i lose every hand

[Jonathank]

Statistics for 199 Hands omaha
Street Saw Saw/Total
Flop 121 61%
Turn 77 39%
River 61 31%
Showdown 41 21%
Street Won Won/Saw Won/Total
Pre-flop 1 1% 1%
Flop 2 2% 1%
Turn 3 4% 2%
River 6 10% 3%
Showdown
- Split 16 39% 8%
- Scoop 11 27% 6%

Statistics for 193 Hands holdem
Street Saw Saw/Total
Flop 75 39%
Turn 44 23%
River 33 17%
Showdown 28 15%
Street Won Won/Saw Won/Total
Pre-flop 7 4% 4%
Flop 12 16% 6%
Turn 7 16% 4%
River 2 6% 1%
Showdown 11 39% 6%


Statistics for 160 Hands stud
Street Saw Saw/Total
Fourth 66 41%
Fifth 57 36%
Sixth 41 26%
Seventh 34 21%
Showdown 28 18%
Street Won Won/Saw Won/Total
Third 5 3% 3%
Fourth 1 2% 1%
Fifth 4 7% 3%
Sixth 5 12% 3%
Seventh 3 9% 2%

Showdown 14Statistics for 146 Hands razz
Street Saw Saw/Total
Fourth 53 36%
Fifth 35 24%
Sixth 24 16%
Seventh 21 14%
Showdown 15 10%
Street Won Won/Saw Won/Total
Third 6 4% 4%
Fourth 4 8% 3%
Fifth 6 17% 4%
Sixth 2 8% 1%
Seventh 4 19% 3%
Showdown 6 40% 4%
50% 9%

Statistics for 211 Hands stud eight
Street Saw Saw/Total
Fourth 103 49%
Fifth 88 42%
Sixth 62 29%
Seventh 54 26%
Showdown 43 20%
Street Won Won/Saw Won/Total
Third 2 1% 1%
Fourth 2 2% 1%
Fifth 9 10% 4%
Sixth 2 3% 1%
Seventh 1 2% 0%
Showdown
- Split 20 47% 9%
- Scoop 7 16% 3%

scary

[irishpkr]

Sample size so incredibly small...

[Jonathank]

no it isnt.

[frob23]

Originally Posted by Jonathank no it isnt.

Oh yeah it is. Seriously, until you have about 10,000+ hands worth of data. . . your numbers are meaningless and can be completely destroyed by variance.

I mean, 190 hands is less than one session for me most of the time. And I don't even start looking at stats until I have at least 20+ sessions.

Yeah, you had some bad runs. . . but this is so short-term that it's meaningless.


Edit: You also play incredibly loose in the stud games. That's a serious leak and you'd be much better off if you tightened your standards for getting involved in a hand. I mean. . . nearly 50% of hands to 4th in Stud/8? And 36% in Razz. . . not to mention 41% in regular Stud. . . That's madness! That right there tells me more about why you had a losing session than anything else.

[Jonathank]

it's ~1000 hands. and if you were an occassional poker player and you won 30 out of 1000 hands and did not scoop one pot, certainly you would never play poker again. so in this case this sample represents a lifetime of poker.

90% of it was hu and 3 handed, never more than 5 handed. hard to not get to 4th st. hu. also i didnt say i had a losing session. perhaps tigehtening up might provide better results though.

ive been expereincing these same results for about 3 weeks. probably about 15,000 hands. still a skew i suppose.

[frob23]

HU stud is a lot more aggressive and you're playing a lot more hands...but without seeing it... it's hard to say if it was too loose or too tight. Three-handed, I am playing a LOT of hands... but not many to 7th.

Yes 1k hands is a lot for a session (of course your average recreational player isn't playing mixed games) but it's still within the realm of variance.

If this was a winning session, then why are you worried about it? The object of poker is not the win the most hands. It's to win the most money. If you are winning money, then it's a good session. I don't care if I win 1% of the hands I get dealt... so long as the hands I win are enough to show a profit.

