winning and losing

I'm going to open myself up to the wolves but who cares, maybe we'll learn something in the process. I'm pretty much convinced that very, very few people win consistently and can claim they're in positive territory playing Texas Hold'em at PP.


I've run a test on myself for 3 weeks now using $50 at paradise poker. I have $90 now and by playing the tightest game on the face of the earth have managed to work this up to $200, back down to $1.75, back up to $150 down to $8 the other day and now back up to $90. Every single time I get ahead I'll sit there for maybe 2-3 hours and literally not touch anything but a group 1 hand and watch these hands get snapped off one after another. During these droughts I won't even see a winner had I been in the hand.


There's a lot of discussion on PP and here about what's going on at PP. If I owned PP, by the way, I'd have a PR budget just to dispel rumors and myths about the site, so you can bet they have some people here pitching the sight.


The other day someone laid out an elaborate system of grading at PP whereby as you win you receive a grade that makes it harder to win. As you lose your grade lowers and consequently you win more. mmm not sure about that one.


All I can say is it's bizarre how it becomes almost impossible to move ahead from a winning session. The one thing I will concede is at the higher levels where you have the opportunity to isolate against a single player you can overpower the cards with intimidation and skillful play.

Jon,


This is similar to what I've experienced on PP 2/4 HE but a friend of mine who plays 2/4 (whose play is similar to mine) wins almost every sesion. The difference you may ask? He plays for at most a half an hour at a time while I will sit for 1 - 2 hours each session. He theorized that if you are up early in the session you subconscously loosen up your game since you are playing on other players' money. You end up losing much more quickly and often times end up down for the session. If you are down early you play even tighter and limit the losses.


I tested his theory this weekend and here's what happened:


Time of Session (Win/Loss)

30 mins. (+50)

30 mins. (+60)

2 hours (-80)

20 mins. (+26)

20 mins. (-9)

1.5 hrs. (-42)

30 mins. (+46)

25 mins. (+15)


Not a huge sample, I know, but it seems to support his theory. I then looked at the hand histories from the two losing sessions that were > 30 minutes long. I was amazed to see that if I would have quit a the 1/2 hour mark I would have been +9 on one session and +25 on the other. Hmmm.

I'm afraid it's too late fellow Paradise Shills. He's gone over to dark side now that he has run the Weak-Tight Test for three whole weeks.


I told you showing them a hundred million hands wouldn't stop them from running their own expert tests. It's just a matter of time now that Jon has fiqured it before the New York Times does too.


I say we pull a PokerSpot and run with the cash now. Send it thru our shell banks. We still have PokerStars to work with.


You thing David and Mason could have kept these folks in line, for what we pay them. We told both of them what the price of failure was in this matter. Have them both whacked along with Jon.


While we are at it take out the rest of those stooges over there. MS Sun, Hummad and one the Chris's, I don't know which one, whack'em both then. That Mark K guy too.


MS Sunshine

AKA Ex-Very High Priced Paradise Poker Shill


p.s. I'm sorry Jon to make a big deal of your post. You are most likely a nice guy. I only respond to a few of these posts on PP a year. I consider them blackholes, lots of energy in, nothing comes out. So, I vent about the other ones when I come across the best written one of them every few weeks.

I think you've seen the light.


Tom D

I have $90 now and by playing the tightest game on the face of the earth... and literally not touch anything but a group 1 hand


this is a horrible strategy.


playing tight does not equal playing good. A monkey could be trained to play only group 1 hands.


so, you cant beat tiny games with a tiny bankroll, and in an insignificant amount of time youve come to this conclusion:


I'm pretty much convinced that very, very few people win consistently and can claim they're in positive territory playing Texas Hold'em at PP

i play 5/10 at pp and i win consistanly. I play about 20hr a week and average about 20$ per hr.


And also if u been with paradise a long time you still see the same faces winning like: BOBCARDS PLAYBOY ERIK123 PIESANG. And none of these guys are really tight they know how to play each players perfectly. I say about 20% of the players on paradise are consistant winners. I am just a part time poker player and i am considering going full time. I started 2yrs ago with 400 and with all my cashouts i'm up about 20,000.

MS Sunshine, based on what you've written you're with PP. Does everyone know this but me? Maybe so.

Otherwise why would you respond the way you did?


What's the big deal with wondering if something is going on behind the scenes at PP. Seems to me it's human nature to draw some conclusions and question things. The internet is still new (infancy really) and we inherently don't trust certain aspects of it so to question PP, a gambling sight, is very natural.

Furthermore, any defensive reaction makes me wonder even more.

