Analysis of A Seven Card Stud Downswing!

[SCSTWG]

I like the 21% on 4th street and that is where I am usually at. The Showdown numebrs are very low meaning you either went too far with a lot of hands, you are misreading your opponents hands, or you ran into a string of suckouts. The thing that bothered me is that this was just one session. Perhaps after you hit a certain point you were not playing your best game. You might want to consider setting some loss limits and coming back to the game after the sting where's off.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the 21% on 4th street and that is where I am usually at. The Showdown numebrs are very low meaning you either went too far with a lot of hands, you are misreading your opponents hands, or you ran into a string of suckouts. The thing that bothered me is that this was just one session. Perhaps after you hit a certain point you were not playing your best game. You might want to consider setting some loss limits and coming back to the game after the sting where's off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your reply.

People came and went. I do not tilt. I am too proud of my game. Players who claim to be good but tilt are not good players. Poker is more than technical skills. Mike Caro even thinks tilt the difference in earnings between various players. One of two plus twos authors, either John or Al has talked about micro-tilt when you are subtly affected. That is possible. But I know a suckout when I see one.

I maybe paid off two or three times perhaps 15 big bets but that would only account for $30 when I should not have. However, if you peruse the post again I mention the times I was either outdraw or sucked out on. Two boats lost to quads. One I did not mention was a king flush that lost to a Queen straight-flush.

I played my best game 98% of the time (maybe my best game ain't that good [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]).

There are reasons for leaving a game and Mike Caro has enumerated these but having a stop loss is not one of them. That idea is theoretically flawed. Mason has written about the stop loss idea as well I believe. You should investigate this and discover why for your own benefit.

As for the 'sting', well it stung enough to produce my post but not enough for me to bemoan my fate and rant. At no point, did I call anyone a 'fish' or 'luckbox' or anything like that. I was truly bot-like in my attitude. Perhaps, I am a bot? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Once again, thanks for posting.

[ill rich]

seems like a pretty bad losing streak.

you should probably rethink your playing style over 1000 hands with no profit, and that kind of terrible negative bets per 100 hands seems like a freak for "the best player"

how well would you rate your skill?

factoring this in, what is your per 100 hand rate?

anyways good luck in the future

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
seems like a pretty bad losing streak.

you should probably rethink your playing style over 1000 hands with no profit, and that kind of terrible negative bets per 100 hands seems like a freak for "the best player"

how well would you rate your skill?

factoring this in, what is your per 100 hand rate?

anyways good luck in the future

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read all the books (including the whitemeat relating to seven stud in the Poker Essays series) and I have been around long enough to know pretty much all the tricks.

I am not Chip Reese but I am not Chico Marx either.

I have beaten this game consistently I do not track hands religiously (maybe I should) but I have consistently beaten this game.

I think the fact that there were a number of skilled players and being sucked out on and throwing in a few bad bets accounted for it. I am self-aware enough to know that running bad and playing bad go hand in hand but if I had not played as well as I played and I played well it would have been much worse.


Yesterday, I played 460 hands and won 6 big bets at $2/$4 but played over 1000 hands at the $1/$2 level breaking even.

I can play.


I am satisfied that it was a freak occurrence.

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
seems like a pretty bad losing streak.

you should probably rethink your playing style over 1000 hands with no profit, and that kind of terrible negative bets per 100 hands seems like a freak for "the best player"

how well would you rate your skill?

factoring this in, what is your per 100 hand rate?

anyways good luck in the future

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read all the books (including the whitemeat relating to seven stud in the Poker Essays series) and I have been around long enough to know pretty much all the tricks.

I am not Chip Reese but I am not Chico Marx either.

I have beaten this game consistently I do not track hands religiously (maybe I should) but I have consistently beaten this game.

I think the fact that there were a number of skilled players and being sucked out on and throwing in a few bad bets accounted for it. I am self-aware enough to know that running bad and playing bad go hand in hand but if I had not played as well as I played and I played well it would have been much worse.


Yesterday, I played 460 hands and won 6 big bets at $2/$4 but played over 1000 hands at the $1/$2 level breaking even.

I can play.


I am satisfied that it was a freak occurrence.

[/ QUOTE ]

well then maybe its your strategy at 1-2, or the players at 2-4 play the way that your style works best against

[MRBAA]

Given the ante structure of the game, you may be playing too tightly to optimize your win rates. Starting with a hand like (33)T or (J4)4 or (78)9 is probably correct if you can limp. Continuing with minor improvement is probably also correct -- hands like (2h4h)7h2c or (78)95 are often playable for one bet on fourth. Another leak can be folding when you "know" you're beat -- I've hammered this one before, but it bears repeating that many low limit players will hammer away with weird hands and calling down is often profitable, even though the opponent's play makes no sense.

Also, variance is huge. We've all been there. It's not just weird hands, either. Some days, you will catch a flush and your opponent will make a higher one. Some days you will be rolled and run into a draw that gets there.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Some days, you will catch a flush and your opponent will make a higher one. Some days you will be rolled and run into a draw that gets there.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was exactly what it was like. I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with everything you said and will act on all of it.

[RainierBob]

A little sideways to the main topic, but...

When people talk about a long term win rate they generally speak as if the only variables were stakes and card-catching. But I wonder how realistic that is. Ones own skills change as well as that of the other players in a game. And different structures within the same stakes level may make a difference. I'd be interested in ppls experience as to how stable they find long term win rates.

[southerndog]

[ QUOTE ]
A little sideways to the main topic, but...

When people talk about a long term win rate they generally speak as if the only variables were stakes and card-catching. But I wonder how realistic that is. Ones own skills change as well as that of the other players in a game. And different structures within the same stakes level may make a difference. I'd be interested in ppls experience as to how stable they find long term win rates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I believe that your average win rate is a random variable. Especially in on line poker where things like legislation are affecting the rate at which the fish can deposit money..

Games change. Period. Therefore the winrate has to as well.