Maybe I'm just unlucky?

I've never given luck, good or bad, much credence once I read SuperSystem a handful of years ago. Doyle Brunson made me understand there's much skill in poker and consistent winning is not tied to luck. There may be luck on any given hand or even session, but we all know the cliche: In the long run the skilled players will get all of the money.

So when someone says luck dominates poker, I always steam a little, and try to explain to them why they're indeed ignorant. And ignorant isn't a harsh word or an insult. It merely means "being uneducated in a specific area," and in this case, when people don't understand how to play poker and they always lose, they say they were unlucky. And I'm the first to say "No, you just need to understand the game better." I'm actually working on a piece about this for the paper.

But lately, the losing I've been experiencing online has me wondering about this luck factor. I keep waiting for variance to catch up, but I'm not sure my bankroll can handle it. And it took my wife listening to another one of my sick hands to point it out to me. She said "I think you're just unlucky online." I started to laugh, but then I wondered if there's actually merit in that point of view. And this post comes immediately after I finally won a $26 token with my FTP points last night (and I needed to get lucky one time during the match. I'll talk about that a little later in another post).

So here's a hand that sparked the conversation, but I'm not whining about it (calm down Zerbet, if you're even reading this blog anymore) and it's not a bad beat, just an unfortunate turn card. I'd been up and down playing NLHE for small stakes (one time my kings held up vs. AJ and once they lost to 10-10). But I was finally up to about $30 (after starting with $10). I was dealt 6♠8♠ in the BB. It's unraised with two limpers (the SB folded). The flop came A♠4♠4♥. So I checked and it got checked around until the button, who bet the minimum. Everyone called. I thought about a check-raise, but chickened out because I don't like ALWAYS betting a draw and a check-raise there screams "flush draw."

The turn was the 5♠, which gave me the flush and a straight-flush draw. I bet pot, thinking if someone has an ace I'm going to either felt them or I need to protect my hand from someone having a higher spade. Both called. DOH! "Someone has a 4 and someone has the K♠," I thought. The river was a 3♥. I considered checking, but I thought, "I better put out a defensive bet in case someone has a higher flush." So I bet like a third of the pot. The cutoff min-raised and the button shoved. Well, it was a nominal re-raise and didn't open the betting again so I called, as did the min-raiser. THEY BOTH FLOPPED A FULL HOUSE!!! They both had A4!

Now, how unlucky is that? I saw the flop for free, made my hand on 4th street (practically drawing dead, ultimately drawing to one out after the turn). I can't fold after that flop, right? For a min bet? The odds of someone holding A4 and flopping a boat is 1,088-to-1 or .9% (according to SuperSystem's tables). I can't imagine what the odds are of two people having A4 and both flopping a full house. So I have to think a flush might be good on the turn. On the river I thought I might've lost to someone who limped with J♠10♠ or some spade-spade variation, or A♣5♣. But I had to pay it off regardless. Should I have I checked the river and called anything reasonable?

I lost about half my stack on the hand, and I understand with the paired board I shouldn't have gotten too committed to this hand, and it's really not a bad-beat story. I got away for the minumum, I think. Plus you really shouldn't go broke in an unraised pot (another SuperSystem gem). I just think I got unlucky again. I mean, 8♠6♠ is the type of hand you want to bust people with, and I see it all of the time. But when I make my hand TWO people have monsters? I used to say that I can't be afraid of the monsters under the bed all of the time, but I've been getting so unlucky lately that I am gun shy. Not live, but online.

And can I play this hand any differently? Obviously I'm not raising out of position with 8♠6♠. So I can't be faulted for letting the A4 hands see a flop, right? And shouldn't I protect my hand when the turn completed my flush? How much do you bet there on the turn? Do you check-call? Do you shove? Do you bet half the pot and let someone with a lone 4 call to hit his 10 outs? As it turned out they both had boats (flopped no less). I actually had one out on the river, but that isn't happening unless there's $420 in the pot. LOL!

And if I say my losses are from bad luck, am I now a hypocrite? Did I just play it wrong? Do I not understand NLHE anymore? Even if I did play this hand wrong (which I'm definitely open to suggestions on how I should've played it), it still doesn't account for the other beats I've been taking, such as set over set, etc. I won't list the bad beats AGAIN!

I think I'm destined to be a "live" player only. The bad beats and unlucky hands may still come, but as you all have pointed out to me, we don't see as many hands live so it doesn't hurt as much and as often. I'm WAY more successful live than online these days, and that hurts. I used to win so much online.

