Becoming a poker genius in one week

[Occasionally]

That is not how anyone who plays a lot of poker, or gambles a lot, or even risks money in financial market would consider it.

Just sticking with the poker, the card player who spends all his time playing, is only looking for a very slight incremental edge. With that edge, he will win in the long run.

Like the game casino blackjack and the card counting, to count cards correctly will overcome the house's edge and give the player a 1% edge.

That 1% edge is so great, that the casino will ban you if they catch someone counting cards at the BJ tables.

That is not luck, that is math.

If the poker player plays his cards right, over someone does not, he has the mathematical edge to win over players who do not in the long run.

It is not luck. It is math. It is inevitable.

:blabla:

And that's the point I'm making. No matter how skillful or proclaimed "poker pro" someone is, the edge is minimal. And also a long run thing to ensure it works. And that assumes someone is a pro counting cards, playing the percentages very well.

A pro playing against scrubs should have a much larger gap, in turn wiping out the table should be common, but that isn't true.

Play cards with any group of people and some are better than others. The best player at the table with the most experience doesn't always win. Probably doesn't even win everything 50% of the time. There's going to be times someone who doesn't know a lot about cards gets some lucky cards, gets some lucky bluffs and wins by pulling cards to make a better hand after people go all in.

Cards and any game involving lots of dice tossing is always going to have a very important luck factor involved.

 

[black booty lover]

The way I see it is this:

The reason poker is so difficult is because even if your very good, it's usually not good enough. For example, I preferred playing 12 person sit-and-go's that consisted of two tables of 6. So because there was only 12 people in the tournaments, your chances of winning were better than most tournaments but the pay out was smaller. 3rd place got you a bit better than your money back, and 2nd and first got you about X2 and X3 the money you put it. So the problem is, most of the time I would finish in a least 3rd, and as mentioned above, just getting a bit more than my money back, (not to mention the time I was investing into it), and sometimes 2nd and first. So in order to make any money, you pretty much need to come in 2nd or first most of time, meaning you gotta play better than 10 players every time. What makes it more difficult is even if you finish 2nd two times in a row, but finish 4th (outside the money) in the next tournament, your almost at even again. So unless your coming in 2nd or first almost every time, your going to lose. So like I said, even for someone like me that would finish in the money most times, (being better than most people at the table) it's not good enough. You have to be better than 10 or 11 other people almost every time.

Now you can play in the bigger tournments where the payouts are bigger, but finishing in the money is even tougher, and luck plays a much bigger part. When your sitting around waiting for a playable hand at a table of 9, you'll probably wait longer while the blinds keep going up putting the stress on you more and more to play a marginal hand, or you finally that AA you've been waiting for, but because your at a table of 9, 3 other people call you on it, and you get knocked out of the tournament going all in on your AA to someone that called you with AJ and hits a straight.

 

[sempel]

That is not how anyone who plays a lot of poker, or gambles a lot, or even risks money in financial market would consider it.

Just sticking with the poker, the card player who spends all his time playing, is only looking for a very slight incremental edge. With that edge, he will win in the long run.

Like the game casino blackjack and the card counting, to count cards correctly will overcome the house's edge and give the player a 1% edge.

That 1% edge is so great, that the casino will ban you if they catch someone counting cards at the BJ tables.

That is not luck, that is math.

If the poker player plays his cards right, over someone does not, he has the mathematical edge to win over players who do not in the long run.

It is not luck. It is math. It is inevitable.

:blabla:

Well I disagree based on personal experience. The funny thing is there's some on here who assume that I'm a poor player because losses overall are greater than wins so I must be making incorrect decisions. Having seen the cards face up, having worked out percentages, I'm damn sure I'm making the correct decisions way more often than not. Yes, occasionally I will have an off night where I'm calling someone with just a pair and they turn over a set or a straight - I thought they were bluffing and I was incorrect. There are many times, especially in tournaments where you are all in pre-flop or on the flop given the chips involved. So you lose because the other player started off with a better hand and it held up. I'm not blind to these occurrences and don't mistake them for bad luck. But I've been knocked out in a number of tournaments due to the 2nd best hand drawing out, not because the other player was more skilled and got me to commit with the 2nd best hand.

