Incredible hands and rows of bad beats at Pokerstars

lauestla said:

Well I experience this kind of bad beats each day, sometimes on POKERSTARS but much more often on 888.
I personnaly noticed 2 facts:
- Of course it happens very very often when you play hyperturbo or turbo tournaments, because of the urgent need of increasing stack.. and of the kind of players you face there.
- This also frequently happens in normal or regular speed tournaments, especially when you get close to the bubble and just AFTER the bubble (tables cleaning ?).
Of course I know that in these particular moments the variance will be increased by the fact that big stacks will push or call all in holding medium hands and even win.
But the fact is: it is good for the room to accelerate the tournament or SNG, because of rake.
I don't think POKERSTARS is really rigged but IMO it would be technically possible .

Click to expand...

Hi Lautestla, thanks for your assessment. As Fundiver 199 has already mentioned, Pokerstars cannot afford to manipulate the software in favor of a few players. I think so too and I agree. Of course, in a drawdown phase, one likes to blame others for losing, but that is of course nonsense. I just have to accept it, not look for excuses, and improve my poker game and adjust the tournament selection to my mental state.

But in my opinion you have observed one point very well ... if the poker room accelerates the tournament in any way it will of course be more lucrative for it in terms of getting more rake or saving server capacity or simply energy could be saved or optimized.

After some consideration I even came to the conclusion that a possible "technical acceleration of the tournament" in some types of tournaments (such as hyperturbos or low budget satellites) could even make sense - these tournaments are more likely to be played by fun players or players who mainly play in push-fold mode and like to gamble anyway. After all, recreational players get exactly what they want in these formats - action and entertainment. On top of that, it would be pretty frustrating to get dozens of junk hands to be disguised with in a hyperturbo. Thank you for pointing out the increased variance due to more frequent pushes from big stacks, especially in the phase immediately after the bubble. I learned a lot again today.

fundiver199 said:

Exactly. The normal SnGs on Stars can actually be a bit of a nitty affair sometimes, including the 1$ 45-man and 180-man. so if you are tilting and tired of "crazy action", playing those might actually help calm you down. You are not going to win life changing money of course, but winning 5$ or 10$ in a session is better than winning nothing.

Click to expand...

That's a good advice. After a cooling-off period, I'll deal with these slower tournaments. Thanks for that.

fundiver199 said:

Yes it sucks to lose a quarter of your chips making an incorrect fold, but it sucks way more to lose all your chips making an incorrect call.

Click to expand...

A really good point of view with a lot of wisdom. I'll keep that in mind, thanks for that.

Austria7 said:

Hi folks, I'd like to hear what you think about the satellite tournaments at Pokerstars. I think the idea is really great, but I currently have a really big misunderstanding with the hands and the distribution of cards at Pokerstars. In the satellite tournaments and turbo sit and go tournaments in particular, unbelievable hand constellations take place. Although I currently play an extremely tight push range as a short stack and watching and analyzing my opponents accurately, I haven't really managed to play a single time in the prize money area - not just today. Here is a small selection of hands and what happen on the board that look like "unreal". I know about the variance, losing streaks and down swings and that the best hand preflop is not always the best hand on the river.

Still, I wonder if it makes sense to play at Pokerstars or if it is a waste of time, money and energy when such "incredible hands" and bad beats become standard. There are ALWAYS



3 or 4 players with good hands involved in such a push situation. I'm not talking about the happening of a single bad beat, but about the series and, above all, the unbelievable meeting of the hands at Pokerstars tables.

Another not unimportant note: I do not make ongoing deposits but try to increase my small bankroll via strict risk management - so I'm a rather bad customer of Pokerstars.

What do you think? By the way ... Hero is "URBRÖSEL".

Click to expand...

Bottom line here is your questioning whether the flops are really truly random? That is the big question and answer is we will probably really never know, I have discovered through my own research that it is not overly difficult to manipulate dealing programs but why would a site like Poker Stars risk it? I played on that site for years before black Friday and what I have also discovered that in micro stakes whether it be cash games or turneys people play so insane that it does not really even matter if somebody or something is altering the deal, plus remember if they were doing that they have no way of knowing what a player will do or act in any given hand. I guarantee you that in higher stakes games you will find the bad beats are way less! Micro is and has always been insane!

oldgrinder63 said:

Bottom line here is your questioning whether the flops are really truly random? That is the big question and answer is we will probably really never know, I have discovered through my own research that it is not overly difficult to manipulate dealing programs but why would a site like Poker Stars risk it? I played on that site for years before black Friday and what I have also discovered that in micro stakes whether it be cash games or turneys people play so insane that it does not really even matter if somebody or something is altering the deal, plus remember if they were doing that they have no way of knowing what a player will do or act in any given hand. I guarantee you that in higher stakes games you will find the bad beats are way less! Micro is and has always been insane!

