why is results based poker bad ?

i often see the phrase "results based player" and have been told that its a bad thing to be ! but arnt we all results based ? if i play a game i would like to win so the results are a factor , is it a bad thing because you shouldnt pay attention to short term results ,can anyone explain!!

It's called being "results-oriented" and I used to think the same way a couple years ago:

https://www.cardschat.com/forum/cash-games-11/debate-results-oriented-68338/

That thread is a good one but my own perspective of being results orientated is being results orientated with regards to your bankroll maybe.

Checking your bankroll after every session or even multiple times during a session is where i think the regular player is too results orientated, an example is that a players $5 up after 20 mins of a session and they tighten up for the rest because they don't want to lose that profit, playing like this they could be throwing away good opportunities to further increase the roll because they are too concerned with the short term result of being up $5.

I myself was told on this forum a few days ago that pokers a marathon not a sprint, who cares if you done the first mile in 3 mins or 20 mins, theres still 25 left to go, i made that last bit up myself

jumping jack flash said:

i often see the phrase "results based player" and have been told that its a bad thing to be ! but arnt we all results based ? if i play a game i would like to win so the results are a factor , is it a bad thing because you shouldnt pay attention to short term results ,can anyone explain!!

Click to expand...

Cause poker is a game of skill but results can(and will) be skewed by short term varience.
For example u are playing a SNG and end up all-in pre-flop with AA villain haves 72 and the flop comes 777 and villain wins.
Where you wrong to go all-in with AA? no you had the best hand and got sucked out you still maked the most profitable long term move.
Another example of beeing result oriented like Orange pointed out is allways checking your BR, u might win a lot of money even if your playing terrible because of short term varience and like wise u could lose a lot of money by short term varience playing perfect poker.
You cant control the outcome of a hand or seesion no matter how good a player u are so all you can do is play the best poker u can and excepted the fact that short term results are meaningless and there for there is no use worring about them.

Results based means making decisions about how well you play or making changes to your game using a very small sample of data.. maybe as small as one game.

Poker is played out on a much longer time line, so a player who looses 10 times in a row is still being results orientated however a player who is consistently down over a sustained period of playing... maybe 50K hands is not results orientated.. he is infact a bad player.

The opposite is true, 10 wins in a row doesn't make a good player but showing a nice profit after 50K hands does make you a good player.

Nice thread, I like the logic behind those posts, makes me feel better about my suckouts in SnG's
Have fun all!

The point is to make as many plays that are +EV as possible. Whether or not you win money or not on an individual hand does not matter.. if the play was +EV it will add to your winnings in the long run. And it works the other way, if you make a play that is -EV but you end up winning the hand that is still a loss for you in the long run.

Quite honestly, if you're using good BR management, you should not care one way or another how much you win or lose in a given session, day, week.. you should be analyzing how many +EV and how many -EV plays you make instead.

this is something i have been told a few times being ev+ how do i calculate my ev .if there are any ways that dont require a v good maths intellect (im ok but no maths teacher)
thanks for the excellent replys everyone

Getting a good result doesn't necessarily mean playing the right way. For example, there are some people who will make a lot of money early on by getting their money in with a bad hand and getting lucky. Since you've made money, results-based analysis would say you played very well. However, you are actually playing poorly, so if you are looking at it with this perspective, then you will continue the bad play.

jumping jack flash said:

this is something i have been told a few times being ev+ how do i calculate my ev .if there are any ways that dont require a v good maths intellect (im ok but no maths teacher)
thanks for the excellent replys everyone

Click to expand...

Read this https://www.cardschat.com/poker-odds-expected-value.php .
Also use the search function to find some good threads on EV .

I like this example: Just because you went allin preflop with A 2 in the first hand of a game and made a fullhouse doesn't mean it was a good play.

It's a good result sure, but it is a terrible move that will cost you in the long run.

Imagine you're betting on the roll of a fair 6-sided die.

Let's say you are getting odds of 8-1 on the roll being a 3. There will be times that a 3 doesn't appear for dozens of rolls. Of course, this doesn't mean that you should change your bet if you can only get 5-1 on rolls of 1, 2, 4, 5, or 6, because, as long as the die is fair, continuing to bet on 3 is clearly going to be the only profitable option in the long run. If you encounter one of those 30-roll stretches the results are telling you to pass up a hugely +EV opportunity, which clearly you should not be doing.

With regards to EV, let's say you place $1 on the aforementioned die rolling 3 at 8-1. 1/6th of the time you win $8 (net), 5/6ths of the time you lose $1. Your EV is (1/6)*8 less (5/6)*1, or 50 cents, in other words in the long run you can expect to gain 50 cents per $1 bet you put on a 3 to roll.

The same is true of poker, EV is basically what you stand to win multiplied by the probability of you winning less what you stand to lose multiplied by the chance of you losing.

I won a SNG yesterday because I completely misread my opponent. Sure, I was happy with the result, but I wasn't happy with my play.

nice result though! they say " poker is the only game you can find yourself in the same predicament twice, play both perfectly!! and still lose "

orangepeeleo said:

I myself was told on this forum a few days ago that pokers a marathon not a sprint, who cares if you done the first mile in 3 mins or 20 mins, theres still 25 left to go, i made that last bit up myself

Click to expand...

There is a twist to what you were told, or maybe you didn't interpret it correctly. The marathon vs sprint comparison generally refers to ring games vs tournaments.

Tournaments are marathons. Ring games are sprints.

Object of tournaments is the accumulation of chips during the course of play (the marathon), without losing your stack. You can't 'reload' in a tourney (early stages of rebuys being the exception). In a ring game, you are concerned with the wins, hand by hand (the sprint). If you go bust, you reload and sprint again.