Home / Community / Forum / Support Area / Poker News /

Why am i so bad at poker

Old
Default
Why am i so bad at poker - Wed Oct 30, 2013, 05:54 AM
(#1)
mikekbkl's Avatar
Since: Apr 2013
Posts: 16
Hi All

Playing now for two years, 1 year online, live play at our club tournament i cash most weeks, in other live tournaments played 10, final tabled 3 times.

Online i have won two small tournaments $500 and $400 also numerous small cashes.

I play online most nights and can build a decent chip stack early so whether is 800 players or 3000 players i sit in the top 10%. Then it always seems to go to pot, i get my chips in with the best hand pre flop or post flop and within 3 to four hands my chips are gone and i bubble quite a bit even though i am not short stacked.

I watch the videos/join the training sessions. Most of my play is sit n go and micro tournaments, most buy in $3 - $10 sometimes $215 tourns.

Where am i going wrong any suggestions appreciated.
 
Old
Default
Wed Oct 30, 2013, 06:25 AM
(#2)
wiltshireman's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,572
(Moderator)
Hello mikekbkl

Welcome to PokerSchoolOnline!

Here is a link to help familiarize you with all the features and services available at PSO. Feel free to look around the forum and post any comments or questions you may have.



You are invited to join the PokerSchoolOnline Community Home Games Club. Information on how to join the club may be found HERE. Hope to see you there!


Moderator
 
Old
Default
Wed Oct 30, 2013, 09:39 AM
(#3)
JWK24's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 24,862
(Super-Moderator)
BronzeStar
Hi mikekbkl!

One thing that I always have to remember when playing, is that every hand is going to lose a given % of the time, whether it be 80-20, 70-30, 60-40 or 50-50. When playing tourneys, I don't want to be over-betting, as it can cost me chips in the times that I do lose these hands. I want to bet enough to give the opp a -EV play to try to outdraw me, but I don't want to over-do it and bet too much. In tourneys, chip preservation is just as important as gaining chips. Also, when I build up a stack, I then want to tighten up to help preserve chips.

I'm not sure if this is what you're running into, but it's something that I've seen from others in the past. If the players get their chips by playing too loose, if they don't then tighten up, they'll play too many hands and give the chips back as fast as they got them.

Hope this helps and good luck at the tables.

John (JWK24)


Super-Moderator



6 Time Bracelet Winner


 
Old
Default
Wed Oct 30, 2013, 10:59 AM
(#4)
holdemace486's Avatar
Since: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,760
Sometimes it is not ones self to blame yourself at been bad at poker,sometimes it is the opponents who are bad.
 
Old
Default
Wed Oct 30, 2013, 09:34 PM
(#5)
Feskprins's Avatar
Since: May 2011
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by holdemace486 View Post
Sometimes it is not ones self to blame yourself at been bad at poker,sometimes it is the opponents who are bad.
This is completely false and a common mindset amongst fish. That can easily be disproved by letting a professional poker player, let's say Ivey, play against bad and good players. Who do you expect him to win against?



....
 
Old
Default
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 05:33 PM
(#6)
holdemace486's Avatar
Since: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feskprins View Post
This is completely false and a common mindset amongst fish. That can easily be disproved by letting a professional poker player, let's say Ivey, play against bad and good players. Who do you expect him to win against?



....
I would expect a great player like Ivey to easily beat the bad players, but I would. Also suspect that if Ivey was to play lots of fish on a regular basis, he would indeed see some of the worse beats he or we could imagine.
Established players or just rich people IMO get to avoid a lot of the fish action at the lower stakes.
IMO expect more beats at lower stakes by fish variance.

Then I would also expect that a fish when playing higher stakes,as a reverse effect of the former.
The fish becomes instantly noticeable to the higher stake players.

Therefore the fish loses as often it is eight good players or whatever your format is,against the fish,the fish becomes outnumbered as such.
A fine balance of table is needed to your own play style and skill set.

Mr Ivey aa at his format,eg daniel and co, has more value than lets say 1c 2c bbs,where as the aa as often multiple callers making it a less percentage favourite.
Where as daniel and co format, the aa has more value ,folders respecting a raise often leading the aa to it's expected value or percent favourite,as often it's a heads up situation.
 
