Is it possible to simply be not able to win no matter what?

Okay, this may sound insane, but here's the deal: I play every Sunday a small game of poker with my friends, where bets are limited at 50 cents and each person buys in $10. I have applied, in all cases, the sound strategies learned by reading the book "Winning in Low-Limit Texas Hold 'em" and by posting on this site. I have learned the psyche of my opponents, who are calling stations if they have decent to good hands and instant folders if they have half-way decent hands. I also know that they are really not very 'good' poker players; they do not understand the strategies behind computing pot odds, behind playing tight in situations where the psyche of your opponents is as I have stated above.

I'm not bragging, I'm only saying that I'm 'technically' the most knowledgeable poker player at the table, and I'm saying this to make a point: in the past five poker games, out of 115 hands, I have won 10, and have gone out every single time. I only bet when the odds are good; I anticipate what my opponents will do according to their habits and factor that into my strategy. I fold when it is strategically sound, and bet the odds when I do go in.

I have lost 105 hands simply because I have not had the cards. I have had flushes beaten by full houses. I have only played to the river on a pair of cards that resulted in a full house once--because in all the other hands I have had which have resulted in full houses, I folded earlier according to the strength of my cards, my position, pot odds, etc., because it was simply more prudent to fold before the river--and was beaten by four of a kind. The loss is less painful then it could be, since we only buy in ten bucks, but nonetheless I have lost fifty dollars playing smart poker.

Is it really possible to be that unlucky? I know you may not believe me, and you might think this is a joke post, but I'm actually being serious. I have seriously lost 105 hands, having went to great lengths to read up on key strategies and played accordingly. Perhaps it's really pointless to post this in the first place, since there is nothing I can do.

Perhaps the only thing I want to know is if anyone around here knows someone who has been just as unlucky? If so, what did he/she do? Should I just stop playing? I have fun playing with my friends, but losing all the time just frustrates me and I can't enjoy myself as much. Any thoughts? Can you truly be 'cursed' in poker?

Here is your problem. 115 hands is nothing. I know for a fact I had a streak of 100 hands to start one of my sessions where I did not win a single hand. It is possible for somebody who usually soundly beats a game to go on long streaks(we're talking 100,000+ hands) where they don't make much of anything. Poker in the short term is almost purely a game of luck(In terms of a local home game that you play with your friends once or twice a week for a few hours, it will take you a LONG time to get out of that short term).

Originally Posted by urobolus

out of 115 hands, I have won 10

How many hands are you expecting to win? A 10% winrate is very good in limit.

Do you mean that you've entered into 115 hands? or you've been at the table for 115 hands whether you were in or not?

IF, and this is a big IF, you came into what is technically sound (right around 25% of the hands) which would be about 30, and you won ten of those hands, then, you're doing really well.

IF you've been in 115 different hands, over the course of right around 600 or 700, and only won ten, then yes, you're seeing a low point.

It sounds to me like you're playing a friend house game with some of the guys from work or a few college buddies, and not a casino ring game. First and foremost, the two games are entirely different entities. If you actually try to ONLY play hands that do well in 15$/30$ Casino play, you're actually hurting yourself. There's a problem with poor players called "Schooling" in reference to the terminology that they are also thought of as "Fish"

Here's the trick, no-one respects your pre-flop raise with AA, and 5 other guys call with garbage.. Even against 5 other random garbage hands, you win less than 50% of the time. It hurts, but it's the truth.

The trick to the "home poker game" is to simply fold more than your opponents, not more than the pro's!!! If they are playing any Ace, you should play any Ace with an 8 or better. If they are playing unsuited 3 gappers, you should stick with unsuited connectors, and suited 1 gappers.

To put it simply, the home game is for fun, boozin (as long as it ain't a problem), and being a guy among guys.
You can still be a winner, but the games are more... how do I put this... random. Most of my home games, I'm a consistant loser until one HUGE hand which puts me over or breaks me even.. But at home I like to build pots, and jam up drawing hands unfavorably. At the casino, I'm very well known, and very well respected for being a grinder of the worst sort. Tight, aggressive, and focused.

