hit. If I sit down at roulette and play "black 8" thirty some odd times and win once, am I lucky??? No. If I play twice and hit both times, am I lucky..... No. Maybe fortunate, but if I keep playing "black 8" I am bound to lose because they don't pay the true odds in roulette. There really is no such thing as a lucky person, or lucky cards. People beat the odds now and then, but don't we all. Then again people miss the odds, don't we all? I know that I am being redundant, but I am trying to tell everyone that luck doesn't exist just as superstition isn't real. End of story.
Posted Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:14 pm GMT by ballbp
Very well put.
Posted Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:03 pm GMT by racquet000
I will say this. I know in the long run skill over runs it all. But in "No foldem holdem" I still feel theres lots of luck. Even more so with low limit. Lets say 10 people play 1-3 limit. Out of all those 8 call a $3 bet and see the flop. You hold AK somebody else holds 7 2 . No skill was involved in getting those cards yet your odds of getting those cards was the same for everybody but thats the way the cards fell. Flop comes AK7. AK is wayout Some betting and these guys are heads up. Turn 8 More bets. River 7. Odds is what your saying is replacing the so called luck. I see that. But Its not skill. The odds. Odds=luck.....Odds are not very accurate. The odds of rolling a 1 on a dice of 6 numbers is 1 in 6. But you can roll that dice 600 to 6 million times and those odds will never show up. Theres other things that effect odds. Low limit holdem is more along the lines of luck for begginers. Yes there luck will run out. Playing only great hands is skill. Not many do it. Therefore i consider there play hit or miss. Or basicly luck play. ahh ive confused myslef...lol Basicly you cant still a begginer in a 300/600 game and expecting him to come out ontop. But a pro can. Does that pro have the same advantage in a low limit game. No i dont think so. I could be wrong its just my opinon. lol
Posted Thu Mar 04, 2004 1:15 am GMT by thepheonix
Okay.... I hate to badger this subject to death, but even in low-limit. There is no luck. Sorry. Think about it. If you play a hand such as AK, AA, KK, QQ, JJ, or KQ. What are your chances of winning against inferior hands? BETTER! If you play these and lose, do you call yourself unlucky?? No. You are playing poorly if you lose with these because even when bad flops come you should lay them down. When you hit you will win, and your chances of winning when you hit are greater than their "little cards holding up." Simply put, with time and patience it does not matter what cards they hit etc..... Play the odds and you win. Know what to lay down and win. The key to playing low-limit is minimizing your losses when you feel your out and maximize your wins. How can any of that be luck? Everyone has the same odds so we are all equally "lucky." With that in mind, luck cannot exist (even in low-limit).
P.S- Pros can/do win at low-limit even against calling stations. The only reason a pro would lose there is because they play poorly because it is too low of stakes for them to care.
Posted Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:05 am GMT by JohnnyCache
Luck exists. A woman tried to shoot me once . . . she fired twice from about two feet away and missed to either side of my head. The second bullet actually took skin off of my right cheekbone. I'm lucky.
Posted Thu Mar 04, 2004 8:19 am GMT by blue eyes
phoenix, I have to disagree as well. I do understand where you are coming from, but I think we are just nitpicking at words. For example, the first experience I ever had in a real casino was my first time playing texas hold em 4/8 on a cruise ship. I won 500 in 6 hours. I even got a straight flush that took down a pot of over 200 dollars. You may make the argument that says if I play the way I played that day, that I would lose in the long run, and you would be right, as I had no experience yet, but that day, I was lucky. The lpayer next to me had to explain the rules to me. We can use different words to define events, but one thing is for sure, those 6 hours that I played, I would have won regardless how I played and regardless how my opponents played, and that is lucky for me that I sat down at that particular time, in that particular seat. My 3 of a kind beat someone else's 2 pair, my straight beat someone else's 3 of a kind, etc... And by the way guys, I may not have played horribly, but I certainly didn't play like someone who would have expected to make
$100 per hour. I knew regular poker, but that was the day I fell in love with texas.
Posted Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:34 am GMT by Dave B
Luck versus skill...blah blah blah. We can talk about this forever.
What poker really comes down to is extracting the most value out of each hand. When you get "lucky" and catch a great hand do you win $20 or $100. When someone else gets lucky do you lose $20 or $50?