[frankpapa1]

i always lose every hand.. its so annoyyingggg

[frankpapa1]

especially when i got like aa i always lose to 22 or some crapzs

[frankpapa1]

frank is the best do not ban this thing ... thanks i am ganna get rank one in the penguin game.. watCH!!

[BUILDMO]

I agreee, the number of hands you describe is probably good for half the night for me.

I figure you must at least play 30,000 hands before you claim to lose every hand, but by then you will have really gone broke.

I bet you are just breaking even, and it seems like you are losing all the time.


How loose are you playing?

[Jonathank]

f--k breaking even. how can you break even against average players. impossible.

anyway, yes a narrower selection of hands, i.e. tighter play, yields better results winning the same % of hands.

7 handed play:
Statistics for 120 Hands omaha 8
Street Saw Saw/Total
Flop 62 52%
Turn 39 33%
River 27 23%
Showdown 19 16%
Street Won Won/Saw Won/Total
Pre-flop 0 0% 0%
Flop 1 2% 1%
Turn 5 13% 4%
River 2 7% 2%
Showdown
- Split 9 47% 8%
- Scoop 3 16% 3%


Statistics for 121 Hands holdem
Street Saw Saw/Total
Flop 46 38%
Turn 33 27%
River 23 19%
Showdown 17 14%
Street Won Won/Saw Won/Total
Pre-flop 0 0% 0%
Flop 4 9% 3%
Turn 4 12% 3%
River 3 13% 2%
Showdown 9 53% 7%



Statistics for 131 Hands stud
Street Saw Saw/Total
Fourth 43 33%
Fifth 29 22%
Sixth 21 16%
Seventh 17 13%
Showdown 15 11%
Street Won Won/Saw Won/Total
Third 2 2% 2%
Fourth 5 12% 4%
Fifth 4 14% 3%
Sixth 2 10% 2%
Seventh 0 0% 0%
Showdown 8 53% 6%


Statistics for 128 Hands stud 8
Street Saw Saw/Total
Fourth 50 39%
Fifth 42 33%
Sixth 31 24%
Seventh 25 20%
Showdown 23 18%
Street Won Won/Saw Won/Total
Third 2 2% 2%
Fourth 1 2% 1%
Fifth 1 2% 1%
Sixth 4 13% 3%
Seventh 0 0% 0%
Showdown
- Split 8 35% 6%
- Scoop 10 43% 8%


Statistics for 140 Hands
Street Saw Saw/Total
Fourth 48 34%
Fifth 27 19%
Sixth 19 14%
Seventh 13 9%
Showdown 5 4%
Street Won Won/Saw Won/Total
Third 3 2% 2%
Fourth 6 13% 4%
Fifth 6 22% 4%
Sixth 3 16% 2%
Seventh 2 15% 1%
Showdown 2 40% 1%


well maybe i won a few more hands, but the main thing was i refrained from tilt, played only good hands, didnt pay people off(that is important) and didnt lament my bad luck. i hate paying people off. tilt costs money.

having an average run of cards is helpful though.



am i still playing too many hands? i didnt think so. but what the hell do i know.

[frob23]

It is harder to beat the rake than you might assume. For a recent Razz session, I ran 11.18BB/100 (net). . . and I was raked at 2.79BB/100. ***

That's right, 20% of my 'income' that session went to rake. If I was only breaking even... I would have been running -2.79BB/100 just paying the rake.

So you can play average people and be beating them... but not beating them and the rake. As for how many hands you're playing... it depends on how many people are at the table. I usually play full tables so my numbers are probably still lower than those. In the recent Razz game I played (where I was getting cards), I think I saw 4th street maybe 20-25% of the time -- I never really look... wish I had saved the stats.