Old
Default
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 06:07 PM
(#7)
TweedleBeetl's Avatar
Since: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by holdemace486 View Post
I would expect a great player like Ivey to easily beat the bad players, but I would. Also suspect that if Ivey was to play lots of fish on a regular basis, he would indeed see some of the worse beats he or we could imagine.
Established players or just rich people IMO get to avoid a lot of the fish action at the lower stakes.
IMO expect more beats at lower stakes by fish variance.

Then I would also expect that a fish when playing higher stakes,as a reverse effect of the former.
The fish becomes instantly noticeable to the higher stake players.

Therefore the fish loses as often it is eight good players or whatever your format is,against the fish,the fish becomes outnumbered as such.
A fine balance of table is needed to your own play style and skill set.

Mr Ivey aa at his format,eg daniel and co, has more value than lets say 1c 2c bbs,where as the aa as often multiple callers making it a less percentage favourite.
Where as daniel and co format, the aa has more value ,folders respecting a raise often leading the aa to it's expected value or percent favourite,as often it's a heads up situation.
wow. I have no idea what you are saying.
 
Old
Default
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:09 PM
(#8)
Horanda's Avatar
Since: Aug 2013
Posts: 22
Getting back to Mike, and Holdemace's original response, when you are learning the game you are going to make some mistakes, which may reinforce bad habits or simply bust you out early. You are up against other beginning players, some of whom will never learn how to profitably play the game. They go allin early on a 95o and end up with a set or a flush on the river (I hate pocket kings ) and you are back in the lobby. Losing that match was not so much your bad poker as his good luck. The point of PSO is to hone your play so that you can minimise your losses when the villains get lucky and maximise the pot size when your hand prevails.

You will not win a majority of hands, nor will you win a majority of tournaments. What you want is to have what you win pay for what you lose.
 
Old
Default
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 08:28 PM
(#9)
brettnz's Avatar
Since: Aug 2011
Posts: 377
Hi here are my thoughts
Remember online mtt or large sng is in general a harder event to win than live.You do have lots of fish early stages om large MTTs BUT you also have far more dedicated skilled poker players in the pool so your FT/cashing rate will be a lot lower than live.
I play live most weeks in a 30 -50 person MTT ,some ok players but I normally cash ,FT, not so online.
If you are doing well early but then seem to blind out late in online MTT then I would think you are being to passive,either late or in the middle stages and around the button ,are you become to nitty just looking for the MIN CASH ??,you should perhaps send your hand historys into PSO for review ?
You also need a bit of luck late ,but keep your stack up by knowing when to play ,steal Blinds ect is most important.
GL in future


Double Bracelet Winner

 
Old
Default
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 08:41 PM
(#10)
JWK24's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 24,862
(Super-Moderator)
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by brettnz View Post
Remember online mtt or large sng is in general a harder event to win than live.
I thoroughly disagree with this. The larger MTT's live are just as tough, if not tougher.

John (JWK24)


Super-Moderator



6 Time Bracelet Winner


 
Old
Default
Fri Nov 01, 2013, 01:25 AM
(#11)
Feskprins's Avatar
Since: May 2011
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by holdemace486 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feskprins
Quote:
Originally Posted by holdemace486
Sometimes it is not ones self to blame yourself at been bad at poker,sometimes it is the opponents who are bad.
This is completely false and a common mindset amongst fish. That can easily be disproved by letting a professional poker player, let's say Ivey, play against bad and good players. Who do you expect him to win against?
I would expect a great player like Ivey to easily beat the bad players, but I would. Also suspect that if Ivey was to play lots of fish on a regular basis, he would indeed see some of the worse beats he or we could imagine.
Established players or just rich people IMO get to avoid a lot of the fish action at the lower stakes.
IMO expect more beats at lower stakes by fish variance.

Then I would also expect that a fish when playing higher stakes,as a reverse effect of the former.
The fish becomes instantly noticeable to the higher stake players.

Therefore the fish loses as often it is eight good players or whatever your format is,against the fish,the fish becomes outnumbered as such.
A fine balance of table is needed to your own play style and skill set.

Mr Ivey aa at his format,eg daniel and co, has more value than lets say 1c 2c bbs,where as the aa as often multiple callers making it a less percentage favourite.
Where as daniel and co format, the aa has more value ,folders respecting a raise often leading the aa to it's expected value or percent favourite,as often it's a heads up situation.
I was considering to just reply with "I rest my case", but I'm actually going to make an effort to reply to this, not that you will listen to what we have to say, but I have nothing better to do.

