Hitting a wall in my gameplay

Nathan SNathan S Red Chipper Posts: 207 ✭✭
Hola,

I am at an hourly 1/2 winrate of about 23 an hour playing live. Over the past week I've increased my bankroll pretty significantly, but I feel like I am losing a lot more on suckouts than I am gaining with my wins. On the one hand, maybe I should be betting bigger for value in these good spots to make up for it?

Yesterday, I lost $600 when i had QQ on a KQXX board. My opponent shoved on the turn with AT and hit his jack on the river. He later felted me again when he limp called a $30 pre-flop BB raise with 75s OOP from the SB (while I had an overpair, he happened to flop a straight). Weird losses to these unpredictable 1/2 players seem to outpace my winrate. I can play for a week straight and make some significant gains, booking 150 a session in average profit, only to have them wiped out in some freak hands that happen more often than they should.

How can I work to maintain a steady winrate and avoid these freak occurences?
«1

Comments

  • Jónas SJónas S Red Chipper Posts: 186 ✭✭✭
    While it sucks that you got suck out on it's something you should be joyful about, people are willing to go all in against you with frigging gut-shots. Reload and keep on grinding.

    Your pre-flop sizing is going to be the biggest impact on you being able to determine the ranges of your villains, force them to play face-up. If you implement the pain-threshold then people won't get away with playing their hands against you that you can't range them on. If they call anything with any hand, then you can profitably exploit that by only playing strong hands and don't bother bluffing them.

    Don't stack off on wet boards if you've noticed that those kind of boards are the ones that smack the range of your villains.

    Value bet the heck out of poor players who only raise when they are strong.

    The list goes on. This subject is too broad to cover in one topic. Your win-rate is determined by everything you do and how your villains are playing. Learn their frequencies and exploit them. Sometimes that means folding over-pairs, sometimes that means value betting top pair.

    First and foremost, avoid the tilt of feeling bad when you get sucked out on, it's what keeps the fish in the game. However, analyse the hands where you didn't really get sucked out on, you were just out-flopped and refused to lay down your "big" pre-flop hand.

    Don't pay too much attention to the hands where you truly got sucked out on. Just make sure that you weren't stacking off where you were probably behind anyway and make sure you're not allowing players to play their worst hands against you for cheap. Make them pay and get over it when they get lucky.

    GL.
  • bigburge10bigburge10 Red Chipper Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭
    Your goal is to figure out which situations are truly variance and ignore them. For the others, investigate them. From your examples, it sounds like the AT hand could be variance and the other is perhaps a mistake on your part. Once you start plugging your mistakes, these “variances” will start to decrease, but they’ll never go away.
  • zampana1970zampana1970 Red Chipper Posts: 464 ✭✭✭
    More and more I'm feeling that "real poker" is finding the thin edges, knowing spots for the most successful bluffs (long term), being able to see where a bluff-catching call is actually the smartest play, constructing the best ranges and then playing them properly on all the different board types, etc etc. These big hands, where we trap a second best hand with a monster or where we suck out big or whether they do, with all the chips flying everywhere, are big and exciting fireworks, but they're not the place the long term poker players are winning the majority of time. They're the strikeouts and home runs of poker, exciting for the masses, but not the Moneyball way to win the World Series.
  • Yanming ZYanming Z Red Chipper Posts: 89 ✭✭
    Nathan S wrote: »
    Hola,

    I am at an hourly 1/2 winrate of about 23 an hour playing live. Over the past week I've increased my bankroll pretty significantly, but I feel like I am losing a lot more on suckouts than I am gaining with my wins. On the one hand, maybe I should be betting bigger for value in these good spots to make up for it?

    Yesterday, I lost $600 when i had QQ on a KQXX board. My opponent shoved on the turn with AT and hit his jack on the river. He later felted me again when he limp called a $30 pre-flop BB raise with 75s OOP from the SB (while I had an overpair, he happened to flop a straight). Weird losses to these unpredictable 1/2 players seem to outpace my winrate. I can play for a week straight and make some significant gains, booking 150 a session in average profit, only to have them wiped out in some freak hands that happen more often than they should.

    How can I work to maintain a steady winrate and avoid these freak occurences?

    I see a lot of problem in your understanding of bankroll fluctuation, remember bankroll management is a huge part of your game.

