I lost about at least 1000 big bets and maybe as much as 1500 big bets in a 2.5 month stretch online about a year and half ago with 50% being at 30-60 and the other 50% at 20-40 and from what I remember here is how it happened and how I got out of it. Here is a portion of the spew fest (graph incomplete because I didn't save those hands on my other laptop)




I was in a groove right before the WSOP started and was winning very consistently online. I went out to Vegas for mostly vacation and I think I played one limit event. I played 0 live poker and a little bit online.

I came home and hopped back into things. I went on a solid heater for about 1000 BB or maybe a little more. I was winning every day running so hot I was losing very few showdowns PER DAY over very long sessions on some days with the majority of the play on Bovada.

I think the games may have been extra good because a portion of the player pool was in Nevada playing live at the time as well. But I went into this phase where I was stealing everything successfully that people were opening in late position with marginal holdings that I held from the sb. I was also starting to protect more and more trash vs EP raisers and I was clobbering these games with some very bad leaks in my game.

I think a lot of these leaks come from formerly being a HU specialist and being use to playing a lot of hands and defending a lot of hands and when this stuff works it makes sense but the majority of the time playing this loose OOP in 6m+ will end badly playing vs tighter ranges.

So finally I stopped running so hot and my leaks were exposed as I stayed in the same mode and didn't adjust my play because at the time it seemed normal to me. I continued playing this way for 2.5 months. In a short period of time I developed a lot of terrible habits and my game selection was getting worse by the day. I was also running very bad in spots where I was a huge favorite to win over and over. I was making too many calls in spots where I would normally fold and making a lot of bets when I should have been checking etc...

I was a Train Wreck





I also ran the worst of my life @ HU. My opponents were getting smashed by the deck every HU game I played as well. That just made matters worse because in the past when I hit downswings I usually would make a lot of my 6 max and ring downers vanish quickly with HU and SH games. I think this has been a long term leak of mine because I know I didn't review my play enough because winning so often HU I was always way ahead when I was losing at times in 6max games.

Finally towards the end of September after telling myself I will just play through this I had enough of that because losing so often was driving me crazy.

First Step- Game Selection- I improved my game selection and I had a very good week followed by a bad week that negated the good week because I was still playing bad but this was a step in the right direction.

Second Step Take Time Away I took 2 or 3 days off and I remember being so miserable wondering when this would end. This should actually probably be the first step when you are losing for a lot longer than you normally do. You should sit back and look at things reasonably and be fair with what you see and get to the root of the problem. It always ends if you do things right and I remembered situations I have had similar to this before and when you are used to winning so often you can take it for granted (especially online because everything is faster) .

In the 2nd sense, "take [someone, something] for granted" means to underestimate the value of that person or thing. In other words, to expect someone or something to be always available (such as to serve us without us needing to give recognition or thanks).




Third Step Review Play I reviewed a lot of my play which I should have already done. But when I was in that sick zone of losing just about every day I kept telling myself things were going to turn around soon because I had never lost for this long in 8 years of playing. I made some major adjustments in my overall game which helped a ton.

Fourth Step Bounce stuff off people you know/post threads and read relevant poker strategy that pertains to your game if you know what to look for. For the second time in my poker career I ran into a piece of information that was groundbreaking for me while I was just randomly reading something while not looking for this information and I can't put a price on how much this meant to me especially at the time. Always be on the look for something like this. I am not going to get into specifics on what these 2 things were but when you see something like this you will know and it will all make sense.

Also coaching can be a good option in a situation like this as well but I did not go this route. Anyhow, I went back to the tables refreshed and here is part of that upswing graph. I then hit little breakeven stretch and then I hit some graph porn for a bit.





Ironically when I came back from vacation this past summer it happened again but I cut off the snake a little quicker this time. This is over a 13 day stretch playing like complete ****.



Then I reviewed and did things similar to what I did the year before when I was getting clobbered and things improved over the following couple of months and I hit some more graph porn







Bottom line is to prevent a downswing you should NEVER EVER take a vacation and if you do then remember what happened the year before. I believe this is 3 or 4 summers in a row when I got clobbered when I wasn't as sharp as before I left.

any how that's my 22 cents

GL

Also to really sum it up it's not always cause your playing bad. Sometmes its just variance and the cards are not falling.

