How Important is the Big Win to Overall Success?

[lwestatbus]

(Edit Feb 22, 2010): I am still obsessing over this isue. My apologies for the long-winded original post but the core question is the one identified as Question #1 in the OP below. How important is the big win, somebimes based on a single big hand, to your overall ring game performance?

(Edit Aug 6, 2007): I've added a follow up to this thread almost a year after the original posting. I'm still very interested in this topic and would appreciate any new or revised thoughts from others. L

Another one of those topics that is difficult to summarize in a post title. This is actually a two-part question based on a common set of circumstances. It pertains to low limit ring games, though it may be applicable to NL as well.

Background: My earliest ring game experiences were at the lowest stakes offered at my site ($0.25/0.50). I won steadily with my winning characterized as being ahead small amounts at the end of most sessions, some large losing sessions, and some larger winning sessions. I was essentially grinding out my winnings a little at a time. Jumped up in stakes ($0.50/1.00) and prior experience mostly held true. Whether or not the month was spectacular or just ordinary depended on hitting one or more wonder-tables where I took away $25-$40 in one session. Still won most sessions with most wins under $10. Jumped up again to $1.00/2.00 and things have changed somewhat. I'm now losing most sessions. In most cases the big losing sessions have been my own damn fault with me calling down too many times, sometimes repeatedly, pretty much knowing I was beat. I'm working on this and it isn't really the subject of the post. In the sessions where I've been losing but still satisfied with my play I'll be folding most of the hands, winning a few pots of various sizes, but overall getting blinded away and losing most of my chips on reasonable starting cards that don't hit anything and on excellent draws that don't come through. Most of the losing sessions are for relatively small amounts over a long period. Now the presence of one or more spectacular sessions where everything comes together with a $50-$100 win becomes the determinant of my monthly success.

My Reaction: I have started to look at my play as trying to minimize my bleeding away by being hyper choosy about the cards and situations I will play and by trying to be ready to maximize those very rare opportunities when things click. Having just read this statement I see that it sounds so obvious as to border on stupid but it is shaping my 'feel' for the game.

Question 1: For those of you that generally win in ring games, do you win by grinding away at a fairly steady rate or are the spectacular sessions key to your overall winning? Since the spectacular sessions are probably subject to a lot more variance than grinding results this would also result in more variance in your month-to-month results.

Question 2: If I am generally losing the grinding contest at $1/$2 stakes does that mean there is a hole in my game or is that to be expected? Everybody has holes in their game and I know about my stubborn call-down hole but I otherwise think my game is not too horrible. I really haven't mastered manipulating pot size but also feel that it won't matter much to most of the competition at these stakes. If I haven't played a hand in quite a while I'll sometimes take a flyer at a hand that is pretty marginal--a multiway hand in a tighter table or a late position hand in earlier position--but I know I'm doing it at the time and don't think I'm losing too much through that outlet.

In rereading this I see that I'm almost asking, "How do you play poker?" but that isn't really what I'm asking. In a nutshell I'd like to know how you do at 'ordinary' or 'grinding' sessions and how important is the Big Win in your overall success rate.

[lwestatbus]

I'm replying to my own post as a blatant ploy to jump the post back to the top of the forum and try to get some attention for it. I'd really appreciate some insight from other players on this question. I think that I had the bad timing to make the OP when the gambling enforcement legislation was occupying everyone's attention.

I had a particularly interesting $1/$2 FL session since the OP that epitomized the issue in the OP. Table was perfect in that there were 4-6 players in most flops, 80% of hands were raised preflop, and there were two, count 'em, two wackos that could be counted on to raise like maniacs with any holding whatsoever. I was actually getting clobbered because my draws and good hands weren't coming through for me. I had QQ-AA seven times and all but once had them crushed--never by an overpair but by sets of smaller cards, straights, and one miserable four-flushed board where villian's pocket fives made the flush. Worse were four times when I flopped a good flush or nut flush, including one flopped flush AND OESD and two times where the flopped flush also gave an ISSD on the turn--but none came home to roost. These were all $20-$30 pots except for one of the flopped flushes/ISSD that made a whopping $70 (won by two pair). (I ended up breaking almost even for the session on the strength of two medium pots toward bedtime.)

Then had another session where everything worked. Took away $30 in an hour, mostly on the strength of five hands in a row where I had 4 medium pocket pairs and they all won. UNbelievable.

Finally, most sessions were grinds. I'm finding more and more that if I'm at a tight table I just don't make enough on my wins to make up for the blinds.

So, again, how important is the Big Win to your success?

[Skribbles]

A quick answer to Question 2:

The big win is very important to me. My goal playing NL ring games is to stack someone. I probably lay down more hands than I should for this reason. Unless I have something great, I prefer to keep the pot very small... which is obvious for many reasons. In a session where I cannot stack someone, I will be anywhere from -.25 - +.25 of a buyin (ie: $25 either way @ NL100). Online, I really don't see the point in getting involved w/ reading players or tryting to figure out "styles"... save it for the live games. Problem with playing like this online, is that I am more card dependant than most. The stakes I play at do not really necessitate (sp) "changing it up" or "advanced plays".

[Jauron]

#1- I think a good player has to be able to do both. I suppose it is game dependant a bit, but in NL I think you need to be able to win both big and when you don't win big you need to try to grind out a small profit or break even. I suppose your style is also going to play a role.

For a long time I was more of a rock in NL. I carried over my tourney style to NL. I found it frustrating that I wasn't winning big very often but would often pull out a win. When I was down I couldn't recoup that money quickly either. After I played around with a LAG style I saw the potential to see big swings and I decided to go with a combo of both styles. If I win a few bigger pots early I lay back and pick my spots, if I am not winning or getting cards I tend to gamble in more spots in an attempt to make money.

