Who wants to learn cash game strategy?

[tantrum]

Excellent thread,


One thing I would like to say about those who claim to be bored with ring games.


One of the old poker players told me that they used to play this game:

they would get let's say $100 and treat it as a tournament buy -in.
they would then go on the low limit table and try to win 10XBB of the next limit as soon as they won this they would move limit up; if they lost they would stop playing.


So in a way they would create their own tournament where blinds would go up, they would treat each table as a table in MTT.

|I have tried this few times and although it took me roughly an hour to get my 10Xbb of the next level i have steadily progressed and after 3 hours managed to have good fun and extra few dollars in my pocket.  this approach is good for a discipline and control of your loses.

[totalise]

Was also going to ask what you do about players who continually raise on the button?  If you are in the big blind, do you reraise with a wide range of hands?  If so, does that not create a bit of a problem that your out of position with a marginal hand, or does it discourage them and make them only raise with good holdings.

It does create a problem, but if they are raising with a wide variety of hands.. one of two things will happen:

a) you win the pot right away (if their hand is real mince, like a raggy ace)

b) they are also stuck with a marginal hand (albeit in position) and you have the lead in the pot. When people are playing with wide ranges and someone repops them, this is where they are hoping the oppo has a big hand, they want to flop something huge and stackeroo... so generally you wont meet with much resistance post-flop unless they flop pretty big

If you keep doing it, then slowly they will concede the battle to you, and move onto other targets. You can then sit there and allow that to happen, or you can reverse the bullying back onto them. Some people play great when they are the "captain" but terribly when other people are trying to captain them. If they are the latter, go ahead and attack them, they will make huge mistakes against you. If they dont do that, then just enjoy the mutual respect, and go after the weaker players

[totalise]

How much weight would you attribute to the 'table image' you have developed for yourself over a period of time  to the fact that you're a winning player and that people are familiar with you.

I guess what I'm asking is do you think you make more money generally playing at a table with 3 or 4 people you see regularly and a few unknown players, or, do you do better at a table full of unkowns. Other possibility is of course that it makes no difference.
,
I'm kind of referring to the stand - off that tends to get created amongst players who have seen each other win regularly to a degree or another. Each of the players known to each other (i dont mean as any kind of friends or soft-play) tend not to get into big pots with each other, a certain amount of stealing of pots goes on between one another that tends to even itself out.

It sometimes feels like 4 or 5 people have an undeclared detente and are waiting to take money off all the new money that arrives.

I'm happy playing at a table full of unknowns but overall I think I make more when a few people's styles are well known to me, and I hate to put it like this, you take turns taking the other money on the table - some sessions you get more turns than others.

Anyway, table image, familiarity and all that. A key factor or not in the online game ?

Quick thanks Mr Totalise (and others) for making so much time to provide a whole raft of cracking advice.

I was also wondering this as well mate.  If you take the higher limit NL games on Tribeca, it seems like the same 10 or 15 players play against each other everyday.  Does there not come a point where it is impossible to avoid being read like a book ?

that is where randomisation comes into play... if you play your big hands and draw hands the same way, its very hard for people to read you correctly. The profit comes from these tables when people get sloppy. They all have the same quality of game when they are playing their best, but they have differing qualitys when they aren't playing their best, including yourself. if you ARE playing in a straightforward manner, betting your made hands and calling with your draws, you will get taken to the cleaners. You will notice that the best players in those games are the ones that make you think "man, he could have top set or 7 high here" essentially making you play the guessing game. When people have to guess to play against you, the battle is won

Saying all this, at the lower levels you dont need to pay as much attention to this, because your quality of opponent isnt so high... so playing hands in a straightforward manner (ie betting when you hve it, and not betting when you dont) is probably a good enough start to beating most of the lower limits

With regards to Nirvanas post quoted above, Id rather play at a table of unknowns over playing at a table with a few strong solid players I know well. The intention behind that is a bit ignorant, it assumes that because I dont know them, they cant be very good. Slightly simplistic, but for the main, it works out ok. IF players styles are well-known to you, then they probably give you as much a chance to take money from them as the unknowns, as long as you do it correctly. You might not win many big pots against these people, but you sure can chip away at a lot of small pots, and they add-up if you do it with enough frequency. Its the players that are wellknown to you, but have a great randomised style, that you want to avoid at all costs.