Online you can make up losses quicker but you can also lose more over short periods of time. I don't play often live but i can imagine downswings there could feel like a lifetime?

Lucrative rb and bonuses dont exist anymore

Hi BigBadBabar:

I want to follow up on this a little more. As many of you know I have been researching the psychological side of poker and there are a number of things that the so called mental coaches seem to promote which are flat out wrong. So let me use your post to make a few points.

This is absolutely true, and one of the things that's very important is that variance does not continue on forever. That is over time it dissipates relative to your win rate and 2,000 hours is a fair amount of limit hold 'em. So what this means is if your results after this length of time are not that good, it implies that your understanding of poker strategy needs to improve even though it may seem to you that the terrible players draw out much more than they should.

Again, you can't just look at your good runs and think that's the real you. It's important to look at all your results and see how you're doing.

Downswings have much to do with the relationship between your win rate and the standard deviation associated with your play (and I much prefer to use the term standard deviation instead of variance since the bankroll formulas are dependent on it [and remember that the standard deviation is just the square root of the variance]).

So if your win rate is small, and this could happen because you're playing in tough games as opposed to your skill level not being good enough, expect some large downswings. But in the games I play in, assuming you're a top player, I would be concerned about a 250 big bet downswing (because it implies you may not be the top player you think you are). But if you're a marginal player, these should be common.

Always keep in mind that in the long run the best predictor of your future results are your past results. In the short run, because of the large short term luck factor, this isn't true.

I don't agree with most of this. It's my opinion, and you can see why in my book Real Poker Psychology that tilt is caused by the inability to process information that gets presented to you at the poker table. And the solution is to improve your understanding of all things poker which includes strategy, the short term term luck factor, and the fact that games like poker, which are based on probability theory, can be very counter intuitive for some people.

I agree since in poker, assuming you're a marginal player, you'll be making a lot of mistakes that an expert won't make. However, it can be very difficult for you to see and understand these mistakes since if you did understand them, you wouldn't make them in the first place.

On the other hand, in an athletic sport, where the standard deviation is small, you can easily see many of your mistakes. For example, when playing tennis, if you hit your backhand into the net, you probably made an error with your swing.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi ZOMG_RIGGED!:

In my poker psychology book I have a term for this and call it "searching." What frequently happens is that marginal players are aware that some players do much better than them in the long run, and thus when these players have losing sessions, they'll begin to "search" for better strategies which in reality almost always leads to playing too loose and sometimes too aggressive in various ways. (Notice that this is not the same as tilt since the decision to do this is a rational one, though not a good one, and when on tilt players lose the ability to think rationally.)

So the question that the OP needs to answer is are there a few players who play these same games who clearly do much better than he does in the long run. If the answer is yes, it implies that he may need to improve his overall understanding of strategy (and there's a lot more to limit hold 'em strategy than many players realize).

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi BrokerOnTilt:

Entitlement tilt, which I believe comes from Jared Tendler, is not tilt at all since you have not lost the ability to think rationally. It's the idea that you're suppose to win every time you play, and what happens to many players is that they sometimes realize as they come to the end of their session that if they play their normal solid game they're unlikely to finish a winner.

Thus, they usually begin to play much looser and sometimes more aggressively and this will increase their probability of finishing a winner in their allotted time. However, the price you pay for this is to lower your expectation so that in the long run you can expect poorer results (and in my book I refer to this as "pseudo tilt" since the player has made a rational decision to put finishing a winner as more important than maximizing expectation).

The solution is to improve your understanding of the large short term luck factor that is present in poker and understand that you don't expect to win every time you play but that it's most important to always maximize your expectation even if it means you won't win as often.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Kevin J:

So you're claiming that just because you're running bad you'll start to make plays that you know are wrong? Now I agree that this may happen if you enter a state like tilt, but otherwise it should never happen.

This implies that since you're tired you're now going to play some of your hands differently and this new way of playing your hands will be inferior than before. And in an athletic sport, where speed, timing, and coordination are important, I would agree that this is true. But in a game like poker, which is based mainly on knowledge, a tired expert player who plays for a living would almost never pass up a good game.

\

As I mentioned in another post, your best prediction of your future long term results are your long term past results. So if this keeps up, it implies that your expectation in this new game may be much lower than what you had before, and it means that you may want to look for an easier games or get to work on improving your understanding of all things poker.

