Playing well vs running well

F_Ivanovic

OK, so I remember a while back I had a small discussion on Dohhh's diary about this and something Jac said in his diary made me want to talk about it but thought I'd open up a new thread instead so everyone can contribute if they want to.

In Jac's thread he talked about having a +£95 night which he was pleased about despite not playing that well. For me though, I hate it when I have a winning night and have played badly. Obviously it's even worse when I have played badly and ran badly but for me I just see playing badly as -ev. Sure, I've been fortunate there and escaped with a profit but I know that that can't continue or else I'm just not going to be making any/much money from poker.

For me I'd much rather have a day where I play really well but still lose £200. I know that my bad luck won't last forever and should even out in the long term. So running badly one day just means running well on another day in the future. Had I been playing badly and running badly it could have been a loss of £500 instead of £200 (possibly more if I started to tilt - which only really happens if I'm playing badly) Conversley in a session where I've won £95 but have ran really well I can only help and think how good a session it could have been had I been playing well. Instead of a £95 profit it could have been £300 - when I'm running well I want to make the most use out of it that I can.

I think a part of this attitude I have now comes from a disciplined/nitty BR management. I'm still playing 50NL as my main game but can still go as low as 20NL if there are good games running. At 50NL I have almost 180BI's - so having a session of playing well but losing just does not effect my BR enough for me to care. I think in the past when I've had much less strict BR management I would probably have been the opposite and rather taken a winning day and playing badly over a losing day and playing well.

Jac35

Is this subtle flaming?

I take your point. Just don't agree with it. If i play badly one night and get lucky, then I'm fine with that.

It doesn't mean I'll play badly the next night. It seems a little absurd to me that you would rather lose money but have played well. I think it all sounds very impressive but silly at the same time. A bit like a football team going for the championship, we're not always going to play well. If we can iron out results when we underperform, then that's a positive in my eyes rather than a negative.

It is unlikely that many people will have heard of the biggest tournament winner at DTD. He is an older player, who it's possible would be mocked by the internet stars for his playing style. I doubt that he cares too much about that. He won £210,000. Were there better players in the field that week? Without a doubt. I imagine most of them would gladly have swapped their superior play for the £210,000

It was £94 by the way.

jonjo75

As an MTT player, I would have to say run well because I could be playing well for weeks, min cashing loads and coming close but with no big score but run well once and win a decent amount.
Usually though its a mixture of both to win a tourney but sometimes you just can not miss and I dont mind those times either 

FlashFlush

Run well

If you can recognise you are "running well" and not playing well, then that's half the battle. It's when you are playing bad but running well and think you are doing everything right that it becomes a problem.

gazza127

So would I rather luckbox the Super Roller or play good solid poker for years and years, run terribly and grind out a small profit?

Hmmmm

Toughy.

I likes an instant win, me.

Lambert180

Running well ofc.

Your theory is a little flawed imo because in the grand scheme of things, no single day's result ever matters. Geldy posted something on Dohhh's diary about this recently actually cos I think Doh said he'd rather play bad but rungood and win than play well but runabd and lose.

No matter how good you are, you are going to have days when you play badly, you'll also have days when you play brillianty, and everything in between. You'll have days when you run awful, days when you run like god and again everything in between. Realistically it make's no difference long term.

Just using your example if you only won £95 but if you were playing well could have meant you won £300 (so you missed out on £205). Equally a day you play really well but runbad you could win £95 when it could have been £300 if you ran to EV (so also missed out on £205 - it's just variance in how the variance comes). Long term it all evens out so it doesn't really matter.

But winning MTTs is huuugely about rungood and also it's much more important about when you get that rungood. For cash it's not the same, hand number 1 is essentially exactly the same as hand number 100,000, it's always the same starting point/situation, like set over set is gonna win you X number of BBs, MTTs are a little different. Some people will run like god every time they play a £5 FO and run terrible everytime they play the £110 Roller and that's just tough luck, and cos the long term in MTTs is soooooo long and things like the Roller are only once a week, you might literally never even see the long term in your life time... so I'll never turn down a bit of rungood

77Chris91

Run Well. Everytime.

I agree that playing badly is way more tilting then running badly though.