Those days are gone, I'm afraid. I used to think if I played higher limits the luck wouldn't be so much of a factor, but that clearly isn't the case. And if you play low limits people play anything. Poker is a tough beast to tame for me lately, and the frustration continues to mount.

-- Chris

Comments

[Erwin Blonk]

You pretty much drew the conclusion: do yourself a favor, besides the occasional AIPS, stop playing online. You probably need the live atmosphere, as opposed to me, who is behind a keyboard like a fish in the water. It even goes beyond the tells, it is being there enjoying yourself.
If someone offered to pay my buy-in for a $100 online or b&m tournament, I'd choose online, period. Not that I dislike playing live, but it will be for entertainment, not for serious play, so to speak, I don't use bankroll money for live play and win or lose, I don't put it in my poker results.
You are likely the opposite.

[Ashwin]

I agree that the quality of play is much better in live game. And by that I mean it is easier to get a sense of your opponents with more information, and it is a more enjoyable experience.

Lately, what's been frustrating me about poker has been how online people love to sit behind their keyboards and berate your play. Or if you lay a sick beat on them (which may be your straight+flush draw coming through) they get all snappy.

It's really hard to tell if they are being sarcastic or not, but I'm just not feeling that at the moment. Do most people think poker is about the ego?

[Mike Brown]

Chris,

Go to Amazon and buy "The Poker Mindset". You'll get over your bad beats pretty quickly.

[Michael Paul]

Gavin Smith was saying something about luck. he said that although mathematically things should work out in the long run, he believes that some people may never see that variance even out in their entire lifetime because the statistics cover eternity and a lifetime is still only a small portion of that. Is he right? I dunno.

as far as online play versus live play goes, I think I'm a much better live player. not because of the tells so much but I just think that at a $1/$2 table a $20 bet into a pot is substantial. at the micro stakes, a $1 bet into a pot of the same size and of the same proportion relative to any blinds or raises is just not that significant to some players. They're playing the dollar amounts and not the odds of the hand so they call 'cuz "it's cheap" even if it's not mathematically correct.

I have sort of determined that you just don't need to get too cute at the micro stakes. big bet or consistent strong betting almost always means big hand OR the opponent isn't going to fold so just don't try to bluff them. Once I stopped trying to bully my opponents simply because I knew they wouldn't fold their A-4 with top pair I got a much better attitude about online.

we'll see how it goes long term but I play online for hand experience and not necessarily for results. I play (online anyway since I don't play live too much and haven't put it to practice yet) far more differently now than I used to and I think it's a winning strategy. I'm up online a small amount so the results are at least promising thus far.

Michael

[Anonymous]

Maybe you just suck :)

Just sayin

[Blazman]

You drew to a baby flush with a paired board, I think you should spend more time in the instructional sections of super system and lets time in the odds tables.

[Blazman]

Also, you were not unlucky the other night when we played heads up. You hit EVERY hand. I can post the hand history if you are interested. Also did you get poker tracker yet? You have inattentional blindness when it comes to this issue. You need to view actual stats and you will be surprised.

-Blaz

[Joker]

I guess luck is a relative term. If your opponents in that hand had a blog, they'd be posting about how unlucky they were to have split that pot; complaining that they were only able to split the dead money from this guy in the big blind on a little flush draw.

They'd be commenting on how really lucky you were that their stacks and the stakes were small.......and you woulda lost a ton more otherwise.

Wasn't there a similar story about luck in Super System? I'll have to look it up, but if you read it you may remember it.

[Chiberta]

Hmmm, i dont think you played this hand badly. Although you could argue a check on the river.

One thing I can't help wondering (but which has nothing to do with this hand), is if you are adjsuting your strategy enough to the really small stakes you are playing.

In small no limit games where people dont know what they are doing, my approach is to play really loose preflop, and make money when you hit with any two cards. I actually believe that a loose and relatively passive style (which would be the worst possible style in, say a big limit game) is what often (but not always) works best in the really small no limit games. This style off course requires loose players that will make more mistakes after the flop than you.

Most of the super system advice just doesnt work against terrible players (remember Doyle also states that his advice is based on his own experience, playing against the best in the world)

Now, I dont mean to imply that you are playing blindly by the advice in super system or any other book! Or that you arent playing the players. But are you adjusting enough to the 'lilliput-poker'?

Good luck! And don't quit online, examine your strategy instead. If you dont find any flaws, and it really just is bad luck, then your edge should be huge!! - and it will turn around.