Click to expand...

Hello Oldgrinder63, thank you for your opinion and assessment. It's reassuring to hear that in the higher game levels the game itself changes for the more positive way and the frequent bad beats are more due to the crazy style of play in the micro stacks. It is also true that possible manipulations and the subsequent player behavior are not always predictable, which in turn makes manipulation difficult. I also didn't know that it was that easy to manipulate player software.

However, today we live in a digital world in which it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish truth from fake. Since the discovery and constant further development of artificial intelligence, it has also become more and more difficult to recognize it when it is used in a negative sense (manipulation to maximize winners in the financial markets, taking advantage of economic life or influencing people's thoughts in general). In my opinion, it is therefore incredibly important that people are aware and remain independent in their own thinking.

I believe that PS is already doing a good job with their software (although there is still room for improvement in terms of customer service, customer satisfaction and variety in the poker variants).

This all looks pretty standard to me. As previously mentioned, these are kind of bingo tourneys since the blinds are so rapid. I do badly races, I prefer to win pots without showing down by betting appropriately.

Playing poker is a waste of money for 99% of people. Think about that. If you're playing for fun, then it's a waste of time if you're not having fun. The only consistent thing about this game is that you lose most of the time.

puzzlefish said:

Playing poker is a waste of money for 99% of people. Think about that. If you're playing for fun, then it's a waste of time if you're not having fun. The only consistent thing about this game is that you lose most of the time.

Click to expand...

Hello puzzlefish, your statement is not entirely wrong. It is factually true that most players lose money in the long run and few actually win. In my opinion 95% of people actually fail to make money in the long term. However, you can learn to be one of the winners. There are many examples from sports, the business or financial world and also in the area of ​​gambling where people have become successful through hard work. Ultimately, that's exactly what makes the difference. But it shouldn't always be about winning, but about fun, pastime and also excitement and entertainment. So it is true that it is a complete waste of time if you don't enjoy the game.

Austria7 said:

Hello puzzlefish, your statement is not entirely wrong. It is factually true that most players lose money in the long run and few actually win. In my opinion 95% of people actually fail to make money in the long term. However, you can learn to be one of the winners. There are many examples from sports, the business or financial world and also in the area of ​​gambling where people have become successful through hard work. Ultimately, that's exactly what makes the difference. But it shouldn't always be about winning, but about fun, pastime and also excitement and entertainment. So it is true that it is a complete waste of time if you don't enjoy the game.

Click to expand...

I think the more you play this game, especially online, the more you are going to find that the hard work you are putting into it has a very very low return on your time investment. Let's say even if we use your 95% estimate, you are looking to be in that 5% that make money and become one of the winners. But even then, have you considered that there is a range of individuals in that 5%? Many will barely scrape by at break even or slightly positive. How many get consistent returns? The odds are stacked against you psychologically (the nature of the game itself), technologically (the use of everything from solvers to HUDs to bots to blatant collusion), and situationally (the format of the game is increasingly shifting into high variance and/or prolonged rebuy/late registration). Yet there is still this mass peddling of hard work bravado as if this is something that is worth pursuing and pouring your time into.

In the end, let's tie this back into the origin of this entire thread. If these types of hands are bothering you, then chances are that you are going to find yourself in that 95% population.

puzzlefish said:

Let's say even if we use your 95% estimate, you are looking to be in that 5% that make money and become one of the winners. But even then, have you considered that there is a range of individuals in that 5%? Many will barely scrape by at break even or slightly positive. How many get consistent returns?

Click to expand...

It might be true, that only 5% of poker players are long term winners. However this is not the entire picture, because the long term winners AKA "regulars" tend to play way more than the losing players. The typical pattern is, people come into online poker, play for a while, lose for a while, and then they either stop playing or begin to study and improve. The regulars on the other hand continue playing and often end up putting in millions of hands. They also tend to play far more hands per hour, because they multitable.

puzzlefish said:

The odds are stacked against you psychologically (the nature of the game itself), technologically (the use of everything from solvers to HUDs to bots to blatant collusion), and situationally (the format of the game is increasingly shifting into high variance and/or prolonged rebuy/late registration).

Click to expand...

That might all be true, but its also painting a really bleak picture, which in my experience is not really true for those micro and low stakes games, most people play. There are still plenty of soft games around even on a site like PokerStars. They are just not games, that are going to make you rich quickly.

puzzlefish said:

Yet there is still this mass peddling of hard work bravado as if this is something that is worth pursuing and pouring your time into.

