|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 3/19/2010 5:39:55 PM PACIFIC |
 Regression to the mean, Andrew Wells, 7. Jun 2003 21:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| This is a difficult post for me, primarily because I believe I know what adjustments to make when things aren't going well. However I've had to make the decision to take the loss every session this month. I play for several hours against the any two will do crew, and am basicly a hand away from being plus for the session the whole time. By the second or third break I find myself down 10 to 15 BBs, and each time decide to leave what would be considered a "good" game. My conclusion is the same each time, that it is simply not working that day. Since I haven't had anything close to the nuts on the river in June, I try to look for other ways to pick up a bet here and there. So I make "value" bets on the river against players who I have seen call on the end with bottom pair only to be shown something slightly better. For the most part these players will not bet top pair on the flop, preferring to have it checked around so they can check/call the turn and river. I'm not even getting outdrawn by someone who spikes a second pair on the river. When the obvious draw gets there on the turn I just muck and let someone else pay to have the hand shown. I suppose I just have to play more drawing type hands, but right now I'm not catching enough of these flops - let alone completing something. So I'm playing tight and once in awhile getting to the turn so I can fold there instead. I've thought about maybe loosening up out of the blinds to compensate a bit and try to connect with the flop with some decent preflop pot odds. For example: UTG call, EP raise, three cold calls and the small blind comes in. I have 86o in the big blind, should I see the flop? Another possibility: Five players limp and I have J8s in the small blind. Should I be calling for 2/3rds. of a bet? Here is the best hand I had today, how would you have handled the river? I had just given back my over button because the only other player now remaining with one was on my immediate left. It's just plain dumb to keep it when 90% of the time it could now come into play he would have the positional advantage at double the stakes. Four players limp including the small blind, and I have 9c3h in the big blind. Flop is Qh 9h 4s, and everyone checks. The turn brings the 9d, I bet and am called by this same player on my immediate left. The cutoff overcalls and the three of us see the 5c fall on the river. I bet into a raise on my left which folds the player in the cutoff. I have no idea other than this looks like it's going to be a bad call on my part. Could he be jerking me around for returning the over button? Would he slow play top set with the possible flush draw on the flop? Did he read me for a steal on the turn and call with two players yet to act behind him and the small blind still involved? He's not bad enough to limp UTG with Q9s, but does he have the case nine somehow? Is he just playing a resteal on the river? I should mention that he's a weak player who I saw take it to three bets on the flop with two pairs, bet into an ace on the turn, but then inexplicably check/call when he filled up on the river. I could not read his opponent for aces full, and it wasn't (he showed his hand first so I don't know what bet the river here). Back to the hand, what's my play now? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, 4 POKER, 8. Jun 2003 00:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Your opponent could have been waiting to check-raise the flop with a strong hand(maybe a small set or something) but now when he fills up on the turn he doesn't want to chase anyone out so he just smooths calls your bet. The only other hand I could give him is pocket 5's to which he has now spiked on the river for 5's full of 9's- both in which beat your trip nines. I highly doubt that he had attempted to re-steal this pot away from you because he had to figure that you at least had a pair and his bluff steal raise would be that much less effective to work now. Not to mention that there was a player behind him who was yet to act here. The absolute worst hand I could give him would be three nines with a better kicker.(which you would lose to anyway). It his also highly unlikely that he would have waited until the river to raise you with just a pair of queens. If he was an aggresive type, he would have pounced earlier in the hand and if he was a tight player he never would raise you on the river with just a big pair. it's a tough hand to muck, but I think you are clearly beat in this spot. Sorry you had an unprofitable June however, you stated that you had compensated your lack of wins by making some important value bets during this dry spell and even though you may not have shown an overall profit, you actually did make money that most inexperienced players would not have been able to accomplish. Every time you are able to save a bet, then you have earned,period- because all those saved bets when we know that we are beat will add up into the equation of our overall net win.(Long term results). You also quit the game realizing that even though it was the so-called "good game", it wasn't good for you; not this time anyway. A good game is good if you beat it otherwise you have to know when to bail. That is what separates the winners from the losers...knowing when and how to take a loss while still being able to maximize on the times when you are getting the best of it(value betting in this case). "Good poker if you ask me, and hang in there". 