 

[totalise]

Totalise ... great thread and thanks for your honest and insightfull views

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on multi-tabling;

I play almost exclusively short handed cash games and make a steady profit evey month playing recreationally around a full time job. Typically i can be found in relatively low-limit NLH games ranging from $0.25/$0.50 - $2.00/4.00 (Depending on my mood, current distractions, level of intoxication and the amount of my bankroll I withdrew the previous month).

Playing at a single table my hourly rate is up to around 40% the maximum buy-in/hour. Poker Tracker also shows 80% of my sessions show a profit (this may be artificially high because I will play longer than intended to recoup lost funds and turn the session into a positive). So far so good ...

... but every so often I entertain the notion that by multi-tabling I could make many more $ per/hour ... this is where it goes pear shaped!

Now I would not expect to make an equivalent hourly rate at each table, whilst playing four tables at once, but I would anticipate an increase in my total $ hour. Initially I thought that playing four tables would halve my hourly rate per table ... but given I was playing four tables my overall rate would still be double that of playing a single table. This was not the case, after trialling it for a few thousand hands I found my hourly rate was less than playing a single table!

Over the last couple of months I have given this a lot of thought and put it down to the following reasons;

1) The nature of NL dictates that the success of any session will often boil down to a few key decisions in key hands ... the calling of a big bluff, laying down a strong but inferior hand at limited expense, whether to call a pre-flop all-in etc. When multi-tabling I seem to have less information to base these decisions on having not followed the course of the game as intensley as I would normally, being distracted by the other tables.

This frequently leads to me laying down hands in +EV situations and potentially losing out on several large pots. The marginal decisions are also more difficult with less information to base a decision on ... hence I think I often call whilst multi-tabling when I could have made a simple laydown on a single table.

2) Large pots aside my stack is usually swelled by raking in more than my fair share of the smaller pots. When playing a single table I tailor this to the players at the table. For example not using continuation bets at such a high frequency against calling stations, using bluffs against rocks and those players defending a small profit, check-raising players who insist on using a continuation bet on every flop etc.

When playing multiple tables these moves are less tailored to the players and more 'robotic', which leads me to making the same mistakes that I often exploit in others that multi-table.

3) I use poker tracker and find it very useful, but when multi-tabling it is difficult to put the stats to a meaningful use, and examine past histories of new players that drift on to the tables. This leads to mistakes such as not noticing that the player that just re-raised you hasn't reraised in three hours of play ... so maybe your two pair has run into a set ... etc.

4) Players on tilt are harder to spot

5) It is site dependant, but I don't get on with overlapping tables.You often can't watch the action on tables when you are not involved in the hand, and the overall effect is somewhat chaotic. I know some sites (e.g. prima) allow you to shrink tables, but I would be interested in how you set yours up, and what hardware you use (large monitor?).


This post is about twice as long as i intended so I will leave it there, but your views in reduction in hourly rate whilst multi-tabling, compared to a single table, and how you manage the chaotic set-up would be appreciated.

Many Thanks

Jon.

Jon

good post. I am afraid I dont have much to say on this.. as I have always found multi-tabling to be about as easy as playing one table in terms of observation/identifying bluffing points.

Maybe other poeple reading the thread can comment on it, as I am sure it is a problem that a lot of people have encountered

Sorry  =((

[Lee]

Totalise

Just a quick one. What sort of hand is your most profitable in a cash game?

I personally love a hand like 45 or 65 soooooooooooooooted. Mainly because i find them very easy to play, in that the flops smacks you or you miss completely, in which case passing or playing is a very simple decision. 45 would probably be my fave, as many times if it manages anything, it usually has an Ace involved.

There is one hand that has always stuck in my mind, i had played this guy on many occasions and knew his game pretty well, i raised in MP with 87s and he reraised me, this move (for him) meant AK 95% of the time. I called and the flop came 8 high, he bet the pot and i called, turn didn't help him and once again he potted it, i called again. I had contemplated moving back over the top here, but i honestly thought if it doesn't come an A or K, this guy is pretty much guaranteed to go all in on the river on what seemed an inocuous flop. I was prepared to take the chance, risk vs return etc.