Click to expand...

Each person has to decide for themselfes, how they want to spend their time. And as long as its an informed choise, spending time playing poker is hardly worse than spending time on so many other things. Sure you are not going to save the world playing poker. But you are also not going to save the world watching movies or climbing mountains. Do I think, poker is a particularly good career choise? Probably not for most people, but as a hobby or side hustle I really see nothing wrong with it.

puzzlefish said:

In the end, let's tie this back into the origin of this entire thread. If these types of hands are bothering you, then chances are that you are going to find yourself in that 95% population.

Click to expand...

All poker players hate losing, so there is hardly anyone, who can say, that coolers and bad beats dont affect them emotionally. However if it affects someone enough, that they start speculating about rigged games, and/or feel a need to went in a forum, then I agree, that chances are against that person becoming a winning player. Or at least they have a lot of work cut out for them as far as the mental part of the game is concerned.

fundiver199 said:

It might be true, that only 5% of poker players are long term winners. However this is not the entire picture, because the long term winners AKA "regulars" tend to play way more than the losing players. The typical pattern is, people come into online poker, play for a while, lose for a while, and then they either stop playing or begin to study and improve. The regulars on the other hand continue playing and often end up putting in millions of hands. They also tend to play far more hands per hour, because they multitable.



That might all be true, but its also painting a really bleak picture, which in my experience is not really true for those micro and low stakes games, most people play. There are still plenty of soft games around even on a site like PokerStars. They are just not games, that are going to make you rich quickly.




Each person has to decide for themselfes, how they want to spend their time. And as long as its an informed choise, spending time playing poker is hardly worse than spending time on so many other things. Sure you are not going to save the world playing poker. But you are also not going to save the world watching movies or climbing mountains. Do I think, poker is a particularly good career choise? Probably not for most people, but as a hobby or side hustle I really see nothing wrong with it.



All poker players hate losing, so there is hardly anyone, who can say, that coolers and bad beats dont affect them emotionally. However if it affects someone enough, that they start speculating about rigged games, and/or feel a need to went in a forum, then I agree, that chances are against that person becoming a winning player. Or at least they have a lot of work cut out for them as far as the mental part of the game is concerned.

Click to expand...

Doesn't address the fact that even of the 5%, the definition of "winning" is vague. I am sure if you tighten that up to something that resembles a decent ROI then that percentage shrinks further. Then, on top of that, not everyone who makes it into that group will stay there.

Poker used to be about finding the really soft games against players who didn't know what they are doing. It's just not the same anymore, even though you claim there are plenty of soft games.

I know you seem to have a good track record, but that's simply not the case for the vast majority of players.

the beats will happen stay in the game

discipline always wins longterm invest in yourself

puzzlefish said:

Poker used to be about finding the really soft games against players who didn't know what they are doing. It's just not the same anymore, even though you claim there are plenty of soft games.

Click to expand...

Obviously online poker or for that matter even live poker is not, like it was in 2005. Today we have training sites and lots of software, which can help people improve their game. Online poker has also never really completely recovered from the loss of the US market in 2011. And for these reasons the time, where a talented young player like Tom Dwan could deposit a small amount and run it up to millions in a few years, are not coming back.

However this does not mean, that there are no soft games online. Lately I have been playing some traditional 6-18 man SnGs on PokerStars, and these are certainly very soft up to the 3,5$ level and the 5$ KO as well. There are people in these with a VPIP of 80%, and there are a ton of limped pots. These are certainly not players, who "know what they are doing". The issue is, that already at the 7$ level, the quality of play goes up at least a bit. And obviously nobody are getting rich from playing 3,5$ SnGs or even 7$ SnGs. So its not difficult to win in online poker, but its difficult to win money, that really matter to most people.

puzzlefish said:

I think the more you play this game, especially online, the more you are going to find that the hard work you are putting into it has a very very low return on your time investment. Let's say even if we use your 95% estimate, you are looking to be in that 5% that make money and become one of the winners. But even then, have you considered that there is a range of individuals in that 5%? Many will barely scrape by at break even or slightly positive. How many get consistent returns? The odds are stacked against you psychologically (the nature of the game itself), technologically (the use of everything from solvers to HUDs to bots to blatant collusion), and situationally (the format of the game is increasingly shifting into high variance and/or prolonged rebuy/late registration). Yet there is still this mass peddling of hard work bravado as if this is something that is worth pursuing and pouring your time into.

In the end, let's tie this back into the origin of this entire thread. If these types of hands are bothering you, then chances are that you are going to find yourself in that 95% population.

Click to expand...