Ps. Playing 20nl with 450 buy-ins is sooo -ev for many reasons imo.  

skicowboys

Has to be playing well. Poker can't be a results orientated game. I player in a BH yesterday 20 of us left 18 get paid I have AA, other guy has KK, straight arrives and I'm out in 20th. OK a bit of run bad, but I played well, I'm ok with that, it happens. 80% of the time I win a monster pot and I'm close to the chip lead, this time I didn't and I'm out. The only thing you can be certain of with poker is that you will be both lucky and unlucky, often in the same game. The day before I was h/up in another b/h all in short stacked with A4 ran into 44, Ace saved me on the river and 2 hands later I won the tournie. I played well in both, lucky in one, unlucky in the other, that's poker.

jonjo75

In Response to Re: Playing well vs running well:

Has to be playing well. Poker can't be a results orientated game. I player in a BH yesterday 20 of us left 18 get paid I have AA, other guy has KK, straight arrives and I'm out in 20th. OK a bit of run bad, but I played well, I'm ok with that, it happens. 80% of the time I win a monster pot and I'm close to the chip lead, this time I didn't and I'm out. The only thing you can be certain of with poker is that you will be both lucky and unlucky, often in the same game. The day before I was h/up in another b/h all in short stacked with A4 ran into 44, Ace saved me on the river and 2 hands later I won the tournie. I played well in both, lucky in one, unlucky in the other, that's poker.
Posted by skicowboys

Yes but the problem is you can get sicked in a £250 Mtt to go chip leader with 10 left with 20k up top then the next day sick someone else in a £10 mtt to win for £120.
It may take you a long time to get in that position again, thats the problem with varience it doesn't account for timing.
In cash I completley understand where Ivan is coming from but an MTT player wants rungood at the right time. Please!!!!!!!

GELDY

it's close - the purist in me says play well, whereas as an mtt player i need the run good

but i get most enjoyment from playing well against a tough field, rather than luck-boxing a win

i really enjoyed the super roller last night, surviving for 4 hours with yoyo on my immediate left and TIMBER to my right, even though i didn't cash. and yes i needed some luck to last that long but generally i was happy with how i played. good enough for me.

Slykllist

It's an absolute no brainer.

Run well!

GaryLaud

I havent played much on sky-poker until this week, but I have run-well in a couple of tourney's and tonight finished 37/93 in a NOOB's freeroll, earning myself a little payout...all that despite the fact I thought for the first part of the tourney I played poorly, was betting against an uber-aggressive player on marginal hands AND, AND, even got mis-lead into thinking I had a RUN/STR8 when I hadn't ("4" was missing....OOOPS!)

So yes, I have ran-well but played poorly...Given me alot of satisfaction though because I have placed in a tourney for the first time - Think I might have been top 15 had I not been so STUPID so my game is clearly moving in the right direction, especially as it only the second time I placed in a tourney before...back in 2010, when I last regularly played poker, I earned myself 50c by placing high-up in a "play money" tourney on PKR.

sikas

id rather run well in a donkament and play well in a cash game

F_Ivanovic

OK so was initially surprised to see a lot of winning players on this thread posting that they would rather run well and a good point was brought up that tournaments are a lot different than cash in that variance in tournaments can take a lot longer to iron out - that being said if you are playing within your BR for all tournaments then variance will be more likely to even itself out. eg. If you always play the super roller because your BR can afford it then you should play enough super rollers/similar BI events for the variance to even out. But yeah suppose you binked a seat into the WSOP and decided to play it (even though BR wise it would be more sensible to take the cash) then there's no doubt you'd much rather run well during that particular tournament.

That being said, running well doesn't necessairly equate to success in tournaments. I know myself that I've played tournaments and ran unbelievably well but I really haven't played that well and in the end my lack of playing well has cost me a potentially big score. And a lot of my tournament successes have come from when I have just played really well - I may have had a bit of luck here and there but by and large I haven't won a tournament thinking that I only won it because I ran really well. Another thing though on sky tournaments have relatively smaller sized fields. You need a lot more luck to win a 3000+ runner tournament than a 300 runner tournament. And because of the size of these tournaments it's possible to just never achieve your true winrate in them over your lifetime without playing a sick volume of them. So in larger fields running well is definitely a must.

Realistically it make's no difference long term.

Agreed, 1 session in isolation is not going to make much difference long term but everything adds up. If you only play well 50% of the time then you are going to be making less money than playing well 90% of the time. Every time I play badly my overal % of how often I play close to my A game decreases and in cash poker that's going to affect my winrate. 

@ Chris: re. playing 20NL. I rarely play it and when I do it's only ever at omaha. If you would see my WR at 20NL omaha you would realise it's not -ev!! I've regularly made 4BI's in 2 hours play (or less) - that's more than I make at 50NL holdem over a 2 hour period.

unknown_username

Hi F I

Not in your leagues for bi's or br but I think I'm happy to play badly and win as long as I recognise the fact and can see why. .......and tilt hasn't entered my game. However when you see the downturns that the likes of Gus Hansen has had just last year then it astounds me the size of losses these people incur. That would frighten me senseless. Thank god I don't like to gamble too much as the losses would hurt more than the wins elated me , I feel.

unknown_username

Run Well.....