This is my first post here.Ive been reading here for a month now.mostly interesting stuff.I just want to say the problem here is not only on PP.Ive been playing party poker since Nov. I did very well till i cashed in 500 for the second time.in 20m sessions avereging 2 hours per.ive lost 17 sessions. just about all my starters lead after the flop.anything and everything makes my hand 2nd best.

"any defensive reaction makes me wonder even more"


Well, wonder away. Other than the fact that I play at Paradise hardly at all, this is only because I think the games are too tough in the limits I play. Which I have said many times before on this forum. I believe Paradise's shuffle is fair and random. The smaller sites have much better $10-20 games. IMO.


No, I do not know for 100% certainty that any internet poker site is not cheating in some way. I have been around poker along time and it is the same argument heard for years in live poker rooms. Either the dealer was cheating or some of the other players were cheating, because they were good players and had the odds handy for every hand they lost with that day.


I will concide that some small amount of them were correct, they had been cheated. The rest either had a bad night or were not winning players to begin with.


It is the same thing with internet poker. It is most likely you're not being cheated.


Why do the same people disagree with most of these posts? They receive checks every month from these sites. Not because they said good things here about Paradise or any other poker site, but because they are winning poker players.


About 10% of players win, about 20% break about even and the other 70% lose and pay the winners and the rake.


In the last year everyone on the net has gotten better, if you did not get alot better too then it is only a matter of time before you are forced to move down in class or go busted. This last bit is fact. It's all about how well you play today against these players that counts.


I see new posters, and new to poker, take comfort in some of these cheating threads. They whisper in their ears "It wasn't your fault you lost. You play well. It was those cheats." They say it enough the newbies start to believe it. Most of the rest of us don't say s..t because it's a waste of time.


So, if you are new or going thru a bad period. You have come to the right place. First think for yourself. Ask questions, here and the other forums. There are alot of people willing to help. Every time someone corrects a mistake you are making, you make money on this corrected play for the rest of your life.


There is a chance these folks are right, but to everyone that makes a BB/hr it sounds like sour grapes. IMHO.


MS Sunshine


I'm sorry if I stepped on some posters toes that I respect in almost all other areas but this.

I agree, Party is fixed too. Since cashing out $4000 earlier this month, I have only been able to make $3000. WAY less than I made before I cashed out. Guess I was flagged or something.


You people amaze me.


Tuco.

Sorry Hammuh for the incorrect spelling of your name, it was off the top of my head, which is short and pointy.


MS Sunshine


p.s. Still enjoy your posts.

The long answer


Poker is subject to basic economic principles, like any other industry. Namely, money has to come in from outside to pay the costs and provide the profits. In most industries we refer to the people who bring in the money as consumers; in poker we refer to them, rather unkindly, as losers. This, simply, is how the world works. If no one buys Yugos, there won’t be anyone selling them.


Mason Malmuth, renowned poker authority, has advised again and again that over-raking kills games. Again, this is simply a fact of life. If you suck all the water out of the well, you end up with a dry well. However, the rake is not the only cost consumers have to fade. They have to pay the winners too. If the total bill is too high, the games evaporate away.


Internet poker has a major problem: speed. While the sites can exercise self-restraint by not raking too much, they can’t expect skilled players to do the same, voluntarily. In effect, internet poker has invented the Gatling gun and put it in the hands of the most vicious predators on earth: skilled poker players. What is Internet poker to do to protect itself?


Sometimes, you can draw inferences from what you don’t see, as well as from what you do. What I don’t see are bad players being devoured quickly enough, online. Consider the North Atlantic, for example. The fishing boats are bigger, better, faster, and armed with high tech fish-finding equipment. What you expect to see, and what you do see, are the oceans running out of fish. Should online poker be any different?


Tom D

Tom this is true not just of poker but of any gambling operation be it online or B&M casinos, bingo parlors, sports betting, race tracks, or lotteries. They all have one thing in common: losers. Actually most of them have another thing in common: despite having a far greater number of losers than winners they are very profitable and very popular. Now put on your thinking cap and tell me how that could be.


To address another of your points, if you don't see Internet poker players being busted quickly enough you just aren't looking very closely. I use Pokerstat (if you aren't aware of this program that says a lot about your awareness, IMO) and it is literally littered with nicks that appear for a week or two and then disappear never to be seen again. If you inspect the hand histories for these players you can quickly see why too. Many of them see 80-100% of flops and go to showdowns for 50% or more of the flops they see. Not exactly an overall winning strategy even if they do manage do go on a small streak and possibly make a cashout. You know eventually the axe is going to fall on them, and for those who've made a cashout, well its obvious--they were blacklisted and cheated.


And yet despite all this the new players keep appearing to take the places of the gone and forgotten. The world is a HUGE place and a couple thousand players is nothing compared to the potential for new players that is yet untapped.


Good luck in your quest to save the world from Internet poker and Paradise.