- Jonas, Copenhagen, Denmark

[viii_ball]

I think online vs. live play is like hold'em vs. stud. They are very different and you might be good at one and not the other. Styles are also very different. I know I tend to be (and I would postulate that most players tend to be) more loose playing online for two reasons. One, you know there is another game just a click away so you might try and crack off a hand where you might lay it down live. Two, you see all these donkeys getting rewarded by calling a 9x raise with A2 so you think, if they can do it, I can do it which leads to looser play.

Two years ago I was killing the $10+1 SnG's on Doyle's Room cashing in about 60% of what I played. Now playing mainly at Full Tilt (although coming back to DR some) I can't win my way out of a paper bag. Yet two years ago live cash games I was basically a break even player now I am horribly disappointed if I don't crush my home $0.50-1 game for $150 or more.

Stop playing online for awhile if for no other reason than to get rid of the stress you seem to incur by playing there. You are lucky in that you have local live games you can go play. Here in DC I either have to scrounge up a home game or drive 4 hours to Atlantic City. Do what you are comfortable with and ultimately you may gravitate back to online and find you like it again.

[Paboo]

Tough hand... paired board is aways a huge red flag in my book now.

In a cash game, I think I can fairly easily give up this hand after my turn POT bet gets called by two. You asked for infomation, you got it.

I'm folding to any reasonable bet on river if I don't hit my straight flush.

But in low limit tournament game... this is still tough hand to get away from.

The longer you play poker, the more 'unbelievable' things you will see. I think Doyle's seen this hand 10 or 20 times by now, don't you think?

I've got another buddy that can't seem to get over crying about his 'incrediable bad beats'... even though he's got a good chuck of change in his ever increasing bankroll. He's winning at a small pace, but he is a winning poker player, let he still complains! I don't think you or he will ever get rid of that monkey off your back.

Playing poker is going to give you two a hard attack unless you can kill the monkey. And if you can't kill the monkey, you might want to seriously consider giving up the game of poker.

Paboo

[Chris Cosenza]

Hey Anonymous poster: Believe me, I have given that a lot of thought too, but if I suck then that can't explain the bankroll I have or the live play success. Maybe I just suck online?

Blaz: Yes I was hit in the head with the deck vs. you heads-up, and I was fortunate. Of course you lost a lot of your stack not believing me. If you believed me when I bet, you might have turned things around and I may have seen that bad luck return. 8-) I hear a Mac version of PokerTracker is on the horizon. If that's true, and I haven't yet thrown my computer through the window, I will get a copy. And as for drawing to the flush, it felt more like the flush was drawing me, if you know what I mean? I was put into a no-win situation there by getting to see a free flop and a cheap turn. I was doomed. SuperSystem would have told me to play it the same way, though probably would have told me to play it more aggressively.

Paboo: The thing about this post was just to remark on how unlucky that turn card was, and it seems like bad luck has been following me lately. Yes, I got my info when they both called, but it could have been a naked 4 and a naked high spade, no? As for giving up poker, that won't happen. I have way too much fun playing live and way too much overall success to quit. Oh, and you need an editor badly. 8-)

Jonas: Thanks for the reply. I only brought up SuperSystem to make you understand that was when I first realized poker was skill mostly. It's not that I follow it blindly. Most poker books that were written pre-Moneymaker were written for higher stakes, and SuperSystem was written for the highest stakes. I don't follow it religiously believe me. And I think if you took a high stakes pro and threw him into a low limit game he would fail miserably. This post wasn't about how to play bad players,though, it was just about bad luck. If a clu comes on the turn I check and get the hell out of there. But to be in a hand for free, flop a flush draw when two guys flop boats and then I get there on the turn is just bad luck, and how I have been running online lately.

Mike B: I think I will buy that book. If I do I will post my thoughts on it.

[Zerbet]

For those who postulate otherwise, be advised I don't post "anonymously" - that wasn't me, even though they tried to make it seem so with the "just sayin'" in there. Blaz, pry.

Anyway, here's a thought:

"I keep waiting for variance to catch up..."

then later...

"I used to win so much online."

Um... Ever considered that maybe variance IS catching up?

[Jonas 'Chiberta']

Hey Chris,

Well, I didnt say that you followed super system or other high stakes strategy religiously. In fact, I pointed out that I know you don't!

And I didnt critize your play on this, or any other hands that I know of.

My point was only that if youre experiencing a longer period of losing, that you should consider if theres a strategic leak in your game, mixed in with the bad beats. And then I offered a bit of advice, which may or may not be helpful.