Bye the way, just to lighten the mood, I leave you with George Carlin.
... They say you can't win 'em all. But that's just not true! There's a man in Whippersville Conneticut, that has won 1 million, 472 thousand, 735 straight. What has he won? I don't know! But what I do know is that he's won every single one of 'em. On the flip side of the coin. It is possible to lose them all too. If you can win 'em all, you can lose 'em all too!

When I play nickel-and-quarter home games with my friends, I am generally in a state of mind where I wouldn't be able to pass a walk-the-line test (the PC term is "suffering from a case of acute sobriety-deficiency"). So I frequently lose the $20 I buy in for plus the $10 I stole from the guy sitting next to me when he wasn't looking.

Chances are, if I approach home games that way with whatever technical knowledge of poker I have, your friends with no techinical knowledge of poker are probably approaching the game in that same way.

So they are probably taking your $10 when you are not looking, and that is why you are losing.

P.S. On a more serious note, 115 hands is a VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE. I've had streaks of thousands of hands where I've lost money, and I'm sure some people have had negative streaks in the ten-thousands of hands range. But I'm still winning at a healthy rate overall. 115 hands really is nothing. Losing $50 with bets of $.50 is just a mundane short-term bad streak. Just keep playing well, and don't forget to have fun (and don't forget to keep your guard up...).

Originally Posted by thenonsequitur

When I play nickel-and-quarter home games with my friends, I am generally in a state of mind where I wouldn't be able to pass a walk-the-line test (the PC term is "suffering from a case of acute sobriety-deficiency"). So I frequently lose the $20 I buy in for plus the $10 I stole from the guy sitting next to me when he wasn't looking.

Chances are, if I approach home games that way with whatever technical knowledge of poker I have, your friends with no techinical knowledge of poker are probably approaching the game in that same way.

So they are probably taking your $10 when you are not looking, and that is why you are losing.

P.S. On a more serious note, 115 hands is a VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE. I've had streaks of thousands of hands where I've lost money, and I'm sure some people have had negative streaks in the ten-thousands of hands range. But I'm still winning at a healthy rate overall. 115 hands really is nothing. Losing $50 with bets of $.50 is a mundane short-term bad streak. Just keep playing well, and don't forget to have fun (and don't forget to keep your guard up...).

rofl

What brand of sunglasses are you wearing?

Im on a streak of 15k of hands at 6max where I am down a lot.

lol, alright, that makes me feel a little bit better. If 115 isn't that much, then I guess I can discount the 'curse' theory. Maybe a few rabbit feet will do me some good, though...

And I'll take into consideration what you're saying about the 'unschooled' thing and playing the hands tight but not too tight.

The sunglasses are black Ray-Ban wayfarers, and I've got one heck of a poker face; but, like I said, it hasn't helped much. In fact, that's one of the running jokes amongst my friends: "If having a good poker face earned you money, then you wouldn't be broke all the time; but you are! [insidious chuckling ensues]"

It does make me wonder though how exactly the poker players you see consistenly every year at the World Poker Tournament can keep winning when both the input and the result of the game is randomized.

But maybe the randomization inherent in the game is less of a factor of that level; all I know about no-limit Texas Hold 'Em is what 'Winning in Low-Limit Texas Hold 'Em' says about it: playing well in no-limit Texas Hold 'em requires a whole new set of skills aside from the ones you will need to play well in Limit. But, then again, you can always play well and lose, so c'est la vie...

short term is something totally different from long term, all our strategies will maximize profit in long term... so short term yes long term it's also yes... because in the short term variance and bad luck mixed with bad play will take your money, in the long term bad play taken advantage of by solid player thus they can't win no matter what they don by playing the way that they do...

Originally Posted by urobolus

The sunglasses are black Ray-Ban wayfarers

There's your problem. Switch to Oakley Thumps immediately.

Heard those thumps were quite uncomfortable. Dog the Bounty Hunter wears them, though. And he's a badas..

Originally Posted by koolmoe

Originally Posted by urobolus

The sunglasses are black Ray-Ban wayfarers

There's your problem. Switch to Oakley Thumps immediately.

Sunglasses at limit...

You know you're a true pro when you were sunglasses to a limit game...

If your going to get some shads for poker get those ones Greg R wears those are the coolest thing out there...

haha...