Best wishes,
Mason

Not at all. I'm simply saying that when a non expert experiences a good chunk of hours with poor results, it is much more likely that a portion of those results are due to some newly developed leak or failed adjustment than when an expert experiences a similar downswing. Putting one's head down and plowing through hours without taking a step back to look for, and identify fundamental flaws may only exacerbate the problem. IOW, sub optimal play doesn't have to emanate from states of tilt. It can stem from being slow to adjust to a new dynamic, falling into rote patterns, etc. I do not claim to be an expert and assume OP isn't one either if he's asking questions about running bad.

You wouldn't agree that a fatigued mind might lead to poorer decision making? There's a reason why air traffic controllers are limited to how many hours and consecutive shifts they can work. I agree we should play as many hours in good games has possible even when tired. But I also think the average player tends to over estimate their ability and edge while underestimating how the presence of just 1 or 2 very good players or even a bad LAG can complicate decision making. Their judgment about this is even more impaired when tired!

Right. I always compare my standard deviation with results and I'm not going to lie, I was becoming concerned. But I really was running bad along with having a hard time adjusting (I think Jon_locke is right that it takes much less time for 8 locals who know each other's game to adjust to me, than my having to learn a room's entire 20/40 player pool). That said, overall results are now within $6 of my normal expectation at 1000 hours in (still way too small of a sample size to be confident to within $6 of true earn). In fact, I do expect to take a cut in earn until I improve and continue to learn.

One last thing: I'm not arguing or questioning anything you said. But I think limit hold'em is much changed since I first started reading your material back in '98 (I have not read your psychology book and will have to get that). I used to enjoy a nice win rate with a relatively low (10BB/hr) standard deviation. It is now over 12/BB hr., and I think most experts have standard deviations closer to +14BB/hr. as they push smaller and smaller edges against tougher and tougher competition. In addition, most games have 1/2 or full kills in them now. All of this has not only decreased my win rate over the years, but increased variance as well. Not an ideal combination. It means larger bankroll requirements, larger down swings, and longer periods to climb out of them.

I definitely think being tired affects my play. I will make a lot of automatic/easy decisions the same but it's the difficult/marginal spots where I feel like I will be less competent. And while any one of these close decisions probably won't have a large impact on EV on it's own, the combination of lots of these spots (as might occur in a shorthanded, tough, aggressive game) can have a big impact on my expected win rate.

Sleep is crucial. More crucial every year you get older

So you think the idea that you're supposed to win every time you play is part of a rational thought process?

I used to be able to play 60+ hours straight every weekend. Now I'm asleep by 11 every night.

Two weekends ago I dusted off the ol' poker brain and played 36 hours in one go. I found myself beat tired but in a dream 5 handed game for the overnight section, though couldn't win a hand. Interestingly I did much better when the game was full - not because it was necessarily soft, but the energy of the room kept me awake. It sucks getting old.

There's a great video by Bill Chen on MIT website/Youtube about how you need 1,000,000 hands to have a large enough sample.

One thing that helped my downswing of about 100 big bets live was to follow Tpiranha's base 6max starting hand chart he posted on his well. Another was to adjust that for 9 max every session and review General Rules I set myself such as NOT drinking Alcohol, NOT playing over 10 hours, DO take meal breaks, etc.

Million hands is too much imo. But the more the better

How about I just promise not to edit references to Britney Spears into all your LCP posts?

I dunno what your tolerance is, but I am always good for a beer if you catch me in the poker room. I'll be in CAZ in late April, and back in Vegas over Mem Day!

awesome post.
you should do it more often.

thx mason for participing

awesome post.
you should do it more often.

thx mason for contributing as well

Hi Kevin:

I agree completely. In fact, it's my opinion that most poor play comes about because the player in question needs to improve his understanding of strategy. Also, there is another side to this. It's also my opinion, and this is supported by the underlying statistical theory, that expert players who consistently play in good games, do not have lots of prolonged downswings.

Obviously, if you stay awake for three straight days, you won't be able to function well no matter what you do. But poker is not an athletic sport that requires things like speed, timing, and coordination which are significantly affected when you are not properly rested, so the idea of being tired destroying your ability to play poker well, which is something that the so called poker psychologists seem to emphasis, is garbage in my opinion.