Hi Puzzlefish, you are quite right about your contribution. It is actually true that it takes a lot of energy and time to actually progress and that the effort is very little worth it. Thanks for the insight. Overall, your post made me very thoughtful. In online poker, it feels like the gold rush of the 19th century were very few miners getting rich and most spending more than winnings. Only the shops selling shovels and equipment got really rich. It feels like the winners of online poker are the poker rooms, software companies and poker coaches. I should actually consider what my own (and realistically achievable) goals in poker are. If I actually see poker as entertainment without pursuing a higher goal (similar to going to the cinema with popcorn or going to a baseball match) it seems a much better "investment" than to take it too seriously. I will then probably deal more relaxed with profits and losses. It's true: There are already a lot of good poker players who have been dealing with Poker for decades and only very few good new young players who can count themselves among the 5%. I think it's okay to develop a little for fun in poker, but that the effort doesn't pay off to be part of the 5%.

Austria7 said:

Sunday, Febr. 21, 2021. 1st hand in a Sunday Storm satellite. Everybody plays loose like hell. Would you fold an open ended straight draw and two overs when 3 players push all-in in front of you on the flop??? And this happen all the time ...

Click to expand...

Yes. The only time you should call an all in flop with only a draw is when you have both the flush AND straight draw.

Austria7 said:

It feels like the winners of online poker are the poker rooms, software companies and poker coaches.

Click to expand...

For sure the share of profits from online poker taken home by players have gone down over the years. This is also why, a lot of professional poker players have some other source of income than winning money at the tables. They are employed by a poker site to advertise it, or they run training sites. And to this we can now add streaming as an important source of income.

Finally most high stakes tournament players on the live scene have backers or sell pieces of their action. And the common list of "life time cashes" dont take into account either buyins or travel costs. So it might sound fantastic, that someone have life time cashes of 30 million dollars, but this certainly dont mean, they have 30 million in profits. Maybe they have 5 million dollars in profit, and of those money the majority went to their backers.

1st tournament today, first playable hand and 5th hand at this tournament, blinds 50/100, 3 limpers in front of me in that hand, got KK on the small blind and decided for a potsized bet, big blind 3bets all-in with 99 BB, limpers mucked their hands, I called the 3bet-jam ... big blind showed 32s (I am a 80.9 % favorite in that situation) but the player at the big blind got the straight on the flop. Next time I fold KK because there is no way to win with high pocket pairs ... :smile: Poker evening is over again.

Austria7 said:

1st tournament today, first playable hand and 5th hand at this tournament, blinds 50/100, 3 limpers in front of me in that hand, got KK on the small blind and decided for a potsized bet, big blind 3bets all-in with 99 BB, limpers mucked their hands, I called the 3bet-jam ... big blind showed 32s (I am a 80.9 % favorite in that situation) but the player at the big blind got the straight on the flop. Next time I fold KK because there is no way to win with high pocket pairs ... :smile: Poker evening is over again.

Click to expand...

If getting unlucky in a single hand is enough to make you stop a poker session after just 5 hands, then you should probably consider giving up this game entirely. Losing is part of the game, and we all lose hands, where we were a favourite to win. Like for instance this hand from my last SnG session on PokerStars:

CardsChat Poker Hands Converter

I know, it feels unjust, when poor play is rewarded by lady luck. But poker is not about justice. Poker is about math, and 32s has just as much equity against KK as a hand like QQ or JJ. So the first thing to ask here is, if you would rather have been against AA with less than 20% equity or against AQs with around 67% equity? And the answer is of course not.

You were happy, that he flipped over a hand like 32s, which you were a big favourite against. You just did not like the runout. But again bad runouts are going to happen, like in that hand I posted a link to. Its part of the game, and every single poker player could make a list with 100`s or 1.000`s of bad beats, depending how much they play.

The other thing is, if you are going to play, then why are you playing a 5c satellite to a 55c tournament? For sure its good to start in the micros, so we dont risk losing a lot of hard earned money while learning the game. But there is no point in starting this low. If you want to play a 55c MTT, then just buy in directly. Or play some 1$ 45-180 man SnGs, like I already suggested. Dont waste your time with something, thats essentially play money games, and especially not if you get frustrated about outcomes like this.

I think, OP is at a point, where he need to make one of the following decisions:

1) Decide that poker is not for him and find another hobby.

2) Play poker recreationally.

3) Begin to take the game and himself serious.

If the choise is 1), there is obviously no need for further advice in a poker forum.

If the choise is 2), then I advice to find some games, he actually enjoy playing, and then make a budget. It could be something like the 2,2$ "big" just to mention an example. Games where you can win some decent 3-figure prices, if you run deep, games with a reasonable structure and games with a somewhat higher quality of play.