Argumentum ad hominum!


"Now put on your thinking cap and tell me how that could be."


A bit condescending, don't you think, Professor?


"(if you aren't aware of this program that says a lot about your awareness, IMO)"


You'll have to tell me the relevance of that.


"Good luck in your quest to save the world from Internet poker and Paradise."


That's a beauty.


Tom D

I play 20/40 on PP and have a decent bankroll...

Many of the posts ive seen complaining about losing always seem to buy in for a small amount

(say 20 BBs), lose it and buy in again. But

psychologically they already have to double their

buyin to break even...This isnt a good mental approach to go into a tough game online. If they

lose that they now have to treble it. IMHO

playing badly and bankroll management go hand

in hand. Which player is going to be stronger mentally?


A. 12000 already in PP from grinding out and solid play.


B. Just bought in for 800, lost it and bought in

again.


Its obviously gonna be player A...IMHO if you

want to win online player B should just save

the 12000 to feel comfortable playing. After

all, 800 is then only 6.7% of the total bankroll

and isnt going to affect them as much mentally.


Maybe buying in for 20BBs works for some people

but for the majority I think its a losing play.

Lose 3 big pots in 20/40 and then your left with

90 so think what the hell with pocket 4's in EP.

Its all gone. Or the money is so scared that

you only play grade 1 hands and slowly bleed

away the cash in the blinds. I think what im saying refers to all limits...80 in 2/4...200 in

5/10...these buyins are a joke.


Anyway, just MHI re bankrolls. Oh yes, and another small matter I almost forgot about even

if you do have the cash...YOU GOTTA BE DAMN GOOD

TO WIN ONLINE.


good luck!

"Now put on your thinking cap and tell me how that could be."


A bit condescending, don't you think, Professor?


>I really wanted an answer from you here Tom.

>Sorry if my phrasing offended you.


"(if you aren't aware of this program that says a lot about your awareness, IMO)"


You'll have to tell me the relevance of that.


>You have made a lot of statements and thrown

>around much innuendo regarding the deal at

>Paradise and, in this case, a claim that losing

>players are able to play longer than they would

>be at a brick and morter cardroom. Please

>correct me if I'm mistaken about your theories

>here. Pokerstat is a software tool for analyzing

>Paradise hand histories. It can show you how

>those you play with do again you and what card

>distribution you've received while playing. My

>contention is that if you don't even know what

>Pokerstat is you really don't have much basis

>making the claims relative to the deal or poor

>player retention at Paradise.


"Good luck in your quest to save the world from Internet poker and Paradise."


That's a beauty.


>Well what does motivate you then?

Tom D

I don’t know what you want an answer to, so let me ask you a question. Do you think playing four times as many hands an hour, every hour, would have (a) no economic impact, (b) some, or (c) a lot? In my opinion, the answer is (c), and that is the premise of my argument.


Imagine you have a herd of sheep, and that there is a pack of wolves that prey on them, taking down a sheep from time to time. It’s an annoyance, but the herd is big enough to absorb the loss of a few sheep. Now imagine that these same wolves are suddenly armed with automatic weapons, and with Pokerstats, laser guided. Would you think nothing has changed?


Your opinion that we can just get more sheep any time we want is naively optimistic, in my opinion. As an example, it has been said that no-limit and pot-limit games don’t last because the skill level of the good players is just too strong. The poor players lose their money too fast, and that is that.


I’m not saying that players aren’t dropping out. They are, but in my opinion, not as fast as I would expect. You have a different opinion, and even though I think you’re wrong, I don’t have a problem with it. I don’t use Pokerstats, but I am observant, and I am experienced. For example, Planet seems fairly stable at about three hundred players on a good day. When I log on, I see pretty much the same names, and many of these people don’t play very well. Yet, they don’t seem to be fairing too badly, day after day. That’s not what I would expect to see, given the pace online.


Yes, the world is a big place, but I don’t know how relevant that is. The question is how many people play poker, and more important, how many people are willing, and can afford, to sit in front of a computer and lose their money at four times the speed of casino poker?


Tom D

Tom wrote, "Yes, the world is a big place, but I don’t know how relevant that is. The question is how many people play poker, and more important, how many people are willing, and can afford, to sit in front of a computer and lose their money at four times the speed of casino poker? "


Well they don't actually. I don't know about where you play but my regular B&M casino doesn't deal $.25/$.5 or $.5/$1 or $1/$2 or even $2/$4 games (which is probably the most popular stake at Paradise). Even playing probably 50% more hands an hour (that about realistic, 4x the number of hands is from somewhere in deep outer space I think) the losses aren't going to mount up online nearly as fast as they would in a B&M casino playing $3/$6 + tipping.