The skill of your opponent has no relation whatsoever to the % of times you recieve a bad beat. If you're a 95% favourite to win the hand, you'll win 95% of the time on average. Furthermore, the stakes you play don't affect it either. Also, there's no such thing as "fish variance". I want to respond to the rest of your statements as well, and I'm not trying to be funny here, but I honestly couldn't understand a single thing of what you were trying to say. I think I understood this part though:

Quote:
Mr Ivey aa at his format,eg daniel and co, has more value than lets say 1c 2c bbs,where as the aa as often multiple callers making it a less percentage favourite.
Where as daniel and co format, the aa has more value ,folders respecting a raise often leading the aa to it's expected value or percent favourite,as often it's a heads up situation.
Again, this is completely false, untrue, and again, a common misconception amongst fish. The good old "well the higher stakes are easier because people respect your raises". If that was true, why don't people just play the higher stakes? Because they're harder and you're playing against better players. And believe it or not, you see the exact same amount of bad beats there as you do at 2nl. Adding to that, the logic is again flawed. You didn't state if you went all in preflop or played postflop. Assume you did get it in preflop and got multiple callers. If you lose, it's not a bad beat, but you're still the favourite to win the hand. I don't care if I get 8 callers, getting aces in preflop is always profitable.
Now let's assume you just open raised and got multiple callers and you go to the flop. Again, if you lose it's not a bad beat, you probably overvalued your aces and played the hand really bad, especially given it's a multiway pot. And just to be clear, the aces do not have more value in heads up pots. You expected value increases with the number of callers. If I were to choose how many callers I get when I have aces, I would pick "everyone at the table" because it makes me the most money in the long run.

And the ultimate argument that hopefully will give you the insight you need to finally realize that pretty much everything about your poker theory knowledge is wrong (not trying to bash or be funny, just trying to make you realize a thing or two) is that if fish caused bad beats all the time against good players, you would be a winning player. We'd see horrible poker at the final table of the WSOP. Thing is, you always come with excuses why you're not winning and you have to realize that you're not good at poker, and you're losing because you make bad decisions at the table because you're so convinced your flawed poker logic is correct when the entire world tells you you're not even close to being right.


.....

Last edited by Feskprins; Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:32 AM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Nov 01, 2013, 04:37 AM
(#12)
pullin1988's Avatar
Since: Apr 2013
Posts: 717
Hi Feskprins,

I didn't quite understand what you wrote below.


Quote:
Assume you did get it in preflop and got multiple callers. If you lose, it's not a bad beat, but you're still the favourite to win the hand. I don't care if I get 8 callers, getting aces in preflop is always profitable.
If you are the favourite to win the hand (say you get it all-in with pocket As), and villains wins (with hands that you crush statistically), why is this not defined as a bad beat.

Have I read your quote right, and if so why am I wrong?

All help appreciated.

Cheers,

Pullin1988

Last edited by pullin1988; Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 04:42 AM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Nov 01, 2013, 05:19 AM
(#13)
bhoylegend's Avatar
Since: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,261
I think it comes down to how you define a bad beat.

To me it is when someone shouldn't still be in the hand, is, gets it in behind, yet wins at showdown.

If I get it in HU with AA v KK I don't consider myself to have suffered a bad beat if I end up losing. The other guy hasn't done much wrong if anything at all. Multiway your odds of winning are much reduced even with AA so, often, you are going to win less than 50% of the time. Again it's less of a bad beat to me in a technical sense. Thought I'm still raging if I get beat by the 42o.
 
Old
Default
Fri Nov 01, 2013, 05:31 AM
(#14)
slettuce's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 221
@pullin - I think he means that if he got it all in pre-flop with the best hand in poker and got multiple calls it makes no difference because AA would prob go in pre-flop if raised anyway.
Therefore whatever follows shouldn't be seen as a bad beat - for mindset purposes, even if it seems like one.

However heads up AA vs JJ and JJ wins with a river jack or any other way for that matter, then that would be "classed" as a bad beat. This does hurt, but only if you let it.

I've deleted the phrase "bad beat" from my brain, I play better without it floating around in my head.