You say that your post is not about strategy, only about bad luck. But whenever a poker player says that he is losing due to bad luck he should expect people to second guess his reasoning ;-)

Hope the cards break even for you!

Sincerely, Jonas

[Blazman]

Send me all of your hand histories and I would be happy to create a PT database for you and send you back the reports.

Are you really going to justify your play after catching that flush, do yourself a favor and take responsibility for a bad play. I don't think that there is any way that you are getting into this situation in a live gave. Paired board and you get to see a cheap turn then Snuffy bets out and Fasso goes all in behind him, you can't tell me that you are calling right there with an 8 high flush. I think that you knew what the right play was there but just didn't do it. This is no different a fat person that faces death and needs to lose weight and stuffs themselves with 8,000 calories a day.

-Blaz

[Blazman]

Zerb,

I assure you that if I posted "maybe you just suck" that I would most certainly have taken credit for it, and if I did I certainly would not have tried to give you credit.

-Blaz

[Chris Cosenza]

Zerbet: I never thought it was you who posted anonymously. Are you serious with your variance comment though? I mean, come on. So for 2 years I was ahead of the curve destroying SNGs and cash games online and now it's catching up with me? That's ridiculous. By that line of thinking, everyone should be a break-even player.

Blaz: That hand I used as my example is exactly what it is, unfortunate. I didn't misplay it. Are you telling me you don't call a single bet on the flop? Are you telling me you don't bet out when you make your hand? And on the river, if the guy who shoved had more chips to reopen the betting I do fold. Again, that was unfortunate, in a twisted sort of way. Are you saying you check the river? Maybe that's my mistake in the hand, but I had sound reasoning for betting as well.

I might take you up on the offer for PT. I'll let you know.

[Macdaddyo]

Well Chris, I do remember Doyle mentioning in Super System that you should be very wary playing in an unraised pot before the flop. On top of that you were in the worst position at the table. In that spot I might even fold to the min raise by the button. You only have an 8 high flush draw with two players behind you that couls have ANYTHING, including two higher spades (J,10 or 10,9). Unless you had some kind of read on both these players, which is difficult to do online unless you have been playing with them for a while, you've got to let it go and forget the hand no matter what the board shows later. Once you decided to call the min bet after the flop and hit your hand on the turn, I might have checked again there, following Doyle's advice of keeping the pot small, if possible in a situation like this. See if the one of other two players bet strong and then you can make a decision to go all the way with your hand. The good part about this strategy is you can still let the hand go and it hasn't cost you much. Once you made the first move by betting the pot after the turn, it's hard to let the hand go because you have invested substantially to the pot. Plus, you are playing at micro limits, so it only cost about $15.00 to see the hand to the end. At higher stakes, I don't think you would call after the way the betting went on the turn and river. Just my two cents worth.

P.S. It's a shame you didn't hit the straight flush on the river. The "RCG rigged for action" talk would have been alive and well (and your bank roll would be healthier too!)

MacDaddy0

[engstrok]

Calling there on the river is not good. The first guy check-called the flop, called the turn, then shoved the river. The second guy min bet the flop, overcalled the turn, then three bet the river. I don't know what the pot odds were on the river, but I'd say greater than 90% of the time one of them has better than an 8 high flush.

You were also up triple your buy-in before this hand came along (nice positive variance to be up 2 buy-ins, wouldn't you say?). Why no mention of how lucky you got to get favorable situations up to the point when this hand came up?

[Blazman]

If I did play the hand like this, I'm not going to post it to a blog as evidence that I am unlucky. You lost with an 8 high flush on a paired board with 2 other players in the hand. What can a player min bet the flop with? Nuts or the nut draw? I dunno but it's pretty suspicious and no I do not bet the river. It's not being afraid of the monsters under the bed, it's being afraid of the other 12 possible hands that can beat you.

But that is not the point the point is that you are stuck on this bad luck thing and you are creating these situations and then focusing on them and thus you are not mentally prepared to play, and so you get to lose.

-Blaz

[Chris Cosenza]

Thanks guys. I was hoping someone would address the way I played the hand. Macdaddyo, I guess my thinking was that on the turn I was afraid of someone with a high spade in their hand or just a 4. But I agree, if I played it your way I could have gotten away from it. Then again, hindsight is 20-20 and you can see why it's easier for me to disect the hand of the week because you almost know what's coming.

Engstrok: I did mention how I got to about $30. The kings hand that I won vs. AJ came when I had about $13.50 and I doubled through a guy who reraised me all-in preflop. Not much mystery there, just one hand, and certainly not lucky, just someone overplaying AJ, like Blaz would do.

