Did theory kill my game or did I just have beginners luck?

[pothead]

First of all....Hi

I been lurking a bit it this excellent forum and finally decided to sign up.

I very new to poker and just started playing online a few months ago.
I started very carefully with reading some articles and playing freeroll tournaments and playmoney ring games.
Usually I placed quite ok in the tourneys and after winning $4 in a freeroll i used that to play microlimit ringgames and low stakes tournaments until I had a bankroll of $50.
Since things was going so well I got greedy and decided to up the stakes and entered a $10 R&A tournament.
I was extremly lucky and had a humongus stack almost 1/5 of the total chips at one stage with about 170 players left.
That did make me tilt though and I got way to frisky with my betting and had some really awful bad beats, so when I got to the final table my stack was close to average.
In the end I ended up 8th collecting $480 which got me a small bankroll and further increased my motivation to play and wanting to learn more and get really good at the game.

After reading more it seemed to me like my VP$IP was to high compared to what is recommended and I started to be more careful with what hands I entered the pot.
But the more theory i have been reading the worse my winnings seem to get.

I manage to very slowly build up my bankroll at microlimit LHE, but in tourneys and NL ringgames I quickly loose it again, although thats where I seemed most sucessful when I just started out.

The other day I entered a limit SnG at PP just to try it out.
I was expecting the game to be a bit slower and tighter than in NL, but infact it was totally the opposite.
People was entering the pot on almost every hand and following thru to the river with nothing.
I never seen so many hands won in showdown on high card before.
The idea of being conservative in the early stages and let the others battle it out unless I got a decent starting hand prooved to be useless.
I did two of them and finished 7th and 5th, both times pretty much blinded out.
Part of the problem was that the best hands during those two SnG was one 99 and one AQo, both returning nothing, so I guess you could say that bad luck was the main reason and not overly tight play.

Seeing how people was winning more with their crappy hands and extemly loose play I thought I will experiment a bit in a limit ring game to see how quickly I would win/loose.
So I started entering the pot with a lot of crap, but also got more good cards than usual and hit the flop a lot.
To me it seemed like playing like I did when I was a total beginner also gave me the beginners luck back [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
In three hours i did $25 on 0.15/0.30...something that never happened when trying to play according to what I understand should be good starting hands and trying to calculate pot odds properly.

I'm well aware of that with the little sample size I have in my experiments it's hardly conclusive in any way.
I'm sure was on a lucky roll, both when going from $4 won in a freeroll to $480 and when getting almost 100BB/hr.

But still I can't help to have the feeling that I doing something wrong when trying to play well according to what I read should be good poker.
Maybe I just haven't got the theory right and actually play better just going by feeling until I do get it.
Maybe most of the advice goes out the window when playing at really small stakes on PP.
Sometimes I even feel like when I play crazy and put my trust in the cards instead of being conservative and sceptic as to if they will hold up, fortune give me credit for that trust [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I'm a beginner and will keep experimenting until I find a style of play that is winning.
But so much of what I read on the subject seem to contradict what I experience.
And every now and then you read comments like for example Antonio Esfandiari:
[ QUOTE ]

I play A LOT of hands. Sometimes I play every hand. People often think I am nuts. I use that image to get action when I get a hand. If a squeezer (tightass) who has been sitting there for two hours and hasn’t played a pot makes a huge bet, is anyone in their right mind going to call them? I hope not! Whereas the guy who has been in the last 10 pots betting and raising will get a little more action than the squeezer.

[/ QUOTE ]

So to finish it with some kind of question:
Am I simply not yet good in applying sound advice, or should I disregard what most authorities on the subject say and just go with the advice that seems to coincide with my personal experience of the game?
Or am I just a fool letting breif experiments swing my judgement?

I'm sure there is not one answer and I will still have to see what advice fits me....but I feel a bit confused and any discussion on the subject would be much appreciated.

[beyeond]

[ QUOTE ]
Did theory kill my game or did I just have beginners luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

Beginners luck.

[pothead]

Hehe...thx for the input beyeond [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Thats what I was thinking but my experiment of disregarding most advice I been reading and the quote from Antonio Esfandiari made me a bit confused.