Last edited by slettuce; Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:34 AM.. Reason: bhoylegend "ninja'd" me, lol, I'm even a nit at typing responses..
 
Old
Default
Fri Nov 01, 2013, 06:00 AM
(#15)
pullin1988's Avatar
Since: Apr 2013
Posts: 717
I see now.

Cheers guys. It was a definition issue.

Makes sense.

Cheers,

Pullin
 
Old
Default
Fri Nov 01, 2013, 07:06 AM
(#16)
birdayy's Avatar
Since: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by holdemace486 View Post
I would expect a great player like Ivey to easily beat the bad players, but I would. Also suspect that if Ivey was to play lots of fish on a regular basis, he would indeed see some of the worse beats he or we could imagine.
Established players or just rich people IMO get to avoid a lot of the fish action at the lower stakes.
IMO expect more beats at lower stakes by fish variance.

Then I would also expect that a fish when playing higher stakes,as a reverse effect of the former.
The fish becomes instantly noticeable to the higher stake players.

Therefore the fish loses as often it is eight good players or whatever your format is,against the fish,the fish becomes outnumbered as such.
A fine balance of table is needed to your own play style and skill set.

Mr Ivey aa at his format,eg daniel and co, has more value than lets say 1c 2c bbs,where as the aa as often multiple callers making it a less percentage favourite.
Where as daniel and co format, the aa has more value ,folders respecting a raise often leading the aa to it's expected value or percent favourite,as often it's a heads up situation.
You are actually delusional. Seek professional help.
 
Old
Default
red and blue straw!! - Sat Nov 02, 2013, 05:36 AM
(#17)
holdemace486's Avatar
Since: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,760
Contrary to belief i listen,
I will simplify,

8 red straws and one blue.
 
Old
Default
Sat Nov 02, 2013, 05:58 AM
(#18)
EasyChips4U's Avatar
Since: Jan 2011
Posts: 762
Is this why U dun participate in the PSO Home Games Monthly Series? Cuz... U'd be the blue straw??


Last edited by EasyChips4U; Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:01 AM.. Reason: typo
 
Old
Default
Sat Nov 02, 2013, 06:09 AM
(#19)
holdemace486's Avatar
Since: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyChips4U View Post
Is this why U dun participate in the PSO Home Games Monthly Series? Cuz... U'd be the blue straw??

MOre than likely yes i would be the blue straw. I have participated in some pso games. And I have had results.

I don't play many because I simply have very little time now.

But i think you understand the straws.
 
Old
Default
Sat Nov 02, 2013, 11:45 AM
(#20)
Feskprins's Avatar
Since: May 2011
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by pullin1988 View Post
If you are the favourite to win the hand (say you get it all-in with pocket As), and villains wins (with hands that you crush statistically), why is this not defined as a bad beat.

Have I read your quote right, and if so why am I wrong?

All help appreciated.

Cheers,

Pullin1988
Hi Pullin,

Like the others said, it depends on how you define a bad beat. I would call losing a hand where you're a 70% facourite a bad beat. When you lose to a two outer, or a one outer, that's what I call a bad beat. I don't even like the term bad beat and use it very restrictively, because it depends on how you feel about the hand and passively puts you on entitlement tilt. You will lose 20% of the time with AA vs KK. Try losing with AA vs AA in the WCOOP maine event final table with 4 players left. That's a true bad beat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by holdemace486
Contrary to belief i listen,
I will simplify,
8 red straws and one blue.
1. That's the problem, you THINK you listen. You haven't listened to a thing anyone has said for years
2. Poker is not a lottery.



.....

Last edited by Feskprins; Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:45 AM.. Reason: :cool:
 

Getting PokerStars is easy: download and install the PokerStars game software, create your free player account, and validate your email address. Clicking on the download poker button will lead to the installation of compatible poker software on your PC of 51.7 MB, which will enable you to register and play poker on the PokerStars platform. To uninstall PokerStars use the Windows uninstaller: click Start > Control Panel and then select Add or Remove programs > Select PokerStars and click Uninstall or Remove.

Copyright (c) PokerSchoolOnline.com. All rights reserved, Rational Group, Douglas Bay Complex, King Edward Road, Onchan, Isle of Man, IM3 1DZ. You can email us on support@pokerschoolonline.com