This is how pokerstars rewards me for playing a stronger game

[odinscott]

seriously thinking of migrating to full tilt, i can handle getting beat by worse hands but not when its happening more then i win when im higher % to win

I am lately thinking the same thing, except I may drive the hour and a half to the casino.

Preaty simpe explanacionce "VARIENCE".

I play mostly on fulltilt but recently startet playing also on stars and i dont see any more bad beats there if any thing i see more on fulltilt

If you could see the beats that I have taken lately you may think differently. I am not a conspiracy theorist, where I think that PS gives a crap who wins, but I see so many beats online it is plain disgusting. If the simple fact is that players online suck so much and that is why I lose so many hands where I have the guy dominated then so be it. Regardless of the explanation, something isnt right to take the beats that I do. Am I bitter? Yup. My BR can handle it, because when they start I always drop to the smallest limits since I know that they dont stop. I have a hard time believing that there is this magical variance that makes it so, even though I am always in with the better hand, I am still losing money.

 

[smokin-aces]

Maybe you get more bad beats because you get your money in with the best of it all of the time.

So what should i do to maxmimise my profits? play like a wimp even when i know im holding the nuts? what a dillema

 

[BillyTheBull]

seriously thinking of migrating to full tilt, i can handle getting beat by worse hands but not when its happening more then i win when im higher % to win

As long as you keep blaming the venue for your beats, you'll never get to the point of being able to look past short-term results and play for long-term success. It's not Stars, or FT, or Cake, or your local casino, or how some guy shuffles the cards at your home game . . . it's just poker. (Sorry, yes, annoying expression, but true.) Bad beats, suck-outs, one-outers, etc. will happen no matter where you play and at what limits; some days they'll hurt you, some days they help you, and -- most importantly -- they are what keeps bad, mediocre, and plain recreational players come back to the table, which is exactly what makes the game profitable for serious and above average players IN THE LONG RUN (although not necessarily in any particular session, day, week, or even month).

 

[pokergod15]

consistancy

they key to poker is consistancy. consistantly sticking to what you know and do best. yeah sure, sometimes you have to switch up your style of play depending on the table, but you can't get mad at hands that hit, that you would have won had you not folded. poker is all about odds. in the long run you will lose money making that call. thats what you need to think about. sure sometimes it leaves that sick feeling but for those of us who play everyday and see a lot of similar situatoins. you will know that you made a good fold.

 

[Melkor]

seriously thinking of migrating to full tilt, i can handle getting beat by worse hands but not when its happening more then i win when im higher % to win

Why are you migrating to full tilt? Is the summer warmer there or something?

 

[smokin-aces]

Situation is reveresed for the donk:

pokerstars Game #*******: Tournament #******, $1.00+$0.20 Hold'em No Limit - Level III (25/50) - 2008/04/21 - 12:26:22 (ET)
Table '85574645 2' 9-max Seat #7 is the button
Seat 1: donk (1070 in chips)
Seat 2: me (1020 in chips)
Seat 3: Cockroach077 (1760 in chips)
Seat 4: RoodRoob (2920 in chips)
Seat 6: Bodie Grover (1855 in chips)
Seat 7: chucklee6144 (2920 in chips)
Seat 8: knochen444 (2045 in chips)
Seat 9: cleepy (1570 in chips)
knochen444: posts small blind 25
cleepy: posts big blind 50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to me [8h Qc]
donk: raises 1020 to 1070 and is all-in
me: folds
Cockroach077: folds
RoodRoob: folds
Bodie Grover: calls 1070
chucklee6144: folds
knochen444: folds
cleepy: folds
*** FLOP *** [Qs Kc 6h]
*** TURN *** [Qs Kc 6h] 2♥
*** RIVER *** [Qs Kc 6h 2h] 3♥
*** SHOW DOWN ***
donk: shows [5h 4h] (a straight flush, Deuce to Six)
Bodie Grover: shows [Jc Jd] (a pair of Jacks)
Bodie Grover said, "lol"
RoodRoob said, "wow"
donk collected 2215 from pot
Bodie Grover said, "figgers"
donk said, "haha you all suck"
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2215 | Rake 0
Board [Qs Kc 6h 2h 3h]
Seat 1: donk showed [5h 4h] and won (2215) with a straight flush, Deuce to Six
Seat 2: me folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: Cockroach077 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: RoodRoob folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Bodie Grover showed [Jc Jd] and lost with a pair of Jacks
Seat 7: chucklee6144 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: knochen444 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 9: cleepy (big blind) folded before Flop

 

[smokin-aces]

they are what keeps bad, mediocre, and plain recreational players come back to the table, which is exactly what makes the game profitable for serious and above average players IN THE LONG RUN (although not necessarily in any particular session, day, week, or even month).

