I Love Bad Beats, and You Should, Too!

[shipitfish]

Like every poker player, I've spent my share of time frustrated with bad beats. The definition of "bad beat", of course, varies from player to player. I've heard many people say crazy things like having AQ in HE and ending up against AK as a "bad beat", because "how was I supposed to know I was dominated?". That's not what a bad beat really is, of course. When I use the term "bad beat" at all, which I really don't use much anymore, I'd usually say that someone has to have seven outs or less in HE for it to really be that "bad" of a beat.

But, I just don't think of them as "bad beats" anymore. Given that one has to lose in poker -- and you can't play any game with an element of chance and not lose some of the time -- I'd rather it be in a so-called "bad beat" situation than any other.

There are basically two scenarios where you lose a non-trivial amount of money in poker: either you make a serious mistake, or someone else does but gets lucky anyway. The former can take two forms: (a) you think you have the best hand and/or you think your opponent is too weak to call, and you turn out to be mistaken, or (b) your opponent is deceptive enough to convince you to put money in when you have the worst of it. This is not how I want things to go. I don't want to be outplayed, and I don't want to be tricked into giving money to players who are better than me.

Given the two options -- giving money to strong players or weak players -- it's much better to give money to players who make mistakes. If someone takes your money and they are better than you, you have little chance to win it back. Only pure luck will get you money from a stronger player. If you opponent is a bad player, you can realistically visualize that he is merely holding your chips for a while, until you get him in another situation where the odds are against him but he fails to get lucky.

If you've accepted that you can't win every pot you play, it's easy to see a path of gaining a peace with "bad beats" if you frame the situation in that way. That's the first step, and it's one that I have at long-last achieved. I love games where the bad beats fly and I ship chips around to weak players. The tough spot I still see is when the fellow takes a big piece of your stack, and then gets up to leave. Yeah, I admit that "hit and run" is one part of the "bad beat" phenomenon that still can get past my new frustration-proof wall. But, I'm starting to overcome that part, too. The way I'm doing it is a viewing it as the advertising budget of my bankroll.

That's a strange choice of words, especially since most people think of "advertising budgets" in poker as "money for bluffs that get called". I'm not much for that, because I think it's usually wasted; I want all my bluffs to succeed. In most games, people pay off enough that you don't need to be caught bluffing -- not even once -- to induce adequate action.

But the guy who hits a few three-outers and walks away a winner -- that's money well spent. While we see a large turnover of opponents in most games, some people do come back. But, if they are to come back, players who are steady losers have to win some of the time. Why else would they return? It's pure Skinnerist psychology -- intermittent rewards are the most likely way to keep someone willing to introduce themselves to situations that are overall bad for their bankrolls.

Also, what's that guy going to say to his friends? He's going to say: "games at that casino/club/site are easy". He'll entice others to play at the same place. Word gets around. After all, why do we have so much money flowing into the poker economy right now? Because lots of people have heard it's easy to win at poker, and have found it's fun. Most of them won't win over the long term, but as long as they win sometimes, they'll keep coming back.

For these reasons, I urge everyone to love "bad beats": no matter when they come, and no matter when someone leaves. It's part of the economy that we all rely on, and we don't want to discourage it. Be careful to play at limits where the bad beats are for amounts of money you can tolerate without frustration, and love it when it happens.

I can't finish a treatise on "bad beats" without addressing the constant arguments I hear about whether or not one takes fewer bad beats in NL HE vs. limit HE. This is a downright silly argument. If you are in a loose game -- which are almost always profitable for a solid player -- you should be seeing lots of "bad beats". In NL HE, these bad beats should, in fact, be for your whole stack! The whole reason NL HE can be so profitable is because you can get people to bet their whole stack when they have only a few outs. It's rare that you'll find a player so bad, or a situation so special, that he'll hand you his whole stack drawing dead. NL HE isn't a better game because you can "protect your hand" and "get people to fold". The whole idea of "protecting your hand" in NL HE is about winning small pots, which you certainly do need for long term profitability. But the real wins come when you get all of your chips in with the best of it, and when you do, you want to get called by someone with only a few outs.

So, my advice to all of you who are frustrated with "bad beats": Make peace with them. When I finally did, my entire outlook on poker has changed and it has made me a more profitable player. I still have challenges ahead; namely, getting fully comfortable with the bad-beat-giver leaving the game before I want him to, and my thoughts expressed above are helping me along that road. Get used to allowing some of your bankroll to be spread around the table, as long as it is in the stacks of players who make lots of mistakes.

The beats that should frustrate and anger you are those where you have made mistakes, or have been outplayed. That frustration is healthy and can be constructively channeled into improving your game. There is, however, no constructive outcome of "bad beat" frustration. It can only serve to make you hate the game you actually love, or to make you imitate that losing Skinnerist play. I know that pain and frustration when the tenth two-outer hits the table and you've lost three buy-ins already. Let it go. Drop down limits so that it doesn't hurt as much, if that's what it takes. Learn to love the bad beats; it's where you profit comes from.

Comments

[roryk.livejournal.com]

here is no place for frustration and anger when playing poker.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Being a perfect player is impossible. You have to have some negative emotion about your own play when you make mistakes. Being at peace with your mistakes can put you on a path to repeat them. You should be at peace with positive EV play that yields losses, but not with mistakes you make. It's possible to be frustrated and angry at yourself and channel that into positive improvement, which is the best place for it.

[roryk.livejournal.com]

it is also possible to recognize when you have made a mistake without being frustrated and angry at yourself. to make a play that is a mistake and see that it was a mistake with no self-abusing judgements.

A matter of personality

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

I think it's a matter of how your personality is regarding improvement. I've always been hard on myself when I make mistakes. It's afforded me top academic success, followed by quick advancement to the top levels of my profession after school. Perhaps it's not the "psychologically healthiest" way to feel about one's own mistakes, but in my experience, it assures excellence.

Re: A matter of personality

[dankhank.livejournal.com]

i'm mostly with bradley on this one. both of you feel your version is the one that's most honest with yourself. well sometimes the most truthful thing is to look at the big picture and realize that mistakes are inevitable, and sometimes the most truthful thing is to see you made a mistake you didn't have to make, so you should get mad at yourself.

you do not own the pot, even when it's shipped to you

[(Anonymous)]

The key to accepting bad beats is to truly think in terms of EV. For me this happened when I realized that even when I *won* a pot, I had not actually won the entire thing. Some people try to go half way by muttering things like "I'm winning in the long run" or "keep making those calls and I'll get every dollar you have" as they steam and tilt.

But why is any single player at the table, including yourself, more entitled to win the pot than another? If you get KK all in pre-flop vs AA, wouldn't you like KK to spike a winning K every so often? Haven't you ever thought "well, I'm probably beat, but maybe I'll hit my card" or "I'm behind, but I have odds to call" before?

So when you get AA all in against KK, and the AA holds up, recognize that even then you've only won a fraction of the pot. Don't put all that money in your mental bank just yet -- because some of it is just on loan.

Another key to dealing with bad beats is to step back and look closely at how happy the player is who issued that beat. Most likely they're smiling -- smile with them. The hand is over, and at least somebody is happy. Soak up some of the happiness from that other player. Pretend you actually are that player, stacking those chips. Be happy.

Re: you do not own the pot, even when it's shipped to you

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Well said. I often like to think of my bankroll as participating in a stock market. It can go up and down over the short term and it's not actually real money until I take a dividend or sell some of it into "real money". It's just on paper until then. This is one of the reasons I want to look to taking dividends, which I've never done other than out of pure necessity.