Luckily, the river came a Q and he went all in, at the time we were almost joint CL's on the table, i called (which was quite hard, however confident i was on the read and tests your faith in being able to read and then go with it) and true enough he showed AK with nothing and my pair of 8's won a huge pot. He was not happy, the abuse i received was classic.

A few of the exchanges were:

Him: How the fuck can you play such a huge pot with just a pair of 8's
Me: I'd always prefer a pair of 8's than Ace high
Him: You fish make me so mad, flops smacking you in the face all the time
Me: GLUB
Him: I bet you rathole (run with the money) now, havn't got the guts to stay (he reloads at this stage)
Me: GLUB
Him: Sick to death of players raising with shit, then calling re-raises with shit and refusing to fold
Me: I rarely fold the best hand against a player whose cards are as good as turned over
Him: So you are a cheat?
Me: No, just good at reading telegraphs when they are sent
Him: Oh just fuck off you fish
Me: OK, will do, sorry about reading you so well, have a nice night

At which stage i left, not to look after the win, just purely to put the last nail in his coffin. I will never ever forget this hand.

In summary (for me) AA, KK etc. nice hands for sure, but for real pots, it's gotta be suited connectors.

[totalise]

Just a quick one. What sort of hand is your most profitable in a cash game?

hands that win big pots but dont often lose big pots

This isn't as obvious as it sounds, as its going to depend a huge deal on your villain in the hand

Suited connectors are the type of hands that against weaker players you win big and lose small, because they dont bet properly. Against very good players, they are almost the opposite, as they know how to bet, so you end up paying a high price to draw (which creates the big pot) and then missing and folding (which creates the losing) Also if you do hit/make your hand, you win small pots much more often then you win big pots. You naturally will win big pots with s/connectors, but probably not enough to make them a great profit source (against the better players)

The key to figuring out the money hands is to figure out the player. You know the type of player that always underbets their hand, but always calls big bets.. these are the guys that make your drawing hands your money hands. Against solid players that overplay big pairs, the sc'ers still make money, but not as much. Your money hand here is a small pair much more then a sc (the key to this is to get real busy on the flop, flop is 593, they have AA, you have 33, give them a chance to put you on KK/QQ/JJ, play it very very fast) Against the good LAGGY players, your suited connectors will almost certainly lose you money, because you dont hit enough flops to fade the times you fold postflop, and you dont win enough big pots when you do nail the flop. Against bad LAGGY players, they make a lot of money. Know your market.

I do think that people overvalue suited connectors. The overvaluing doesn't necesarily come from calling with them preflop, it comes from overplaying them post flop. If you (as in the generic) have a tendancy to overplay hands post flop, ie calling too much in terms of frequency and bet-size, its wisest to just chuck them away, and stick to playing hands that require less thought postflop, like AK (hit flop and continue) small pair (flop set) mid pair (flop overpair) and the like

[MrSpeed]

Totalise / others,

I was wondering what strategy's you use in cash games when away from table. What i mean is, when not at the table what statistics / records / practices do you use to better improve your game.

I currently only use pokertraker. I find this very useful for the obv stats it gives and to record hands. But how best do you go about analysing these. Do you go over certain hands in a particular session (big wins or loses) to see if they could have been played diff. I do this, however, this does nothing for the hands you folded too early / won without contest which were actually incorrectly played.

i appreciate that experience is the best learning tool. However, is there a certain way you analyse your play after a session to pick up any important lessons that may not have been obv at the time??

