Moving to cash

[SuuPRlim]

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  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  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

[kinboshi]

L'il Dave wins the internets again.

[jgcblack]

L'il Dave wins the internets again.

no, not this year.

He will not win the whole thing.

[kinboshi]

Every time he posts,  he wins it again.

[Bully87]

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

[nirvana]

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 ?

[Gemini Kings]

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.

[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.

[pleno1]

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.

[redsimon]

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?

[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!

[Gemini Kings]

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%

[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).

[Mohican]

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  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?

[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.

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.