Should I quit due to excessive bad beats???

[Dromar]

[ QUOTE ]
I took a week off only to be bad beat-ed again to death last night and busted.

POKER - WHEN YOU HAVE THE PURE NUTS THAT 5% OF THE TIME, IT'S A SKILL GAME TRYING TO EXTRACT THE MOST MONEY YOU CAN FROM YOUR OPPONENTS
THE OTHER 95% OF THE TIME, THE GAME IS ALL LUCK, VULNERABLE TO A BAD BEAT AT ANY TIME, ALL LUCK
SO BASICALLY THE GAME IS 5% SKILL AND 95% LUCK, SO ALL THE GUYS OUT HERE WHO THINK THEY ARE SO SKILLED , LET'S SEE WHERE THEY ARE WHEN THEIR LUCK RUNS OUT

Sorry to sound bitter but that's what I am, thats what getting bad beat-ed out of $1500 in pots when you are a 80% fave or better in eech one. "keep playing, it will even out" is the common advice, well I did and it didnt even out. I mean, at the 50c/$1 I'd have to play bad beat free for like 2 months to overcome this recent string of beats, just not worth it to me. Maybe I just took a hard shot of bad luck and am an exception but my bottom line is this, maybe not 95% to 5%, BUT POKER IS DEFINITELY MORE THAN 50% LUCK AND LESS THAN THAT SKILL, PROBABLY LIKE 75%LUCK 25% SKILL. Some people have the luck, some dont and its obvious I dont. Good LUCK to you guys though

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be new here, but I'm pretty sure this forum wasn't made for people to rant or to listen to other people's rants. If you have that little emotional fortitude, then yes, you should give up poker.

My previous post was probably more constructive.

[doh742]

this guy is long gone, but the topic is not a terrible one to look at, because a lot of people feel this way. There are always people who beleive that luck dominates the game, and skill doesn't matter.

I think it is an overall bankroll issue. Most of the "correct" plays, that make for long term profit, can lose a boatload in the short term. the concept is variance, we all know that. But, i will bet that what only one person said about his situation, is the truth. He is playing a short bankroll, and doesn't realize it. i don't know the formula for determining bankroll size needed to never worry about going broke, but if you have it, you can push small margins and laugh away bad beats. if you constantly have 35% of your bankroll in play at any given time, then all of sudden a few days or weeks of bad beats starts to really screw with your poker mindset, and you can't play good poker. You start to lose the confidence to push small edges, to bluff and fire continuation bets, or to reraise when you know the first raise is b.s. The point is, this game becomes "the skill game" everyone on this board, and the theorist's and authors tell you it is, only if you have the proper bankroll to ride through those swings, and if you don't, then luck doesn predominate. What good does it do you to play perfect mathmatical poker, if you don't have the bankroll (not for one session of variance) to overcome variance for a bad string of sessions, which does happen. the answer is, nothing... so then you tighten up, which doesn't work, you get blinded and raised to death. and you lose your money, and think the game can't be beat.

so, the right answer is, that he, and many others, are playing at levels above their head, but, how do you tell someone to move down, from oh say, the 1 dollar 2 dollar tables, if that is were they are at. is it really worth anyones time to play poker at 10 cent 25 cent blinds, to win a couple thousand a year, if they really work at it. for most, no. they are still gambling, which means, to be fun, the wins have to be relevant.

again, i know someone is going to say i am wrong, but until you have the bankroll to go with correct play, poker is controlled, dominated and determined by luck alone. the mathmatical way outlined by sklansky assumes you have the cash to pull through a run of bad luck. if you don't, you are just hoping to get a inordinate run of good luck early, so your bankroll gets to a point that it can handle the normal runs of bad luck.

[doh742]

another thought about something in the replies:

a common response to anyone who talks about bad beats is to move up a level or two, because, in a mythical level or two higher, there are less donkeys and fish. nothing could be more wrong. there are donkeys and fish at all levels, that i have seen. granted, i haven't played at 50 100 blind tables yet, but at 1 2, 2 4 3 6 5 10, 10 20 and 20 40, i have seen the same amount of donkeys and fish, they just have more or less money to donk away. this is terrible advice. people complaining about bad beats are obviously losing money that is significant to them, too significant, the last thing they need to do to improve there game, is play for more money. that advice has to be coming from people who are just hoping to get bad, scared poker players to play for more money, and if enough do, they will reap the profits in the long run. and if that is what is happening, that person has to seriously evaluate there morals, because this is supposed to be a board of poker players, to help each other out. at the table, all enemies, here, you shouldn't be giving someone knowingly false advice.

and trust me, i was in this guys spot, i won a lot of money, cashed out, had to play on a short bankroll, took a lot of bad beats, and even posted here when pissed looking for help...it took a couple days of thinking to realize why i was losing, and now i know that my days of playing any meaningful poker are over for at least a couple months.

[Cowboy21]

Useless Bump
I love this thread.. I love this thread...

[tpkatsa]

I think this guy has it spot-on. I just posted about losing three hands in a row to runner-runner straights, but from TastyPlayer's story, I don't feel so bad :-). My peeve is that I have to drive an hour to play poker, and so I feel like I've not only lost money, but wasted a whole day and gasoline as well.

I normally play $2/$4 but I've thought about moving up to the $4/$8 or $2/$10 spread game for more "serious" poker. I too am tired of having my set of 5's cracked by a guy staying in on nothing but a backdoor straight draw that Sklansky says he should have folded. I guess the bottom line is that most players don't play like Sklansky says and shouldn't we all be grateful for that?

Throughout this year I've probably won around $300-$400 playing $2/$4 poker. I don't like playing online (except nickel-dime), because I don't really trust internet poker. (Although one time I ran up the free $75 promotion at PartyPoker to over $350). Also I like the feel of the cards in my hand and looking down at my pocket ladies and knowing I'm going to raise...I hate pocket Aces...anyway I'll stop rambling now but just say (at TastyPlayer's expense-sorry) that I feel a little bit better about things now and will continue to try to improve my game. I've found 2+2 to be very helpful but of course there isn't a lot of sympathy for guys like TastyPlayer, unfortunately. I think that stems more from the fact that there's really nothing anyone can do about it...we all feel for him but what can you do?

-tpkatsa