*** I use my own rake calculations to get this number since I don't get rakeback on the site in question. Basically, I sum up the rake only from the pots I won. If I used the method used by other sites (contribution to each pot percentage regardless of wins) it would be more complicated and harder to evaluate... besides, I find that method less accurate because "Rake" is a tax on the winning hand. Rake is what I pay, when I win a pot, to the house for giving me the chance to win it. Had I used their method, my rake would have likely been even higher than the number above.

[iceveins0901]

whats annoying frank are people that complain that they lose every hand. It is just a very small sample that they show us while complaining, and they totally forget that yesterday, the day before, or last week they actually won money.
It is so much easier to piss and moan about losing than to say I lose sometimes and hate it, but I win sometimes and forget about it.

[frankpapa1]

how do we get our hand history does anybody know.please tell me thank you

[Vito_Nuccio]

Originally Posted by frankpapa1 how do we get our hand history does anybody know.please tell me thank you

Your hand history for the last x games should be on your local box. Look under ...\\programs\cardroom_name\maybe_down_a_directory \something_like_history\game_number.

Most sites keep many many games on your box for history. I have hundreds of games in my history directory. If you want to keep a particular game longer, copy it out of the main history directory as your software may clean older files every so often.

There are many tools out there where you can plug your history in and re-watch the game as a spectator while seeing what the heck you were doing at the time.

Later,

[Vito_Nuccio]

Originally Posted by frob23 Oh yeah it is. Seriously, until you have about 10,000+ hands worth of data. . . your numbers are meaningless and can be completely destroyed by variance. I mean, 190 hands is less than one session for me most of the time. And I don't even start looking at stats until I have at least 20+ sessions. Yeah, you had some bad runs. . . but this is so short-term that it's meaningless. Edit: You also play incredibly loose in the stud games. That's a serious leak and you'd be much better off if you tightened your standards for getting involved in a hand. I mean. . . nearly 50% of hands to 4th in Stud/8? And 36% in Razz. . . not to mention 41% in regular Stud. . . That's madness! That right there tells me more about why you had a losing session than anything else.

I have to agree, the sample size is too small. Probability takes an infinite amount of trials to approach math correctness. In poker, hundreds of thousands of hands is probably a good sample size.

Also agree with Frob, too much play here, very high percentages of going deep into hands of varied games. Fold earlier and save the chips. Seeing 40% of holdem flops is a good way to lose your stack, that number would better serve you at around 20%, or even less.

If you feel like your comparison pool is large enough and you are still losing, then a restructuring of your game is in order. Adjust your game to the players and levels you are at and turn the losses around. There is good and bad luck but in the long run the math will win out, you must figure a way to be around when it does happen.

Good Luck and hopefully your bad luck streak will end soon!

[rakmupagain]

Yes, you are playing way too loose to have any win expectations. You are actually very lucky to break even playin that deep in so many hands with vpip so big. I;d love for you to sit at my horse table.

[frob23]

Statistics      for     140     Hands
Street          Saw     Saw/Total
Fourth          48      34%
Fifth           27      19%
Sixth           19      14%
Seventh         13      9%
Showdown        5       4%

Street          Won     Won/Saw Won/Total
Third           3       2%      2%
Fourth          6       13%     4%
Fifth           6       22%     4%
Sixth           3       16%     2%
Seventh         2       15%     1%
Showdown        2       40%     1%

Here's a little rambling and thoughts... just on your razz stats. People could probably write just as much on the other games too, if they wanted but it's pointless.

I'm going to focus on Razz again (because I like the game) but this applies to your other games as well. First off, this is still a lot of hands. I recently played 140 hands where about 30 of them were heads up (or 3 handed) and I still saw 4th less often than you. Sure, it was 30% -- which is very high -- and close to yours but that is a lot.