BTW, the key with counting cards is also to vary your bets when the count is in your favor otherwise you bet the minimum. Think about this. If you played the same bet over and over, say $100 per hand, in general you might only end up with $100 or $200 winnings every 100 hands, assuming the odds hold up. Probably doesn't make the most sense as you would have to play for extended periods in order for that profit to slowly grow.

And that's the point I'm making. No matter how skillful or proclaimed "poker pro" someone is, the edge is minimal. And also a long run thing to ensure it works. And that assumes someone is a pro counting cards, playing the percentages very well.

A pro playing against scrubs should have a much larger gap, in turn wiping out the table should be common, but that isn't true.

Play cards with any group of people and some are better than others. The best player at the table with the most experience doesn't always win. Probably doesn't even win everything 50% of the time. There's going to be times someone who doesn't know a lot about cards gets some lucky cards, gets some lucky bluffs and wins by pulling cards to make a better hand after people go all in.

Cards and any game involving lots of dice tossing is always going to have a very important luck factor involved.

I recently started playing gin rummy, just for fun. I've noticed that there's certainly a skilled aspect to decision making however there is also a luck factor of the cards you are dealt, the cards that are in the pickup pile, and sometimes you can play the right strategy but the cards don't fall your way.

Poker is very similar and I've played for a long time now thinking (and I guess hoping) that skill would overcome luck. I can bluff often enough to take down pots (once bluffed 4 guys with 2/7 offsuit and then showed it). I can play with standard strategies such as continuation bets, raising when you have (or think you have) the best hand, betting trips, etc. There's certainly standard strategies that yield results and I certainly employ some of them when the time is right. But the luck factor is enough to offset good play by giving bad results.

The way I see it is this:

The reason poker is so difficult is because even if your very good, it's usually not good enough. For example, I preferred playing 12 person sit-and-go's that consisted of two tables of 6. So because there was only 12 people in the tournaments, your chances of winning were better than most tournaments but the pay out was smaller. 3rd place got you a bit better than your money back, and 2nd and first got you about X2 and X3 the money you put it. So the problem is, most of the time I would finish in a least 3rd, and as mentioned above, just getting a bit more than my money back, (not to mention the time I was investing into it), and sometimes 2nd and first. So in order to make any money, you pretty much need to come in 2nd or first most of time, meaning you gotta play better than 10 players every time. What makes it more difficult is even if you finish 2nd two times in a row, but finish 4th (outside the money) in the next tournament, your almost at even again. So unless your coming in 2nd or first almost every time, your going to lose. So like I said, even for someone like me that would finish in the money most times, (being better than most people at the table) it's not good enough. You have to be better than 10 or 11 other people almost every time.

Now you can play in the bigger tournments where the payouts are bigger, but finishing in the money is even tougher, and luck plays a much bigger part. When your sitting around waiting for a playable hand at a table of 9, you'll probably wait longer while the blinds keep going up putting the stress on you more and more to play a marginal hand, or you finally that AA you've been waiting for, but because your at a table of 9, 3 other people call you on it, and you get knocked out of the tournament going all in on your AA to someone that called you with AJ and hits a straight.

That's why I prefer cash vs. tournament. With cash there is no pressure from increasing blinds and you don't have to outlast say 90% of the field in order to cash. I was like you, playing different types of sit and go's online, winning/cashing in some and losing in others. In the end I either would lose money or stay relatively even after playing a stretch of tournaments so it became useless to continue.

I once played at the casino daily for about a month. By the end of the 1st week I was up about $5000. By the end of the 2nd week I was up $3000. By the end of the 4th week I was up about $2000. It wasn't as dreamy and profitable as one would hope. And obviously, hindsight would say stop playing after the 1st week, but you are hoping that you'll achieve similar results each week through solid play. Unfortunately the swings would be wild, I'd have to rebuy sometimes 3 or 4 times then build my way up back to even. And frankly, I would continue to rebuy having seen that I was making mostly correct decisions/reads but somehow getting unlucky. I would generally stop or at least take a break if it seemed like I was making bad reads/decisions.

