Title: Moving to cash Post by: aaron1867 on December 31, 2012, 02:23:00 AM I have decided that I am moving towards playing cash in 2013 after realising that throughout 2013 I will not have much time to dedicate to MTT's that last 1, 2 and 3 days. I am now struggling to play the local one dayers (that are worth playing), because I am so busy.
I am not awesome with my BRM, like above, don't have time. But I will be playing 0.50/1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, maybe upto 2/5, but we don't get those games in Sheffield & perhaps maybe a little out of comfort zone stepping up at the moment. Are there any tips and players here to give advice about moving to cash or just playing, cash, etc. I do play cash now and again, but not really "bread and butter" stuff for me to be fair. I am still reeling from a poorly played hand from months ago. At this point, hoping to play some MTT's, but costs are so big for me, so going to dedicate poker this year to playing cash. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: jgcblack on December 31, 2012, 03:23:00 AM In all seriousness I would advocate playing some online microstakes cash games in order to play more 100bb+ poker and get better at folding.
Once you've played 50k hands on zoom/ rush/ fast poker or whatever alternative as a minimum at each level a nd being a winner When you get to 50nl and youre winning. Then and only then go out to the live pokers again. Then when to do go you, enjoy all the free money that is still circling around the each live game. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Rod on December 31, 2012, 06:35:44 AM In all seriousness I would advocate playing some online microstakes cash games in order to play more 100bb+ poker and get better at folding. Once you've played 50k hands on zoom/ rush/ fast poker or whatever alternative as a minimum at each level a nd being a winner When you get to 50nl and youre winning. Then and only then go out to the live pokers again. Then when to do go you, enjoy all the free money that is still circling around the each live game. In your opinion what is a good rate at BB/100 in ms zoom poker? Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: jgcblack on December 31, 2012, 06:52:24 AM Well I've played 200k hands and even with the occassional mistake for a stack im still winning at 1bb/100. Which I'm 'guessing' means my true winrrate now is going to be closer to 3/4bb per 100. However I am making some calls and mainly value bets that most of the players in my pool never make. Sometimes they're cuts but normally not.
I'll double check my stats later but the last 50k of my 200kare at a much higher rate than before. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: shipitonetime on December 31, 2012, 09:08:53 AM In all seriousness I would advocate playing some online microstakes cash games in order to play more 100bb+ poker and get better at folding. Once you've played 50k hands on zoom/ rush/ fast poker or whatever alternative as a minimum at each level a nd being a winner When you get to 50nl and youre winning. Then and only then go out to the live pokers again. Then when to do go you, enjoy all the free money that is still circling around the each live game. @jgcBlack have you achieved this yet? Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: kinboshi on December 31, 2012, 09:37:19 AM Bankroll management and game selection is key if you're playing with the sole purpose of making money.
Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Rod on December 31, 2012, 09:54:28 AM Well I've played 200k hands and even with the occassional mistake for a stack im still winning at 1bb/100. Which I'm 'guessing' means my true winrrate now is going to be closer to 3/4bb per 100. However I am making some calls and mainly value bets that most of the players in my pool never make. Sometimes they're cuts but normally not. Why is it lower than your true win rate?I'll double check my stats later but the last 50k of my 200kare at a much higher rate than before. Is is down to the number of hands you play? Reading your diary you are a machine in volume. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: jgcblack on December 31, 2012, 11:45:39 AM In all seriousness I would advocate playing some online microstakes cash games in order to play more 100bb+ poker and get better at folding. Once you've played 50k hands on zoom/ rush/ fast poker or whatever alternative as a minimum at each level a nd being a winner When you get to 50nl and youre winning. Then and only then go out to the live pokers again. Then when to do go you, enjoy all the free money that is still circling around the each live game. @jgcBlack have you achieved this yet? No, its not easy. I've had to change my whole personality and approach to the game. It has become more than a game to me now, and although I still slip up here and there I am much more disciplined, aware, intelligent with my choices and playing as good as I ever have. I will be moving up to 25nl shorty, and genuinely believe I have a really good shot at moving straight through if I keep playing as I am now. I have Justinsayne with me for a few days, and although he's a spewtard at times, Pleno tells me he's as good as anyone with the maths, theory and GTO strategies, so hoping to really get some great insights and appreciation from him. I will be aiming for beating 100nl in 1 years time. IF I am, IF i'm at or close to 200nl I will then have the 'decision'. In the meantime, I have no doubt in my mind I will crush live cash for 5 figs next year. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: shipitonetime on December 31, 2012, 12:05:58 PM In all seriousness I would advocate playing some online microstakes cash games in order to play more 100bb+ poker and get better at folding. Once you've played 50k hands on zoom/ rush/ fast poker or whatever alternative as a minimum at each level a nd being a winner When you get to 50nl and youre winning. Then and only then go out to the live pokers again. Then when to do go you, enjoy all the free money that is still circling around the each live game. @jgcBlack have you achieved this yet? No, its not easy. I've had to change my whole personality and approach to the game. It has become more than a game to me now, and although I still slip up here and there I am much more disciplined, aware, intelligent with my choices and playing as good as I ever have. I will be moving up to 25nl shorty, and genuinely believe I have a really good shot at moving straight through if I keep playing as I am now. I have Justinsayne with me for a few days, and although he's a spewtard at times, Pleno tells me he's as good as anyone with the maths, theory and GTO strategies, so hoping to really get some great insights and appreciation from him. I will be aiming for beating 100nl in 1 years time. IF I am, IF i'm at or close to 200nl I will then have the 'decision'. In the meantime, I have no doubt in my mind I will crush live cash for 5 figs next year. Ok gl with it. Theres a couple regs on 2p2 who have managed to move up from as low as 10nl to beating 400nl by the end of this yr. So anything is possible if you put in the effort. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Gemini Kings on December 31, 2012, 01:22:06 PM Bankroll management and game selection is key if you're playing with the sole purpose of making money. So true. Tournaments are renowned for high variance but sit in the wrong cash game and it is as near to pure gambling as possible and the outcome will largely be down to luck. To make money live you need an active table but not suicidally so. You also need to keep your stack deep enough to maintain fold equity and prevent multi way pots with your big pairs. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: jgcblack on December 31, 2012, 03:51:59 PM Bankroll management and game selection is key if you're playing with the sole purpose of making money. So true. Tournaments are renowned for high variance but sit in the wrong cash game and it is as near to pure gambling as possible and the outcome will largely be down to luck. To make money live you need an active table but not suicidally so. You also need to keep your stack deep enough to maintain fold equity and prevent multi way pots with your big pairs. NO NO NO! (don't mean it to sound rude... but this thinking, is wrong!) You don't need to be afraid and worried with your big pairs. They are good hands, and you want to win money with good hands. But you need to be able to just bin them when someone check raises or does something else equally 'strong'. They are one pair. I'd happily take AA multiway and bet, bet, bet almost any runout... people aren't normally going to call, call, call with their sets/ two purrs.... So you only get called by one pair hands, and AA is the best one = we win. Clearly, if you have the opportunity and stack depth to get some money in preflop with a big pair, then do so. But making it £220 over a couple of opens of £10 to ensure 'they don't call with A2o' is just incorrect thinking. You're using one line of logic to justify doing something that won't ensure the outcome you require. TO MAKE MONEY LIVE - we find Lil'daves post on my blog from January Lil'Dave.. I would like to vote that you list your 'top ten' simple rules of poker! I'll give you 5 5) Don't expect anyone to do anything until you have at least SOME info on them, if you have no info on someone in a live setting just assign them "default" tendencies and try to takie optimal vacuum lines vs them (e.g. if you have a hunch they might be 4betting light, but don't have anyway to know they are capable, assume they are not capable and fold J9o ,don't call to float and rep AK etc!) 4) When you have a good hand vs >semi competant live opponents, just bet for value don't do anything fancy 3) Don't make spazzy moves without EXTREMELY good reason as often the "long term" benefit of the bluff is null and void because the same people aren't there and generic live people won't think "he's has a tendancy to bluff in 3bet pots when he's checked the turn or whatever" they'll think "he's a bluffer" and your small bluffs in different spots will get little to no respect. You can get an "aggro" repuation in live poker just by raising 1 - 2 times an orbit and c-betting a high frequency no need to run a 500bb multi-street bluff hardly ever 2) Always bet big when you can. 1) Look at the guy your playing, and ask yourself these questions, 1) Why Is Here? 2) What does he want from being here? and 3) What kind of personality does he have? This should lead you to much much better vacuum decisions and then you won't be purely guessing at people's behavioral tendencies which no offence seems to be what you're doing in every PHA post so far :D GL with the diary, I will be railing Oh one thing you've mentioned about is how you "come across as a bit of a dick" at the table? Did I read that right? Why is it you think that? If that's the case I'd defo look to work on that as good table manner is one of the most important things to successful live play and it's completely free. Add to it some pleno wisdom. Bet with top pair and other good hands and fold when they raise. THIS IS HOW YOU WIN IN LIVE POKERS! Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: jgcblack on December 31, 2012, 03:55:49 PM Cue Alex Goulder please.
Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Gemini Kings on December 31, 2012, 06:45:21 PM Bankroll management and game selection is key if you're playing with the sole purpose of making money. So true. Tournaments are renowned for high variance but sit in the wrong cash game and it is as near to pure gambling as possible and the outcome will largely be down to luck. To make money live you need an active table but not suicidally so. You also need to keep your stack deep enough to maintain fold equity and prevent multi way pots with your big pairs. NO NO NO! (don't mean it to sound rude... but this thinking, is wrong!) You don't need to be afraid and worried with your big pairs. They are good hands, and you want to win money with good hands. But you need to be able to just bin them when someone check raises or does something else equally 'strong'. They are one pair. I'd happily take AA multiway and bet, bet, bet almost any runout... people aren't normally going to call, call, call with their sets/ two purrs.... So you only get called by one pair hands, and AA is the best one = we win. Clearly, if you have the opportunity and stack depth to get some money in preflop with a big pair, then do so. But making it £220 over a couple of opens of £10 to ensure 'they don't call with A2o' is just incorrect thinking. You're using one line of logic to justify doing something that won't ensure the outcome you require. NO NO NO................. you don't sound rude John just delusional if you can read all of the above in my post. You are clearly still learning so maybe I should have spelled it out but I didn't want to write war and peace so I generalised in terms of Game selection and stack size. Fold equity is necessary in some games where it plays very loose and usually multi way. If you are are short stacked you have none. I played in such a game recently. It was 1/2 NLH with a £500 max sit down and involved 4 or 5 players who were playing well below their bank roll limits so played very loose. A £10 to £25 pre flop raise resulted in 4 or 5 callers and sometimes more. Are you telling me you that you are happy to take AA or KK 5 way to the flop. My post advised that you should have a sufficiently large enough stack to 3 bet big enough to take the pot down or at least limit the number of callers seeing the flop (in a very loose game, I will repeat IN A VERY LOOSE GAME) Different tables play differently and require different tactics to play optimally. Where does my post state that you should shove £220 over a £10 raise to prevent a call from A,2. Or state that I am afraid of big pairs? I can give you an example to prevent you inventing scenarios as you did in your reply. while playing in the game I described above I saw multiway pots where 4, 5 or 6 players were calling large preflop raises. I am under the gun with KK. Knowing that a raise of £15 to £20 would result in several callers and a family pot I limped in for £2. Like clockwork the player to my left raised to £20 and got two callers. The pot is now £65. Big enough for me to take it down preflop so I shoved all in. My error was allowing my stack to fall to £140 prior to this hand. All 3 players called. I was all in so had no more control of the hand. Betting continued and it went to showdown. I hit a set but still lost. Although this game was hyper loose and may not be typical, I have played in many such games so they are by no means rare. Now, if I had maintained a larger stack I would have had greater fold equity in this hyper loose game and would probably have won the pot pre flop which is preferable to getting three callers in a pot in which I have no further control. Flawed thinking? I am profitable in live cash so I will continue with my flawed thinking because it works. Maybe some day I'll get to watch you "crush live cash" Ps There are many other reasons why it is good to play deep stacked, one is to stack off players who over value big pairs. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: tight4better on December 31, 2012, 07:03:25 PM inb4 goulder
Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: kinboshi on December 31, 2012, 07:30:13 PM I'd happily take AA multiway and bet, bet, bet almost any runout... people aren't normally going to call, call, call with their sets/ two purrs.... So you only get called by one pair hands, and AA is the best one = we win. ;carlocitrone; Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: pleno1 on December 31, 2012, 07:54:39 PM john is completely right and gemini kings couldnt be more incorrect.