Thanks again for all your efforts, i hope your Dad and others find all this helpful. I certainly am.

regards,
G

[Lee]

Just a quick one. What sort of hand is your most profitable in a cash game?

hands that win big pots but dont often lose big pots

This isn't as obvious as it sounds, as its going to depend a huge deal on your villain in the hand

Suited connectors are the type of hands that against weaker players you win big and lose small, because they dont bet properly. Against very good players, they are almost the opposite, as they know how to bet, so you end up paying a high price to draw (which creates the big pot) and then missing and folding (which creates the losing) Also if you do hit/make your hand, you win small pots much more often then you win big pots. You naturally will win big pots with s/connectors, but probably not enough to make them a great profit source (against the better players)

The key to figuring out the money hands is to figure out the player. You know the type of player that always underbets their hand, but always calls big bets.. these are the guys that make your drawing hands your money hands. Against solid players that overplay big pairs, the sc'ers still make money, but not as much. Your money hand here is a small pair much more then a sc (the key to this is to get real busy on the flop, flop is 593, they have AA, you have 33, give them a chance to put you on KK/QQ/JJ, play it very very fast) Against the good LAGGY players, your suited connectors will almost certainly lose you money, because you dont hit enough flops to fade the times you fold postflop, and you dont win enough big pots when you do nail the flop. Against bad LAGGY players, they make a lot of money. Know your market.

I do think that people overvalue suited connectors. The overvaluing doesn't necesarily come from calling with them preflop, it comes from overplaying them post flop. If you (as in the generic) have a tendancy to overplay hands post flop, ie calling too much in terms of frequency and bet-size, its wisest to just chuck them away, and stick to playing hands that require less thought postflop, like AK (hit flop and continue) small pair (flop set) mid pair (flop overpair) and the like

So towards the lower levels, suited connectors are more profitable and as you move up the scale, set against overpair is the one (in general).

I think to be honest i didn't even consider underpair setting up etc. as i have always seen this as profitable at every level.

Many times, especially last few months, i have found myself stepping up a level or two in an attempt to see some good poker. In essence i like playing on a table where i can be outplayed at times (learn something) and play for entertainment and studying of the game, rather than from a profitable point of view. If i can get a few sessions in on a higher table without severely damaging my roll, i have always found this more beneficial, than winning a few hundred bucks at my normal level. Bit like paying for a lesson etc.

Do you ever choose a table where you are more interested in having a good game at a good standard, than a profitable time? Do you have a level that you play for profit and one that you play for fun?

[totalise]

Totalise / others,

I was wondering what strategy's you use in cash games when away from table. What i mean is, when not at the table what statistics / records / practices do you use to better improve your game.

I currently only use pokertraker. I find this very useful for the obv stats it gives and to record hands. But how best do you go about analysing these. Do you go over certain hands in a particular session (big wins or loses) to see if they could have been played diff. I do this, however, this does nothing for the hands you folded too early / won without contest which were actually incorrectly played.

i appreciate that experience is the best learning tool. However, is there a certain way you analyse your play after a session to pick up any important lessons that may not have been obv at the time??

Thanks again for all your efforts, i hope your Dad and others find all this helpful. I certainly am.

regards,
G

Back when I was first trying to go about it the correct way, I wrote down on a bit of paper each and every hand that caused me to feel any level of discomfort. It might have made you slightly uncomfy, it migh have made you very uncomfy. The key is that you were confused/uncomy and you dont know why

After the session was over, I'd drag up all these hands, and work through each one, looking at my action, the action of the opponents.. trying to figure out why this specific hand confused me.  If it was hard to figure out from one HH, it would generally become apparent from a few, and then you are in a great position to do two things:

a) iron out anything you were doing wrong, to ensure you dont get in that spot as often as you used to

b) use it to then put your opponent in the same spot you felt you were in at the time

Poker is a game of mistakes, the more tough spots you put your opponents in, the more likely you are to make money as it gives them room to mess up. Conversely, if you eliminate these confusing/tough spots as much as possible, it makes it less likely you will be the one making mistakes. Win~win

Also, analysing the big pots (both won and lost) is a good thing to do. Dont make the mistake of most players and assume you played well in the winning pots and played bad in the losing pots, because quite often you play better when you lose then when you win. Analyse them all in equal amounts.

Its certainly a lot of effort to do all this, but the rewards are huge. In most walks of life, you get out what you put in, and poker is no different.

[totalise]

So towards the lower levels, suited connectors are more profitable and as you move up the scale, set against overpair is the one (in general).

in general, yes. Its hard to win money from the better players!

I think to be honest i didn't even consider underpair setting up etc. as i have always seen this as profitable at every level.