You also bring up an good point about facing multiple players in a hand. Some people are naïve enough to think that AA is powerful against everybody. And yes, two-handed, it's 80%. But the moment you have 3-handed or 4-handed action, the chances of winning are significantly reduced. Smart players realize this and attempt to isolate as much as possible so the percentages are in their favor.

I also remember a recent tournament with 15 players and I was in the top 5. My buddy had been getting lucky all night (his KK cracked AA for instance). I had KK and went all in pre-flop. He thought for a few seconds and decided to call with J10 suited. His reasoning was (1) getting late and (2) he thought I had nothing which really makes no sense given the situation. Anyway he flushes out on the river. Tournament pays 4 places. Fun night, no winnings, cost me $40 instead of making some small dough. I see it often enough - bad play rewarded by good luck. I remember Joe Cada winning WSOP. Granted you don't see every hand played from those broadcasts but he got extremely lucky in many spots after making incorrect decisions.

 

[doggystyle99]

I wouldn't want to play Polaris cause he knows what he is talking about. Yes, there is luck. That's why there are fish. The fish rely on luck. And the fish win once in a while but are lifetime losers. The pros lose once in a while but are lifetime winners. The pros play for the edge. 51% is an edge. It still means can lose 49% of the time but the pros like those odds. The fish? Well, they take the 49% without knowing it.

Exactly the point that I was making which keeps getting lost on a few. Some people don't understand that small edge makes such a big difference.

 

[sempel]

Exactly the point that I was making which keeps getting lost on a few. Some people don't understand that small edge makes such a big difference.

Actually, I don't think you understand the implications as you think you do. But please, indulge me by explaining.

And please understand something - I've done university math and stats courses. I use math and statistics in my work. So I understand them. The difference between us is I recognize that math is purely theoretical and does not predict actual results. It may approximate them, and yes, in the long run, the stats should hold, but you seem to neglect the concept of variation - in other words, you assume the EXACT SAME conditions are always in play which they are not.

If you and me were to play a simple game of dice rolling - I win if the die shows 1-4, you win if the die shows 5 and 6, $1 bet every time, 1000 rolls. I think we both agree I would win 2/3 of the time and would walk away with approx. $600 versus $400 for you. I don't think there's any doubt. Right?

Now, change the conditions. Every so often, we change up the numbers - I still get 4, you still get 2, and it will be for random lengths - perhaps 10 rolls, perhaps 100. Now change the amount. Sometimes $1, sometimes $0.50, sometimes $2. Still $1000 total. Now, do you think I still win $600 and you win $400 if we repeat this scenario a bunch of times? I'd say no because of the variation in conditions. Sometimes it will hold but sometimes it won't and the swings could be quite significant.

The thing is I'm not stupid enough to not realize if I'm a bad player who pretends/hopes he's good, loses, and then thinks it's bad luck. I don't think you get that. I sit down at most tables and I'm either the best or one of the better players. But as pointed out, the best player does not always win. The same actions/plays that end up successful for some (i.e. semi-bluffing with draws) are unsuccessful for others. There are many times I've had open-ended straight flush draws. Against most hands, you are actually a favorite, even though you are behind. But after playing the hand many times and noticing that the draw doesn't hit as often as it should, I now have to play less aggressive in that situation. On the other hand, I've seen bad players who go all-in with shitty draws and somehow make them - and I'm not talking in a single night. I'm talking seeing them play weekly for months so 1000's of hands.

The reason casinos make money is due to the mathematical edge. There is the variation in betting from individual players but now it's 100's of players betting $20, 100's of players betting $5. So the statistics hold for them because when you look at it from a macro level, there is limited variation overall.

 

[RemyMartin]

LOL. Amazing how a game based on cards (luck factor) is promoted as so skillful. Any joe can win. That's why poker tournies can be won by no-name amateurs, where even a pro can get burned and done in round one.