    $23 per hour on 1-2 is extremely high, very few people can reach and maintain it. So I'm immediately suspicious of your sample size. Anything under 1000 hours is useless, you can't gauge your winrate from a week where you ran good.

    Second point is, if a loss of $600 significantly impacts your bankroll, then you need more bankroll. Not having enough money to back you up can lead you to play with scared money, you will be relunctant to bluff shove or calling a big bluff, which can significantly reduce your win rate. If poker is your sole income, you need around $10k to play 1-2 with TAG style, and $15k for LAG. If you have other sources of income, you need 10 buy ins, aka $3k to play, and your other source of income should be able to refill about 1 buy in per week.

    The couple hands you described you have done nothing wrong, the best thing can happen in poker is getting your stack in when you are a favorite. But remember when you are 80% to win also means you are gonna lose 20%, these "freak occurances" are unavoidable, just need the sufficient bankroll to withstand it.
  • EazzyEazzy Red Chipper Posts: 635 ✭✭✭
    I can really only go by my own experience. I now have pretty good records going back over 4 years and just short of 4000 hours. Overall my win rate after expenses is slightly under $17 and hour (before expenses probably about 18 or so).

    For the first 5 month of this year I ran at about $35 and hour. It was sick. My hourly for all my records went from about 16.50 to about 17.00.....then I broke even for june and july (slightly up) ....my yearly dropped (for this year) from $35 to under $20,...since then I've been running about $20 and hour and my yearly average is just short of $20 now. But my 4 year average has moved by less the .50 overall;

    I don't know how long you have been playing for the $23 average...but its going to change. The more hours that back it.....the less short term swings will affect it.

    If you have a $23 average, it because of one of 3 things mostly......
    you ran like a luck box
    you play in very loose games
    your good and you push marginal edges well.

    All of these things lead to variance... if you kill variance from loose games or pushing thin edges you will do so by trading equity.
  • Ryan ARyan A Red Chipper Posts: 122 ✭✭
    Eazzy is right on. I've been playing for exactly a year. 500hrs. The first 6 months I thought I was a poker god. $31/hr winrate. The second 6 months I never knew it could possibly be this bad. My current overall winrate is under $10/hr. Of course I'm not very good but I imagine my true winrate is somewhere in the middle here. Probably between 15 and 20/hr. It will probably take me 2 more years to have a sample size worth considering
  • jfarrow13jfarrow13 Red Chipper Posts: 717 ✭✭✭
    I actually got rid of my win rate per hour tracker. I still track overall wins and losses or course, but I became obsessed with my $ per hour to the point that became like my driving factor for playing, making sure I could keep that hourly and win rate high! Sometimes, we get away from why we play poker, (if your a pro obviously it's necessarily to keep track, but I think if your just a casual reg then keep track of overall money) just don't lose sight of why you play poker in the first place (as a casual reg) and that should be because it's a great game, and you can win some money while having a good time!
  • Nathan SNathan S Red Chipper Posts: 207 ✭✭
    Yeah I don't care about my hourly. I just put it there because it's nuts that I can play for xx hours and then one tiny bit of variance can completely wipe me out like that.
  • Nathan SNathan S Red Chipper Posts: 207 ✭✭
    I guess I'm playing beyond my bankroll but at 1/2 it's like there's no other choice.
  • WardoYTWardoYT Red Chipper Posts: 191 ✭✭
    Any free win/loss $ ratio tracker?
  • Nathan SNathan S Red Chipper Posts: 207 ✭✭
    Poker Bankroll Tracker for Android
  • WardoYTWardoYT Red Chipper Posts: 191 ✭✭
    Nathan S wrote: »
    Poker Bankroll Tracker for Android

    Ty!!!
  • Wiki_LeaksWiki_Leaks Red Chipper Posts: 440 ✭✭✭
    Nathan S wrote: »
    Yeah I don't care about my hourly. I just put it there because it's nuts that I can play for xx hours and then one tiny bit of variance can completely wipe me out like that.

    Welcome to live cash sir. An hourly rate playing live is absurd due to sample size.
    Nathan S wrote: »
    I guess I'm playing beyond my bankroll but at 1/2 it's like there's no other choice.