Pretty soon we'll have posts where a guy's poker career consists of one hand and he lost it and makes a 1 page post about it.

Dang, that was my next post

Could it also be a bit of frustration because your buddies know you are knowledgeable about the game, and when you make lots of +EV plays and don't get rewarded, they don't know that you are playing correctly.

I never play holdem with my friends (it's dealer's choice stuff like 7/27, follow the queen, etc). For me that's way more fun, and a great break from holdem. I'd feel real uncomfortable playing LHE with my buddies, because they know I play on-line lots.

Playing Holdem with my friends is not something I want to deal with at a Saturday fun game.........I think it would be just too hard to relax and have fun. I'd rather play wild card games and toss back a few and relax.

"Pretty soon we'll have posts where a guy's poker career consists of one hand and he lost it and makes a 1 page post about it."

C'mon, you don't have to be so abrasive

"Playing Holdem with my friends is not something I want to deal with at a Saturday fun game.........I think it would be just too hard to relax and have fun. I'd rather play wild card games and toss back a few and relax."

It's not that I don't have fun because I'm so concentrated on winning...I wouldn't mind losing all my money if it was just a matter of losing on big hands and winning smaller ones. It's losing all the hands that makes me grumble. And all in all, I do enjoy just playing with my friends, it's just that I have trouble believing I'm not cursed nowadays...(/semi-sarcasm)

And were you guys actually serious when you said there are people who have had 100,000 hands losing streak? That just seems...statistically absurd...

What are your statistics based on? I dont really see anyone that even mentioned 115k of hands anywhere.

Originally Posted by urobolus

"And were you guys actually serious when you said there are people who have had 100,000 hands losing streak? That just seems...statistically absurd...

I've personally had one or two pretty long losing or break even streaks. On the order of 10K hands. But I wasn't playing well.

Sorry about the sunglasses thing. I have a weird sense of humor.

Yeah, I agree that the home games are for fun. It's tough to play 'real' poker when everyone's talking, the music is loud and the beer is flowing. Play online or a B&M to get a feel for how the game is "intended" to be played, then maybe you can get a re-appreciation for how silly some home games can get. If everyone is playing for $10 and $20 a crack, they are probably going to act like it. Kinda like playing the Play Money games @ Party.

-Kes

to ihategnomes:

another poster said this:

" It is possible for somebody who usually soundly beats a game to go on long streaks(we're talking 100,000+ hands) where they don't make much of anything."

I suppose it was wrong to generalize that into a fact that someone has had that many losing hands.

But, statistically, the law of averages says that considering the different division of possible winning hands, the number of cards in the deck, the number of players, etc., of the course of that many hands it would seem to follow (if one plays good poker that maximizes potential profit) that the victory rate would reach a median represented in a Poisson distribution.

But I'm an English and Philosophy professor, so my statistical skills are rusty.

Originally Posted by koolmoe

I've personally had one or two pretty long losing or break even streaks. On the order of 10K hands. But I wasn't playing well.

a lot of people wouldn't admit that.

Originally Posted by pokerfanatic

Originally Posted by koolmoe

Originally Posted by urobolus

The sunglasses are black Ray-Ban wayfarers

There's your problem. Switch to Oakley Thumps immediately.

Sunglasses at limit...

You know you're a true pro when you were sunglasses to a limit game...

If your going to get some shades for poker get those ones Greg R wears those are the coolest thing out there...

haha...

I hate those stupid glasses. What type of yes-men does that dude hang out with, to be lying to him all this time telling him the glasses are cool?

In terms of this thread, um...
I lost six buy-ins in NL in about an hour and a half last night.
It was a hell of a thing. And every single time all the money went in, I was at least a 70% favourite.
There was:
KK < AJo
KK < A7o
KK < JJ
AA < QQ
AK < 62o (wtf?) and
2pair undercards < pair J post flop

That's six right..? You'r talking limit and this is no-limit, but the same concept applies, you pull the trigger when you have the best of it, and sometimes shit just happens.

you pull the trigger when you have the best of it

Limit is a lot different. A lot of times your pulling the trigger when you know your behind because you have odds to. In NL you can pass a lot of smaller edges in favor of beating them over the head with larger ones.