All it takes is some all-in action and some lucky bluffs and flops and anyone can win.

As shown by the old video, even granny won. Took down a table of veteran card players.

Don't get me wrong, a poker pro will win more than lose, but still it's a game of luck so they can always lose.

It's not like other competitions of speed, strength, skill where a pro will never/almost never lose to a no-namer with half baked skills and physique trying his luck.

And in some pure skill//strength contests like chess, weightlifting, hurdles etc..... a expert athlete won't lose once.

A no-name amateurs in a tournment doesn't mean he know nothing, he might be playing poker for years and have skill.

maybe you should think of poker is not a one hand game or one night game, think of it as a once or twice or even 5 times a week for a year,
the better players will always win.

 

[sempel]

Well, I'll be playing tonight in a small home game tournament (30 players or so). I will keep track of all the hands I can, especially the ones where there was clearly luck involved. To me, if I have AK and I get 3 callers and there's no A or K on the flop, I fold to most bets so hands like these don't matter. To me the important ones are where you are on the flop, turn or river, and players either bet big or go all in and get called. You will see the cards in most cases and be able to figure out if the play was good/bad.

And for the record, I usually make people pay heavily for draws. Conversely, I generally don't pay that much for draws I'm trying to hit. If I have a good draw with lots of outs, I realize that I still need to hit so I'm hesitant to bet my whole stack and get eliminated.

 

[malata]

i use the 'poker odds for dummies' when playing strip poker. It works all the time

 

[sempel]

A no-name amateurs in a tournment doesn't mean he know nothing, he might be playing poker for years and have skill.

maybe you should think of poker is not a one hand game or one night game, think of it as a once or twice or even 5 times a week for a year,
the better players will always win.

I once saw a guy play in a casino that called with any hand for any amount and generally continued if he hit anything. For example, with blinds of $25/50, he called QQ for $700 with 2/3 offsuit. Hit a 2 on the flop, all in for $4000, and hit another 2 on the turn. Lucky as fuck.

Now, I'm not naïve enough to think if he continues his strategy day in and day out that he will win. It's possible but most will agree not highly probable. However, the other guy who had the QQ just lost $5k (it wasn't me in case you think it was). Now, he plays day in a day out and runs into similar players who pull the same crap and get lucky against him. Does that make him a bad player? No.

Heck, I have a relative who used to always win prizes during raffles. I don't know the odds but let's assume his chances were about 1/100. Let's say 5 prizes were given away. So he had a 20% chance of winning. However, every event a raffle was held, he walked away with a prize whereas the rest of us would win once in a blue moon. So there's definitely some people who are lucky.

 

[basketcase]

Cards are luck. Admit it.

That's why poker tournies can be won by amateurs. If it was all skill, only poker pros would win.....

Amateur doesn't mean being a bad player, just that they don't do it full time. Being a pro gives you the advantage of more experience reading people but it also means that others get used to reading you so a unknown yet skilled player can overcome their lesser experience on occasion. Obviously luck plays a role but over the long term, luck cancels out.

In cash games, you don't need to be the best player to win; you just need to know who to target. Don't know how many people play at casinos but the regulars often have a semi-truce with each other and simply take money from the touristy types.

 

[basketcase]

...

However, you've nailed something on the head - in general I have stopped playing because it's exactly as you described - players with worse hands who don't have a clue (don't know pot odds, don't realize I'm ahead, or plain just hope/pray their draw will win) end up beating me in various hands. ...

That's the problem with tournaments where as the binds go up, your game often hinges on one hand and then luck does play a role.

...

It is not luck. It is math. It is inevitable.

..

If you have enough time/money to stay until "inevitable". There wouldn't be fish if probabilities and reads sometimes go wrong.

 

[Occasionally]

A no-name amateurs in a tournment doesn't mean he know nothing, he might be playing poker for years and have skill.

maybe you should think of poker is not a one hand game or one night game, think of it as a once or twice or even 5 times a week for a year,
the better players will always win.

And that's the point I'm making.