    Yeah so youre shot taking. Buckle up, run it up or bust it. Dont meander through 1-2. Rake is too high and stacks are often too shallow.
  • Nathan SNathan S Red Chipper Posts: 207 ✭✭
    Once I've obtained about 2k, should I move to 1/3?
  • Wiki_LeaksWiki_Leaks Red Chipper Posts: 440 ✭✭✭
    Only you know the answer to that. Youll know when its time to take a shot. Set your parameters and risk tolerance now so you have the plan.
  • WardoYTWardoYT Red Chipper Posts: 191 ✭✭
    Nathan S wrote: »
    Hola,

    I am at an hourly 1/2 winrate of about 23 an hour playing live. Over the past week I've increased my bankroll pretty significantly, but I feel like I am losing a lot more on suckouts than I am gaining with my wins. On the one hand, maybe I should be betting bigger for value in these good spots to make up for it?

    Yesterday, I lost $600 when i had QQ on a KQXX board. My opponent shoved on the turn with AT and hit his jack on the river. He later felted me again when he limp called a $30 pre-flop BB raise with 75s OOP from the SB (while I had an overpair, he happened to flop a straight). Weird losses to these unpredictable 1/2 players seem to outpace my winrate. I can play for a week straight and make some significant gains, booking 150 a session in average profit, only to have them wiped out in some freak hands that happen more often than they should.

    How can I work to maintain a steady winrate and avoid these freak occurences?

    Become more goal orientated and set milestones..
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 1,871 ✭✭✭✭
    Nathan S wrote: »
    Once I've obtained about 2k, should I move to 1/3?
    sorry, homes - but imo, you're still thinking about the game all wrong.
    If I can be blunt, it sounds to me like you're treating poker the same way our local waiters and bartenders do... like a slot machine.

    They come to our games after hours with the hopes of doubling or tripling their day's tips with a simple strategy: Wait for monster hands play them fast/aggressive. Or limp with pocket pairs and play them fast when you hit a set. The problem with that is that's what most of the other players are doing too! So the only real way you win is when you cooler someone.

    And as Tommy Angelo would say, "no money changes hands" in a big picture concept known as reciprocity.

    When you play ABC poker, there's no "skill" in your game. You're married to Lady Luck and when she likes you, you win. When she doesn't, you lose. End of story.

    If you want to be a consisten winner at poker, you've got to make some hard choices. The first is: what are you willing to give up in order to learn how to develop a better strategy? The next one is.... um, that's it.

    If you want to get better, you're probably want to hire a guy like @Faustovaldez123 or @persuadeo to teach you how you should think about the game. (when you don't know what you don't know, the only person who can help you is a guy who knows!) Then, you're gonna want to blow through multiple buy-ins trying out shyt and figuring out what works best in your poker room against the toughest opponents. And lastly, you're gonna have to devote hours upon days upon weeks of study to create a gameplan that doesn't require luck.

    So that's it in a nutshell.
    If you're focused on blind levels,
    if you're focused on suckouts,
    if you're focused on variance,
    if you're focused on your bankroll...
    then you really don't understand poker. And I mean, really, really have a deep understanding of everything that the game really is (and what it's not).

    Note that you won't have to do any of the things described above to win at poker. Just ask Chris Moneymaker or Qui Nguyen. But if you want to be a consistant winner - at any level... at some point or another, you're going to have to venture down that rabbit hole. If you decide that's not for you... that's cool. Just ignore what I've wrote, and check out this funny movie clip to take your mind away from my words....

  • Nathan SNathan S Red Chipper Posts: 207 ✭✭
    Sorry, I have to disagree.
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 1,871 ✭✭✭✭
    Nathan S wrote: »
    Sorry, I have to disagree.

    It's okay. I was once in your shoes too.
    And I fought it tooth and nail. Until I had to face the music.
    Good luck on your journey.
  • eugeniusjreugeniusjr Red Chipper Posts: 319 ✭✭✭
    Nathan S wrote: »
    Sorry, I have to disagree.

    WTF


    He writes a long high quality post like that and this is all you have to say?
  • EazzyEazzy Red Chipper Posts: 635 ✭✭✭
    WardoYT wrote: »
    Any free win/loss $ ratio tracker?

