Poker at the Lower Limits, Profit vs. Learning?

[B Dids]

Question for the room.

For those of use who are playing lower limits, its your experience primarily about trying to make money, or trying to develop your game to eventually play higher.

This ties into something I mentioned in the 6 max thread earlier. I think people tend to play a 8 table, damn the reads, ABC, make $ fast style of play. I'm sure that works, and I'm sure that that makes them more money now that I'm making.

However, I'd like to think that by taking the time to get reads, and NOT play ABC, when we both arrive at say 15/30 (or whatever level where ABC starts to fall apart) my game will be far better suited for that level of play.

So I guess my question is, how many of you are just playing 2/4, 3/6 and 5/10 trying to grind out money, and how many of your are doing it simply as part of a learning experience?

[bdk3clash]

I think this comes down to everyone's personal goals and why they play.

For me, my goals are (in no particular order)

-to continue to learn and improve my game
-to move up limits to the point where I can profitably multitable the Party $15/30
-to make money (as in, real cash-in-hand money, not just money to add to my bankroll)
-to learn different forms of poker (shorthanded, PL/NL, stud & stud/8, Omaha)

What's interesting is that these goals things are mutually exclusive in some ways and mutually reinforcing in others. Having cash-in-hand means I delay moving up to a given level since it's money that comes out of my bankroll, and moving up means less cash-in-hand.

Moving up in stakes forces me to improve my game, since you'll tend to plateau playing against the same types of players at the same stakes. At the same time, playing against better opponents certainly means sacrificing some expected earn in terms of big bets and potentially in terms of actual profit, though in the long run it's likely that this is a necessary step.

Cool question, and the answer is going to depend greatly on the individual.

[KowCiller]

B dids,

I'm not a veteran to online play by any stretch, but I believe my answer is "both". Allow me to explain.

When it comes to reads and playing "outside the box" I try to focus on this aspect during my live B&M play. When it comes to online play, I believe the ABC grind out the paycheck method works well.

Lately I've been trying to split time (in terms of clock hours) between B&M play and online play in order to achieve a balance between increasing the skills of my game and increasing the size of my wallet. Since the hands come so much slower in person, it gives me a lot more time to think about different actions I took as well as record the questionable hands in my notebook for later study/posting.

Sample size man would remind me I haven't been doing it long enough to be able to have proof that it's a good method, but conceptually it seems sound.

Hopefully if we meet at the 15-30 tables someday, I'll be equally prepared /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Hope this helps.

KoW

[namknils]

Why can't you play multiple tables now and learn? I play 3-4 tables, I don't take exstensive notes on each player at the table, but I do make a note on plays here and there. I feel that I am definately learning while I play 4 tables, then review afterwards, and I have been able to move up in limits too.

It seems like you are saying if you play multiple tables you are not learning anything, that is wrong. I can tell you that I am definately learning while I play 4 tables. These opponents aren't that difficult that you can't beat only 9 at a time, if you are at a table where your opponents are making very tough and tricky moves at 1/2, 2/4, 3/6 to the point that you need to focus on them really closely to beat them, then you need to work on table selection skills.

My goals are both to make money and to improve to be able to beat the higher games, making more money later. I feel that playing more hands is helping me, not hurting me.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of use who are playing lower limits, its your experience primarily about trying to make money, or trying to develop your game to eventually play higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to develop my game, but let's face it, we wouldn't play if there wasn't money involved. I need something on the line to keep me interested. So I try to play the best that I can online, and keep learning, for the purpose of maximizing my earn.

The only thing about playing online, is that it has messed up my reads a bit for playing 3/6 or 4/8 live. As bad as people play online, they seem to play even worse live in person, and I have noticed I have a tendancy live to "read" people for a better holding than they usually have. But I think I get a little better each time I go out.

Long term my goal is to play well enough that I could sit in a live game anywhere, like a 20-40 game at the Muck, and feel comfortable with my knowledge against the other players. So I guess succeeding at that goal will require both the bankroll, and know-how to get there.

