Results thinking/ Results oriented

  • 13 replies
    • Cagey
      Cagey
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.07.2011 Posts: 99
      results orientated = changing the way you play because you got sucked out on over a small smaple
      results thinking = changing the way you play to get better results over a large sample.
    • gp00053
      gp00053
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.12.2010 Posts: 154
      Originally posted by Cagey
      results orientated = changing the way you play because you got sucked out on over a small smaple
      results thinking = changing the way you play to get better results over a large sample.
      So Hero is a breakeven player who makes a concious effort to improve. He/she joins Poker strategy, watches video's, reads articles, gets some basic coaching etc. Hero's goal is to go from breakeven player over the next year to haveing a 5% ROI then upward and on

      So hero is in a 9person S&G on the bubble There's a big stack, 15bb more than the two equal stacks. Our Hero who has two equal stacks covered but by 5bb Both equal sacks go all in. Hero is holding KK if he/she folds is he/she results oriented or a results thinker.

      Both equal stacks are solid TAG player regs, the big stack is a Wk LAG who has been hitting miracles all game
    • Cagey
      Cagey
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.07.2011 Posts: 99
      I guess Hero is results orientated folding KK. Because he/she has folded what is almost certainly the preflop favourite because he/she thinks they will get sucked out on.

      If you played the hand over and over, calling with KK, you would win money in the long run.

      However I have to say thinking about it further and more literally, (I have, I admit confused myself). a results orientated person would be thinking about what has happened most recently and altering their style due to it.

      A results thinker could be exactly the same, but the name doesn't specify what they are doing once they have thought about it (Ie a results orientated player may have thought about it and come to the conclusion the most recent thing which has happened should define how they play).

      May I ask, what has prompted this question? Why does it matter what the two mean?

      Apologies if that response is hard to decipher.....
    • gp00053
      gp00053
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.12.2010 Posts: 154
      Originally posted by Cagey
      May I ask, what has prompted this question? Why does it matter what the two mean?....
      Let me start off by saying thank you and I appreciated your thoughts.

      In answer to “what prompted the question” I first heard Collin Moshman say players sometimes confuse Results Oriented with Results Thinking, but he never went on to explain the difference. I have heard other coaches, players etc say for example, when someone says I want to get into the money first then I play for first place, they say that’s no good because the player is being results oriented. So conversely to me that would mean results thinking is good. But whenever I ask anyone what’s the difference, no one explains it. So I thought I would give the members of Poker Strategy a shot to explain the difference to me.

      Now as to why it matters; I’m a business man who plays poker. I know to be successful in business the first thing you do before you start is draw up a detailed business plan, then follow your plan, adjusting it if and when necessary. Your business plan is designed around short mid and long term goals. In my younger days I lifted weights. One of the first things I did was draw up a plan around what I was trying to achieve in the short, mid and long term; then followed the plan.

      Now to the present, and this is why it matters to me, I’m retiring from my current businesses to play poker and do some poker related things. I have drawn up a plan pertaining to short, mid and long term goals I want to achieve related to playing poker and the business of poker. I’m hoping by following my plan I will achieve the results I have laid out in my plan. So my plan and IMHO the two plans above are designed around achieving certain results based on a set of goals . . . . or they are results oriented. So I’m just wondering why being results oriented is bad
    • ghaleon
      ghaleon
      Black
      Joined: 17.10.2007 Posts: 5,877
      Imo result oriented in poker terms means that you think your play is good or bad based on result. Situation might be e.g. you flop flush draw and try to draw it when you have no odds. Now when you do hit that flush on river the play was great! But in reality you are just burning money in long run. Also play can be totally good and you lose, because you happened to be versus villains top range or you got sucked out. So results oriented player doesn't concentrate that much on his own decisions as long as results are good. Also he might start to doubt standard plays when he happen to lose those.
    • gp00053
      gp00053
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.12.2010 Posts: 154
      Originally posted by ghaleon
      Imo result oriented in poker terms means that you think your play is good or bad based on result.
      Besides Moshman's reference to it, here was another example given to me by a poker coach do a question I asked.