Originally Posted by ihategnomes

you pull the trigger when you have the best of it

Limit is a lot different. A lot of times your pulling the trigger when you know your behind because you have odds to. In NL you can pass a lot of smaller edges in favor of beating them over the head with larger ones.

True. Though I'd say, even if you're behind, but are getting the odds in your favour to pull the trigger, you still theoretically have the best of it.
The one thing we can all defintely agree on, however, is that shit happens, no?

One thing overall I have noticed when I have played NL is that, for me, oftentimes betting the pot odds doesn't work so well.

Just to get our terminology on track (sorry if I'm insulting your intelligence, I just don't want any confusion over terms), I'm talking about the ratio of possible money you will gain (the total money in the pot) to the strength of your hand. The book ("Winning at Low-limit Texas Hold 'em") says that it's always a good idea to bet if you have good pot odds, even if you're unsure you have the best hand.

Ex: all bets are in, you're at the c/o, it's to you, its 25 cents (the big blind is 10 cents, so they've all raised and called 15 cents). You are a 6:1 underdog to have the nuts. 25 cents multiplied by six is $1.50. If there is $1.50 in the pot or more, then it's a sound bet to call.

^^^Even when I was not on my insane losing streak, that type of betting always seemed to just lose me money. Anyone have any suggestions as to why? I can't figure it out...

because

A) You aren't thinking long term enough.
B) How are you figuring youre a 6:1 underdog, without knowing your opponents hands?

Originally Posted by urobolus

But, statistically, the law of averages says that considering the different division of possible winning hands, the number of cards in the deck, the number of players, etc., of the course of that many hands it would seem to follow (if one plays good poker that maximizes potential profit) that the victory rate would reach a median represented in a Poisson distribution.

But I'm an English and Philosophy professor, so my statistical skills are rusty.

poisson distribution??? so...you wanna calculate the probability of winning 30 hands in a sample of 100 hands....hmmmm

since you said you're rusty at statistics, i'll let you off the hook. others have already soundly proven that you need an insane number of hands to get a 95% confidence interval on your win rate. it's an insane amount...like half a million for 95%.

Originally Posted by |~|ypermegachi

Originally Posted by urobolus

But, statistically, the law of averages says that considering the different division of possible winning hands, the number of cards in the deck, the number of players, etc., of the course of that many hands it would seem to follow (if one plays good poker that maximizes potential profit) that the victory rate would reach a median represented in a Poisson distribution.

But I'm an English and Philosophy professor, so my statistical skills are rusty.

poisson distribution??? so...you wanna calculate the probability of winning 30 hands in a sample of 100 hands....hmmmm

since you said you're rusty at statistics, i'll let you off the hook. others have already soundly proven that you need an insane number of hands to get a 95% confidence interval on your win rate. it's an insane amount...like half a million for 95%.

Is this true for 95% confid 500k?
Insane number.
I want to see the analysis.
Any links?

Okay, this may sound insane, but here's the deal: I play every Sunday a small game of poker with my friends, where bets are limited at 50 cents and each person buys in $10. I have applied, in all cases, the sound strategies learned by reading the book "Winning in Low-Limit Texas Hold 'em" and by posting on this site. I have learned the psyche of my opponents, who are calling stations if they have decent to good hands and instant folders if they have half-way decent hands. I also know that they are really not very 'good' poker players; they do not understand the strategies behind computing pot odds, behind playing tight in situations where the psyche of your opponents is as I have stated above.

I'm not bragging, I'm only saying that I'm 'technically' the most knowledgeable poker player at the table, and I'm saying this to make a point: in the past five poker games, out of 115 hands, I have won 10, and have gone out every single time. I only bet when the odds are good; I anticipate what my opponents will do according to their habits and factor that into my strategy. I fold when it is strategically sound, and bet the odds when I do go in.
Here is what I though my friend.
since you playing every sunday then this is just 1 session to you everyone have up and down session.
I have a very bad session today myself. I was down $120 in 400 hand I played today at Pacific poker 3/6
I play tight aggressive type
play 62 hands and went to showdown 27 hands
my showdown record is bad only 6-27 in those 21 loss 15 of those hand I was big fav. until the river.....
I lost the session but I'm very happy of myself.
Mostly b/c of bad session but I manage to los the minimize of it. I also have great read on my opp. which end up save me couples of BB.
If you think you do the right thing and things not on your side. Try again next sunday. Don't give it up just yet. It happen to me the whole month on Jan. which until 3rd of January I'm still down $1200. But I do get over it and the rest of the month I cameback and won $625. Hey it's not much but better than a losing month do you think.
Good luck on your game