I can play the best poker I can play, but some idiot can still call and "run well" with his 58 off.

I would rather be the idiot..... Oh wait....

77Chris91

In Response to Re: Playing well vs running well:

OK so was initially surprised to see a lot of winning players on this thread posting that they would rather run well and a good point was brought up that tournaments are a lot different than cash in that variance in tournaments can take a lot longer to iron out - that being said if you are playing within your BR for all tournaments then variance will be more likely to even itself out. eg. If you always play the super roller because your BR can afford it then you should play enough super rollers/similar BI events for the variance to even out. But yeah suppose you binked a seat into the WSOP and decided to play it (even though BR wise it would be more sensible to take the cash) then there's no doubt you'd much rather run well during that particular tournament. That being said, running well doesn't necessairly equate to success in tournaments. I know myself that I've played tournaments and ran unbelievably well but I really haven't played that well and in the end my lack of playing well has cost me a potentially big score. And a lot of my tournament successes have come from when I have just played really well - I may have had a bit of luck here and there but by and large I haven't won a tournament thinking that I only won it because I ran really well. Another thing though on sky tournaments have relatively smaller sized fields. You need a lot more luck to win a 3000+ runner tournament than a 300 runner tournament. And because of the size of these tournaments it's possible to just never achieve your true winrate in them over your lifetime without playing a sick volume of them. So in larger fields running well is definitely a must. Agreed, 1 session in isolation is not going to make much difference long term but everything adds up. If you only play well 50% of the time then you are going to be making less money than playing well 90% of the time. Every time I play badly my overal % of how often I play close to my A game decreases and in cash poker that's going to affect my winrate.  @ Chris: re. playing 20NL. I rarely play it and when I do it's only ever at omaha. If you would see my WR at 20NL omaha you would realise it's not -ev!! I've regularly made 4BI's in 2 hours play (or less) - that's more than I make at 50NL holdem over a 2 hour period.
Posted by F_Ivanovic

I assumed you meant holdem when you said 20NL. Why not play 50PLO? Does it not run here? If so fair enough I spose. A couple of people I have spoke to said that there is a absolute killing to be made in micro/small stakes PLO atm...

F_Ivanovic

Also forgot to add this - the best poker players in the world that have made millions have done so by playing well as opposed to running well (in general)

@ Chris: 50PLO does run most of the time but often it's just the 1 table, sometimes 2 and very rarely 3. And if I don't really feel like mixing games and want to just play omaha I'll add in a 20PLO. There's barely a good reg that frequents 20PLO whereas 50PLO does have a few solid players there.

TPTP123

in b4 lock 

F_Ivanovic

In Response to Re: Playing well vs running well:

in b4 lock 
Posted by TPTP123

huh?

DoubleAAA

Would I rather play well and have a losing session or run well and have a winning session?

Okay so this translates into... a) -£££s or b) +£££s

Quite a tough decision but I think I opt for option b.  Good luck to those who prefer option a.

When I used to play football, sometimes we would play very bad but still grind out the 3pts and obviously we would take this than have a day whereby we peppered the oppositions goal but could not find a way through and come away with either 1pt or 0pts.  This really is a 'no brainer'.

TommyD

Play well over run well.  And it is not even close.

I don't give two figs if I get binked.  I've had every sort of nightmare session you can think of and some you can't.  Plenty of insane runs where I can't hold and conversely others where I can't miss.  It doesn't really matter.

I make a mistake, I play bad, then I have severe annoyance issues with myself.

GELDY

tommy to the rescue
as always
was starting to feel a little isolated

F_Ivanovic

In Response to Re: Playing well vs running well:

tommy to the rescue as always was starting to feel a little isolated
Posted by GELDY

Snap :P

DoubleAAA

It's a one-off situation right? Why would you prefer to walk away from that 1 session having played well but -£££s as opposed to playing badly that session and walking away +£££s?  We can recognise that we have played bad and make sure we don't play like that again recognising that we had got lucky that time.

I put it to you this way, let's say God (for examples sake) comes to you and says 'today I am giving you a choice, you can either a) run well but play badly and I guarantee that at the end of the session you will be +£££s or b) play very well but at the end of the session  I gaurantee you will be -£££s.  Which would you choose?