Should I change my playing tactic?

    • tommi91
      tommi91
      Bronze
      Joined: 11.05.2007 Posts: 21
      Hi!

      Again I'm facing problems with players who manage to win my AA with 23o, I went all in pre-flop according to SHC (in that case it was flush for 23o guy). Anyway since I have 7.95$ left I'm thinking that the straetegy I'm ülaying is not so good against that kkind of a players. Ofcourse I win sometimes, but usually I loose against weaker starting hand. At the moment I'm playing 0.02/0.04 since I want to accomplish my bonus offer (100$). But with 1600 raked hands to go it's kind of a tricky one.

      So I ask if I should change my tactic because of n00b players who seem to luck all the time. I personally am thinking of never going all-in preflop, because of high risk getting some suited cards on flop or smth like that.

      Anyway what do you think.
  • 5 replies
    • Puschkin81
      Puschkin81
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.04.2006 Posts: 4,786
      Hi Tommi!

      I am sorry to hear that but in Poker everyone can get lucky in the short run. But in the long run your playing style - if you adopt the style we recommend here - will win! You should not change your preflop style if you play strictly the SHC! For example Aces win against 23o 86.4% of the time. That means there are 13.6% left and your opponent beats you 1 out of 7 times. In the short run it can happen that he wins twice or three times in a row, but in the long run you will win against him 6 out of 7 times.

      Maybe you have some leaks in your postflop play. I dont know. In order to be able to find these possible leaks I strongly recommend that you post some of your hands you played in the sample hand forum.

      Good luck!
    • altruist
      altruist
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.05.2007 Posts: 121
      It's amazing someone actually called you all-in with 23o preflop. Rarely anyone calls me when I raise all-in.

      I've found it actually helps to raise bets to a smaller amount though, it makes you look more serious if you want them to fold.

      That said, I want newbies to be calling me allin with 23o.. he really lucked out there, but like Puschkin81 said, you'll win most of the time.

      Exactly where do you find these players calling you all-in with 23o?! I wanna play! Who? :)

      I recommend not going all-in with any hand below KK. AK/AQ is not all-in worthy as it can miss, unless you're sure your opponent is only calling you with 23o.
    • altruist
      altruist
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.05.2007 Posts: 121
      Just read the short-stack strategy, and that's to never bring a large stack to the table.. sounds very effective. For example, since you have $12 remaining, you should divide it to as many stacks as you can, e.g. 6x$2.

      If you go all-in and get called with AA (which is more likely when you only have a $2 stack) you will win averagely 85% of the time. Meaning it is very likely that, even with more than average bad luck, you'll break even.

      If you are going broke with AA all-in, it's probably because you're risking too much on one hand. I agree it's nice to instantly double your bankroll, it's not worth the risk. Poker Theory defines what will happen over time, it doesn't guarantee your AA will win every hand.. in fact, it will fail you 15% of the time or close to 1 in 5, much higher than the chances of a plane crash (yet people fear that).

      For perspective: Would you bet your house (or everything you own) on a 1 in 5 chance of losing everything? Could you afford to lose it?

      What if I told you, that you could participate as many times as you want? What would be the optimal strategy to get the most money?
    • mchaggis
      mchaggis
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.09.2006 Posts: 157
      Originally posted by altruist
      Just read the short-stack strategy, and that's to never bring a large stack to the table.. sounds very effective. For example, since you have $12 remaining, you should divide it to as many stacks as you can, e.g. 6x$2.

      If you go all-in and get called with AA (which is more likely when you only have a $2 stack) you will win averagely 85% of the time. Meaning it is very likely that, even with more than average bad luck, you'll break even.

      If you are going broke with AA all-in, it's probably because you're risking too much on one hand. I agree it's nice to instantly double your bankroll, it's not worth the risk. Poker Theory defines what will happen over time, it doesn't guarantee your AA will win every hand.. in fact, it will fail you 15% of the time or close to 1 in 5, much higher than the chances of a plane crash (yet people fear that).

      For perspective: Would you bet your house (or everything you own) on a 1 in 5 chance of losing everything? Could you afford to lose it?

      What if I told you, that you could participate as many times as you want? What would be the optimal strategy to get the most money?
      Goin all-in (and getting called) preflop with AA is ALWAYS correct. (ok, there are extreme situations, but I don't think they happen often enough to even consider them).
      That's it.
      And 15% is much more like 1/7 than 1/5.

      The house thing is not a good comparison. You must not, at any point, think of a situation as how much can you lose, because this WILL cause you to make mistakes that are costly.

      However you put it: you should always bet when you have the better hand. That's it (mean for ring games, in tourneys this things don't match sometimes)
      If you go allin preflop with AA an lose, this is a part of that 100% you dont win. However, you will ocasionally win against AA with worse hand.
      Bad runs do happen, but with good play you can minimize the losses. AND!!! Good runs happen too, and with good play you can maximize the proffit. That's all.
    • altruist
      altruist
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.05.2007 Posts: 121
      I apologize for I think I wasn't entirely clear.

      I agree with you there, if you're going to get called, going all-in with AA is correct.

      The same with getting 4/5 chance of doubling your money, why wouldn't you?

      You're also right about the 1/7 being a lot closer to 15% and a lot more accurate. I was trying to illustrate an important point and I felt 1/5 was easier to grasp in concept.

      My point here is what most people call "bankroll management." There's a reason we don't invest it all in one hand/session, because 1/7 isn't that unlikely.

      I believe that's why Poker Strategy recommends the "short stack" strategy for NL, and why it's so ingenious. Aside from the fact you may be called more easily from the opponent's standpoint, it protects you from one important factor: losing too much money on the less likely but very possible.

      If bad runs rarely happens, we wouldn't have coined a name for it. Nor would poker professionals spend so much time finding other sources of income.

      Back to my house analogy:
      You would not invest your entire house into a 1/7 chance of losing all your money, but if you could do it multiple times, why not mortgage your house then divide it into 7 pots, and then try 7 times?

      You must never invest all your money into one egg. Unless you're the luckiest person in the world (in which case, you can just go all-in with nearly every hand) you will lose eventually.

      As far as getting beaten by a flush, the probability of someone drawing a flush by the river is roughly 6-7%.

      If anyone still has trouble understanding, here's the summary:
      Poker Strategy is winning in the long run. Odds are used as a guideline for what is likely to happen if repeated many times. Which is why it is important to play poker in a long-run strategy, not a 'bet everything and hope to win' strategy. This does not mean "don't go all-in" but rather "don't spend your entire bankroll on a few hands."