Moving to cash

[kinboshi]

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.

[titaniumbean]

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.

[smashedagain]

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.

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

[titaniumbean]

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.

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

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.

[rfgqqabc]

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.

[Gemini Kings]

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!

[aeinstein199]

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!

[SuuPRlim]

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.

[action man]

aaron do you work full time?

[ruud]

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!

[aaron1867]

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?

[cambridgealex]

just seen this!

[action man]

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