Originally Posted by |~|ypermegachi

others have already soundly proven that you need an insane number of hands to get a 95% confidence interval on your win rate. it's an insane amount...like half a million for 95%.

You can compute a 95% confidence interval from any number of hands. You only need 500-700K hands if you want an extremely accurate estimate of your win rate (like within 0.1 BB/100 of your "true" win rate).

Originally Posted by stingo0

Is this true for 95% confid 500k?
Insane number.
I want to see the analysis.
Any links?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...15&page=0&vc=1

"How are you figuring youre a 6:1 underdog, without knowing your opponents hands?"

I was just throwing 6:1 out there. Let me give a real example.

I'm at the c/o and I've flopped a spade flush draw (two spades in hand, two on the flop). The odds of making my flush on the turn are 38:9 (13 spades in the deck, I've seen four, so there are nine more. I've seen a total of five cards. That leaves 47 unseen cards, of which nine are the spades I want to see. There are thus 38 cards that do not give me my flush).

We can round that to 4:1; the bet comes to me and its 25 cents, with the BB being 10 cents and all players in. If there is at least one dollar (25 multiplied by 4) in the pot I'm betting the pot odds well.

...but for some reason it doesn't work very well.

quit being results oriented!!!

if you are getting 6:1 then you are expecting to win roughly 1 out of every 7 times that situation comes up.

How many times do you think these situations have come up in 100 hands? You probably havnt even had 7 of them yet. You sound like you might have had an unlucky run of the cards but youve only really just started playing. Alot of these guys get through 100+ hands in an hour and dont bat an eyelid if they finish that hour down. Focus more on playing correctly than you do on results and most importantly of all, try and have some fun with your mates instead of taking it so seriously.

BTW, I was wondering does anyone else know if alterations on poker like Omaha are any less random?

I'm kind of burned out on Texas Hold'em after losing once again and want to put it on the shelf for awhile (don't worry, I'll be back eventually posting stupid questions on this website). Are there any games you guys know of that are less random but still retains that same poker spirit?

And when I say less random I mean merely that in a limit game like I'm playing, there's more of a focus on pure skill (and less of a focus on luck) and thus losing streaks are more likely to be attributed to a lack of skill?

And, just for the sake of curiosity, how does the 'feel' of Omaha contrast to the feel of Hold'em? I assume some of you have played it--is it something that you could play with your buddies once a week?

I heard War is a game strictly of luck with no skill involved.

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

I heard War is a game strictly of luck with no skill involved.

That's why I play with a doubling cube...

"I heard War is a game strictly of luck with no skill involved."

Excellent; now think of a poker-esque game of the exact opposite nature and that might be what I'm aiming for.

Originally Posted by urobolus

"I heard War is a game strictly of luck with no skill involved."

Excellent; now think of a poker-esque game of the exact opposite nature and that might be what I'm aiming for.

I think his point is that there is no poker game that doesn't rely heavily on luck. The pure fact that the cards you are dealt in every game are random means that luck will play a large role in the short term. What you are looking for is a stratagy game that doesn't rely much on luck, which means you want a game like chess even though it isn't a card game.

try omaha hi/lo. if you follow strategy it's pretty hard to lose. but following proper strategy is really hard. anyways, you don't play a lot of hands because you need all 4 cards to be coordinated, and most of the time must have good chances for both hi and lo, or extremely strong hi. you want to scoop the pot.

once the flop comes, you already see 7 of the 9 cards of your hand. basically, the turn and river don't really do much as far as hand strength.

it's pretty simple strategy to play to scoop. the hardest part about it besides the patience to wait for good cards (moreso than holdem) is to be able to fold all those straights and sets.

this is for low stakes.