[Monty Cantsin]

Learning. Profits are plugged back into bankroll so that I can contiue to move up learn to beat tougher games. I don't intend to think about income until I'm playing 10/20 and higher.

/mc

[Webster]

profit, I'm up $##,### playing 2/4 this year. I keep telling myself I should move up but . . . .why??

I enjoy the game and am not trying to make a ton. I play 17 hours a week for entertainment, the money is secondary.

[helpmeout]

Learning is No1 by far, the money will come later.

I think many players hurt themselves long term by focusing too much on short term profits and the number of hands they play.

Playing 4 tables at once when you are a beginner wont allow you to get a good feel for the game and the players. You just become an ABC poker robot who doesnt make great plays based on reads which will be necessary later on.

But hey it doesn't bother me.

[Luv2DriveTT]

For me, I am trying to make pocket change (money for dinners, day trips, things like that) but my main focus is trying to become a better player. I do not have nearly the time available that many here can commit, so I am progressing at a slower rate than I would like but I have this past week moved up to the Tropicanna pink chip game ($7.50 - $15) with only one setback overall for the weekend I was a winner. Of course my sample size is far too small, but if all the games at that level are played the same as the ones I played (one or two fairly good players, the rest were Fishy McRaisers) then I am confident that I can beat the game on a fairly regular basis.

The odd thing is that I haven't committed to moving up past 2-4 on party yet. I don't multi-table more than 2 a time very well, and I still make huge mistakes when I get tired. I have so much more to learn, I guess I'll be hanging around at the lower levels for a long time.

As for the ABC style of play, without the fundimentals (which 90% of our opponents are lacking, even at the upper limits in many B&M rooms) learning to read well is pointless.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[turnipmonster]

for me, it's both. online, I just try to grow my bankroll and learn to play well. currently playing 5/10 6 max, but I played quite a bit of 3/6 in the past. also I try to learn new games like stud8 and PLO. I probably wouldn't play online just for money, I enjoy the challenge of moving up through the ranks and improving my limit game. if I didn't feel like I was learning I probably would not play.

for B&M play I actually keep a separate bankroll and I play quite a bit higher, usually in mid-high stakes PL/NL games. I do this for money, although in order to keep making money I have to constantly be improving and adapting.

one thing about reads. to me, ABC poker involves taking reads of your opponents likely range of hands and playing appropriately. EVERYONE makes reads when they play, even those guys playing 8 tables. some people make precise and accurate reads based on a lot of information, and some people make crude reads based on not very much information. but everyone makes reads, even bad players (although they don't realize it most of the time).

if you accept that you're always making reads, you just have to ask yourself if you want to be a good reader or a mediocre reader?

I think your way of playing (playing less tables and really trying to play well) is much more +EV for the long long term. in music, in order to learn to play something fast you practice it very slowly and precisely. I can't help but think the same is true of poker.

--turnipmonster

[B Dids]

And to be clear, I'm not saying that people playing 8 tables don't get reads. At least people who do it well (astroglide for instance).

What got me was that somebody said

"I honestly don't put much stock in reads, most of these people are clearly idiots and it's just not necessary IMO. I just play my ABC game and I don't try to buy pots that aren't heads up if I know they're just going to call anyway most of the time."

Which just strikes me as so fundamentally flawed if you're trying to improve your game.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
What got me was that somebody said
"I honestly don't put much stock in reads, most of these people are clearly idiots and it's just not necessary IMO. I just play my ABC game and I don't try to buy pots that aren't heads up if I know they're just going to call anyway most of the time."
Which just strikes me as so fundamentally flawed if you're trying to improve your game.

[/ QUOTE ]
That guy isn't playing as ABC as he thinks if he isn't even thinking about reads and is just on auto-pilot.

[B Dids]

I guess that it just means that everybody's definition of ABC may be different. Most of the times I heard "ABC" it's discussing a style that's not making cards and "just playing the cards"

[Grisgra]

I've only been playing poker for a few months -- so at this point I want to increase my skills more than increase my $$. I find that I seem to learn less when doing 3 tables, and don't play as creatively or attentively as when I'm playing just one or two.