Let me rephrase the question a bit.
Does anyone have a VP$IP of more than 25% playing full ring games and is winning in the long run?
Is almost always TAG's the most winning players, again in full ring games?

[Banks2334]

I'd say begginers luck. You are mixing different types of games that require different strategy(i.e. Tornaments, limit ring games, NL ring, S-N-G). Being that you're new to poker, I doubt you would be playing optimally. Also, you haven't played enough hands to get a realistic sample of your ability. As for Antonio, he can play a lot of hands because he knows when to get away from hands, most amateurs don't. Keep reading and playing and experimenting. You'll find a way that works for you.

[pothead]

Thanks for that down to earh analysis Banks.

I sure don't think I have become a optimal player in a few months and still have loads and loads to learn.

I do try to make sure I don't mix up advice regarding different types of games, but you made me think about that I probably need to be more methodic in finding what type of game and strategy suits me.
Now I'm jumping from one game and strategy to the other without properly analyzing the success I'm getting from what.

I guess I will stick strictly to NL ring games and a TAG playing style for a while and see how that goes.
Any advice on books to read for NL ring games in particular?

[Tiltguru]

Antonio is talking about NL tourneys I am assuming. Loose aggressive play can be very profitable in any No-Limit game assuming you are very experienced and very displined. It can also be the most costly by far for the un-experienced un-disciplined novice.
Limit Ring(10 handed) is totally different. I doubt you will find any LAGs that will make any where near the amount of a TAG. In fact I don't think you will find many players with a VPIP of anything over 25% making any substantial amount.
Optimal strategy changes depending on the stakes, the type of game, the ante and of course the players as well. But you can definitely find basic guidelines to start out with.
I suggest reading SSHE and starting with Limit ring.
Good Luck

[Banks2334]

Small Stakes Hold 'Em by Ed Miller.

[nuts]

Stick to one game, perhaps limit to start with?

That way you can get a solid understanding of pot odds and outs etc......

[AJackson]

In order to push into the higher VP$IP ranges, you have to be skilled enough to play your hand post flop.

As a beginner, you need to stick to a tight style and as you are successful begin to lossen up. It's a slow process as you add more hands and see how your results change.

You're making a huge mistake in playing so many different games. You've had success in LHE, stick to it. Read Small Stakes Hold'em about 20 times. Start small and move up a level when you have 500 BB. Once you are a proven winner at the mid stakes, then start exploring other games.

[pothead]

Ok, I will definatly read SSHE thoughrougly and decided to stick to small stakes NLHE.
I had more consistent success there from the little experience I have so far and enjoy playing it more.

Not trying to in anyway dispute the sound advice that seems to be the concensus, but I do find it a bit interesting with the phenomenon of beginners luck.
Maybe it's just one of these myths and it just is that you mosly hear the stories from players that won first when they started playing, and the ones that lost big rather keep quiet about it.

I know in other fields I'm active in that I sometimes question if my knowledge of theory can actually get in the way.
I make music and do programming and in both those areas I feel that although knowledge of theory probably is all in all good it does have it's drawbacks.
With music, knowing what notes fit together from studies and experience many times feels like it makes me not think of possibilities I would have tried out as a complete beginner.
With programming it can make my code unnecessarily complex and take a lot of time to implement design patterns inststead of quickly being able to manifest ideas.

Sure...I can compose faster and make more complex arrangements and my code becomes more solid and scaleable...so I do like to have the knowledge...at least some aspects of it some times [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Maybe I'm just bad at applying theory in the right way when I let it stiffle me.
But I feel at least for me the phenomenon of beginners luck is somewhat related to that conflict of creativity and solid knowledge.
In the end there is of course no avoiding the knowledge since it will provided by experience no matter if you study or not, so you might just make the process fast by studying I guess.

Do you think beginners luck exists...and in that case why?

Anyway...thats a bit OT in here maybe....I just find the issue interesting and it would be nice to hear what other peoples experiences and views are about it.

But I will stick with the advice you guys offered....many thanks for your responses.