in fact, "play in more games where you have no fold equity" would be a better statement/advice. any game in England, except some rare games in Notts at 500nl or below is going to be very soft. I'd suggest getting a coach for around 5 hours to just go through things and make sure you don't have ginormous leaks. Then you will be confident, a lot more skilled and be in a better path to crush. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: madlondoner on December 31, 2012, 08:11:53 PM Am a grinder at these limits. You should start small on only 1/1 games and build up your confidence and feel for the game. I wouldn't recommend starting online as completely different players and skills are required. You should be
Open a lot bigger than u would for mtts or online cash. Value bet thinner and don't worry about being unbalanced vs people who would never notice Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Gemini Kings on December 31, 2012, 08:51:10 PM john is completely right and gemini kings couldnt be more incorrect. in fact, "play in more games where you have no fold equity" would be a better statement/advice. any game in England, except some rare games in Notts at 500nl or below is going to be very soft. I'd suggest getting a coach for around 5 hours to just go through things and make sure you don't have ginormous leaks. Then you will be confident, a lot more skilled and be in a better path to crush. So where do you play your live cash games Pleno? I take it you are making a fortune! Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: pleno1 on December 31, 2012, 09:05:25 PM even if i had never played a live cash game in my life i would still be right lol.
anyway not going to argue on blonde on nye, enjoy your night and one day you will get a "aha!" moment and realise. hny Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Doobs on December 31, 2012, 09:39:53 PM Bankroll management and game selection is key if you're playing with the sole purpose of making money. So true. Tournaments are renowned for high variance but sit in the wrong cash game and it is as near to pure gambling as possible and the outcome will largely be down to luck. To make money live you need an active table but not suicidally so. You also need to keep your stack deep enough to maintain fold equity and prevent multi way pots with your big pairs. NO NO NO! (don't mean it to sound rude... but this thinking, is wrong!) You don't need to be afraid and worried with your big pairs. They are good hands, and you want to win money with good hands. But you need to be able to just bin them when someone check raises or does something else equally 'strong'. They are one pair. I'd happily take AA multiway and bet, bet, bet almost any runout... people aren't normally going to call, call, call with their sets/ two purrs.... So you only get called by one pair hands, and AA is the best one = we win. Clearly, if you have the opportunity and stack depth to get some money in preflop with a big pair, then do so. But making it £220 over a couple of opens of £10 to ensure 'they don't call with A2o' is just incorrect thinking. You're using one line of logic to justify doing something that won't ensure the outcome you require. I can give you an example to prevent you inventing scenarios as you did in your reply. while playing in the game I described above I saw multiway pots where 4, 5 or 6 players were calling large preflop raises. I am under the gun with KK. Knowing that a raise of £15 to £20 would result in several callers and a family pot I limped in for £2. Like clockwork the player to my left raised to £20 and got two callers. The pot is now £65. Big enough for me to take it down preflop so I shoved all in. My error was allowing my stack to fall to £140 prior to this hand. All 3 players called. I was all in so had no more control of the hand. Betting continued and it went to showdown. I hit a set but still lost. Although this game was hyper loose and may not be typical, I have played in many such games so they are by no means rare. Now, if I had maintained a larger stack I would have had greater fold equity in this hyper loose game and would probably have won the pot pre flop which is preferable to getting three callers in a pot in which I have no further control. Flawed thinking? I am profitable in live cash so I will continue with my flawed thinking because it works. Maybe some day I'll get to watch you "crush live cash" Ps There are many other reasons why it is good to play deep stacked, one is to stack off players who over value big pairs. I dream of getting my entire stack in 4 way holding KK. Surely you should just run the equities rather than tell us the results of one hand? Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: pleno1 on December 31, 2012, 09:48:29 PM also just one addition, you say you are profitable in live cash, how many hands do you think you have played lifetime? Because you are winning doesn't mean you have been profitable or will be profitable next year. This isn't saying you aren't, I'm just saying your argument probably means nothing.
Also if I won 50k one night in Marbella it wouldn't make me any more qualified either. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: jgcblack on January 01, 2013, 03:33:03 AM also just one addition, you say you are profitable in live cash, how many hands do you think you have played lifetime? Because you are winning doesn't mean you have been profitable or will be profitable next year. This isn't saying you aren't, I'm just saying your argument probably means nothing. Also if I won 50k one night in Marbella it wouldn't make me any more qualified either. but you didn't win 50k, you got rivered.... :D <3 you mate! :) Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: WotRTheChances on January 01, 2013, 05:05:31 AM Bankroll management and game selection is key if you're playing with the sole purpose of making money. So true. Tournaments are renowned for high variance but sit in the wrong cash game and it is as near to pure gambling as possible and the outcome will largely be down to luck. To make money live you need an active table but not suicidally so. You also need to keep your stack deep enough to maintain fold equity and prevent multi way pots with your big pairs. NO NO NO! (don't mean it to sound rude... but this thinking, is wrong!) You don't need to be afraid and worried with your big pairs. They are good hands, and you want to win money with good hands. But you need to be able to just bin them when someone check raises or does something else equally 'strong'. They are one pair. I'd happily take AA multiway and bet, bet, bet almost any runout... people aren't normally going to call, call, call with their sets/ two purrs.... So you only get called by one pair hands, and AA is the best one = we win. Clearly, if you have the opportunity and stack depth to get some money in preflop with a big pair, then do so. But making it £220 over a couple of opens of £10 to ensure 'they don't call with A2o' is just incorrect thinking. You're using one line of logic to justify doing something that won't ensure the outcome you require. while playing in the game I described above I saw multiway pots where 4, 5 or 6 players were calling large preflop raises. I am under the gun with KK. Knowing that a raise of £15 to £20 would result in several callers and a family pot I limped in for £2. Like clockwork the player to my left raised to £20 and got two callers. The pot is now £65. Big enough for me to take it down preflop so I shoved all in. My error was allowing my stack to fall to £140 prior to this hand. All 3 players called. I was all in so had no more control of the hand. Betting continued and it went to showdown. I hit a set but still lost. Although this game was hyper loose and may not be typical, I have played in many such games so they are by no means rare. Now, if I had maintained a larger stack I would have had greater fold equity in this hyper loose game and would probably have won the pot pre flop which is preferable to getting three callers in a pot in which I have no further control. Flawed thinking? This is pretty funny. You make is sound like getting KK in pre 4-ways is some sort of bad thing? If someone suggested i could run that scenario every time i play a hand i'd be pretty rich. Obv dont sit short, if you think you have an edge in the game you want to have a stack to be able to use that edge both post and pre-flop. p.s. Justice was done for limp/jamming pre. Most tilting thing ever. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: PeeJay on January 01, 2013, 05:31:14 AM Limp raising always gets punished.
Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Rod on January 01, 2013, 05:41:33 AM I played in such a game recently. It was 1/2 NLH with a £500 max sit down and involved 4 or 5 players who were playing well below their bank roll limits so played very loose. A £10 to £25 pre flop raise resulted in 4 or 5 callers and sometimes more. Are you telling me you that you are happy to take AA or KK 5 way to the flop. The above can be demonstrated to be incorrect though. We do want them to call, do the Maths, it's easy even I can do it.My post advised that you should have a sufficiently large enough stack to 3 bet big enough to take the pot down or at least limit the number of callers seeing the flop (in a very loose game, I will repeat IN A VERY LOOSE GAME) We should never be sat in a cash game 70BB deep, it is a really awkward stack size. As it happens though the spot you have come across is ideal for you with your stack. You seem to have played the hand perfectly as long as you can be pretty sure this spot is going to happen as shoving now is a fine play. You don't mind if they all fold and you take down £65 as it adds a nice percentage to you stack however you prefer callers. Now just assuming that all of the callers have really loose calling ranges of say 55+ Any two broadway 65s+ Any suited ace Against this range you have about 50% equity if they all call.
KK | 51.0629% | 50.5970% | 1.0755% AA-55,AK-AT,KQ-KT,QJ-QT,JT,Ax9x-Ax2x,Tx9x,9x8x,8x7x,7x6x,6x5x | 16.3509% | 15.6225% | 1.6138% AA-55,AK-AT,KQ-KT,QJ-QT,JT,Ax9x-Ax2x,Tx9x,9x8x,8x7x,7x6x,6x5x | 16.2719% | 15.5557% | 1.5890% AA-55,AK-AT,KQ-KT,QJ-QT,JT,Ax9x-Ax2x,Tx9x,9x8x,8x7x,7x6x,6x5x | 16.3142% | 15.5842% | 1.6168% [/table] So about 50% of the time you win £420 (your £140 stack called in three spots) 50% of the time you lose £140 On average over 100 hands:- You win 50x£420= £21000 (50% of the time multiplted my the amount you win when you win the hand) You lose 50x£140= £7000 (50% of the time multiplted my the amount you lose when you lose the hand) so you end up £14000 ahead (as an average) which is £140 per hand, more than twice as much as if they all fold and you win the £65. Even if we only get one caller we become a 76% favourite against that range which means we win about £103.20 per hand. Two callers wins you an average of £128.40. So we want more callers actually. This shows the importance of playing within your bankroll as if you would rather shove and take down the £65 than get in the spot where you will win the most money long term then the chances are you should be playing smaller. I always like to be sat 100BB deep as an absolute minimum. In this spot shoving £200 would be fine as well and would win you more money. I would agree with the advice that playing online is the best way to learn cash games and anybody who beats $25nl on Pokerstars should easily beat any 50p/£1 cash game I have come across in the county, yeah they play slightly different but adjusting from online to live is easy. They are bigger though so you still need to play within your bankroll. Although taking a shot is fine. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: skolsuper on January 01, 2013, 07:26:18 AM Gemini Kings and jcgblack ITT:
(http://i.imgur.com/iqI82.gif) Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Doobs on January 01, 2013, 09:02:54 AM I played in such a game recently. It was 1/2 NLH with a £500 max sit down and involved 4 or 5 players who were playing well below their bank roll limits so played very loose. A £10 to £25 pre flop raise resulted in 4 or 5 callers and sometimes more. Are you telling me you that you are happy to take AA or KK 5 way to the flop. The above can be demonstrated to be incorrect though. We do want them to call, do the Maths, it's easy even I can do it.My post advised that you should have a sufficiently large enough stack to 3 bet big enough to take the pot down or at least limit the number of callers seeing the flop (in a very loose game, I will repeat IN A VERY LOOSE GAME) We should never be sat in a cash game 70BB deep, it is a really awkward stack size. As it happens though the spot you have come across is ideal for you with your stack. You seem to have played the hand perfectly as long as you can be pretty sure this spot is going to happen as shoving now is a fine play. You don't mind if they all fold and you take down £65 as it adds a nice percentage to you stack however you prefer callers. Now just assuming that all of the callers have really loose calling ranges of say 55+ Any two broadway 65s+ Any suited ace Against this range you have about 50% equity if they all call.
KK | 51.0629% | 50.5970% | 1.0755% AA-55,AK-AT,KQ-KT,QJ-QT,JT,Ax9x-Ax2x,Tx9x,9x8x,8x7x,7x6x,6x5x | 16.3509% | 15.6225% | 1.6138% AA-55,AK-AT,KQ-KT,QJ-QT,JT,Ax9x-Ax2x,Tx9x,9x8x,8x7x,7x6x,6x5x | 16.2719% | 15.5557% | 1.5890% AA-55,AK-AT,KQ-KT,QJ-QT,JT,Ax9x-Ax2x,Tx9x,9x8x,8x7x,7x6x,6x5x | 16.3142% | 15.5842% | 1.6168% [/table] So about 50% of the time you win £420 (your £140 stack called in three spots) 50% of the time you lose £140 On average over 100 hands:- You win 50x£420= £21000 (50% of the time multiplted my the amount you win when you win the hand) You lose 50x£140= £7000 (50% of the time multiplted my the amount you lose when you lose the hand) so you end up £14000 ahead (as an average) which is £140 per hand, more than twice as much as if they all fold and you win the £65. Even if we only get one caller we become a 76% favourite against that range which means we win about £103.20 per hand. Two callers wins you an average of £128.40. So we want more callers actually. This shows the importance of playing within your bankroll as if you would rather shove and take down the £65 than get in the spot where you will win the most money long term then the chances are you should be playing smaller. I always like to be sat 100BB deep as an absolute minimum. In this spot shoving £200 would be fine as well and would win you more money. I would agree with the advice that playing online is the best way to learn cash games and anybody who beats $25nl on Pokerstars should easily beat any 50p/£1 cash game I have come across in the county, yeah they play slightly different but adjusting from online to live is easy. They are bigger though so you still need to play within your bankroll. Although taking a shot is fine. Much as I think Gemini kings is thinking wrongly here, you can't assign those wide ranges to all 3 opponents and call it a proof. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: smashedagain on January 01, 2013, 09:48:23 AM Gemini Kings and jcgblack ITT: lol(http://i.imgur.com/iqI82.gif) Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: rfgqqabc on January 01, 2013, 09:57:50 AM 5 figure year is some claim jb, you'll need to run good unless your live grinding like every off week. A lot of sense from pleno Itt unsurprisingly
Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: jgcblack on January 01, 2013, 10:00:28 AM 5 figure year is some claim jb, you'll need to run good unless your live grinding like every off week. A lot of sense from pleno Itt unsurprisingly Unsure which I am in that vid... Hoping to be a Jedi obv. My rant was drunken, but I stand by it. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: SuuPRlim on January 01, 2013, 11:21:59 AM The way to win money at poker (in any format, but live cash in this instance) is to understand the nuances of all the scenario's that arise and make good, strong, focused decisions. Having a pre-laid out plan of having X specifically for when Y happens is all well and good, like in the big pair situation - that might be a perfectly fine system for you to limp/ship with big pairs, but there are SO, SO many other aspects and consequences of playing deep stacked to consider that being deeper purely for that reason is likely to be a bad idea.