I'm a successful 5/10 player, and at this point I could almost certainly 4-table 5/10 and make $80-$100/hr, but I don't think I'd learn as fast -- and what's more, I don't think I'd enjoy the experience as much either. Popping constantly from table to table is draining and annoying, frankly, even if it's more profitable.

In a few months I'll probably be able to play 4-tables of 5/10 without being too drained. But by then I'd much rather play one or two tables of 10/20. Even if it's less profitable at that point, it's the next level, and skill is more important to me long term than raw buckaroos.

(Not that those aren't nice /images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

[KowCiller]

Multitabling 5-10 after just a few months of playing poker is very impressive. Did you work your way up from lower limits to build a bank roll?

KoW

[Moonsugar]

Interesting question in regards to multi tabling. Daniel N. posted some thoughts on this last year when I was starting to learn the game that I found quite interesting. Don't have a link but he basically wrote that you could both learn and earn more from multitabling than by playing a single table.

I have found that to be true. The multitabling increases earn should be obvious. How multitabling increases "learn" I think has to do with pattern regognition. You just see a lot more flops and, more importantly, you learn the way a poker hand should flow (betting patterns). Spotting when the flow doesn't make sense is a great way to make money, at least at the limits I play.

Skooma

[GreywolfNYC]

I was a semi-regular at the Trop's pink chip game this past summer, playing at that table virtually every weekend. I can only say that while the game is indeed beatable, I did play against some very, very tough players: people who play full time, others with 30+ years experience, not to mention some very sharp Vietnamese regulars. The table has many of the 20-40 limit (and above) limit players who like the fact that the Trop doesn't charge for time in this game but takes a standard rake (5% I think). Glad you had a good run there. See you at the tables.

[Grisgra]

A Brief History of Grisgra

~Pre-February 2003: No poker experience except occasional goofy games with the family. Oh, I think I played for sheets of paper in Junior High, during lunch. Got hooked on the Travel Channel shows, though, and heard about online games . . . hmmm . . . time to do some research!

~February 2003: I started by reading Jones' book and using it on the Play tables, for about a week. Hey, it works!

~March 2003: Deposited $50 into Pokerroom and played the $1/$2 tables. Built up my bankroll to $500 within two or three weeks I think. In retrospect, while I'm sure I played okay, I think I had a better-than-average run of cards, to start with only 25BB and not bust out.

~March 2003: Poker Books Time! I bought maybe ten or fifteen. Tons of 2+2 books plus two or three others. Also read lots o' 2+2. I'm a statistician, and I loved all this crap!

~April 2003: Hit Party and Paradise. Built up the bankroll to $1500+ playing $30 SNGs and $2/$4, as well as some NL. A little o' everything. I was in heaven.

~May 2003: Discovered ShortHanded 5/10 at Party. WOW. Played two tables and made, like, $1000 in one day. I'M THE BEST BABY!!!!!!

~End of May 2003: [censored]. Apparently, there are swings, or something. Down to $600, and I run like hell, a psychological mess.

June 2003 to Early August 2003: Hiatus.

Late August 2003: Deposit $500 into Empire and into Party. Gotta take it slow. Gotta review hand histories. Gotta post hands. Gotta be prepared for swings. Buy Pokertracker. Start with $1/$2, jump to 5/10 very very soon afterwards.

September 2003: I'm back, baby. Up $2500.

October 2003: I'm really back! Up another $2500. Hmm. Maybe I should read hand histories or post hands or, in general, be more thoughtful. Nah. I'm winning. Almost 4BB/100. Booyah!

November 2003: Up $2500 first week. Lose those 250BB over next two days. Back up to $2300 by Thanksgiving. Over Thanksgiving tell myself that I only need $200 more to meet my $2500/month goal!!!!

Thanksgiving Weekend 2003: Down $2500. Dipping into $10/$20 games to make back my losses quicker didn't work for some reason.

I end November with a goose-egg. Still up given the preceding months, but psychologically, once again, I'm a tremendous horribly shocked wreck. Two -250BB swings in the same month will do that to you.

December 2003 to August 2004: Hiatus, which at one point went so far as to making sure I didn't see poker even on TV. It was that tough.

