So I started playing serious poker in December if you don't count all the times ive tilted my roll at 200$ HU hypers I'd say I am over $3K+. I play HU and I have something called an "auto win" basically when u have 2nd nuts and your opponent has nuts. This has been happening to me A LOT in the past couple weeks and I've never ran as good as my opponents run. Sometimes it makes me wanna quit poker...

It probably just seems like that because the brain is naturally very bad at interpreting randomness and judging probabilities.

If you were to actually analyse your hands dispassionately and count the outcomes, you'd probably find things go pretty much as statistically expected.

Long term statistics seems to be right though

Because you remember suckouts that go against you as horrible acts of unfairness, basically examples of the universe picking on you and you don't remember suckouts that go for you because they were just times when you played perfectly reasonably and nearly got coolered.

that's happened to me for months on end. stick it out. it's just another form of runbad, but it could also be play bad, but only you know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_bias

The fact is - memory bias be damned - some people just run bad and that's the way it goes. It's not difficult to get around memory bias. Just use statistics that are available from Poker Tracker, Sharkscope, and hand written notes (for example when I was playing a lot of SNGs, I tracked all my all-in plays to determine that I was running horrendously bad over hundreds and hundreds of plays. Running really, really, really bad. If it were easier to post images here I'd show it.

No, that's not the way it goes. What you are saying is that each individual has some thing about them that influences the random number generator, which is plainly nonsense.

What is the case is that the randomness of the deal, and the natural human tendency to look for patterns in randomness, cause us to notice the peaks and troughs of chance and assign these to individuals - so "run good" or "run bad" or "lucky" or "unlucky". Nobody actually runs good or bad or is inherently lucky or unlucky - these are just labels we assign based on post-hoc interpretation.

In reality we all get peaks and troughs in outcomes, clusters do happen by chance, and we group them even more through selection bias and confirmation bias.

If you truly believe all that "run good" and "one time" nonsense, then you might as well take a lucky rabbit foot with you or worship an imaginary being.

drop down several limits and work on your game and mentality. So, you are +$3k sans tilts ? Including all the tilt offs how are you?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that some people run bad, not because they "influence" anything, but because they have run bad. A fact is a fact. And some people run good. By saying some people are "lucky", it means they have been lucky, and vice versa.

all people run good bad and indifferent. in equal amounts. most run bad is actually bad play.

Losing is a stronger emotion than winning and thus it's more memorable. Also +1 to what Cry Me A River said.

Obviously correct. Also funny to see it being argued against on the stats front where there is no argument (a philosophical argument can be made).

It's true that in certain areas (such as the random deal of a poker hand) all people probably have an equal chance to run good, bad, or indifferent on each individual trial, but the above is obviously false.

Of course some people run a lot better than others, look at the no1 tourney player in the world, Jason Mercier, yeah fantastic player for sure but he has also been on the good side of variance for a couple of years. If any tourney player ran as good as he has for so long they'd have a lot more winnings than they do, not to say that they'd have the talent to reach no1 though.