I dont know what that means. Maybe something written earlier got misunderstood? set is profitable wherever you go

Many times, especially last few months, i have found myself stepping up a level or two in an attempt to see some good poker. In essence i like playing on a table where i can be outplayed at times (learn something) and play for entertainment and studying of the game, rather than from a profitable point of view. If i can get a few sessions in on a higher table without severely damaging my roll, i have always found this more beneficial, than winning a few hundred bucks at my normal level. Bit like paying for a lesson etc.

this is OK as long as you can afford it. One thing i always tell others is to watch the higher limit tables. I dont just mean sit there and get agog at the $10k pots being pushed from pillar to post, I mean actually watch. Study. See what they have if it gets to showdown. Try and understand what they might have when they are betting/calling/raising. See what hands you need to do the betting/raising/folding. See if they target other people. If they do, try and understand WHY they do. watching these tables is a great studying tool as long as you are watching it to study

Do you ever choose a table where you are more interested in having a good game at a good standard, than a profitable time? Do you have a level that you play for profit and one that you play for fun?

not really.. if I want a good time I'll hit the bars and try and fool some female into thinking I can give them a good time that evening. If I do play for fun, its usually at stakes like 10/25c, just to relieve stress. I'll never play high stakes just to have a good game at a good standard, playing 25/50 NL to get a lesson is ok, but I dont think that paying $5/$10k per lesson is value for money!!

[ACE2M]

How do you find it best to proceed when flopping 2 pairs with total junk in the blinds when there are 3 or more players in the pot?

e.g. on the BB you have 94os and the flop comes K94.

I tend to not win big pots in this situation but lose the odd massive pot. If i lead out i get called by KQ, KJ, K10 etc and when an overcard to the nine comes on the turn it gets very tricky.

[totalise]

How do you find it best to proceed when flopping 2 pairs with total junk in the blinds when there are 3 or more players in the pot?

e.g. on the BB you have 94os and the flop comes K94.

I tend to not win big pots in this situation but lose the odd massive pot. If i lead out i get called by KQ, KJ, K10 etc and when an overcard to the nine comes on the turn it gets very tricky.

When theres no reason to suspect people will do the betting for you, it makes most sense to go ahead and do it yourself. In spots like this, it gets quite tricky for people to "catch up". Normally on the turn they either are still lagging behind, or they have over-taken you (with some filthy straight draw getting there). Maybe you bet and everyone folds, if thats the case you weren't going to win much of a pot anyways, at least by betting you make them put money in there when its likely you have the best hand, rather then checking, and then letting them overtake you and have them reverse the fortunes on you

What to do if you get called and an overcard to your top pair comes on the turn, well I pretty much keep on firing, and then if they call again, check the river (**or see below) and see if I can elicit a bluff/value bet from a second best hand. You lose out sometimes when people check behind on the river, but you gain by letting them bluff off chips when they call for raggedy hands that dont get there.

**In these spots you dont do too badly by making a rediculously small bet on the river. Lets say you are playing 1/2 and by the river you have 2pr and the pot is $50. If you bet $5, then if they have a draw that missed, what on earth do they do? You are challenged their pride, making them think "wtf is this, he thinks Im gonna fold a $50 pot for $5 more? NO CHANCE!" and then you induce the bluff raise.

Compare this to betting something like $30, and then they still go through the same thought process, you might have escalated the pot to such a scale you dont want to call, so their bluff might work,  or you bet too much where they are scared to risk too many chips on the bluff in the first place.

Naturaly checking just lets them give up with their male pride in-tact.. so whilst Im no real fan of underbets, this is one spot where it can work out really really well assuming you do it against the correct opponent.

[Lee]

Yet another great response Totalise, been looking forward to that one.

This has to be the best thread i've ever read, congrats on that.

[GlasgowBandit]

Great thread guys, I read teh first 3 pages in full and speed read the rest of it, but I'll take the time later today to go through it all and really get into it, it certainly has the potenntial to be a good e-book.

Could I suggest that maybe Blonde enlist the help of a few of the top players who post on here to go through it with Totalise and give their opinions before its finnished.  Iw ould be really interested to read that in full.

[boldie]

only just found this thread..bump as it's a must read for just about anyone, me thinks.

thanks to Byron for linking to it.