I agree that most players over estimate their ability. This is partly because they think every play they make is correct. If it wasn't they wouldn't make it.

As for your 1 or 2 very good players or a bad LAG player complicating things, this is an indication, at least in this area, that your understanding of good strategy may need some improvement. Also, when selecting a game, keep in mind that a terrible player is far more good than an excellent player is bad.

If you feel this is an issue for you, just play a little tighter, especially in early position, than what you normally would. All you'll be doing is folding hands whose expectation is close to zero anyway (and reducing your standard deviation).

I disagree with this. If you're an experienced expert you should be able to estimate your win rate very quickly. That's because you should be able to observe clear errors that some of your opponents are making and you do not make these errors. (Bringing in other information in addition to your results is known as Bayesian statistics as opposed to classical statistics.)

I agree with this. As on example, the games are in general much more aggressive than they once were. And if you have not yet read it, I strongly recommend The Intelligent Poker Player by Philip Newall:

http://www.twoplustwo.com/books/poke...-poker-player/

My standard deviation in the $20-$40 limit game at The Bellagio is approximately 8/BB per hour. I believe this mostly has to do with the fact that I'm much tighter, especially in early position, than most of the pros.

I'm not playing in games that have half kills. But I would suspect that your lower win rate and higher stand deviation probably has something to do with the increased aggressiveness of today's game, but the games are still highly beatable.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi CrazyLond:

By definition, as you point out, difficult marginal spots should be close anyway, so they should have little impact. However, if you find that your long term short handed results are not so good, this is an indication that your strategy for games like this may need to improve.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi chinamaniac:

I agree. But does it mean that if you're tired you're going to play some of your poker hands differently and this new way of playing is inferior to your standard way of playing?

When I began to review some of the poker psychology books this was the question I would constantly ask myself, and my answer was that it hardly ever mattered.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi OnTheRail15:

Rational thought can be thought that is highly flawed. I think it's very easy for a player who has a poor understanding of the short term luck factor and how it really works at the poker table to come to the conclusion that he should have far more winning sessions than he does, and yes this is rational thought based on his flawed understanding of how poker really works. This is also one of the reasons that games like limit hold 'em stay long term good.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi maka:

I haven't seen the video, but a large enough sample size for what? If you're an experienced expert player you should be able to sit in game and very quickly have a good understanding of what your win rate is. ANd as mentioned in one of my posts above, this has something to do with what errors you see other players making that you, of course, don't make.

I'm not familiar with Tpiranha's starting hand chart so I won't comment on that. As for your general rules, ar you saying that if you were to violate some of them you would begin to play some of your hands differently and this new way of playing would be inferior to your standard way of playing? As stated in one of my other posts, I doubt it.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi chinamaniac:

I'm not so sure about this. Games do change. So it would depend on how much in time it took to accumulate the million hands.

Best wishes,
Mason

Thank you Mason,

Tpiranha noted himself in the Well that one of the biggest leaks of the high stakes Limit Holdem regs on Stars was preflop. Also noted in the Well that he would deviate from the base starting hand range based on players and game conditions.

Yes, I am saying that when I drink alcohol and/or play over 10 hours, I start to play my "B - D" game with a higher probability and in turn, not be as mentally alert enough to exploit leaks of other players. Confirming these rules prior to my sessions, I have had a higher probability of playing my "A" game and in turn, be more mentally alert.

I can post the link to Bill Chen's video from his MIT course but I imagined that was against the forum rules. If I recall correctly, it was for a Game Theory course he taught at MIT. I do however, agree with your assessment as game conditions constantly change making portions of sample sizes too different. HERO should be able to assess his edge quickly vs villains BUT to understand whether losing sessions are due to variance/1 standard deviation event require large sample size.

There are however ways to normally distribute a small sample size using statistical software.

While late to the discussion, I wanted to comment on this.

Even for strong .75BB/hr winners, about 1-3% of them will have losses at the end of 2000hrs. So, I agree that if losing after 2000 hrs it's more likely yourwin rate is lower than you think, for a small minority of players that's not the case.

Without some in depth analysis of your play its hard to tell if you are in this minority. It's safe (97+%) to assume you are probably not.