September 2004: I'm back, baby, I'm back! And posting a lot more hands and looking at a lot more hand histories than before. Ready for the swings, too. Um. I hope /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Maybe this belongs more in the Beginners or Psychology section, I dunno. But I'm definitely a winning player -- over 50k hands of 5/10 and over 2BB/100 even with that November crash last year. So there you are. Probably a lesson in there, for someone . . .

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a successful 5/10 player, and at this point I could almost certainly 4-table 5/10 and make $80-$100/hr

[/ QUOTE ]

A bit of a stretch? $80/hr at 4 tables of 5/10 full is crushing the game at a little over 3BB/100. You wouldn't have to worry too much about the learning part at that rate.

-----

Re: playing the lower limits, I basically used them to build a bankroll and learn in the process. I could have afforded to deposit a few thousand and jump right into something like 5/10, but I would have lost a lot at first and maybe given up.

Instead, I started with $300 and built it up, Starting with 0.50/1. I basically proved to myself that I can play the game, and prove that I can win at each level as I move up (or drop back down if I can't), without the risk of big out of pocket losses.

[Moonsugar]

[ QUOTE ]
4 tables of 5/10 full is crushing the game at a little over 3BB/100

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 3BB/100 is "easily" possible now on PP 5/10. Maybe not forever but right now it is.

Skooma

[Grisgra]

I meant to say $80-$100 per 100 hands, not per hour. (I think I might be a 3 or 3.5 BB/100 player at this point, though, with good table selection. Can't tell without a bunch more hands, obviously. I think I'm at least 2BB/100 though.)

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant to say $80-$100 per 100 hands, not per hour. (I think I might be a 3 or 3.5 BB/100 player at this point, though, with good table selection. Can't tell without a bunch more hands, obviously. I think I'm at least 2BB/100 though.)

[/ QUOTE ]

that is more than per hour

[Trix]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant to say $80-$100 per 100 hands

[/ QUOTE ]
No you didn´t /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I meant to say $80-$100 per 100 hands

[/ QUOTE ]
No you didn´t /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

8 to 10 BBs per 100 hands at $5/10 sounds like a perfectly reasonable win rate...
http://download.wbr.com/tsn/triumph/triumph_tn.gif
FOR ME TO POOP ON!

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I meant to say $80-$100 per 100 hands

[/ QUOTE ]
No you didn´t /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Goddammit, you know what I meant to say /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I meant to say that I can make about $800,000BB per 5/10ths of an hour per table. Duh.

[Grisgra]

Great picture /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Ian J]

Dids,

I think it's a bit of both. I started last year as a college student who liked to play and put $50 in to have a little fun and learn a little. Then, I realized how much there was to the game and really wanted to become good. After getting a bit better, I realized that you could make some money playing. I mostly went up the ranks through SnGs, but have been playing a lot in the 15 game lately.

I think the money is #1 on my list, but that doesn't mean I'm not constantly reading here and thinking about how to become better. The reason money is #1 on my list is because I'm no longer working so I have to win at this as my source of income. Before, when I had a part time job, I played more to get better at the game and have fun. Now, it's a bit different, but I'm always trying to improve.

[rdu $teve]

[ QUOTE ]
.....if you are at a table where your opponents are making very tough and tricky moves at 1/2, 2/4, 3/6 to the point that you need to focus on them really closely to beat them, then you need to work on table selection skills......

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and disagree with you on this. Yes, you should be able to beat 4 tables at once, for your given level of play. And if your play is improving while you are 4 tabling....well, then your learning.

But at the same time, table selection should have little to do with this (I do still hunt down a known fish from time to time, for my selection). I say this, because you have limited options when playing B&M.

I try to play any person that comes along, no matter what their skill level, and play them according to my reads/knowledge of their play. My normal criteria for table selection is pot size, or %flop seen for the table. Those two typically directly relate to my profits, and that is why I am playing to begin with.

[BusterStacks]

First things first, ABC can beat any level as far as internet play is concerned. Second, I play for learning, I have never made a cashout.