      Question My goal is to take 30 buyins at a micro level and build a bankroll and my experience to move up to the next level so on and so forth. My plan is to Number 1. Get into the money as much as I can 2. Once I get into the money, try to get to first as many times as possible. 3. Always try to learn somthing in every S&G tournament I play in to help me do better in the next S&G tournament I play in.

      So I have a choice I choose a. Finish 3 times in third place by not playing any hands on the button even when I have srong preflop starting hands or b. 1 time in first place by playing my strong starting hands, in 4 games of a reg S&G payout structure. If I choose a, am I right or wrong. to which the coach said you would be wrong, becase your thinking is results oriented. I don't think I am wrong because my thinking is results oriented.

      Now back to why is this important and why should we discuss this. I think it's important because many people tell us to always play for first place, it's better to finish 1 time in first than 3 times in third. I disagree, I think people who think like that are confusing making the best EV plays long term with short term results; "Always play for first"
      (On the other hand maybe I have to much time on my hands :rolleyes: )

      And thanks for the imput. I hope we get more
    • ghaleon
      ghaleon
      Black
      Joined: 17.10.2007 Posts: 5,877
      30 buyins is ok for aggressive bankroll management to start with. There is obviously increased risk to go bust, but that is not a problem as long as you understand that. After building roll bigger and moving to higher stakes it is advisable/mandatory to use safer BRM.

      Bubble is very important spot on sng games and being extremely tight is not something you should aim for. Obviously sometimes you end up in situation where your hands are locked and folding hands is only good option and making bad plays to increase 1st positions can be very costly. That because you have more to lose than gain. So obviously target is to look for those $EV+ spots and also remember that folding can be most profitable move you sometimes can do... And achieving 1st place is still possible with smallest stack :)

      So if bubble situation and villains play styles allow it try to be aggressive in bubble to abuse it. With aggressive style you will drop out of money sometimes even when starting it as big stack, but on some other times your situation will impove greatly during bubble.

      Same applies to in the money situation in 9+man sngs in lesser extend. E.g. giving pressure to middle stack can be very profitable if third player is with small stack. Or if both villains are with similar stack size they might get bit too tight and hope other one will drop earlier ---> Lot of tasty chips for bully chip leader to eat away!

      So look for good spots to give pressure.

      PS: Concerning different goals for your poker career. You should set goals that you really can control. E.g. I use x hours to study and I try to play x amount of games next month. So use goals like that and not some profit target as your poker playing is hopefully not the only income.
    • gp00053
      gp00053
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.12.2010 Posts: 154
      Originally posted by ghaleonPS: Concerning different goals for your poker career. You should set goals that you really can control. E.g. I use x hours to study and I try to play x amount of games next month. So use goals like that and not some profit target as your poker playing is hopefully not the only income.
      Great advice on the bankroll. The 30 buyins was an example. Personally I use 100 buyins for the level I’m playing at. My point was that in the example I used, the player’s goal was to build a bankroll, so if given the choice on finishing 3 times in third by not playing any hands or one time in first by playing strong hands, by choosing to finish in 3x in third would make the player results oriented and that’s not bad contrary to what some coaches say.

      Again great advice on the bubble, but personally I don’t aim to be tight or loose. I aim to play according to the particular bubble situation, based on my hands , my reads on the players and my overall goals. I think rather than aim for a particular canned strategy, it’s better to judge each situation individually at the time of occurrence and make the plays which you think based on the current information and options available will give you the greatest return with he least amount of risk.

      I strongly disagree with your thoughts on goals . I think that a player should set short, medium and long term goals and spend as much or more time than you should spend reviewing after every session you play, reviewing your goals to make sure you’re on track. Setting goals is just as or maybe even more important if you have income besides poker. Your goals should not only include study and playing time but profit goals as well. For example when I played STS&G micro stakes, I started with a short bankroll so I had a loss %, so if my bankroll went down a certain number I dropped down in levels instead of going broke. On the other side I never moved up a level unless I doubled my buyins for the level I was playing at. Proper bankroll and bankroll management should be one of your most important goals.