I suppose bad-beats aren't the end of the world and the reason given above makes it not-so-bad to get a bad beat, please stop ripping into me for saying i might move to fulltilt, there is more reasons to this other than hoping to avoid the consistent bad beats i get at pstars, i also want to play against more solid opponents and according to a lot of people full tilt has a lot of tight solid players, at this stage i dont care about the profit $$ i just want to play against good competetion, anyone in the same boat? I find that playing against these super loose donks is definetly profitable at first but it keeps getting more frustrating then anything after a while (im working on avoiding tilt in this situation), i think that if i play against more solid opponents the only thing that can happen is my game will become more solid, is this the correct perception?

 

[mattsat]

thers is a lot of bs at stars only because of the players there is so many donks playing there limping in or calling a raise with any cards and this is how they play and how they donk u or any else so u cant really help that.
but there are still plenty of badbeats at other poker rooms

 

[BillyTheBull]

i dont care about the profit $$ i just want to play against good competetion, anyone in the same boat?

Uhh . . . no, not me, I do care about the profit, I couldn't care less about the "competition" . . . but hey, whatever works for you. BUT, if you honestly think that any large site (like FT, Stars, Ultimatebet, etc.) has "better" average players compared to another, I think you're grossly mistaken and just buying into hear-say or someone's personal opinion (or maybe you just believe it because you want to).

Personally, I base my decision as to where I play mainly on the quality of the software, bonuses (reload, deposit, rake back), the availability of cash games/limits I like (so I don't have to wait around on waitlists and half-empty tables forever), and the value I get for playing certain tournaments (overlays, added-money, low fees, etc.) -- all of which are hopefully factors that ultimately result in higher profitability/ROI/profit per hr for me.

 

[smokin-aces]

ok maybe i do care about the profit, but not as much as i care about developing a more solid game, i understand there will be fish no matter where you go, as of now im still at stars just playing higher stakes than usual, its amazes me that there is still donks at the $20 SNG

 

[Joe Slick]

Your first mistake was to limp w/ 23s from 2nd position in the first place.

I agree. Your only real future with these cards is a flush or a straight - the worst possible flush or nearly the worst possible straight. Even flopping a set leaves you in a vulnerable position.

This is chasing of the worst kind. Don't walk away from this one - run.

 

[rwilson]

i dont care about the profit $$ i just want to play against good competetion

Uh..no, not me either. All I care about is the profits.. the worse the competition is the better off I am

 

[smokin-aces]

at this stage i dont care about the profit $$ i just want to play against good competetion

if you think about the profit before you think about strategy then you will never get anywhere, ofcourse i care about profits but only in the long run, i want to win with solid game, not by lucking out and running into a few weak players.

 

[SavagePenguin]

If you're working on not chasing, once you've folded, forget your cards and just watch how the rest of the table plays.

I don't know if that's true exactly. If you can keep track of the times you would have wasted money, then you'll see it's not in your best interest. And those times you'd have hit a miracle when the pot is checked to the river... well... you wouldn't have won a lot because they didn't hit anything.

Before I played online I played a tournament according to a comment I read in a Phil Hellmuth book about how playing only the top 10 hands can get you to the final tournament in some amateur tournaments. I played his style as best I could, silently cursing him when I thew "pretty" hands like Q/J into the muck. But 2/3 of the time I missed the flop and would silently thank him for saving me $. And sometimes the hand I wanted to play would have resulted in me going bust. Mid way through the final table someone made a comment about bluffing, and I realized that I had gone all the way through the tournament without bluffing once. Bluffing hadn't even occurred to me. So I started bluffing, which advanced me to third place before finally busting when my 9/9 shove got beat by A/r.

So if you can be fair and keep track of all the times that folding has saved your bum, then keeping track of your hole cards will probably make future folds easier.

 

[BillyTheBull]

if you think about the profit before you think about strategy then you will never get anywhere, ofcourse i care about profits but only in the long run, i want to win with solid game, not by lucking out and running into a few weak players.

Ok, now I'm confused . . . you started this thread complaining how you (incorrectly, imho) played 23s from UTG, then (correctly) folded it on a flop that completely missed you, and then wouldacouldashoulda taken down a big pot when PS would have "rewarded" you with a one-in-a-million straight flush; but you don't care about the profit and want to play a more "solid game"?!? THEN, the thread went into something irrational along the lines of "PokerStars sucks, only bad players win there". . . .

