The Logic of Losing: Unlucky, or Affirming the Consequent

Let's suppose several people are arguing about why the grass is wet in front of my house. One says that it's wet because it was raining. A second says there must have been a flood. A third says it's because the kids had a water-gun fight. I arrive and listen to their argument. I state firmly that it is wet because the sprinklers were on, and I can prove it. I turn on the sprinklers and the grass gets wet. Have I really proved my case? Absolutely not! Just because I proved that sprinklers can make the grass wet, doesn't prove that they did make it wet. (This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.) Sure, but what has that got to do with poker?



A typical losing player on a long losing streak will tell you that he's been unlucky. Oftentimes, he'll cite a hand or two as proof that he was unlucky. It is quite likely that he is affirming the consequent. The fact that being unlucky could cause him to lose, doesn't mean that it did cause him to lose. Yes, being unlucky contributed to his losing, or caused some of his losses. It certainly doesn't mean that it was the only cause or even the most significant one. More likely, he has been losing because he made mistakes. I've always found that the better I play, the luckier I get.


Let me give you an example of my bad luck. At an early stage of the Bellagio $25,000 buy-in tournament, I picked up Q-Q in middle position. The blinds were $100-$200 and I raised to $600. Jennifer Harman, on the button, reraised to $2,000. One could make the argument that she can have only A-K, A-A, or K-K. Therefore, I will be a small favorite against the A-K (16 hands) and a huge dog against the big pairs (12 hands), so it is right to fold. There is, however, some chance that she has Q-Q, J-J, 10-10, or A-Q suited. Also, she has about $50,000 left, I have slightly more, and I might win a monster pot if I flop a set. So, I call.



The flop is A-Q-4 rainbow. I check, and she bets $4,000. Now I only have to worry about A-A (three cases, given one ace on the flop). I'm in great shape against A-K, A-Q, or any other pair. If she's betting a loser, I don't want to scare her off, and if she really does have top set, I'd like to lose as little as possible. So, I call.



The turn is another low card, a 5. I check, and she bets $10,000. Following the same reasoning as before, I call. The river is a deuce. I check, and she bets $20,000. I'm sure she would have given up betting as a bluff, so it is unlikely that she has a pocket pair lower than aces. If she has A-K, she'll be worried about A-Q and Q-Q. A-Q suited is really the only hand she would play so strongly that I can beat, and she might not have reraised before the flop with it. Mathematically, there are three ways she could have A-A and only one way she could have A-Q suited. (If there is sufficient interest, I will devote a column or two to figuring the odds in this type of situation.) The betting and the preflop reraise make A-A even more likely than 3-1. My gut feeling is that she has a set of aces. On the other hand, there is now almost $50,000 in the pot, and I don't flop second set so often that I can make a habit of throwing it away. I make another crying call. When she shows me her pocket aces, I'm not at all surprised. If the hand had been filmed, I would have folded, just because it would have made a great television moment, whether I was right or not.



A little later, I am down to $9,000 and pick up Q-Q again. This time I go all in after several players limp in. I am called by one player, who shows 8-8, flops a set, and takes the pot. I exit mournfully bemoaning my bad luck. Of course, I have to tell my sad tale. I lost with second set and then some maniac drew out with an underpair. How unlucky can I get? Several kind friends assure me that I played the hand against Jennifer very well to avoid going broke. A few others say that I should have check-raised on the flop, then folded if she reraised. Of course, she could probably just call, and I'd have all the same problems as before, except that there'd be more money in the pot.



Yup, I was just unlucky, right? No, not really, I'm just affirming the consequent. I played two unlucky hands, but if I had played better, I "could have been a contender." I know that I should have saved the $20,000 on the river. Then I would have had enough to scare the guy with 8-8, and I might have picked up that pot. With $35,000 or $40,000, anything was possible. I might have come back and won the tournament. See how easy it is to blame losing on bad luck.



The next time you're about to blame your losses on lousy luck (perhaps I'll start calling this the LLL syndrome), stop and think of all the things you could have done better. Remember a few limps that got you in trouble. Think about situations in which you made a bad call on the end. Think of the spot where you missed a value bet on the river. Was there a hand in which you hit the nuts and overbet, so no one called, or underbet, so someone made a cheap call and drew out? Did someone bluff you out of a big pot? That type of thinking will empower you. You'll start to play better. Examining your play for mistakes and correcting them in the future will improve your results. It also will give you a psychological boost, since you'll feel that you are responsible for your own results. If you just blame luck, you'll end up thinking it doesn't matter what you do, and you'll play worse. And the worse you play, the worse your luck will get.