[Chris Cosenza]

Good points Blaz. Thanks. I am fixated on it, and that's not good. I appreciate the comments from everyone. I may need to take some time off from online and regroup. Do some reading and concentrate on my live play for a bit. But I may send Blaz some of my hand histories to see what's up. If I do I'll report it here. Thanks again, I really do appreciate the feedback.

[Joe-Unimpressed]

Couple of responses.

Online MicroLimits: The biggest issue here is that at those low limits, you don't believe ANYONE. Know, they can't have the Fullhouse. They're just on a draw. That's one of the reasons I suck at the minimum stakes online, I just don't believe people.

Variance vs Luck: I liked zerberts comment about Chris killing online for 2 years and now losing being attributed to variance. The true ignornace lies with the person that says luck doesn't play a huge part in poker. Any tournament has a lot to do with luck in one way or another. Yes over the "long term" it should all even out, in theory. But there is no definition of "long term". That's the point Michael Paul was making about Gavin Smiths' comment. Who's to say "long term" is a month, a year, or even a lifetime. You can go on a lucky streak for a long time and have variance not catch up to you.

[Rant2112]

"I used to say that I can't be afraid of the monsters under the bed all of the time, but I've been getting so unlucky lately that I am gun shy. Not live, but online."

This is a major leak and will become self-fulfilling. Careful.

----

On the hand:
I have no problem with checking pre-flop or check/calling on the flop. There are other options of course but this one is fine.

I probably bet less than the pot on the turn, probably 2/3 or so. At small stakes anyone with a spade is going to call. If a spade comes on the river you are probably beat. It is also more likely that a bigger flush will re-raise and give you some info.

On the river I don't mind the 1/3 pot bet. To me it is a value bet. At small stakes you'll get called by Ax, 4x, 2x, etc. I don't understand what you mean by a defensive bet. I seriously, seriously doubt a 1/3 pot bet is going to get any hand better than yours to fold.

After the raise and call/small re-raise I hope I can fold. You may have one of them beat - I doubt you have them both beat often enough. Unless you have reads on these guys I think a fold is correct. The first guy might put you on a busted flush draw and try to push you out. After the 2nd guy call/small re-raises you are probably beat by one of them.

[Joe-Unimpressed]

I think it would be hilarious if after looking at the hand histories, we find out that Chris REALLY IS UNLUCKY online. Aces gets cracked by 72 80% of the time. He's never won a race. AK vs A2 is a guaranteed loser for him.

[engstrok]

You got "lucky" to have KK against a guy who would reraise-push AJ pre-flop against you. You got "lucky" to have someone push their TT into your KK. Then you got "unlucky" to have the KK not hold up. As far as luck in this session, that's about it. This 8 high flush hand isn't an "unlucky" cold deck. Like blaz said it's the 13th nuts against an all-in raiser and an all-in reraiser on the river.

[Chris Cosenza]

Engstrok, you're falling into the same thinking as Zerbet in that your rational, except that you believe EVERY hand has luck in it. I'm not saying I'm unlucky every hand, but your logic is. If you have to use that example to make your point then you may as well say I'm lucky I was born from hard-working loving parents who gave me a great community to grow up in, etc. Please. Besides, I didn't say anything about the hand being cold decked or a bad beat, just unlucky, which is how it seems I am running lately. Yes, I could have laid down my 8-high flush, but those are the hands people build bankrolls on, not just all-in races.

[Joe-Unimpressed]

"but those are the hands people build bankrolls on, not just all-in races."

And the ones people lose them on.

[Zerbet]

"So for 2 years I was ahead of the curve destroying SNGs and cash games online and now it's catching up with me? That's ridiculous."

It was a just an observation to point out that there can be many ways to explain a set of circumstances... but ridiculous?

That's pretty astounding coming from someone with professional sports exposure. You've never seen a heater? Never had a slump?

Never seen someone make a slump worse by denying it or screwing around with their game?

Has no one ever pointed out that both heaters AND slumps are similar kinds of statistical anomalies, and you shouldn't base your expectations on either one?

Is it really inconceivable that you might be experiencing some/several/many/a lot of months of coming back toward "positive, just not so much so" after having an extraordinary upswing?

[Snuffy]

You should thank your lucky stars that people shove 10,10 into K,K. 20% of the time it just isn't going to work out. All of those hands that built up your roll with situations like these is gonna subtract from it some time. You just have to deal with it, accept it and move on.

If not poker is not the game for you.