With a few exceptions when I was just nailing great hands everytime I looked-most great nights of poker come down to one or two hands where I won a monster pot. Maybe I drew a nut flush on the river when I should have folded, or maybe I slow played after flopping a set of kings.
Anyone see the WSOP last night? The amatuer limped in w/ 4 players on the small blind w/ J 4. Flop was JJ9, he went all in and everyone folded. The button was Oppenheim who was betting every hand like he had the nutz and was sitting w/ A9. A small bet or a check would have likely allowed him to double or even triple up if some other players came in. Instead, he took the preflop calls.
Speaking of luck-here is something that lets me to get "lucky" more often. If I have a drawing hand after the flop in late position I will raise if someone bets in front of me. Inevitably, everyone will check to me after the flop and I can check and see the river for free. In limit, that 1st raise is a cheap way to get to the river. So I caught runner runner, but I paid for it early and earned that look at the river.
Posted Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:45 am GMT by racquet000
| JohnnyCache wrote: | | Luck exists. A woman tried to shoot me once . . . she fired twice from about two feet away and missed to either side of my head. The second bullet actually took skin off of my right cheekbone. I'm lucky. |
Posted Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:01 pm GMT by JohnnyCache
She was upset.
Posted Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:10 pm GMT by racquet000
| JohnnyCache wrote: | | She was upset. |
Just a little 
Posted Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:40 am GMT by BobS
| racquet000 wrote: | | Uh Moneymaker sucks. Here Ill personaly give you this. If he ever makes it to a final table and he is one of the last 2 people. I will give you my address. And you can come over here and chopy my wee wee. The plays he was making were the worst. He caught cards on the river. He never outplayed anybody. Catching cards doesnt make you the best poker player. Now on the other hand. Poker is a skill game. But its also a skill game that you need some cards to work with depending on your limit and players at the table. You can have cold cards. I have had them for 2 months, Im just starting to get the good ones back and it does feel good....lol |
Hey racquet000 - still have you're wee wee? :D
http://new.cardplayer.com/tournaments/results.php?event_id=79/url
Posted Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:53 am GMT by racquet000
Yeah its tucked in  My comment was directed towards the WSOP but im still hoping he doesnt make it that far then I made a post about how he might have some skill but i still dont like him lol
Posted Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:36 pm GMT by Matt T
Most of the books I've read state that being able to 'read' your opponents is a necessary skill to be really good at poker. Conversely, good players are not easy for others to read.
Maybe because Moneymaker was an Internet player, everybody figured he didn't have good 'reading' skills. Many poker plays/decisions might seem crazy/stupid/whatever when not taken in the context of a 'read'. They also probably figured Moneymaker would have several 'tells' that good players would be able to read. It appears these people were, wrong and wrong again (and I'm one of them!). Plus the guy is an accountant, so the math/probability is nothing to him.
I've always lived in the south; so to me, a "good 'ol southern boy" doesn't have any of the negative stereotypical attributes that others might give him. I just see him as a nice, humble, yet very competitive guy who seems to be a 'natural' when it comes to poker. I liked him from the moment he forgot he still had a hand and everyone thought he was staring down Lederer and Chan (I'll bet Moneymaker LEARNED something on that hand!).
Posted Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:07 pm GMT by karasz
and lets not forget the balls it takes to win the wsop...
pocket 3s against dutchs over cards...
the only time moneymaker put his tournament at stake...
(every other time moneymaker would have stayed alive if he lost...)
Posted Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:10 pm GMT by Ninja
| JohnnyCache wrote: | | Luck exists. A woman tried to shoot me once . . . she fired twice from about two feet away and missed to either side of my head. The second bullet actually took skin off of my right cheekbone. I'm lucky. |
...Holy Shit!!!!
Posted Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:54 pm GMT by Absolution
Women are the rake.
Posted Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:38 am GMT by JohnnyCache
Rake my ass. That girl wanted way more then 2% of my *hand* 8) .
Posted Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:44 am GMT by saper88aa
LOL
Posted Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:16 pm GMT by Woods
If I hear about Chris Moneymaker one more time I am going to go nuts. The guy is a terrible poker player, he just got lucky.