Yeah, I've heard that omaha/8 has the lowest variance.

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

I heard War is a game strictly of luck with no skill involved.

You must not be very adept at cheating then. I always win at War =)

With regards to the original poster's quesion, I think low-limit FL Omaha Hi/Lo is the game with the least variance (at least of the most popular poker games). If you play it well you will have a HUGE edge over most of your opponents. Problem is that if you play it well it is VERY boring compared to hold'em (plan on folding a LOT). Also, I've not played much PL Omaha and never played NL omaha, so I can't say much about those games.

Also consider trying NL hold'em for a few thousand hands if you are fed up with the variance inherent in limit hold'em. I hear that NL played properly has considerably less variance than limit.

Originally Posted by thenonsequitur

If you play it well you will have a HUGE edge over most of your opponents. Problem is that if you play it well it is VERY boring compared to hold'em (plan on folding a LOT).

Uh no and no. First, your edge is only moderate (especially his) over the majority of his opponents.

Secondly, you can play nearly 2x as many hands in Omaha hi/lo than in holdem, so its not as boring at all, and thats why its very popular with the *cough* fishes.

Oh, I think the Game "BS" is a good card game as well and it kinda has some skill in it.

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

Uh no and no.

Eh, I neglected to mention the fact that I don't really have experience playing FL Omaha hi/lo either, so I'm really just making stuff up based on a small sample size and probably some bad strategy article I read somewhere. Thanks for correcting me.

Well, I'm just a novice myself but I get interest in that game and Stud 8 or better as well. I can do a good job though of just restating Cappelleti's book

I've heard good things about 8/b games, if you *always* play to scoop the pot, variance is very good supposedly.

I know the feeling; I'm currently going through a 2 month losing streak where I've lost $1900 (once I got down to $700 I played the rest of my money at the lowest limits party poker allowed. I've now busted and had to reload with another $100, but am determined to keep plugging away until I get it all back... you should see some of the beats I've encountered; I think I've lost with quads 5 times out of the 7 I've had them in the last 2 months... and boats over boats have occured way to often as well... variance sucks balls...

What stakes were you playing to bust your entire $1900 roll?

My downwards spiral started just as I moved up to 3/6 (300BB roll). Didnt stay there long. After I lost $350, went back to 2/4 then eventually back down to 1/2 and .5/1 with some 25NL where I lost the rest... I'm now starting again bonus whoring at AP at the .1/.25c tables... gonna grind it back up...

Ah....ya gotta love variance.

Can we just kill this thread?

Is it possible to simply be not able to win no matter what?

Given good enough play, and a large enough hand sample, no. A player who plays well enough to win, WILL win in the long term. Would suck if you were "that guy" that took 10 years to hit an upswing though. ;]

^^^But does it make sense to also lose consistently to players who will say things like "7To? I'd definitely play it, early position or not; I mean, you've got a nice straight draw and you could get a pair of tens or two pair" and "I don't really think much about position, I just go in on hands that look good" and pull straights on the river betting all the way with off-suited low two-gappers to beat your well-played AK two-pair EVERY TIME?

You'd think knowledge=power, but not when bad luck sticks it to you every time. (I've won three more hands than I had when I started this thread and the count is up to 380, and lost on the river playing the right cards so many times I can't count...)

...and yes, I guess we could kill this thread, as I imagine most everyone has become thoroughly annoyed with it...

stop counting your wins/losses. it's not doing you any good. go by money won, not pots won.

Or better yet, try not to think about pots won OR money won. Instead, think about the +EV situations you have put yourself in (as well as the -EV situations you have put yourself in).

Of course, in the end we are all here to make money, so it's not really possible to completely avoid thinking about how much you've won or lost. While it can occasionally be a motivational factor, it's usually just detrimental to think about results, or to dwell on your losses.

P.S. You mentioned in another thread that what bothered you was the lack of dignity inherent in losing pots to weaker players. But dignity (respect for the self, or self-regard) is a product of the ego, and the ego has no place at the poker table.

I would strong suggest you read and reread Small Stakes Hold Em by Sklansky and Miller.

Martin

[quote="euphoricism"]Can we just kill this thread?

[locked]