4 POKER | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Andrew Wells, 8. Jun 2003 09:13 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks for the support, and June isn't over yet. I'll just have to play through this temporary slump. I happen to agree with your analysis of the hand, but I have the advantage of retrospect. My gut feeling was that he wasn't just making a move on the river here. I think I may have subconsciously broke my rhythm when I spent some money on new furniture a week ago. My mindset is not to spend bankroll on myself, but I went and did it anyway. Maybe not as much a coincidence that's when the bad sessions began. Oh well, been there before - these things will eventually straighten out again. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, 4 POKER, 8. Jun 2003 09:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 8. Jun 2003 09:13 Andrew Wells wrote: > Thanks for the support, and June isn't over yet. I'll just have to play through this > temporary slump. I happen to agree with your analysis of the hand, but I have the > advantage of retrospect. My gut feeling was that he wasn't just making a move on the river > here. I think I may have subconsciously broke my rhythm when I spent some money on new > furniture a week ago. My mindset is not to spend bankroll on myself, but I went and did it > anyway. Maybe not as much a coincidence that's when the bad sessions began. Oh well, been > there before - these things will eventually straighten out again. Andrew, You're right,June isn't over yet and what was I thinking? (Do you know that when you said that you haven't had a winning session all month, I thought you were referring to the month of May, not June- gees, that's only one weeks worth...what the heck happened to May)?!! I think I need a vacation from my vacation, I'm losing all track of time! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Andrew Wells, 8. Jun 2003 09:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It's just been a long time since I've had several consecutive losses or a cumulative downswing of more than 50 BBs. I may be out of practice handling it. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, PairTheBoard, 8. Jun 2003 00:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You're getting better than 8-1 odds for the call. You would have to be dead certain of his play not to call. He could easily have had a straight or flush draw and put you on a straight or flush draw with a semi-bluff on the turn, or even a pair of fours. He may be totally busted without even high cards and figure the only way he can win is with the overbluff. Had he been in last postiion he may have made the move on the turn. I don't see a reraise doing you much good. I think you've got to call. Of course you may see him turn up a 9 and kick yourself. But you only have to be right 1 time in 9 tries to make money on the call. As for your blind questions. I would call the raise with 6-8 offsuit in a minute against 6 other players in the BB. I wouldn't want to call 2/3 of a bet with J-8 suited in the small blind because it is close to a full bet and there is a chance the BB will still raise. Although I might still do it if I felt like gambling, he he. Then I wonder why my win rate isn't better. LOL. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Andrew Wells, 8. Jun 2003 09:36 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree that a reraise is useless. I only lose more if I'm beat that way, since he'll fold if he can't beat trips. Interesting that you would consider playing the 86o for one more bet out of the big blind. I'll have to give that some more thought. I tend to get away from these sort of hands when there are several cold callers since I expect my implied odds to become eroded on the flop if I should catch openended. I may often have to put in three bets on the flop (or even two more on the turn) to see this hand through. I can expect some significant raising from overpairs and top pair ace kickers here. Flopping something like bottom two and I'll have to play a vulnerable hand fast. I'll probably be okay with trips or better those occasional times this happens, but I would prefer to defend the blind with these hands against a late position raise after several callers - rather than an early position raise and several cold callers. I may have to reconsider this, at least as a temporary adjustment. One huge pot with the small nut straight out of the big blind can easily turn things around in many ways, so your opinion has merit I think. As for the suited trash out of the small blind, when I'm running good I sometimes take the flop here against a field of limpers. My reaction to poor session results is to tighten up more, so these sort of hands have been hitting the muck. It's possible I need to give myself a few more drawing chances against weak players, and the small blind is one place I can do it with a little discount preflop. Particularly when the competition is reluctant to reluctant to bet top pair on the flop, and even if someone in late position should do so I don't see constant checkraising. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Swagman, 8. Jun 2003 00:37 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I like you chance here, but the betting seems static. Really hard to place anyone on anything. But going back to when you saw him make a 3-bets with 2 pair was it heads up, and was there betting pre-flop? If I had pocket queens given the betting pattern I would have waited for the raise on the river just to keep it alive til then. Im not so sure that he is as weak as you discribe him but its possible that he went in with Q,9, or maybe he just liked the fives. However, I wouldnt be afraid of a call here. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Swagman, 8. Jun 2003 00:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Sorry read the post wrong initially. Guts would indicate him on a set of 9s and was waiting to see if the river became a flush for anyone. Your outkicked here at the very least, but i can't see you not making the call because your looking at about 1to 8 odds | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Andrew Wells, 8. Jun 2003 10:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| This was my initial reaction to the raise. My first impression was this joker has me outkicked with his case nine. But I gave it a few more seconds of thought, and all those other possibilities I mentioned came to mind. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Andrew Wells, 8. Jun 2003 09:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| In the full house hand there was a preflop raise, but not from what became his primary opponent. I thought his play was weak here since how can you bet the turn if you won't follow through with a bet or checkraise on the river when you catch your best possible card on the end. Obviously he was afraid of aces full having just smooth called with top two on the turn, but one can't assume the nuts is out there when you have a made hand until you know otherwise. I suppose you had to see the hand played to be as certain as I was that he wasn't up against top two on the turn, but it just made an impression that he was weak to have check/called after hitting his river card. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, PairTheBoard, 8. Jun 2003 02:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Something to consider. Betting out on the turn from the blind after the flop has been checked and an undercard pairs on the turn, is such a standard bluff move that you have to expect it to get played back at fairly often. When you actually do have the trips you of course are happy if they don't believe your bet. With three players acting behind him on the turn he would have been afraid one of them had a nine. But by the river, if he put you on the bluff, he would have felt safe playing back. He might have also thought he had you beat but couldn't beat the player behind him who called the turn. Afraid of the overcall, the raise on the river might have looked good to him. If he was capable of playing a 9 or pocket 5's UTG he was certainly capable of playing AJh, A10h, or J10suited, any one of which might have kept him in on the turn. Your description of him check calling the river on another hand when he filled up is puzzling. However, I once knew a player who I can only describe as weak agressive. When he got agressive he was almost always bluffing and when he check called he usually had the nuts. LOL | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Andrew Wells, 8. Jun 2003 08:59 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Your description of weak aggressive fits this player's style somewhat. In the time I was at this table I saw his stack go through a roller-coaster ride. One thing which keeps me sane through the rough times is noticing how much more the really poor players are actually dropping, going to buy another rack, etc. At least I have the self control not to get stuck on a second buy-in for the day. This regression was going to happen eventually, I wasn't likely to sustain an average of +4 BBs/hr. for the whole year. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, psuasskicker, 8. Jun 2003 08:23 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| With the pot odds you were getting to call, you'd have to be almost 90% sure you were beaten not to call. I don't think your hand was that great, but at the same time, I'm not sure it was weak enough to fold outright. It really depends on the player, but if I don't know the player that well, I call that raise here and look to at the very least find out what he's playing from UTG. - C - | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Andrew Wells, 8. Jun 2003 10:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| In the end, that's the conclusion I came to as well. I paid off the best hand the whole way as he was playing 9s8s UTG here. I really didn't think he was on the flush draw as I believed he could have bet the flop with that many players. So that's what happens when you run badly, you don't believe you are drawing skinny when you actually are. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Mark, 8. Jun 2003 10:58 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Something you might want to try. If the games are loose passive ( or just passive - your post kinda suggests they are) you might want to loosen up pre-flop ( if you are able to out play your opponents, this stadegy becomes even more profitable) If your opponents aren't betting top pair, you will see alot of turns for free. If thats the case, limp with alot of hands, especially with position, and see what happens. You'll hit alot more 2 pair and small str8s. This can work if there is a minimum charge to see the flop and turn. The amount of money you spend, to see 6 of 7 cards, makes it worth limping with weaker hands. If you hit 2 pair, it sounds like you'll get a BB on the turn and river. To clarify why this can be correct: If you were in a very aggressive game, with the max raises going in pre-flop and flop, we would all agree you would need a very strong hand in order to play. You would need an even stronger hand if after capping the first two rounds, the turn and river were checked down. (because pot odds would decrease) Now against a line up, who is passive early and will bet later, or at least call later, you call REALLY loosen up pre-flop. If you are only charged the big blind to see the turn, and then some bets go in, you are getting pretty good odds. (ie. passive 5-10 hold'em, 6 limp, no flop bet, turn bet - 2 callers, river bet -1 caller. you get to see the turn for $5, in a $70 pot.) gl in June mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Andrew Wells, 8. Jun 2003 17:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I do agree that it can be appropriate to play a few more hands, those which have the potential to make sets and nut flushes in such "soft" games from earlier position. The current problem is that I'm not really catching any flops. Those few hands I do win are ones where I am aggressive from late position and just happen to have everyone release before the river, whether or not I flop anything. This is enough to avoid simply going through a rack in an hour or so, and calling it quits for the day. I think I have to look to the blinds rather than early position until I start flopping some nut draws again. I'm willing to play such draws fast on the flop since I give myself a chance to take pots where no one else has much either. But right now, to loosen up from early position would just mean a quick session. I've gone through extended periods before where I just can't make a hand, but I do know that some other pros confronting such bad runs would have steamed away more bets if they were in my seat. Many of the players I see each session are the same, and they have come to respect my game. This obviously helps, but I'm probably seeing it in an extreme form right now (as expressed in the reluctance to push hands like top pair on the flop) that I simply have to showdown the goods more frequently to turn it around. Therefore I believe the right approach until I start hitting some flops again is to really tighten up preflop, and avoid most semibluff situations out of position. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Swagman, 8. Jun 2003 19:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Maybe I'm not understanding you, but I'd definately not see more hands in earlier position, save that for later position. Are you getting a run of bad cards lately, like not pairing on the flop, or never seeing 2 faces? I wouldn't semi-bluff for sure, especially if its a lower limit game. A raise very seldomly does what its intended to do. It often doesnt increase the but size but diminshes it. It often doesnt scare people off a pot, but increase the likelyhood of someone being in the pot. More importantly most of the time a raise just gets rid of the very people you want in the pot. And I would avoiding drawing hands, because I sense your courage is at an ebb right now. Maybe you should just become that 60 year old in a stetson for a while until u get a few winning sessions underneath you. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Andrew Wells, 9. Jun 2003 10:32 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You understand just fine. Simply a cold run that happens to everyone. I'll just have to play through it like always. I'm a little out of practice with bad runs, hasn't happened for quite awhile. Of course I would prefer to turn it around sooner, but there's really no hurry. I just play each hand the best I can, and let the money take care of itself. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Mark, 8. Jun 2003 22:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| HI Andrew, I didn't make myself very clear, but i meant to loosen up a bit in general, not just in early. From what i gather, you are playing tighter than normal because you are not getting great cards (or good flops) and because you are expecting not to win (is this right?). If this is true, your confidence may be shaken. If it is, you are pretty much guaranteed not to win. You know that you need to be aggressive to win, but it sounds like your playing passive and expecting to lose ( or not get good cards). Are you playing like your normal confindent self, or like a B&M newbie, who has read a couple of books and plays super tight. The problem with the newbie is, he doesn't value bet or take shots at weaker players. Everyone knows he has a hand when he bets, he won't 3 bet to isolate a loose player and doesn't ever semi-bluff, so he never takes down a big pot, Your bad streak will continue until you regain your confident, aggressive game. Maybe you need to take some time off, re-read your books, play stud, try omaha, anything until you KNOW you can go back and beat your game. Don't focus on what your cards are(or aren't) so much, there are alot of other factors. Find a game where you can simply outplay a few player no matter what the cards are. I don't want to disrespect you, or trivalize your bad streak, I can tell from your regular posts, that you know the game, game theory, etc, and win regularly (tell me if i'm wrong) BUT... look to yourself for leaks or weaknesses. I've gone through many "bad