if i'm 500 big blinds deep with someone, I find Kh Kd and I make a standard opening raise, and a good player acting behind me calls andhe is 500 big blinds deep as well then I am NOT really loving my life here, my hand going to remain as 1 pair and he's range is wide open and he's more than able to make life difficult for me on a variety of boards, basically make me play guessing games. However, if we're 130big blinds deep then I am loving life, there really isn't much he can do but find a specifically sick board run-out or make a better hand, so theres an example of where being shorter with the big pairs is a huge advantage to you. Reverse that situation, if im the player IP and someone (could even be a good player) opens and we find 9d 7d or such a hand behind 500big blinds deep we are loving it, we have an open range, IP, deep stacks and a pretty hand. There's a spot where having the deep stack is an advantage, if were 130 big blinds deep we're still calling/raising ofc but now we're way more pot-tied, it's a fine spot but it's certainly not a great one. Not saying your point r.e the big pairs and deep stacks is wrong, i'm just saying there are loads of aspects to every format and deep-stacked cash is one of the most complex, advising someone to sit deep purely for the benefit of ONE of these many subtle aspects is a potentially dangerous move until he has learn more about the format Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: kinboshi on January 01, 2013, 11:33:16 AM L'il Dave wins the internets again.
Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: jgcblack on January 01, 2013, 12:13:50 PM L'il Dave wins the internets again. no, not this year. He will not win the whole thing. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: kinboshi on January 01, 2013, 12:17:36 PM Every time he posts, he wins it again.
Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Bully87 on January 01, 2013, 01:44:14 PM Nothing much to add. I started taking my BRM and playing cash solely a bit more serious in April. What I will say is, make sure your sufficiently rolled for the game you sit in. There will be nights where your sat with 8 other people who hate money more than life itself but you wont win a hand for toffee. Have a stop loss limit and go home if your tilted.
In all seriousness I would advocate playing some online microstakes cash games in order to play more 100bb+ poker and get better at folding. Once you've played 50k hands on zoom/ rush/ fast poker or whatever alternative as a minimum at each level a nd being a winner When you get to 50nl and youre winning. Then and only then go out to the live pokers again. Then when to do go you, enjoy all the free money that is still circling around the each live game. @jgcBlack have you achieved this yet? Too good. Wp Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: nirvana on January 01, 2013, 01:45:20 PM I can give you an example to prevent you inventing scenarios as you did in your reply. while playing in the game I described above I saw multiway pots where 4, 5 or 6 players were calling large preflop raises. I am under the gun with KK. Knowing that a raise of £15 to £20 would result in several callers and a family pot I limped in for £2. Like clockwork the player to my left raised to £20 and got two callers. The pot is now £65. Big enough for me to take it down preflop so I shoved all in. My error was allowing my stack to fall to £140 prior to this hand. All 3 players called. I was all in so had no more control of the hand. Betting continued and it went to showdown. I hit a set but still lost. I think I'd take this further really, with £140 back I think I'd just open shove this, I reckon this gets the optimal one caller scenario ? Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Gemini Kings on January 02, 2013, 06:51:54 PM Ok, I will try to explain in depth what I see as a potential problem for lots of LIVE cash players. Variance.
First of all if you play cash on line you are playing far more hands than you are live, especially if you Multi table. As long as you are playing within your bank roll you should be making calls or plays based on the pot odds, implied odds etc. every time. This is obvious because you are making the correct statistical play and due to the volume of hands you are playing variance should eventually balance out resulting in profit for those 'pot odds situations'. However, even on line you can run in negative variance for a very long time. Poker is littered with stories of big success followed by huge downswings resulting in players going broke or loosing a fortune. Variance, as I'm sure we all know is 'deviation from the norm'. Sorry for stating the obviousness but if we have 60% equity in a pot and are running without variance we will win a pot in that situation 6 times out of ten. As we all know we rarely run with zero variance. I did some study into variance and the Law of Large Numbers a few years back. It's heavy going but I found it quite interesting at the time. It made me think about it in poker terms and after a few downswings on line where I was getting my whole stack in with the correct pot odds and loosing over and over again I realised just how relentless and unforgiving negative variance can be. I think i began to understand it a little better too. If you do not have a sufficient bank roll or a means of replenishing your bank roll (another income) it can threaten your ability to carry on playing. No doubt there are many good players who have experienced a long down swing (negative variance) and have had to give up poker either temporary or permanently. Over small sample sizes variance can be huge. The more times you run the same situation the smaller the deviation from the expected outcome. With zero deviation or variance, when you flip a coin 20 times you would get 10 heads and 10 tails. But 20 occurrences is a very small sample size. And in reality you could get huge variance. The law of large numbers explains how the larger the sample size the less the deviation from the norm. It states that over a sample size of 1000 you should get a deviation of around 2% (20). Most poker players apply this theory, quite correctly, by always making the correct plays with regard to the odds of making your hand and the odds you are getting from the pot, including implied odds where applicable. However it easy for many players, even some very capable and successful players to underestimate the effects of negative variance and how long it can last and the many forms it can take in poker. Those are the players who are playing above their there bank roll. That is not a criticism, it is merely an observation and I have been guilty of it myself many many times. Not all players will have suffered from negative variance for extended periods and many that do will have built a large enough bank roll and employ correct BR management to ride it out. Even though some of the eloquent posters on this thread may do exactly that I suspect they are in the minority. Poker has so many variables that variance can have incredible consequences and can be quite complex. Eg. If you ran the same hand with the same stacks and bets over and over again for a large enough number of times then variance will reduce and the results will be close to