The next thing which bothers me is that you're not winning enough on 3rd and 4th. It is rare to just call and not complete in Razz. This is because it's almost always a mistake to defend the bring-in. So if you're playing, you should complete if you're first in. Also, You should be betting on 4th most of the time when you 'appear' to improve and/or your opponent bricks. Aggression is key in Razz. In a losing session (the recent one) I still picked up 17% of the pots where I saw 4th. In fact, 9% of the total pots I played I won on these two streets (13 pots). This is about right. I typically win more if I am running well but I was running poorly and often was the bring-in.

Note: I see 5th with about 50% of the hands I see 4th with. And that number is a little high but generally I have the low board and bet and get callers fairly often. I do not call very often on 4th unless I have a strong hand or a strong looking board against an obviously weaker hand that is trying to pick it up right there. You're seeing 5th with about 67% of the hands you're taking to 4th -- and you're already taking too many to 4th. Basically, you're leaking a lot of money on these early streets. You need to tighten it up. Playing fewer hands more aggressively will show a strong return.

I like the spike I see on 5th in your wins. It tells me you're aggressively betting a good looking board against bad looking board of your opponents. I just hope you're not waiting for a hand all the time. The number is a tad low and you might be better off betting these streets more. Razz is not a game of free cards, don't give them. I do not like the decrease in 6th street wins. You need to follow through on 6th and keep betting. No free cards... and all that. In my recent losing session -- and I keep stressing that because it means I was running poorly and these numbers are not typical and possibly lower than usual -- I won 26% and 29% of the hands I saw on 5th and 6th street, respectively. Basically, I am picking up 1/3rd-1/4th of these hands right here. I can do this because I have played few hands and the hands I play, I play aggressively. It takes a strong hand to continue from here. I will bet these streets regardless of whether or not I paired a down-card. They don't know and it just makes my hand look scarier. Even on these streets, I am not afraid to get away from a hand if it looks bad.

Also, you should be looking for board-lock on 6th. This is when you absolutely can not lose. It's uncommon but it happens. If you have a 6-low and someone is showing [3-7-8-J] on 6th, you can bet/raise them all day. There is no card in the deck that will save them. It's a wonderful thing when this happens. Once you get a reputation for betting all the way, they're not going to think twice if you bet into them or raise them in this spot.

What REALLY disturbs me is your "see 7th and see Showdown" stats. You are calling WAY too often on 5th and 6th (and/or not properly betting it) without the hands to back it up. Once you reach 7th, it should be rare that you will fold. You're folding about 50% of the time here. That is too often and the pot is almost always too large to fold any reasonable hand here. The very rare exception would be a super strong hand (drawing to the wheel for example) that bricks off on the last 3 cards and leaves you with a Q-low or paired. Basically, you're never folding here. A 40% win at showdown rate isn't impressive when you're folding so often on 7th. It's more like 18% when you factor in the hands you folded as well. You shouldn't be seeing 7th with most of your hands. Also, in 140 hands... I folded on 7th one time. . . and only once. For one bet more. . . you have to be absolutely perfect in knowing you're beat to fold there.

Razz is about aggression early and throughout. Bet your strong hands and strong looking boards. Be quick to let go when a hand turns sour or your obviously beat or drawing slim. But once you get to 7th... you're in for the show-down.

I can't see you play... but my impression from these stats is that you call along all the way until you hit a hand. You're calling fairly often with 2-card hands and with hands like 8-7-3... but you're not completing even if you're showing a wheel card and have quality cards in the hole. Once you hit a made hand (probably 8-low) you bet (and win usually when you do) or get called by a hand that is probably close in value to yours. When you're called or raised, you basically revert back to calling mode or fold. And when it comes to the end, having missed that miracle card you wanted, you fold rather than just show down your 9-low. I could be completely wrong... but this is the impression that I get. Feel free to tell me how wrong I am.

[Jonathank]

i hate when people whine about whining.

anyway great players can play marginal hands and still expect to win.

[iceveins0901]

Originally Posted by Jonathank i hate when people whine about whining. anyway great players can play marginal hands and still expect to win.

but you havent been expecting to win? maybe you ought to slow down on the marginal hands thing, you would lose less.