I personally enjoy watching Phil Ivey play. I think he is one of the best players out there. I am also a fan of Phil Hellmuth; even though he is an a**hole, he is great at what he does.
Posted Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:47 pm GMT by Always_Bored
| Woods wrote: |
I personally enjoy watching Phil Ivey play. I think he is one of the best players out there. I am also a fan of Phil Hellmuth; even though he is an a**hole, he is great at what he does. |
I like Phil Ivey too, but I cant agree with you on Hellmuth. He is an ass and i dont think he is that great of a poker player. There is worse, but he is not the best.
Posted Tue Apr 27, 2004 2:10 pm GMT by MasterShake
I used to get a kick out watching Helmuth, but lately it's like watching a twelve year old playing guns.
"Aw man! I got you! That doesn't count! I want a do over!"
Posted Tue Apr 27, 2004 2:12 pm GMT by Always_Bored
| meatwad wrote: | I used to get a kick out watching Helmuth, but lately it's like watching a twelve year old playing guns.
"Aw man! I got you! That doesn't count! I want a do over!" |
LOL Its so true!
Posted Tue Apr 27, 2004 2:16 pm GMT by MasterShake
I was watching Scotty versus Umberto on the best of the 03' WSOP when he went all-in with 3,8os. THAT was funny.
"Oh man. You don't wan to call this. This hand is not for you." Classic.
"Oh sh**! I thought I was playing blackjack!"
Posted Thu Apr 29, 2004 5:05 pm GMT by Blarg
"Everyone is equally lucky even over the coarse of just an hour."
This is absolutely untrue.
The Law of Large Numbers states that short runs do not replicate what happens in the long run.
It's quite possible to have absurdly unlikely runs of bad luck. They can last quite a while too, and it's easy to get unhinged by them. It will definitely happen to everyone, sometime.
Fortunately, the same thing can happen with good luck.
The only tricky thing is that it's human nature to call good luck skill and call bad playing bad luck. But that's just a human problem that has nothing to do with the cards.
Expect bad luck. Deal with it. A player can destroy himself by cussing himself out for things not his fault and trying to alter winning play to account for bad luck just as easily as he can destroy himself by not recognizing his bad play when he has good luck and sloppily adapting his play to the assumption that nothing could go wrong, and even his worst plays will turn out great.
Posted Sun May 09, 2004 8:40 pm GMT by snoogins47
| Quote: | "Everyone is equally lucky!"
|
This has probably already been said, numerous times, but saying that "Over an hour everybody is the same as far as luck is concerned" is completely irrational.
Statistically, you're right, luck doesn't exist, in most people think of it. That is, "that guy is lucky" or "I just don't get any luck."
Truth is, in the long run, the only way to play winning poker is to maximise your wins, minimise your losses... taking "luck" out of the equation, somewhat...
in the VERY LONG TERM.
Think of it this way.
You flip a coin, it lands heads, 10 times in a row. The eleventh time, what are the chances it'll land heads again?
50/50. It does not change.
Are you saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE to get a one-hour stretch at the table where you get pocket rockets seven times, or an hour where the best cards you see are 3-8o?
Believe me, I've seen it. I've had the nights where I was catching AK and AQ suited all the time, and making flushes left and right.
And then there was last night, over 4 hours I caught Big Slick once, AJ once, wired 9s once, and wired 8s once. Those were the only things close to "premium" hands I caught.
Does that mean that I didn't play well enough for those four hours, as if my play randomly deteriorated enough to not give me any good hole cards?
Poker is a skill game, through and through. But, there is a definite luck aspect. If there weren't, we'd have the same 15 guys making the final two tables of the WSOP every single year, with the same two or three consistently winning. We'd have more than the handful of back-to-back winners.
We wouldn't have people winning (Moneymaker, Varconi) whom many, many players feel were NOT the best players.
Like it or not, skill alone will NOT win a no-limit tournament. And it won't make you win every single time you sit down at a card table. That's the beauty of poker, and what makes it so special. No other game is like it.
And yeah, Moneymaker definitely caught some cards, and made some questionable plays, but he's not the complete schmuck everybody tends to think he is. The boy can play, but like was said before, I would very much hesitate to call him the best in the world.
|
|