statistical expectations. However in poker this is rarely the case. You may be in similar situations over and over again but there will be many variables. For instance you can be getting the right price in 4 or 5 pots to hit your draw so you call and hit every one of them. You would be running in positive variance in terms of results. However all 5 pots could be relatively small. You may then make similar calls in similar situations getting the right price but in much larger pots which may be for your whole stack. If you we're to lose two of these you could have lost everything you had won in the previous 5 pots and more. As far as results are concerned you are in positive variance but are making a monetary loss. I explain this only to show that in poker you can be doing everything right mathematically yet still lose money and because this scenario is over 7 such hands which in terms of measuring variance it is a tiny sample it can be a long long time before it balances out. Of course it can work the other way too you can loose most of the draws in small pots but compensate by winning one or two big pots. Now, applying this to live cash poker. In Live cash poker I believe variance plays a larger roll in terms of profitability than it does on line because it is difficult to put in the volume to address the swings in variance. In live poker negative variance can last months or even years depending on how often you play. It is also more difficult for players with modest bank rolls to employ correct BR management. Most casinos do not have games lower than 1/1. Therefore where players on line can drop down live players are more limited. My point is that you can play live cash and limit the effects of variance by avoiding high variance situations when possible. You can do this and still be profitable because, as I think it was Alex who said, live cash games at 1/1 and 1/2 are pretty soft. You can forgo a little equity occasionally in situations where you are getting the right price to call but are favourite to lose the hand. If by loosing the hand you lose your stack and have to leave the table you are ensuring that the session ends with a loss. In a soft game there can be many more opportunities to put your stack to work where you are a huge favourite to win the pot and can get full value from that hand. I am no poker guru and am continually looking to improve and develop my game. I have however put in a great deal of work and study to become a profitable player instead of a yo yo player. There is a lot that I hope and plan to achieve in poker and hope this next year will allow me to move up to the larger buy in tournaments. If not then I will work hard to continue to go deep and make a profit. (I have been profitable over the past 2 years since moving predominantly to Live poker). In live poker even 2 years is a small sample compared to on line so I take nothing for granted. To give an overview of where I am, I mainly play medium buy in tournaments between £150 and £1,000 and occasionally play nightly £50 and £60 mtts at my local casino. I have a cash rate of 1 in 4.2 which is 45 from 193 mtt's. I play live cash on a semi regular basis and plan to play more this year. If I did not have to keep digging into my poker bank roll for other things I would have been able to move up by now but that's life. Now re the 'KK all in' 4 ways. Yes statistically I have good pot odds in as much as although I would be an underdog to win the hand most of the time, when I do win it, it more than compensates for the times I lose. I ran it through Card Player odds calculator. In a situation of .... Me KK P2 AJ suited P3 55 P4 Qh9h ( this was the winning hand and he was last in the pot so getting great odds to call the additional 140) .... My equity was shown to be 41% (which was a little better than I thought it was) and This would go up if I had the suits dominated. If I win the pot pre flop with my shove I am guaranteed £65 profit with no risk. If all 3 players call, which they did, and I win my profit is an extra £420. Clearly if I could run this over and over I would be happy to do so but in reality I have not won a 4 or 5 way all in with AA or KK in the last two years of live play. These situations do not occur that frequently as I will always try to isolate or limit the amount of callers to reduce variance for the reasons I explain above. I can get value from my stack in situations post flop where I have flopped big or I can represent a big hand. When I limp shove over a £20 raise and two callers I am happy to pick up the pot uncontested but ideally would like one caller. A single caller means I am at worst 70% to win and at best 81%. Making it likely that I will win £40 dead money and 140 from the caller. Statistically 4 callers gives a higher return in the long term but has a higher variance in the short term. I would be interested to hear how others would have played the hand differently. After a £20 raise and two callers are you suggetsiing that I flat call with £140 behind in the hope of getting it all in on the flop. I can see merit in this if a cbet from the intitial raiser was likely but I would be giving three players a free shot at outdrawing me. It has to be factored in that if I check the flop hoping for a cebet but they all check behind I give another free card. With my stack size I would be pot committed if I were to bet and get raised as I could still have the best hand. Many times I will bet out and all will fold so I only collect what was iin the pot pre flop. Speaking generally agian, If a player feels they have a small, medium or large edge over most of the players at their table then they can make a profit without risking their whole stack with one pair in multi way pots. (I am not claiming to have had that edge on this particular table so I am talking in general terms). To sum up just because a certain play is mathematically correct it doesn't mean it is the only option for all live cash players all of the time. If by following the maths religiously you risk losing your whole bank role during a down turn then it can be preferable to reduce the variance and continue to make a steady profit and build a bigger bank roll.. I am not advocating that players should ignore the maths only that occasionally there are other considerations. Even if I were to lose half my bank roll I would get so much grief from the my other half (the boss) that I would probably have to stop. As long as I am winning and giving her money when I win I am am allowed to continue. Ps I have had many Ah ah moments over the past 6 years and I'm sure and hope there will be more to come. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: rfgqqabc on January 02, 2013, 06:59:30 PM If you can't afford to embrace the variance in the KK spot the game is too big for you. You will never convince me otherwise.
Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: pleno1 on January 02, 2013, 07:01:25 PM If you can't afford to embrace the variance in the KK spot the game is too big for you. You will never convince me otherwise. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: redsimon on January 02, 2013, 07:06:06 PM When I limp shove over a £20 raise and two callers I am happy to pick up the pot uncontested but ideally would like one caller.