streaks" (losing my entire bankroll), and after some time off and much reflection, i can usually find a problem with my game. I'm not saying the cards don't affect the outcome, but there is no point in dwelling on missed draws and bad beats. Use your time constructively, and reflect on YOUR game. Lastly, try asking a regular opponent (someone who you are friendly with and respect) what he thinks of your game lately. You may be surprised how he sees you. good luck mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Swagman, 8. Jun 2003 23:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| yes we both got that impression about you posts that perhaps you lost a little bit of your gutz. Once that happens its a hell of a thing to get it back again, and you will lose alot more often until you do get it back. It may be that somewhere along the way of trying to improve your game, you've strayed down an alley and did something to bring it down. Maybe you read too much, or took someone elses advice to heart, and trying to improve your game screwed it up somehow. 20 percent of the advice out there is blantant bologne, and another 50 won't work for your game. So maybe going back to the ways when your winning might help. Also taking a brake from the game right now might be a good idea as well. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Andrew Wells, 9. Jun 2003 10:36 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yeah, I broke the cardinal rule. I spent some of my bankroll on myself. Too late to return the new furniture now though. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, 4 POKER, 9. Jun 2003 11:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 9. Jun 2003 10:36 Andrew Wells wrote: > Yeah, I broke the cardinal rule. I spent some of my bankroll on myself. Too late to return the new > furniture now though. What? What good is money if you can't spend any of it? True, you shouldn't go overboard but if you're a consistent winner at the poker tables, regardless if you've had a few rough sessions, I think you should still be able to spend, especially on something practical. That's my 2 cents. 4 POKER | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Andrew Wells, 10. Jun 2003 05:36 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yes, but I increased my risk of ruin from 1% to 3%. It wasn't essential that I spent it now. My primary comcern is that this has affected my play in some way I don't see clearly right now. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, 4 POKER, 10. Jun 2003 15:20 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 10. Jun 2003 05:36 Andrew Wells wrote: > Yes, but I increased my risk of ruin from 1% to 3%. It wasn't essential that I spent it now. My primary comcern is > that this has affected my play in some way I don't see clearly right now. Fair enough. 4- | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Andrew Wells, 9. Jun 2003 10:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It would take about a complete month of running bad to shake any confidence in my play. This is just an ordinary downswing, I had no expectations of maintaining +4BB/hr. for the whole year. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, PairTheBoard, 8. Jun 2003 22:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Something to consider. When you play in a loose passive game your standard deviation goes up. The reason for this is that with so many people playing bad draws you tend to need really good hands on the river to take down a pot. This happens infrequently, but when you do win a pot you stand to win a pretty big one. This makes for a few really huge winning sessions when you're running good. On the other hand, it can make for long frustrating losing streaks when you're running bad. This is why professionals prefer to play against weak tight players. You can achieve much more consistent results outplaying these types. Beware if you are playing tight but lost your agressiveness. You may have become just such a weak tight player yourself and ripe for the picking. As you've probably read Malmuth you know that a professional player can run bad for almost unbelievably long periods of time. Sometimes for months at a time! How you handle such bad streaks makes the difference between a real hardened pro, and a burnout. If you're a casino regular, find a class player who has been grinding out a living there for more than 5 years. Ask him how many regular players from 6 or 7 years ago that he knew then are still playing there today. Anyone can learn the fundamentals to winning poker. Few can maintain the discipline to apply them. Fewer still have the natural skills involving the People aspect of the game. Finally, fewer still can withstand the emotional roller coaster ride of the gamble. Maintaining level headed confidence in your game despite the most horrendous run of bad cards and bad beats for weeks, sometimes even months at a time is the challenge you must meet if you want to be a professional. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Regression to the mean, Andrew Wells, 9. Jun 2003 10:41 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks for the advice. It is of course correct. I'm one of the top players in my card room, and have been playing full time for nearly three years now. One good friend of mine has been doing it for 12 years, and it is nice to have someone who you can relate to. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network | Find Vancouver Businesses |
|