So now I tend to either win big or break about even.

#2- When the stakes go up, a few things CAN change. In lower limits you have to be more willing to call down with hands like TPGK because bluffing is so rampant. Although I don't think the skill level improves that much at 1/2NL, bluffing isn't as common as say .25/.50 or .10/.25. Some of it depends of course on what that $100 or $200 means to the player.

I've seen people who didn't seem to know much about the game playing very fast at those stakes and others you can tell the money is a "big deal" to them.

This second point is important because it will also probably dictate how they grow the pot. In a 10max NL game there is not a whole hell of a lot of point in tricking someone into slowly getting their stack in the middle, it's just $10. If the have $200 behind for most people this represents a decent amount of money and for others it's a lot. For some it's nothing at all and of course those players will be playing fast and loose.

Holes in your game is a good starting point, online especially exposes holes because you see so many hands per hour, plus I swear they have hidden messages that tell me to GAMBLE BABY, YOU ARE GONNA WIN THIS ONE!!. I'm kidding of course but I do notice I gamble more at say Party Poker and play it safer at Poker Stars or UB. Interesting how one site will get a completly different reaction out of me, at least it me it is.

[MrDarling]

first and most important, are you playing NL or FL? As I still have no real grasp of FL I'll reply as if you play this, though it seems like you are playing FL.

in any case, if you grind and just break even, I say you are not playing good poker yet! I can easily say that as my ring game - sucks as well.
In low levels you can probably sit and wait to monster hands and then hope they hold - and no one will notice you play only those. Which means you will get paid when your hand held. In higher levels chances are few more people will notice you are a rock and will either keep the pot small while you are in it or fold as soon as you make a move - that could be the reason why you lose more in the higher levels.

To improve my ring game I have ordered a couple of books and simply shy away from it until I find the time to really sit in few long session and figure my problems. At the moment, as I am short on time, I play a small S&G every now and again...

I even revisit play money tables. Now that I know more about the game, play money can be a real A game builder...

[lwestatbus]

Almost a year after starting this post I keep coming back to my thoughts in it. As I track my progress from session to session and month to month I find that my original observations continue to hold, especially the following point from the original post:

My Reaction: I have started to look at my play as trying to minimize my bleeding away by being hyper choosy about the cards and situations I will play and by trying to be ready to maximize those very rare opportunities when things click. Having just read this statement I see that it sounds so obvious as to border on stupid but it is shaping my 'feel' for the game.

My individual session results (low fixed limit ring) fall into four categories:

1. A grinding session at a tight table or possibly with a very unusual set of weak starting cards where wins may offset blinds and losses but not by much.

2. Same as above with marginal losses.

3. Loose table with lots of action and larger pots. I lose overall, sometimes a lot because of two problems:

a. Flopping GREAT draws to large pots but not making the hand.

b. Making GOOD hands in large pots (e.g., Aces up) but running into better hands.

4. Same as above but everything comes together for me. I make the drawing hands, have a higher than usual proportion of monster starting hands, flop sets to my pocket pairs. Win rate will be 20-30 big bets in a 60-90 minute session. Alternatively, one monster pot (40+ big bets) can make the session a big winner.

My tight play basically has circumstances 1, 2, & 3 together breaking even. In a grinding session I'll definitely win more than I lose but the losing loose sessions offset these wins.

My monthly performance therefore mostly boils down to how frequently I am able to get onto the gravy train with a successful loose table session.

So once again I'd be interested in whether this matches other people's patterns or if you realize a completely different set of results.

[Phil14312]

You might also consider that your winrate is lower, since you moved up in stakes and as time goes on, small-stakes limit games are getting pretty tough to beat actually.

[Ensano]

my sessions are the same...

you either...

win big, lose big, win small or lose small...

it's all in those times where everything works together for you that make you the most money... the other times it's about minimizing loses...

[tame_deuces]

FL can have long stretches of downswing, upswings and breakeven. Both for winners, losers and breakeven players. I think you have to post hands, because else drawing any conclusions is impossible.

As for big wins vs. steady winrate, that varies also.

[lwestatbus]

My apologies but I'm posting here to float this post back to the top for the second time. As I play lower limit fixed limit ring games ($1/2 and $2/4) I find that having a winning month pretty much depends on having one or two large winning sessions and these sessions typically exist because of one or two really spectacular hands.

I'm wondering if any others are having the same experience?

[crack]

Too long to read all the old replies so I will just go with your first post.

Question 1: It is nice to have big winning sessions every now and again, it builds up confidence, you have ran good and makes you feel better about your self. I wouldn't say that you need to definetley have one of these say a month to put you in profit. If that is the case then you may have small leaks in your games when you are not getting setup hands that you are winning (Set over Set, AA v KK etc) and you should maybe look how you play your hands when you are running normal or bad.

Look to see if you are just spewing big bets in spots where you should be folding or just calling down. See if you could be saving bets here and there.

Question 2: First thing I would do is look to see if the game is beatable. I have noticed that in these small limit games the poker sites are taking out a considerable amount of BB's and I personally can't see how low stakes games with that amount of rake can be beaten long term. Break even or very small winner at best. I haven't really put a lot of effort into finding out though.

I guess you could use pokertableratings.com and look for biggest winners at 1/2 and 2/4 limit and just see if there are any long term grinders there (60k hands+) that are winning a decent amount.

[Phil14312]

What's your winrate over the last year and what sample size is that? How many hands do you play in a month?