The cost of mistakes

[mason55]

Something that many people forget when thinking about no limit hands is that most of your money goes into the pot with equity. Sure, you might get 50bb into the pot with 33% equity, but you're not actually losing 50bb when you do that. When you look at the money in the pot, that mistake might be even smaller.

Another key concept to remember is that when you put your money in, you're putting it in against your opponents range. You might be a 66% dog to the exact hand he had but you might be ahead of his range, and that's what really matters (as long as you're figuring his range correctly).

Say you have AA and the flop is 742 rainbow. If your bad opponent will get it in with a set or any overpair, even though you have very little equity if you get it in against his set, you have 80% equity against his range. So when he stacks you for 100bb this time, dont look at it as a 100bb mistake, look at it as an 80bb win in the long run.

You'll drive yourself crazy if you look at every hand and see how many bb's you lost against an individual hand instead of his entire range.

[bohus04]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm finding that 2 or 3 mistakes for stacks frequently result in negative sessions. Is the margin of error typically this small?

[/ QUOTE ]
It can easily be this small.

A strong win rate is 10 PTBB/100 = 20 big blinds per 100 hands, or 0.2 big blinds per hand. That's a strong win rate. Make one mistake for your stack every 500 hands, and there goes your entire edge.

[/ QUOTE ]
The strong win rate of 10 PTBB/100 includes getting stacked once in a while. The fish make so many mistakes for their stacks that I think you could overcome getting stacked once every 500 hands.

-Tom

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you'll get stacked at least that often. I'm not talking about Sklansky FTOP mistakes. I'm talking making an error that, with sound ABC play (not omniscience), you shouldn't have made.

My point is just this: Over 500 hands you can expect, with a good win rate, to win only ~100BB. So it's very easy to throw away your entire average win for those 500 in one single boneheaded play. The edge IS that thin.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree, just would say the edge isnt that smal but the mistake is so big...

[Mercman572]

[ QUOTE ]
Something that many people forget when thinking about no limit hands is that most of your money goes into the pot with equity. Sure, you might get 50bb into the pot with 33% equity, but you're not actually losing 50bb when you do that. When you look at the money in the pot, that mistake might be even smaller.

Another key concept to remember is that when you put your money in, you're putting it in against your opponents range. You might be a 66% dog to the exact hand he had but you might be ahead of his range, and that's what really matters (as long as you're figuring his range correctly).

Say you have AA and the flop is 742 rainbow. If your bad opponent will get it in with a set or any overpair, even though you have very little equity if you get it in against his set, you have 80% equity against his range. So when he stacks you for 100bb this time, dont look at it as a 100bb mistake, look at it as an 80bb win in the long run.

You'll drive yourself crazy if you look at every hand and see how many bb's you lost against an individual hand instead of his entire range.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all very true. If anyone does not fully appreciate Mason's statements, you have to re-read some Sklansky.

On the flip side, one BIG mistake is unrealistically setting an opponent's range. One example is that you arbitrarily widen the possible hands the opponent can have because you're tilting and looking for a call.
Be careful not to use hindsite bias though; my above example does NOT apply to the time you called AI with KK pf and the opponent tabled aces. Yes, his range really is more than just AA

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
but what you forget to include is the meta game factor that you losing a pot has on other players. this may help you to win more pots and bigger pots down the road.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realise this is micro-stakes, right? Most of our opponents are playing poker, surfing the net and watching The Shield re-runs all at the same time. I'm crushing .01/.02 with simple, predictable ABC play.

[the machine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but what you forget to include is the meta game factor that you losing a pot has on other players. this may help you to win more pots and bigger pots down the road.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realise this is micro-stakes, right? Most of our opponents are playing poker, surfing the net and watching The Shield re-runs all at the same time. I'm crushing .01/.02 with simple, predictable ABC play.

[/ QUOTE ]

as i already posted before

this is a generalized conception for poker in general. im not just saying it for uNL games but in general, because OP's statement applies to all of poker

not just applying to uNL, but at 50NL there are def some thinking players