If poker is so skillful, why does everyone say it's a long term thing? Give the pros some time and they will be the winners at the end.

Why?

Because there is so much luck involved, anyone can win, so anything short/medium term is a toss up.

Name one other contest or sport where it requires a "pro" long term playing in order to win out against non-pros. And this goes for any game with cards and dice. Probably none.

In other kinds of contests involving speed, strength or 100% pure thinking power (chess), a pro will wipe the floor of avg joes every time. The only way they'll lose is if that avg joe isn't so avg and he's actually someone who's pretty good to start with (trained at it, college player etc.....). You don't roll dice or flip cards to help influence a skeet shooting contest. You got the skill and sight to do it, you win over a scrub.

 

[basketcase]

...

Name one other contest or sport where it requires a "pro" long term playing in order to win out against non-pros. ....

Pretty much any sport has games where a far better team loses to a far worse team. Last year, Golden State won 82% of their regular season games, won 16 out of 17 playoff games but lost to LA, Miami, and Sacramento, teams that didn't even make the playoffs.


(yes, technically those other teams are pros but nowhere near the same level as GS just as an unheard of guy who plays twice a week could technically be a pro but not in the same league as the big names)

 

[Occasionally]

Pretty much any sport has games where a far better team loses to a far worse team. Last year, Golden State won 82% of their regular season games, won 16 out of 17 playoff games but lost to LA, Miami, and Sacramento, teams that didn't even make the playoffs.


(yes, technically those other teams are pros but nowhere near the same level as GS just as an unheard of guy who plays twice a week could technically be a pro but not in the same league as the big names)

They're all pros.

Big difference between GS playing the worst NBA team, compared to GS playing a college team or someone's HS team.

Also, I am confident you put a pro in a 10 person table of avg joes who play cards for fun and play twice in a week (as you said), the chances of the pro winning both games is low. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't win either match.

The chances of those same beer buddies putting on running shoes and playing against GS will never win. I bet even if the beer buds only had to play GS in a 3 minute game to see who gets the most pts I don't think the beer guys would win once in 100 tries.

 

[Samranchoi]

Name one other contest or sport where it requires a "pro" long term playing in order to win out against non-pros. And this goes for any game with cards and dice. Probably none

There are some parallels between pro and amateur poker players and PGA and amateur golfers competing in a pro tournament. On any one day, an amateur can have the game of their life and wind up in first place. However, when is the last time an amateur won a PGA tournament. Approx 27 years ago (and that would be Lefty). Why? Golf tournaments are 4 rounds so while an amateur can be on top of the leaderboard after any round, the pro golfers overall skill set, which includes course management (similar to chip management in a poker tournament?) is far superior compared to an amateur player over the course of a four round event. The best golfers know when to go for it and when to lay back. Similar to the very best poker players. That is why some poker players make millions of dollars and others, not so much. I don't discount the aspect of luck in any game of chance but just like in many things, good luck seems to follow those players who are playing at the top of their game.

There is also professional bowling tournaments. Sure on any day house league bowler can have a better score than a pro bowler but in tournaments to make the finals, you have to bowl many games and only those with the highest average make the finals. So yes, this is another example where a professional bowler will always end up at the top even though a far inferior bowler may beat them once or twice or more.

 

[sempel]

Well, I'll be playing tonight in a small home game tournament (30 players or so). I will keep track of all the hands I can, especially the ones where there was clearly luck involved. To me, if I have AK and I get 3 callers and there's no A or K on the flop, I fold to most bets so hands like these don't matter. To me the important ones are where you are on the flop, turn or river, and players either bet big or go all in and get called. You will see the cards in most cases and be able to figure out if the play was good/bad.

And for the record, I usually make people pay heavily for draws. Conversely, I generally don't pay that much for draws I'm trying to hit. If I have a good draw with lots of outs, I realize that I still need to hit so I'm hesitant to bet my whole stack and get eliminated.

