re: Poker & I lose more than I win, normal right?
Originally Posted by roreyn02
Ive been playing a loose aggressive style recently after reading a tournament book that promotes this style of play. It talks about "utility" and how acquiring more chips and as fast as possible is key to getting ahead.
I tend to survive in tournaments then get knocked out at one of the lower ends of the payouts(if there is any at all). Trying this loose-aggressive style feels real exciting. I just really feel that if I play this way I could build a monster stack pretty quick and increase my chances of making it first place or closer to first place. Problem is, I think my lose rate is going to go way up. But in the long run, im guessing its better to play loose and shoot for 1st place rather than just survive and make it to the money.
Im pretty new to the game of poker, ive started off with this extremely tight and conservative style of play. But as I learn more im finding myself to loosen up but I get knocked out at the early levels more often. I dont really care either, because in the end I always feel like ive done right by shooting high, and telling myself that the money I lose doesnt matter, because im always even. No need to worry about getting back my losses.
To address the original topic, I lose more than I win, normal right? I believe most accept this as normal because of MTT’s have such a high variance in skill; which affects the variance in results from the variance of play. Acceptance about things out of our control is why I believe when venturing in to other styles that come from other parts of our individual personalities; acceptance from trial and error parallels this thinking.
Explaining this does not change anything however, understanding the information from a book about how to play a style, how, when, where, and why has to be plugged in to each situation based on what the individual sees at the table. If a person is learning about LAG style the best a person could do is learn the concepts, theories about the style. People like what they see on T.V., a video, or other sources of information. I believe this is part of why I define most, not all, of the poker community as sheepul because they follow what they see, or read about poker. Because the information is only being narrated from the person’s perspective and what I understand about poker, we are who we are and we cannot be the person who is giving the information, but there might be a small percentage that can, then be successful?
For example, the last five years I have worked on LAG style not so much to use this style only but the decisions that come from this style to be used properly, consistently, when I change my introvert to extrovert personality for the reason that I am reading about the table, people consistently when I use this approach.
Both of my coaches are LAG players, however, when I try play like them I fall flat on my face. Why? I am not them and it is absurd to think that I can play with their skill set from my perspective. So, watching and taking notes, then applying their concepts, theories are the best I can do at this time until I get more personal experience. I have their ear all of the time which allows me to ask questions, and I still have the same pit falls as you explain here in this post. So, when people are reading, watching, and using information without being able to ask questions to the person whom is presenting the information? Why would a person including myself believe they are just as talented as the presenter? I believe how can I apply my level of skill set that is under my coaches and then think I am going to use their information the same way because they both have a higher skill set than mine about being a LAG; is it absurd to believe I can?
The same way a video or book is presenting the information, because the person who is presenting the information is obviously more talented than the person who is trying to improve from the information otherwise, why are they looking for new information? So, how can they be sure without a doubt what they are interpreting is proper for them? Applying it properly? Making the proper decisions? Mentally a person has to be realistic to what they want and can accomplish without knowing the person, without being able to ask questions? Being a researcher at the table helps with the getting the right information for the style they are trying to implement into their game. For example, to take notes through observation, trial and error, and journaling their thoughts. Adjusting their theories, concepts, and information through trial and error; otherwise, it is just basic information being used about a style without any added indepthness about the style. This is where I adjusted LAG information to better fit my personality, introvert, or extrovert. Without some adjustments in thinking about the information presented; this I believe is why most see a high variance in results without adjustments in stressful,pressure situaitons, from trying something different in their game, including myself.
I try and am consistent with decisions because no matter the style, the person who is successful will have better decision skill set than that of their opponents. The person who can make proper decisions, longer, more consistent over a longer period of time than their opponents; will have the edge over the long run, and the style chosen has little influence compared to when a person is properly making the right decision based on reads about their opponents. So, where I finish is not important because when I make better decisions than my opponents I will win in the long run, even if the variance of skill wins over my better decisions in the short term. I concentrate, focus, journal or take notes, observe this about myself and that of my opponents, this trumps what I am trying to do with my style of play. Glad to meet you and this is just some additional information to an already interesting topic of discussion.