You need a little gamble and a lot of lack of respect for money when you play in order to be a big winner IMO.

When the BJ tables open at Hard Rock go throw $100 on one hand. That will get the gamble juices going.

[analscott from michigan]

Chris, you played it badly! If you seriously would play that hand exactly like that every time in that situation then your game needs work. To think you had the best hand is ludicrous. If you had 1 opponent maybe you make that call. But up against 2 players in that situation? Easy fold on the river.

[Chris Cosenza]

Well, Zerb, it just seemed like you were alluding to a circumstance that would have me losing steadily for 2 years to balance the equation. Yes, variance may be catching up with me, you're right. However, I don't agree with your sports-slump analogy at all. And to say it's wrong for someone to work on their swing if they're in a slump, but also basically say the losses are from a leak in my game that needs correcting is contradictory. But, yes, I think it's only normal for me and others to experience dry spells and bad luck. I didn't mean for this post to be the end-all be-all definition of me as an online poker player. I just wanted to get a different point of view out there, to show you I'm not complaining about the RCGs, but merely having some bad luck that I have to work my way through, because it's affecting my judgement and game.

AnalScott: I don't see you offering advice here really, just saying I played it badly. You said the river was an easy fold, but I bet first, and called a min raise that couldn't be reraised. Can't possibly fold there. So a river fold is out of the question. If you said "Check the river and fold to a bet and reraise," then that would be constructive and intelligent. But to just say I played it badly because there were two opponents in the hand in a microlimit game does nothing for this post or argument. You know as well as anyone that players in these limits would easily be holding a high spade and a lone four in that spot. So I made a value bet that backfired. But fold? To a min raise with all that money in there? Can't do it.

Snuffy: I agree with you 100%. And, remember, I didn't say this beat bothered me, or even that it was a bad beat. I just blogged about something that happened and felt like bad luck. If I don't turn a spade there I lose nothing. Plus, two flopped boats? Show of hands how many people have ever had that happen to them when they make a flush.... Come on, show of hands ... Erwin in the back, did you raise your hand? Well put it down cuz Omaha doesn't count. And I didn't complain about it, just said it was bad luck for me.

[Jonas 'Chiberta']

My hand is up!

And, if this is turning into a contest about unlikely beats. I'd like to see a show of hands from those that have had Aces full (holding pocket aces) cracked by quad sixes, twice!

Again my hand is in the air (and its not in omaha either)

[Rant2112]

Congrats Chris on getting everyone's juices flowing once again.

You have been the master of generating blog comments recently.

[Chris Cosenza]

I'm like Yoda for the poker blog community. Honest, though, I really felt like if I have to face facts and stop blaming the RCG, then I have to look at my results, and it seemed like I have been on the short end of the luck equation. So I brought this up. Of course last night on the first hand of NLHE I made the dead man's hand on 4th street and the guy shoves with a flush and straight draw. I call and it gets there. I later won my money back when I played my AA for a raise, got three callers and it came queen high. One guy bets, another raises and I shove. He had KQ and my hand held up. I have been sending my HH to Blaz, though a lot of them had been purged from my trash already. So it will take a while to get tangible results

[Erwin Blonk]

Chris, even in Omaha I can't remember coming across it.
But another thought crossed my mind: in live play it would be highly likely that at least one opponent gave you a tell that had warned you.

[Rick]

Chris,

I feel your pain!!! I have had many similar experiences online and live lately. (Miracle flops, 1, 2 and 3 outers catching on the river etc... I know WAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!)

In hindsight, the one mistake I think you made was betting out on the river. You had a very weak flush and two people called your turn bet, chances are at least one if not both of them have something stronger.

It would still be difficult for me to lay down the hand when one of them bets the river but unless they were playing real loose all evening, their calls indicate they have something.

Rick

[Clever Moniker]

OK, first of all, there is no such thing as luck. There are random events that occur that can benefit or detract our situation. To place any blame/credence on this magical entity floating out there called luck is just fodder for dopes to blame something else other then them or their decisions for their bad results. The 'It's not my fault, it is bad luck' syndrome.

Now, you are also assuming that online play has remained static in terms of quality of play over the past 2+ years. Can you confidently say that? Can you really compare the play of years ago to now & say it is the same so therefore your results should be the same? My own anecdotal experience is online has become much more difficult. I'd surmise that many of the marginal players are gone, & the level of competition has gone up.

I also thought that online was always more tough than live, but now much more so. It also was very much a different type of game. Someone said something about differing skillsets - I like this description. I think it fits well.