So, played last night (it's been a few months). Started in a tournament with about 40 people. Got busted when AK called by 99 and no A or K hit. Rebuy. Running low on chips with 20+ people left when I got AA and doubled up against a lower pair who pushed all-in preflop. Throughout the tournament, I got decent enough cards at various stages to bet and take down pots at flop/turn stages. Won a couple of more coinflips than I lost. But whenever I was ahead, my hand held up. Ended up winning the tournament - $300.

Some of the eliminated players stuck around to play cash game. I played and got a bunch of nice hands (small pairs, suited connectors, two face cards) but nothing connected on the flop. Went all in with an open ended straight flush draw for $60 and didn't hit (called by top pair). Rebuy. Same thing, chips dwindling. Made a move by pushing with a small pair on the flop but guy made a good call with a bigger pair even with overs on board (he had a flush draw though) so again lost my stack. Rebuy. Now I'm in for the $300 that I just made. Made a little from a few hands (e.g had KK, raised, 4 callers, bet on flop, everyone folded). Then I flopped top pair, bet and 1 caller. Turn he bet out big so I called because I had a draw as well. River he bets, I fold, he had flopped a set so I saved some money. Then the hand that got me from $60 to about $200 was when I flopped top pair, guy bet, 1 caller, I call. Turn I make 2 pair but there's a flush on board. I push as semi-bluff but bettor calls, other person calls. Bettor had made the flush. Other person pair but an A for the nut flush if another card comes. But instead I hit a full house and tripled up. After that I caught some hands that held up and walked away with about $500 profit on the night ($300 tournament, $200 cash).

Why did I win? Was it due to good luck? No, although some good cards coming at convenient times helped. Coin flips are just that - can go either way. I think out of about 10 I won 6 so a little lucky there I guess. Except for the one hand described, I never drew out on anybody although there were only a few occasions where I was 2nd best heading to river.

Was I the victim of bad luck? NO. My big hands held up and weren't cracked. I didn't get outdrawn on.

Did I make some good moves - for sure. There were a couple of times where I was the short stack and it was blind on blind and I could have pushed all in. I chose to give the BB a walk and they flipped over a few good hands that had me crushed. Also as short stack, I was first to act with 4 players left and I bet with small connectors (45 suited) hoping to take down the blinds. The others had plenty to call but didn't and I most likely would have been in bad shape. And during the cash game, I had a flush draw against two others so I pushed. The first person folded and showed a good pair (not top pair but a good one). The other person called with a worse draw and I won with high card. Getting the guy with the best hand to fold and the other guy to call with a worse hand is ideal play.

Now, I personally avoided turmoil. Cannot say the same thing for some other players who had to rebuy 4 or 5 times and kept getting unlucky. The guy who had the flush and lost to my drawn out full boat had a nasty night - he almost always had the best hand going with all chips in yet got drawn out every time. I felt sorry for him and could empathize because I go through that often enough. Conversely, I saw one guy bet open ended straights all-in and hit most of the time. He made a nice chunk of change.

So, my conclusion? Skill certainly played a part (I've never said otherwise) in knowing when to hold, when to fold, when to bet/raise, when to check and play it safe. Was luck a huge factor? I cannot say it was because there weren't too many cases where I won/lost solely based on luck and nothing more. Would I play again if it were like this? Of course. But it's a rarity for me (based on my own personal experience playing many times) to avoid bad luck. More often than not I lose coin flips. More often than it should happen I lose to draws or having big hands cracked. Basically, this did not happen yesterday - the favorite ended up taking it down. So skill managed to win out and my wallet is a little more full as a result. IMO, if this is how poker really was - the occasional bout of hard luck but with mostly skill being the main factor, I would (1) be doing much better and (2) would play more often and (3) wouldn't complain about bad luck or the fact that luck is a pretty significant factor. How many of you get nervous when you have KK and the flop is 3, 10, J offsuit and the other guy pushes? I called and he had KQ so open ended straight draw. He didn't hit. But I was nervous given my history. Shouldn't be that way given the odds (he's about 20%) but I've had it happen enough.

 

[sempel]

And that's the point I'm making.

If poker is so skillful, why does everyone say it's a long term thing? Give the pros some time and they will be the winners at the end.