A single caller means I am at worst 70% to win and at best 81%... Not sure where you get this from? Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Gemini Kings on January 02, 2013, 07:11:02 PM If you can't afford to embrace the variance in the KK spot the game is too big for you. You will never convince me otherwise. To clarify the £140 I lost in that hand is insignificant in terms of my personal bank roll. Focusing purely on that hand is missing the point but hey, so what, life is too short! Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Gemini Kings on January 02, 2013, 07:33:33 PM When I limp shove over a £20 raise and two callers I am happy to pick up the pot uncontested but ideally would like one caller. A single caller means I am at worst 70% to win and at best 81%... Not sure where you get this from? Yep worst should be around 75% Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: kinboshi on January 02, 2013, 08:11:30 PM If you can't afford to embrace the variance in the KK spot the game is too big for you. You will never convince me otherwise. I think that's partly his point. To enable someone to play in a game that their bankroll doesn't allow for, they can lose some equity by making lower-variance plays. So the 'correct' play is to make the profitable play, which might be higher variance. Mr Kings is suggesting that he'd rather try and reduce the variance (at the cost of potential profit) if he's not bankrolled for the game he's playing (and there aren't smaller games for him to play live). So, by opting for the low-variance play (the mathematically incorrect play), he can play live cash, make a profit (although at a slower pace than he could with the 'correct' plays), but reduce the risk of him going busto. So rather than not play at all because of bankroll limitations, he's sacrificing his win-rate. Well, I think that's what he's saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong). Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Mohican on January 02, 2013, 08:58:38 PM I'm reading this thread with avid interest as I've have just moved over to playing live cash. Mostly been an on-line MTT player with a few successes but I love playing live, so after exiting the recent SPT at Luton I sat down at the 50/50 table. I've no bankroll and any big wins(been a couple) have been withdrawn to pay for life stuff. But I sat down with the max (£60) but I'm certainly not bankrolled to play at this level but rather, I'm fortunate to be able to afford the buy-in as a night out/entertainment. So for me to hear about taking lines that are less risky but flatten your profit is rather interesting and very new to me. it's not something I've heard of before. I had a situation on Saturday night where the above applies i think. UTG has just sat down on the 50/50 table and declared blind raise to £10 as the cards are being dealt. Folds to me and I'm confused by what he's done as the dealers between sat him and I. So when I look at my cards and see Ahrt Qh and hear 'it's£10 to call' my mind is scrambled. I nearly folded but took a little time to refocus and thought the correct thing to do is reship to £60(I had nearly £200) and see what he does. He calls, door card Q, money gets shipped. He had 2 4 off. I got a little ribbing for nit rolling but it wasn't the money that was bothering me at the time, but whether reshipping was the correct play? I could've folded and lost 50p(less risky play) but I think that if this is indeed the correct play then I'm always going to do it. Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Gemini Kings on January 02, 2013, 09:03:52 PM If you can't afford to embrace the variance in the KK spot the game is too big for you. You will never convince me otherwise. I think that's partly his point. To enable someone to play in a game that their bankroll doesn't allow for, they can lose some equity by making lower-variance plays. So the 'correct' play is to make the profitable play, which might be higher variance. Mr Kings is suggesting that he'd rather try and reduce the variance (at the cost of potential profit) if he's not bankrolled for the game he's playing (and there aren't smaller games for him to play live). So, by opting for the low-variance play (the mathematically incorrect play), he can play live cash, make a profit (although at a slower pace than he could with the 'correct' plays), but reduce the risk of him going busto. So rather than not play at all because of bankroll limitations, he's sacrificing his win-rate. Well, I think that's what he's saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong). Not far off Boshi, however I am well bank rolled for 1/2 live cash. I am mainly talking about whole stack situations where my equity is not that big even though I am getting the right price to hit. From experience I have discovered that during a long typical cash session I will get opportunities to get my stack in as a huge favourite either heads up or in a multi way pot but when I have a big hand. There will be other situations where I continue to call with a good hand when in pots with very aggressive players who tend to two and three barrel bluff a lot. And there will be others where I can steal pots when in position when I miss. I am not saying that I always fold draws because I don't. I often raise with them. Nor am I saying that I would never call off my stack when getting the right price but it is not always an automatic decision especially if I see opportunities to make a profit elsewhere. Since I stopped making automatic calls for my whole stack and started concentrating on other parts of my game, ie taking control of more pots with raises and 3 bets, using postion effectively etc. my profits have risen. I have more winning sessions that are for two or three buyins more often than before. You see I know first hand how variance can take big chunks out of even very healthy bank rolls. I am not imuned from variance by occasionally avoiding high variance plays but I seem to be having fewer loosing sessions as a result. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: kinboshi on January 02, 2013, 09:35:40 PM If you can't afford to embrace the variance in the KK spot the game is too big for you. You will never convince me otherwise. I think that's partly his point. To enable someone to play in a game that their bankroll doesn't allow for, they can lose some equity by making lower-variance plays. So the 'correct' play is to make the profitable play, which might be higher variance. Mr Kings is suggesting that he'd rather try and reduce the variance (at the cost of potential profit) if he's not bankrolled for the game he's playing (and there aren't smaller games for him to play live). So, by opting for the low-variance play (the mathematically incorrect play), he can play live cash, make a profit (although at a slower pace than he could with the 'correct' plays), but reduce the risk of him going busto. So rather than not play at all because of bankroll limitations, he's sacrificing his win-rate. Well, I think that's what he's saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong). Not far off Boshi, however I am well bank rolled for 1/2 live cash. I am mainly talking about whole stack situations where my equity is not that big even though I am getting the right price to hit. From experience I have discovered that during a long typical cash session I will get opportunities to get my stack in as a huge favourite either heads up or in a multi way pot but when I have a big hand. There will be other situations where I continue to call with a good hand when in pots with very aggressive players who tend to two and three barrel bluff a lot. And there will be others where I can steal pots when in position when I miss. I am not saying that I always fold draws because I don't. I often raise with them. Nor am I saying that I would never call off my stack when getting the right price but it is not always an automatic decision especially if I see opportunities to make a profit elsewhere. Since I stopped making automatic calls for my whole stack and started concentrating on other parts of my game, ie taking control of more pots with raises and 3 bets, using postion effectively etc. my profits have risen. I have more winning sessions that are for two or three buyins more often than before. You see I know first hand how variance can take big chunks out of even very healthy bank rolls. I am not imuned from variance by occasionally avoiding high variance plays but I seem to be having fewer loosing sessions as a result. OK, but if you're bankrolled for a game - then the mathematically correct play is the correct play, surely? Whether you finish up in a session or not is irrelevant to whether you're making money long-term (at the best rate possible). So, although I see the case for reducing variance if you're not rolled for a game, I'm not sure I see why it's the right thing to do otherwise. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: titaniumbean on January 02, 2013, 09:38:09 PM there can be variations between what is the 'optimal' ie absolute best play in terms of expectation, and the very best play for a specific person with their own unique constraints.