If the choise is 3), then its time to go to work. Decide on a reasonable starting bankroll like 100$, pick one game format, and learn to play 3-4 tables at a time. The reasonable options for someone attempting to become a winning poker player and looking to build a track record and a bankroll are:

* Cash games

* Single table SnGs (6-9 man)

* Multi table SnGs (45-180 man)

I assume, cash games dont interest OP, since he is playing tournaments. And then my pick on PokerStars would be the 1$ 45 man multi table SnG. This has way less rake than the 1,5$ 6-9 mans, and its also a somewhat simpler game to learn with less short handed play and less extreme ICM implications.

And then simply grind on. Learn to play 3-4 tables at the same time and make a typical session contain 5-10 of these 45 mans. Stop worrying about the outcome of individual hands or sessions and play at least 500, before you really begin to evaluate your results or even consider playing something else.

fundiver199 said:

I think, OP is at a point, where he need to make one of the following decisions:

1) Decide that poker is not for him and find another hobby.

2) Play poker recreationally.

3) Begin to take the game and himself serious.

If the choise is 1), there is obviously no need for further advice in a poker forum.

If the choise is 2), then I advice to find some games, he actually enjoy playing, and then make a budget. It could be something like the 2,2$ "big" just to mention an example. Games where you can win some decent 3-figure prices, if you run deep, games with a reasonable structure and games with a somewhat higher quality of play.

If the choise is 3), then its time to go to work. Decide on a reasonable starting bankroll like 100$, pick one game format, and learn to play 3-4 tables at a time. The reasonable options for someone attempting to become a winning poker player and looking to build a track record and a bankroll are:

* Cash games

* Single table SnGs (6-9 man)

* Multi table SnGs (45-180 man)

I assume, cash games dont interest OP, since he is playing tournaments. And then my pick on PokerStars would be the 1$ 45 man multi table SnG. This has way less rake than the 1,5$ 6-9 mans, and its also a somewhat simpler game to learn with less short handed play and less extreme ICM implications.

And then simply grind on. Learn to play 3-4 tables at the same time and make a typical session contain 5-10 of these 45 mans. Stop worrying about the outcome of individual hands or sessions and play at least 500, before you really begin to evaluate your results or even consider playing something else.

Click to expand...

Hi fundiver,
thank you for your detailed post. After a cool down phase and a spectacular and formative tournament, I made a few new rules that protect my bankroll from a quick and frustration-related total loss on the one hand, but also protect me as a player from constant frustration and tilt. In a $ 0.55 BIG tournament at PS I lost 3 times in a row with high pocket pairs (AA, QQ and KK) and with 99 and QQ as overpairs. With less than 15 BB I called a min-raise against 4 opponents with pocket KK and flopped top set, one opponent brought a 50% bet with top pair and flushdraw (ATs), I raised, he brought a 3 bet all-in that I called. He received his flush on the river.

Despite the lost game, I was very satisfied with my game, because despite the loss of a total of 4 premium hands (AA, QQ, KK, QQ) and an overpair, I was still in the game until I finally got the top set (KK) and got knocked out in an all-in situation on the flop by an opponent with a flush draw.

I then took a closer look at variance and found that it is actually possible to lose with the better hand over a period of several months. This is happening to me right now. Daniel Negreanu says in a video that tilt is the number one reason players stop playing poker. I now understand exactly what he means by that. Despite very tight bankroll management, I have currently lost around 30% of my bankroll. And yet: I feel very good right now - better than ever before. I know that very often I play with the better hand against one or more weaker opponents. I also know that I can currently only protect my bankroll if I risk less per tournament than before. I also know that despite my losing streak, I still have 70% of my bankroll. I can only protect myself from quitting poker if I manage to survive this streak of bad luck and regain fun and confidence in my game. I've also noticed that there are tons of weak players at the lowest buy-in levels in the tournaments. So it doesn't even take a streak of luck for my bankroll to recover. So in my opinion it is not wrong to stop playing after 5 hands if you have the feeling that it is again one of those days when nothing works. I feel a lot better since I decided to risk a maximum of 1% of my bankroll per day and only 0.1 - 0.2% per tournament and play a maximum of 3 - 5 tournaments / sit 'n go per day.

Seem like you are on the right track. Best of luck with the journey

Austria7 said:

lose with the better hand over a period of several months. This is happening to me right now.

Despite very tight bankroll management, I have currently lost around 30% of my bankroll.

Click to expand...

This exactly my situation too, now.

Just an example: Omaha Hi-low, Allin on TURN