Why?

Because there is so much luck involved, anyone can win, so anything short/medium term is a toss up.

Name one other contest or sport where it requires a "pro" long term playing in order to win out against non-pros. And this goes for any game with cards and dice. Probably none.

In other kinds of contests involving speed, strength or 100% pure thinking power (chess), a pro will wipe the floor of avg joes every time. The only way they'll lose is if that avg joe isn't so avg and he's actually someone who's pretty good to start with (trained at it, college player etc.....). You don't roll dice or flip cards to help influence a skeet shooting contest. You got the skill and sight to do it, you win over a scrub.

The one sport that always seems to defy logic is women's tennis. Granted there are a few consistent players (e.g. Serena) but it always fascinates me when seeded players, especially higher seeded players, lose early on in big tournaments like the Grand slams to a player that is ranked much, much lower. Yes, in a few cases the person who won might be a better player. I'm sure the big stars kicked asses because they were really good but just new so their rankings were not a true measure of their skill level but that should rarely be the case. Yet it seems to consistently happen. In MANY cases the winner of the previous Grand Slam loses early and it's just shocking. You definitely don't see this on the men's side. I don't consider it odd that the 20th guy beats the 12th guy - skill, how they are feeling, etc. But it's much rarer for the 200th player who qualified to beat a top 10 seed.

Golf, like other sports, has multiple rounds because yes, on any given day a player might play better, get a little lucky with bounces. Moving the pins, change in field and weather conditions, etc. add enough variation to give pros the opportunity to use their skills to come out on top over four rounds. Same thing is done with many other sports (e.g. bobsleigh, skiing, even long-track speed skating). Multiple runs and combined times allow consistency to rise to the top.

 

[black booty lover]

This thread have given me the itch to start playing again..lol.

 

[Occasionally]

This thread have given me the itch to start playing again..lol.

Haha. I haven't played cards in a while either. That's what's great about cards. Easy and quick to play, and everyone has a chance. Playing various card games with family (dealer's choice), even my 80 year old mom wins sometimes. Not often, but it happens here and there.

 

[sempel]

This thread have given me the itch to start playing again..lol.

Kind of why I started again but also to prove to some doubters that I have some concept of how to play. I also played again tonight and won another $300 from cash game. Started out the night fairly well. Got into a crazy hand where short stack all in, 3 callers including me. I flop trips, one guy bets, I call (slow play), other guy calls. Turn bettor goes all in and has us all covered, I call, other guy calls. Well, original short stack had a boat, turn gave chip leader a boat (he also had trips and worse kicker than me, and other guy hit a straight on turn. River pairs my kicker and I take down big pot. Did I get lucky? On the river, yes. But the turn was lucky for the other two bigger stacks (short stack should have perhaps won the small main).

Then I hit a bad patch where I lost 2 big hands in a row. First I get KK and with a bunch of limpers, I raise big - 20X the blind. 2 callers. Flop is 7,8,J. I bet go all in and one guy calls (bet was double my initial raise). Turn is a 5, river a J. Guy flips his hand. He has 64 offsuit for a straight. He called 1/3 of his stack preflop with that and bet the remaining 2/3 on a gutshot and hit. Then two hands later, I get QQ. Guy raises, I go all in, he calls, all pre-flop. He has JJ. J on the flop. I'm out and rebuy. Lose another goofy hand when I hit a flush on the turn with a paired board and a higher card than the pair. 2 callers. River double pairs the highest card. Well, turns out the guy in 3rd place who only had top pair (2 pair with the pair on board) has a full house (the other person had trips).

So many messed up hands where people got outdrawn all night on the turn and the river. Saw set over set where lower set hit quads. Saw big pair get cracked by a lower pair who flopped quads (the higher pair hit after to give the guy a useless boat).

I won some larger size pots later on, avoided a few pots that I could have won, avoided a few pots where had I stayed I would have lost money. All in all, luck was definitely a big factor as I lost way more from bad beats than bad play but I managed to turn things around with good play and hands started to hold.