    The best thing I ever did, was simply use a spread sheet. I count the money in my wallet before I leave home, enter it in the spread sheet, When I get back from my poker trip, I count my money again and enter it in the spread sheet.

    I only use cash during poker trips. so my earning are after expenses. And yes if you blow $20 in a video poker machine thats a poker expense (admittedly a stupid one).

    I calculate my hours using the tear credit, or comps earned (depending where I play).

    In this, way I treat poker more like a business, which has good psychological benefits for me. I also think it levels the playing field for me. I have met players who tip the dealers waitresses ect, out of there pocket, rather then from there stack, and low and behold they make $4 or $5 more an hour.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 773 ✭✭✭
    Nathan S wrote: »
    Yeah I don't care about my hourly. I just put it there because it's nuts that I can play for xx hours and then one tiny bit of variance can completely wipe me out like that.

    Respectfully, it's not just "one tiny bit of variance" that wiped you out. It's a misunderstanding of your image and how opponents are playing against it.

    Clearly, the first hand is a cooler. That being said, it seems highly likely from this one post alone that you are prepared to get your stack in when you are ahead before the river but not with the nuts. That's not necessarily bad; just know that many opponents will get it in trying to suck out even without the pot odds to do so. If you want to exploit them, then go ahead. Just know in advance that you will get sucked out on. It's a +EV, in theory...

    Here's the rub: this style of play is not as simple as "I'm ahead, and V doesn't have outs". You're not getting paid off (ever?) when you have the nuts, only when you are ahead. That makes the all-in gambit much less profitable than it would seem.

    Again, the first hand is definitely a cooler. But, I still think that ascribing the fact that you win incrementally small hands and lose the big ones to variance alone is a misunderstanding of broader table image.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 2,732 ✭✭✭✭✭
    eugeniusjr wrote: »
    Nathan S wrote: »
    Sorry, I have to disagree.

    WTF


    He writes a long high quality post like that and this is all you have to say?

    It's a respectful response, right or wrong.
  • Faustovaldez123Faustovaldez123 Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 596 ✭✭✭
    @Nathan S u cant avoid freak occurrences. Ure job as a player is to keep improving all areas ure uncomfortable or unclear about and the rest will take care of itself. When u feel like u cant figure it out and/or books and vidoes seem like their repeating themselves, then get a coach. Or get it if u want to simply acclerate ure unknown areas.
    COACHING NOW AVAILABLE HERE
  • bigburge10bigburge10 Red Chipper Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭
    Hey @Nathan S , I think you've peaked some curiosity. What are some things you disagree with in Kagey's post?

  • Nathan SNathan S Red Chipper Posts: 207 ✭✭
    edited November 5
    Kageys post was long and informative but it's based on the idea that I supposedly treat the table like a slot machine which I certainly dont. When I sit at a 1/2 table and spend hours playing only to be sucked out by a gambler who runs through 3 buyins within his first hour it's pretty annoying.

    I had a player from the next table over come by and tell me that he saw what happened and that it aggravated him as well. A player the next day was complaining to me about him. Obviously I'd like this call any day of the week but I feel like I'm taking Matusow levels of bad beat when these gambler types are around.

    Obviously this is just one hand. I'll happily play with maniacs like him but spots like these are something else.

    My casino is an inner-city spot that has a very high frequency of these "gambler" types that stroll in late at night. Sometimes I'll take a cab up to Parx which has a lot less of these due to it's location. I tend to run a lot better there.



  • Nathan SNathan S Red Chipper Posts: 207 ✭✭
    My goal is to play 2/5 and I'd like to have to roll to do so, but between the rake at 1/2 and the variance that I've been experiencing it's feeling counterproductive at times. It's really a mental game thing.
  • bigburge10bigburge10 Red Chipper Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭
    Fair enough for the disagreement.
    Nathan S wrote: »
    but I feel like I'm taking Matusow levels of bad beat when these gambler types are around.
    If you seem to be taking a lot of bad beats when these players around it could simply be variance or that you're not making the correct adjustments to these players. The easy response is to chalk it up to variance, but for me, I'd operate under the impression that it isn't variance until I can prove otherwise.

    I do chuckle a little bit about the player at the other table becoming aggravated with this "gambler player". I could be wrong, but I get the sense that the aggravation stems from not knowing how to counter this player. Otherwise, why would anyone complain?

«1