Had aces 6 times in a row and was all in pre-flop every time.I lost all six to some really sad beats. Of course it was rigged against me, correct. I mean really I should have won 5 of the 6 times. You just cant lose this often. This was at a casino in a live tournament series I played in. FYI, I also lost to a 1 outer on the river in this series. It happens mate both in live and online. Yes the math says we should win so often but that's over hundreds of thousands of hands. If you had won more would you have though there was anything wrong? FYI, against any 2 cards you should win about 74.5% of the time but against a tighter range it would be 64.5% of the time. Also Ak ve my calling your all in range you should win about 51.4% of the time. Also remember the are 16 ways to have AK where aces and kings are only 6 each.
AA is best hand. And the Ace is best card in the deck. So it’s a great question.
For me AA is the only All-In as a matter of strategy pre- flop. KK AK occasionally when you have a stack or about to get blinded out.
Try AA only in your experiment & you’ll win much more often.
For me AA is the only All-In as a matter of strategy pre- flop. KK AK occasionally when you have a stack or about to get blinded out.
Try AA only in your experiment & you’ll win much more often.
I used to think the same way back in the day:
"Why am I losing so much with aces?"
"This room must be rigged!"
"This is not, fair, I lost AAvsAK and QQ vs JJ, back to back!"
And the list goes on. That was when I did not understand how poker math actually works. There are so many factors besides raw equity and hand strength, and you need to take into consideration all of them.
While pocked AA is the strongest hand in NL Holdem, it is not an invincible hand by any means. That being said, against one opponent you will have ~82% chance of winning. But add one more player in the hand and your chance drops to 50-60% depending on their range.
What I'm trying to say is that most people (me included) think that having the best hand should guarantee the win. But guess what, if you are in a hand with 38% equity against 4 players with 20%, 18%, 12% and 12% equity each, you ARE a huge favourite, but you will only win 1 out of 3 times.
Nevertheless, in the long run, AA will be your most profitable hand, no matter what. That's just how the math works. What you really need to focus on is how much value you extract from the hand in general, not on the number of pots you win out of 10, 20 or 100 times.
"Why am I losing so much with aces?"
"This room must be rigged!"
"This is not, fair, I lost AAvsAK and QQ vs JJ, back to back!"
And the list goes on. That was when I did not understand how poker math actually works. There are so many factors besides raw equity and hand strength, and you need to take into consideration all of them.
While pocked AA is the strongest hand in NL Holdem, it is not an invincible hand by any means. That being said, against one opponent you will have ~82% chance of winning. But add one more player in the hand and your chance drops to 50-60% depending on their range.
What I'm trying to say is that most people (me included) think that having the best hand should guarantee the win. But guess what, if you are in a hand with 38% equity against 4 players with 20%, 18%, 12% and 12% equity each, you ARE a huge favourite, but you will only win 1 out of 3 times.
Nevertheless, in the long run, AA will be your most profitable hand, no matter what. That's just how the math works. What you really need to focus on is how much value you extract from the hand in general, not on the number of pots you win out of 10, 20 or 100 times.
It's really a case to think about. If high cards are no guarantee of a good strategy, when playing poker online it seems to be just a lottery.
Whenever people have a losing streak and are stuck in a phase where they lose every good hand then the claim is that this poker site is cheating people with their software. To do such a test, as some have already said, there are too few hands to make a judgment. For example AA is the strongest hand preflop because there can be no higher pair preflop but in the end it is only a high pair that can be easily beaten by set, straight full house or flush.
pokerdebit said:
You can attempt to prove whatever you believe in and can usually succeed if you dig through enough "stats" and compile them in a convenient way. Even with "math". 😀
What you are doing is quite frankly poor science. With statistics, the sample size is critical to expand on your confidence interval or percentage. Your data thus far gives about a 2% confidence interval with a very large margin of error.
Basically your study is useless, but you can use it as an excuse for your poor play/habits. You would be better off working on your game than continuing on this rabbit hunt.
I like to see the effort, but your experiment is childish.
Ronaldo7 said:
I don't think that people win more because they have more chips in hand, but because they know that if they take the risk, the loss is minimal for them and that's why they risk more. I'm much more afraid for people who have fewer chips because there again the greater risk is that they call each hand and you can hardly bluff them out of the game. I also think the word trust is a really big word because if you don't have any trust in the poker site then you should either not play there at all or just play freerolls. Anyone who has ever made a deposit on a poker site has more or less proven their trust in the site
