|
|
|
|
hiphopstoner wrote:So what is everyone elses oppinions on getting away from people sucking out?
I always say never commit your stack before the turn.
What do you guys think?
You know, I went along those lines of thought for a short while early
in my poker days. After suffering a rash of horrible suckouts, I
wondered if it wouldn't be best to wait until all the cards are out
before committing the stack. What I ended up finding out was that it was just not profitable poker.Suckouts are
a part of the game. It's easy to not like them when they happen to us.
But it's always quite a relief when we get our chips in bad and then
get saved by the turn or the river.More importantly, we need bad players to be able to suck out on us. What? Did he just say we need to get sucked out? Yes I did. Getting sucked out on actually benefits us. Let me explain. Hypothetically,
let's say that there are 2 groups of poker players. Group A is players
like us. We rule the poker world. We get always get our chips in best
and we're never on the short end of the stick. Like Helmuth says, "If
it weren't for luck, we'd win them all!" Then there's the Group B; the
poker players who suck.Now, still speaking hypothetically,
let's take the luck factor out of poker. Once a player is all-in,
suckouts are now impossible.Sure you'll be at tables with
players from Group A and Group B for a while, but eventually, the group
B players would go broke. Even those who don't would eventually realize
that they suck at poker. They never win a damn hand. It would being
like playing blackjack against a dealer who always gets 21. Eventually,
all the bad players would quit.Now who's left to play against?
Group A players? That's it? How are we going to make any money off of
them? They never put their chips in bad. The blinds would just go
around and around and around the table, and eventually we would all get
bored and go shoot some craps.The less skilled players have to
suck out sometimes against the more skilled players. That's what keeps
them playing. That's what makes them think they have a chance of
winning. If they beat a player who is better than them, they now feel
they are the better player. When they finally end up losing all their
chips to the more skilled player, they assume the skilled player
actually got lucky and call for the chip runner to bring them another
rack.That being said, to play too conservatively with your
stack can put you in the dangerous position of playing passively. That
just won't work for long term profits. Aggressive poker is winning
poker, bottom line. It's never wrong to get your chips in best. Even if
you're only a 51%-49% favorite when you get all your chips in, you're
still going to come out ahead in the long run. Granted, you will get
burned 49 times out of a hundred, but when you tally up your winnings
after all of the dust settles, you will have made a profit.Of course, the higher the odds are in your favor, the better shot you'll be giving yourself at long term profits. What's
also important to remember is that true winning poker can only be
measured out in the long-term. For many players, a big suckout can be
devastating, especially when all or most of their bankroll is on the
line. If you only got say 5% of your bankroll at the table, that big
suckout hardly makes a dent in your roll, and you're left with enough
buy-ins to come back and try it again and again and again even after
suffering 10 consecutive losses. Utilizing an effective bankroll
management strategy, such as the one I'm using in my $10,000 Challenge, can be a great way to minimize your losses and make those bad beats a whole lot easier to take.
|
|
|
|