Gemini you will do well to listen to le pleno. if a game requires lots of fold equity you should be focusing on value betting, similarly if they all fold too much widen your opening and barreling ranges. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: smashedagain on January 02, 2013, 09:44:00 PM there can be variations between what is the 'optimal' ie absolute best play in terms of expectation, and the very best play for a specific person with their own unique constraints. i was just thinking Gemini sounds a lot like me talking to you two years ago. All that stuff about you not cashing for two years and me getting a flag every month. You were right and I was wrong ;)Gemini you will do well to listen to le pleno. if a game requires lots of fold equity you should be focusing on value betting, similarly if they all fold too much widen your opening and barreling ranges. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: titaniumbean on January 02, 2013, 10:21:11 PM there can be variations between what is the 'optimal' ie absolute best play in terms of expectation, and the very best play for a specific person with their own unique constraints. i was just thinking Gemini sounds a lot like me talking to you two years ago. All that stuff about you not cashing for two years and me getting a flag every month. You were right and I was wrong ;)Gemini you will do well to listen to le pleno. if a game requires lots of fold equity you should be focusing on value betting, similarly if they all fold too much widen your opening and barreling ranges. ya I've met Gemini live many times and had chats with him and know he has put alot of effort into improving since starting playing. so felt like I should say something as don't want him to think that plenos ool or anything. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: rfgqqabc on January 02, 2013, 11:59:32 PM If you can't afford to embrace the variance in the KK spot the game is too big for you. You will never convince me otherwise. To clarify the £140 I lost in that hand is insignificant in terms of my personal bank roll. Focusing purely on that hand is missing the point but hey, so what, life is too short! I completely get your point and agree with you to some degree. I also understand and use the concept of not always taking the highest +ev line if it causes a vast increase in variance. But at the same time, you cite an example which is frankly wrong. I've not missed the point, and I'm sorry that its come across that way. Its just everyone said you were wrong, and instead of saying, "That example was shit, sorry, i mean this" You decide to write that when you get called for your ship you always have 70% equity? A single caller could quite easily have Aces, I presume your talking about ranges though, in which case i guess you are right! I don't mean to be an arse, your point is extremely valid, at least in my opinion. Just hate the example (the +ev nature of that is too big a factor) If you wrote an example that had a situation where we could 5b Jam pre, and estimated it as +£9 when we have a stack of £400, i would have told you, you were spot on. Mohican, this is a sweet spot where you can decide if you want to gamble or not, just factor in a certain % he may not be blind, unless you are totally sure. I've called in this spot with 33 and been happy because although its barely only +7% ev, and the flip quite big, it got me a fantastic image among all my local players and got my gambley nature spoken about in the game. Combine that with the odd big bluff being shown and I've been as nitty as i can be for a year and no one has clocked on. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: Gemini Kings on January 03, 2013, 06:35:17 PM If you can't afford to embrace the variance in the KK spot the game is too big for you. You will never convince me otherwise. To clarify the £140 I lost in that hand is insignificant in terms of my personal bank roll. Focusing purely on that hand is missing the point but hey, so what, life is too short! I completely get your point and agree with you to some degree. I also understand and use the concept of not always taking the highest +ev line if it causes a vast increase in variance. But at the same time, you cite an example which is frankly wrong. I've not missed the point, and I'm sorry that its come across that way. Its just everyone said you were wrong, and instead of saying, "That example was shit, sorry, i mean this" You decide to write that when you get called for your ship you always have 70% equity? A single caller could quite easily have Aces, I presume your talking about ranges though, in which case i guess you are right! I don't mean to be an arse, your point is extremely valid, at least in my opinion. Just hate the example (the +ev nature of that is too big a factor) If you wrote an example that had a situation where we could 5b Jam pre, and estimated it as +£9 when we have a stack of £400, i would have told you, you were spot on. Mohican, this is a sweet spot where you can decide if you want to gamble or not, just factor in a certain % he may not be blind, unless you are totally sure. I've called in this spot with 33 and been happy because although its barely only +7% ev, and the flip quite big, it got me a fantastic image among all my local players and got my gambley nature spoken about in the game. Combine that with the odd big bluff being shown and I've been as nitty as i can be for a year and no one has clocked on. Thanks for your reply. I'm happy to concede that the KK hand was not the best example for much of what I have been rabbiting on about. But that doesn't change the fact that I personally am running negative variance with both AA and KK in all-in situations involving 3 or more players over the last two years. 4 way to a flop has not rewarded me so far. The fact that I have ran bad in these situations in two years of live poker is no gaurantee that I won't run bad for another two years. Therefore regardless of the math I am losing in this situation over and over again. My point is that variance can decimate bank rolls and win rates and may not balance out until a high number of occurrences have been achieved. In Live poker that can be a very long time. Although I am we'll rolled for 1/2 now I have played many times on line in the past when I was not. After a downswing I would simply stop playing rather than drop down to micro stakes so for me occasionally avoiding high variance pots helped me stay in the game while at the same time I was able to work on other aspects of my game. Thanks for acknowledging that you sometimes avoid +ev plays that are high variance. I was feeling rather lonely! Ps I have listened or should I say read everything posters have written with interest and there has been some food for thought. I do take a few seconds to consider my options in potentially large pots and will add a few more seconds worth in future. I did believe that my odds of winning a 4 way all in with KK we're worse than they actually are. I would have put it in the mid 30's % wise but it is actually low 40's for typical calling ranges and can rise to over 50% if opponents share outs and or blockers to straights etc. So getting 3 to 1 Piot odds with 50% equity is pretty irrisistable even for me. I'll probably still lose but at least it's a bigger bad beat than I thought it was! Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: aeinstein199 on January 08, 2013, 04:34:53 PM I learned so far It is far more important in Cashgames to really know the players you play. Taking mental notes is essential, even when you are not involved in a hand. This goes for any game, but esp. for CGs imo, as I always sit with 50% the max initially. Plus you just feel more comfortable on a Table when 50% of the players are looking like as fishes and you also have notes on the other 25% or so if they are regulars.
When to leave a table: This has been an issue for me. Usually cashgames-guidelines advise you to leave a table after 2-3 hours at latest, as you will get explored and your hourly rate will sink due to that. Also most players in lower limits are just really recreational, so they don't take notes of your plays and therefore don't exploit you as much, i.e. it can be really easy to pick up late on a Saturday night! Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: SuuPRlim on January 08, 2013, 05:07:50 PM Gemini I can't argue with a word you've written in this thread but that reponse wasn't all that relevant to the discussion before...
however still good advice, Aaron will do well to read it. Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: action man on January 08, 2013, 06:02:22 PM aaron do you work full time?
Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: ruud on January 08, 2013, 09:36:52 PM I learned so far It is far more important in Cashgames to really know the players you play. Taking mental notes is essential, even when you are not involved in a hand. This goes for any game, but esp. for CGs imo, as I always sit with 50% the max initially. Plus you just feel more comfortable on a Table when 50% of the players are looking like as fishes and you also have notes on the other 25% or so if they are regulars. When to leave a table: This has been an issue for me. Usually cashgames-guidelines advise you to leave a table after 2-3 hours at latest, as you will get explored and your hourly rate will sink due to that. Also most players in lower limits are just really recreational, so they don't take notes of your plays and therefore don't exploit you as much, i.e. it can be really easy to pick up late on a Saturday night! Some may consider this a reason to stay at the table! Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: aaron1867 on January 08, 2013, 11:25:27 PM Forgot all about this as last time I looked it was full of bickering about something, will have to read up tomorrow as on way to bed now.
PS - Yes I work 7 days Trigg, why you ask? Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: cambridgealex on January 09, 2013, 12:30:21 AM just seen this!
Title: Re: Moving to cash Post by: action man on January 09, 2013, 02:00:27 AM Forgot all about this as last time I looked it was full of bickering about something, will have to read up tomorrow as on way to bed now. PS - Yes I work 7 days Trigg, why you ask? just wondered where youre gonna find time to put the hours in |