Losing with the best of it; standard expectation?

[BPA234]

I recently completed an in-depth study of a 100+ games. I did the study as a practical approach to see why I was losing, despite my belief that I was a better player this year than last.

For background, I have been playing part-time for just over two years. I rate my level of play as C+. I have had some success with mtt's, winning and cashing in top positions on Stars 10r, 100r, and 150 several late finishes w/ the 200 main and second chance mtts. For a period of time I was winning @ the 215 and 109 sng's.

After January I started losing @ a slightly less than break even rate. Around late April I was down several thousand on approximately 180K in buy-ins (MTT/STT combined) and this loss rate has continued where I am now down around $4,500.

This is not a major financial issue, because I work full time and the loss has been strictly poker bankroll. My primary concern is that I am playing a fundamentally flawed poker strategy. I beleive that if I consistently get my chips in as the favorite that I will win.

Unfortunately, I think this approach may be overly simplistic and may be part of the reason why I am losing. Is the expectation that you should win a high enough percentage of the time as a favorite, wrong? If so, than consistent wins would only come from massive chip acumulation where you would be able to sustain the losses in critical hands that appear to contradict the odds of losing.


Here are my results of the study:
When all my chips went into the pot:
As a 60%-90% Favorite I lost 43% of the time
AS a 60%-90% Favorite I won 20% of the time

Coinflips with my overcards to PP lost 9%
Coinflips with my PP to overcards lost 8%

Less than 40% to win I lost 12%
Less than 40% to win I won 8%

The study is a good representation of how I play and is accurate. The conflip results are showing a slight loss. But, I think those results are merely variance driven. Accross more games, the numbers would likely run to their true percentages.

After thinking through the various possiblilities, my question remains. Is the standard expectation that you will win if you are putting in your chips as the favorite, invalidated by variance? Meaning that variaince is so active that instead of seeking to put your chips in the middle as a favorite (even as high as 4:1) you should focus solely on small ball chip accumulation, avoiding confrontation with similar sized stacks and avoiding river showdowns.


Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Please note this is not a bad beat post. Unless Stars has set my doom switch to the on position, I am seriously looking for strategy input. The general consensus has been that getting the chips in with the best of it is the right play. But, maybe that is not accurate?

[Bakes]

WTF at this post, you have spent over 180k in buyins and your worried about a 4500 loss? Give me a break, its called variance.

Also, its impossible to play small ball to reduce variance in shorter stacked online tournaments. This may come off as harsh, but for a player who has cashed in the 100r you sound pretty dumb asking whether or not it is correct to get your chips in with the best hand (especially as a 4-1 favorite).

[BPA234]

If I didn't write the question clearly enough, my fault. But, the question is about reducing the variance in a specific hand and likewise in the approach to critical hands in specific situations.

Obviously, when examining losses, the easiest conclusion to jump to is the ever ready VARIANCE. But, the problem I have with that is that it is too easy of an excuse. If you are losing for months on end, than it is most likely something you are doing wrong. Not just variance.

I reference having won the 10r and 100r and 150mtts so that anyone responding, that does not know me, will understand that I am not just griping about variance. I understand variance as it relates to results over time.

I am asking whether or not the general consensus that you should always look to get all your chips in as a favorite is sound. I am beginning to think that the allin approach is fundamentally flawed and that there may be stronger strategies out there.

Finally, the results of my study are an indicator of how I play more than a snap-shot of results. I obviously look to get allin when I believe I am ahead. From the results, I think I am succesful at doing so. But, again the question persists that to win consistently and have better returns on the time and money invested getting allin as a favorite does not seem to be enough.

I think if you look deeper into the question you can find that I am raising a legitimate question about a strategy that most players support, employ and advocate. FWIW and IMO, just because the majority advocates a particular line, does not make that line correct.

[mornelth]

You can rely on small-ball earl on, but closer to the end M's drop and blinds rise and there you are - just looking (or having to) be all-in with the best hand.

I'm actually asking these same questions myself these days - should I avoid all-in confrontations with same-sized or bigger stacks and just play small ball if the hand/position etc. warrants and just throw it away if I think I may end up being all-in?

What I find is that I can do quite well for a while avoiding all-in confrontations if I have one or more "live ones" who I can steal / re-steal from, or taking the flop and playing small-ball. I don't take EVERY SINGLE +EV situation that comes my way, especially if +EV is marginal and the risk to my stack is high. Think about it - if you get your money in as a 75/25 favorite - you're going to lose 1 time out of 4. If you do it 4 times against the same size or a bigger stack - do not be surprized when he sucks out on you. Maybe THAT's the count you should take - how often are you all-in against the stack that can severely cripple you or take you out per tourney?

[Insty]

[ QUOTE ]

Here are my results of the study:
When all my chips went into the pot:
As a 60%-90% Favorite I lost 43% of the time
AS a 60%-90% Favorite I won 20% of the time

Coinflips with my overcards to PP lost 9%
Coinflips with my PP to overcards lost 8%

Less than 40% to win I lost 12%
Less than 40% to win I won 8%


[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't any of these numbers add up to 100%?
How many hands in each level?

[BPA234]

The results are for the sum total of the games played that comprise the study. So, I was allin as a 60%+ favorite to win and lost 43% of the time and won 20% of the time. If you add the percentages of the results you will see that this represents 100% of the total games played.

[Machinehead]

Of the hands you studied, how many of them were your all-in bets called and how many were you calling all-ins?

[BPA234]

The ratio of push allin to call allin is about 2.7:1.

[Machinehead]

It's too hard to say on numbers. If your calling was higher than your pushing, that would obviously be a problem.

About your question on getting it all-in with the best of it, do you mean everytime? I often bust out with the worst of it when I'm short stacked. If I have a good stack and bust, I usually have the best of it....but not always.