But, the real point I think you are missing is this: there's no such thing as a singular, one-size-fits-all "solid game" . . . what works in one situation may not work at all in another, and what works for one particular player may also not work for another. In fact, all the elite players in today's poker world (especially now with hole-card cams, internet HHs, etc.) almost certainly are in that realm because of their ability to vary their playing styles to adapt to different situations and opponents -- they don't just play one strategy or style, they play a whole bunch of them, and the measure of success is PROFIT. I mean, how else are you going to figure out whether or not your game is actually getting more solid if you are not looking at its profitability? In the end, whether or not someone's game is "solid" can pretty much only be judged by its LONG-TERM profitability; poker is played for money, and if not for that benchmark, what else is there? (Further, one might also look at HOW profitable one's game is . . . one might argue, for example, that a ROI of 1% over, say, 10 years is really rather a waste of time, although it is technically profitable -- but that's beside the point here).

 

[smokin-aces]

OK now you are confusing me, you obviously missed the point (which is suprising even after my last post adding onto what i said), here it is again for those of you who dont read:

I understand the importance of profit and it really is the only reason im playing poker (90% profit/10%fun). The point is i just do not want to profit from playing a weak game and getting lucky because this is only short-term, i want to make money in the long run and to me this is only done when you play a solid game. I dont plan on playing online forever and i actually want to play in the big tournaments one day, i will never survive there if the best competetion ive had is lucky donks on pstars, this is the reason why i have been experimenting with higher stakes as-of-late.

You make good points in your second paragraph but how is any of that anything to do with getting sucked out/unlucky on pstars (which is what this thread is about)??

Got screwed (unlucky) again:

Table '85981783 2' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: isabel1226 (7570 in chips)
Seat 2: armsrace1 (1890 in chips)
Seat 4: SpadeD0G (10127 in chips)
Seat 6: Spoons04 (3750 in chips)
Seat 8: me (2588 in chips)
Seat 9: Aametsfan (1075 in chips)
isabel1226: posts the ante 25
armsrace1: posts the ante 25
SpadeD0G: posts the ante 25
Spoons04: posts the ante 25
me: posts the ante 25
Aametsfan: posts the ante 25
Spoons04: posts small blind 200
me: posts big blind 400
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to me [Qc Qd]
Aametsfan: folds
isabel1226: folds
armsrace1: folds
SpadeD0G: raises 400 to 800
Spoons04: folds
me : raises 1763 to 2563 and is all-in
SpadeD0G: calls 1763
*** FLOP *** [Jc 9d Qs]
*** TURN *** [Jc 9d Qs] [Kd]
*** RIVER *** [Jc 9d Qs Kd] [Ts]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
me : shows [Qc Qd] (a straight, Nine to King)
SpadeD0G: shows [Ac 6c] (a straight, Ten to Ace)
SpadeD0G collected 5476 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 5476 | Rake 0
Board [Jc 9d Qs Kd Ts]
Seat 1: isabel1226 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: armsrace1 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: SpadeD0G (button) showed [Ac 6c] and won (5476) with a straight, Ten to Ace
Seat 6: Spoons04 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 8: me (big blind) showed [Qc Qd] and lost with a straight, Nine to King
Seat 9: Aametsfan folded before Flop (didn't bet)

 

[BillyTheBull]

The point is i just do not want to profit from playing a weak game and getting lucky because this is only short-term, i want to make money in the long run and to me this is only done when you play a solid game. You make good points in your second paragraph but how is any of that anything to do with getting sucked out/unlucky on Pokerstars (which is what this thread is about)??

Got screwed (unlucky) again: ...

Oy . . . this conversation is going nowhere . . . here you go again with the "solid game" thing and the PokerStars stuff . . . I think I've said all I'm gonna say on the subject, so if you still don't get it, sorry. Anyway, if you are truly concerned with your long-term results, then why do you get all up in arms about short-term results? I'm sure that, if you took some time to analyze your HHs over the last couple of months or so, you would find just as many suck-outs that went in your favor as against, you just probably don't remember them. . . .

By the way, in the latest hand you posted here the villain's call was actually correct, so it's not really a suck-out; he was about a 2.2-1 underdog PF and he was getting almost 2.5-1 odds to make the call, PLUS, he's got you covered several times over, so really an easy call for him there. Yes, the odds say that your big pair will win in this situation 2 out of 3 times, but, hey, you're also going to lose 1 out of 3, so here you go.

 

[smokin-aces]

Thats the thing, it seems like even long-term wise im still getting donkd much too often, im (hoping) that it is way too early to see if this is true, so far my plan is to keep playing as i am and compare the ratio of getting sucked out to winning (when i have the advantage) and see if this comes close to the actual odds of the hands im holding, i think its still far too early to do this but its definetly "on the cards" for the future (pun intended).

Yes i agree last HH was correct call by villian, note i didnt say it was a "suck out" situation reversed i probably wouldn't have made the same call (i was playing TAG) so i would have put myself on AJ-AQ-AK-AA-KK heck even A10 would be better (A rag are you kidding me?) but i suppose he had the stack to roll the dice so props for that, its definetly far from a bad-beat (compared to what i have had before).

