On the topic of variance and perceived luck:
This one is pretty TLDR but I think it's one of my better posts.
OK so first off, the vast majority of poker players (I'd say close to 90% of regulars) think they're better than they are, and most of them think they run under EV. Of course some of them are right, but many are wrong... it's basic human nature to feel entitlement, etc.
But how do these guys get confused?
Because they think like my imaginary friend Phil. Phil has been playing poker on and off for a couple years, and recently convinced himself that he's the best 2/5 reg in his entire casino and went pro. Over the course of his first 2 months as a professional, Phil played 300 hours and won $9000 total for a winrate of $30/hr. The following hands occurred vs. decent regs at 5/10 NLHE. For the sake of simplicity, let's say they're the only big hands he played:
1) Phil got AA vs. KK all in preflop 5 times for 100bb (total pot of 200bb, or $2000) each time and won 3, lost 2.
2) Phil got all in on the flop with top set vs. a naked OESD 4 times and won all 4 in for $2000 pots.
3) Phil lost a $8000 pot with AK vs JJ on AAJKr all in on the turn. Phil played another similar hand I will describe later.
4) the rest of the Phil's hands in his standard poker routine where he ran at normal EV.
Phil looked back at these 2 months and complained to me, "man Aesah, if I didn't get 1-outered in that AK vs JJ hand and 2-outered in those two AA vs. KK hands, I'd be up
$12,000 more for a winrate of $70/hr! I can't believe how bad I run! And even worse I would be up like $30,000 more if Aces full of Kings qualified for the BBJ like it does at my regular casino, so sick!"
I told him, "Phil, you don't run nearly as bad as you think." Phil pondered his AIEV for a bit, then replied, "OK so I had AA vs. KK 5 times and I should expect to lose 1 I guess, so I'm really only down $2000 in AIEV here not $4000 like I previously thought. But the 1-outer on the turn was pretty sick for the $8000 pot so I'm still
down $10,000 in AIEV, although not as bad as $12,000 that's still running sick bad!"
I said "Phil dude did you forget about how you won all 4 of those hands with top set vs OESDs?" He snapped back, "well I was supposed to win those, I had the best hand..." after pausing to think about it, he mumbled, "hmmm... actually I guess I'm only supposed to win 3 out of 4 of those, huh? Meaning I ran $2000 above EV in these 4 hands... so that cancels out with the AA vs. KK hands, but I'm still
$8000 below EV due to that 1-outer hand in that huge pot!"
Then I reminded him of that hand I alluded to earlier- when he won a $8,000 pot with 88 vs A3 on 833r. At this point Phil got angry with me and walked off shouting, "dude, I got him to put his money in drawing to 1 out, I deserved to win that hand! I run worse than everyone in this casino and you know it!". Sadly, Phil couldn't comprehend that both of these two hands were huge coolers and he could have been on either side. So in the group #3 hands of "massive coolers", he basically ran at neutral EV despite running $8000 below in AIEV. (And that's not even factoring in that Phil hit a 4-outer on the turn in the first place on the AK vs. JJ hand.)
Poor Phil. Still thinks he's cursed with horrendous luck when in reality it seems so far that he's running at
neutral EV. But wait, let's revisit the AA vs. KK hands- these are also coolers and Phil just happened to have the Aces every time... so while it's true that he's running below AIEV here, he's actually running $2000 above EV in these AIPF situations!
So taking a step back and reviewing Phil's big hands, he's running at $2000 above EV for groups #1 and #2, and neutral for group #3 so total he's running
$4,000 above EV, even though when Phil originally looked back on just these hands, he thought he was running
$12,000 below EV.
So... back to Phil's winrate. He actually won $30/hr, but his true winrate would have been $17/hr if he ran at neutral EV for his big hands. Amazingly, Phil deluded himself into thinking it should have been $70/hr!
Very important note: the most dangerous part of Phil deluding himself is not the fact that he gets mad and breaks things. It's that his growth as a poker player will be stagnated since he thinks he doesn't need to improve...
So, despite the fact that Phil ran good in poker *and* good in life (he has 20/20 vision, never broke a bone, a loving family, etc.)...
he still refers to himself as the unluckiest guy in the entire casino.
Don't be Phil!
EDIT: OMG JUST SAW MY THREAD IS 5 STARS. THANKS GUYS
Last edited by Aesah; 03-24-2013 at 04:27 PM.
Reason: !!!