      IMHO if new players spend as much or more time setting short, medium an d long term goals then developing a detailed plan how to reach those goals and working their plan, not only learning ICM or how to read players, there would be a lot less new poker players in the poker players grave yard
    • VorpalF2F
      VorpalF2F
      Super Moderator
      Super Moderator
      Joined: 02.09.2010 Posts: 8,908
      I strongly disagree with your thoughts on goals . I think that a player should set short, medium and long term goals and spend as much or more time than you should spend reviewing after every session you play, reviewing your goals to make sure you’re on track. Setting goals is just as or maybe even more important if you have income besides poker. Your goals should not only include study and playing time but profit goals as well.
      You can set all the profit goals you please, but I think that it is only valid to set goals that you actually control. I presume you have a sufficient # of hands played (cash games) or tournaments played (SnGs) to know what your win rate will be at your chosen limits. You could then set volume goals that would achieve a certain profit. If you have played the required volume, you may or may not meet or exceed your profit target. If you do not know your winrate at your chosen limits, then that should be your first goal -- play a set volume and determine that. Your winrate is then your barometer for determining how well your are playing.

      My point is that you can control how many games you play. You do not control the profit. If you have not met your expected profit after the prescribed volume, then your winrate has dropped. Was it realistic to begin with? Has your game changed?

      It seems to me that increasing the volume just to meet an overly optimistic profit goal is a pretty good definition of tilt.
    • Akcus
      Akcus
      Bronze
      Joined: 22.12.2009 Posts: 156
      Making challenges for yourself is the most motivating thing i can think of for poker.
    • gadget51
      gadget51
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.06.2008 Posts: 5,622
      Seems to me that short and mid-term Goals would be, by necessity, results orientated, since they are usually steps toward an overall Aim?

      Each goal would thus be measurable within some set time span for example, but the overall AIm would be a too general to confine to a specific time/date or whatever.

      For example;
      Aim: to become a better poker player.

      Goals to achieve this:
      Short term: blah blah blah
      Mid Term: more blah blah

      Each Blah has a time frame for completion and collectively lead to the Aim.

      I don't write well so I hope this makes some sort of sense, but it is just an opinion.
    • gp00053
      gp00053
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.12.2010 Posts: 154
      Originally posted by gadget51
      Seems to me that short and mid-term Goals would be, by necessity, results orientated, since they are usually steps toward an overall Aim?

      Each goal would thus be measurable within some set time span for example, but the overall AIm would be a too general to confine to a specific time/date or whatever.

      For example;
      Aim: to become a better poker player.

      Goals to achieve this:
      Short term: blah blah blah
      Mid Term: more blah blah

      Each Blah has a time frame for completion and collectively lead to the Aim.

      I don't write well so I hope this makes some sort of sense, but it is just an opinion.
      I agree and that was my point.

      I think results oriented anything without a plan or goal is not a good thing, but as you said by neccesity a goal or plan is results oriented.
    • deezer79
      deezer79
      Silver
      Joined: 13.06.2011 Posts: 191
      [So my plan and IMHO the two plans above are designed around achieving certain results based on a set of goals . . . . or they are results oriented. So I’m just wondering why being results oriented is bad[/quote]I see results thinking as being math oriented and being results oriented is changing your game when the maths don't work out. When people run bad they get scared and don't play as they should in order to secure profit. If you focus on bad results you will never recoup your losses when the math evens out.
      Say you're in a cash game (I'm small time so play $.5/.1) and you get into it with someone who has also bought in for 100 blinds. You have KK and your opponent has AK, it would not be crazy for him to go all in pre-flop if you are playing your hand as hard as you should be and you will be about 70% to win this. Being ace magnets that kings are, your opponent hits one on the river and you're down $10. This is a shit result but you did the right thing in calling his shove. You can never fold there. If you get in a similar situation in the future you may be inclined to remember the result and fold your hand or play so passively that you only win the minimum.
      Naturally you will go on runs when that 30% chance of losing feels more like 70% and your bankroll is dropping hard. An analogy I like you use is one of flipping coins; if you were to flip a coin thousands of times there will likely be a time during that day when it'll land heads 20-30 times in a row. It's mathematically unlikely but it will happen.
      Just have to wait the beats out and hope your run ends soon. Hold to good bankroll management and you should be OK. Start playing like a pussy because the bad run is seeming endless and you may never earn back what you've lost.