Thanks for your input bull, it really is much appreciated (every reply is), the information you provided is valuable so please dont get the wrong idea, you are probably much more experienced then me so i have the "sponge effect" (soak up much info as i can) many thanks

 

[BuffaloDolly]

I don't understand the thread or question if there is one. You folded the worst hand you could have had at the moment. Just because something happens that will occur once every 2500 hands, that doesnt mean you should play your crap the next time.

 

[NineLions]

I don't know if that's true exactly. If you can keep track of the times you would have wasted money, then you'll see it's not in your best interest. And those times you'd have hit a miracle when the pot is checked to the river... well... you wouldn't have won a lot because they didn't hit anything.

Before I played online I played a tournament according to a comment I read in a Phil Hellmuth book about how playing only the top 10 hands can get you to the final tournament in some amateur tournaments. I played his style as best I could, silently cursing him when I thew "pretty" hands like Q/J into the muck. But 2/3 of the time I missed the flop and would silently thank him for saving me $. And sometimes the hand I wanted to play would have resulted in me going bust. Mid way through the final table someone made a comment about bluffing, and I realized that I had gone all the way through the tournament without bluffing once. Bluffing hadn't even occurred to me. So I started bluffing, which advanced me to third place before finally busting when my 9/9 shove got beat by A/r.

So if you can be fair and keep track of all the times that folding has saved your bum, then keeping track of your hole cards will probably make future folds easier.

Well, I didn't intend this so much as a blanket statement. For example, in a tourney someone shoves, you fold your XX hand that you were going to raise with. Someone calls and you find your hand was well ahead of what the player shoved with. Keep that in mind for future play. But don't agonize over having folded your 54 because you would have hit a straight this time.

I'm suggesting for someone who has a chasing issue that they've got to detach themselves a little more from their cards. Just let 'em go.

Tracking the results is not a bad idea, but when you look a the amount of time/effort that would go into that, combined with variance during the most crucial period (the short period right after starting), I think it's more beneficial just to look past them in the short term.


And playing aggressively with position, with a chip stack, against weak players or with any two cards is not the same as chasing draws which is the what the OP is trying to stop.

 

[smokin-aces]

Already have started to see better results by not chasing (unless the pot odds are super juicy or i can play like i have a big hand and get respected), i find that with the decent players if you semi-bluff (when really you are chasing which i have stopped doing unless i sense weakness) it works well because i have the option of a c bet that usually gets them out (maybe it was them that was chasing??). I have definetly started looking past the short-term, i can also take bad beats much better then before (coming back from super short stack to place in the money helped my confidence).

Thanks for all the replies, this is by far the best place for advice!!!

 

[BillyTheBull]

Thats the thing, it seems like even long-term wise im still getting donkd much too often, im (hoping) that it is way too early to see if this is true ...

Thanks for your input bull, it really is much appreciated (every reply is), the information you provided is valuable so please dont get the wrong idea, you are probably much more experienced then me so i have the "sponge effect" (soak up much info as i can) many thanks

No problem . . . forgive me if I seem to get a little harsh or impatient at times, it's never personal; ultimately, a good discussion only works if there are different view points and philosophies, so naturally some disagreement is unavoidable, but that's what makes it all fun and worthwhile, right?!! I definitely always learn something new myself whenever I try to answer a question, rebuttal, or criticism (of my own play, comments, etc.); after all, there is no single "correct" way to play poker, no matter how "standard" a situation may look at first glance.

As to your short-term/long-term thoughts above, I would say that you'd need at least a few thousand hands at any particular game/limit combination to get useful information for statistical analysis, but a sample size of 10,000+ is ideal; if you only have, say, a few hundred hands' worth, your data may give you some clues and indicators into possible leaks, etc. but will in no way accurately show your profitability, because the chance factor is just much too great in a sample of that size.

 

[rick15]

This is how pokerstars rewards me for playing a stronger

You have a lot about bad beats in texas holdem poker play. What exactly is a bad beat? Well, in short, it's having the dominant hand only to lose on the turn or river when a card hits that gives your opponents the winning hand. Bad beats drive texas holdem poker players crazy. Which is why what I'm about to say may surprise you. Bad beats are a good thing. Now how can that possibly be?

Using software to generate your own binaural beats should be simple.

Omaha Poker Strategy - OmahaPoker.com

 

[BillyTheBull]

Using software to generate your own binaural beats should be simple.

"Binaural"??? What in the hizzie is that?? Anyway, I wouldn't call bad beats "good" -- in fact, they suck, but they are a natural and necessary part of the game of poker, you're right about that. Having said that, I think the term "bad beat" is also grossly overused by players who often don't understand that, just because they are ahead PF or on the flop, their hand isn't necessarily the favorite to win.

 

[BrentD22]

HUH?