PokerStars?

[3TJ]

Any advice will help!
I play on VCPoker on the 0.5/$1 or 1/$2 NLHE tables - normally 6 max but sometimes on the 9 seat tables, I have built a bankroll of ~$1500 and also taken out ~$1000 - I have not played on any other site due to being:
a) new to the game - been playing since Jan 05 and
b) worried I might start losing (!)
You cannot use poker tracker on VC (I have never seen it in use) and you cannot get rake back on there, so my questions are:
Should I down load another site so that I can get PT to improve my game?
Playing these levels, would rake back be a benefit?
Are the games going to be harder as they are mainly US players, (the home of the game) and then I will get raped...losing my hard earnt BR (I am a UK resident - not sure if this makes any difference?)
Thanks

[BlackRain]

I don't think there is any substantial skill level difference between the various sites. I mean, why would this be the case? Its random people signing up for certain poker rooms.

I play on pokerstars at those levels. I doubt you will find the games substantially harder or easier than where you are coming from.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there is any substantial skill level difference between the various sites. I mean, why would this be the case? Its random people signing up for certain poker rooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you'd be surprised. Fortunately my personal favorite aquarium (http://www.pacificpoker.com) has such piss-poor software and cashouts that the 2+2 crowd would rather just stay on Party. /images/graemlins/smile.gif But yeah, I think Pacific players really are substantially worse than many sites. This is because their big marketing tie-in is to the online casino that owns them. People who are online to play slots or whatever and decide to give poker a try are not going to, by and large, be tough opponents.

And most would say that PokerStars and UB are the two toughest sites. I don't know about why, though.

All that said, to the OP's concern, i don't think the problem is US-based versus European sites. There are plenty of US fish populating Party, Pacific, and the rest.

[Wyrm2]

Probably not Pokerstars. I would suggest Party or Pacific for fish. Get a rakeback deal through the classifieds here before you get an account there. If you have some money that you can invest, you can really make some extra $ by clearing bonuses from various sites. I'd suggest www.bonuswhores.com (http://www.bonuswhores.com) to learn more about that (look for Bonus Whoring 101 for details).

Don't worry about the fishiness of the US vs. Europe, there are plenty of fish all over. If you are taking the time and energy to learn the game you will be successful on either continent.

[BlackRain]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there is any substantial skill level difference between the various sites. I mean, why would this be the case? Its random people signing up for certain poker rooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you'd be surprised. Fortunately my personal favorite aquarium (http://www.pacificpoker.com) has such piss-poor software and cashouts that the 2+2 crowd would rather just stay on Party. /images/graemlins/smile.gif But yeah, I think Pacific players really are substantially worse than many sites. This is because their big marketing tie-in is to the online casino that owns them. People who are online to play slots or whatever and decide to give poker a try are not going to, by and large, be tough opponents.

And most would say that PokerStars and UB are the two toughest sites. I don't know about why, though.

All that said, to the OP's concern, i don't think the problem is US-based versus European sites. There are plenty of US fish populating Party, Pacific, and the rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you are right. I don't have much experience with other sites so maybe I shouldn't have said that. I just find it odd that a bunch of tough players would sign up at stars and a bunch of morons on pacific. but maybe it has to do with marketing as you say.

[XxGodJrxX]

I have never played at Pacific, so I cannot comment on that site. But I do not think that it is too farfetched that Stars is tougher than Party, for pretty obvious reasons. The lowest limits that Party offers are .5/1, and it has the largest player base out of all the sites. Pokerstars has the second largest player base, but they also offer ring games as low as .02/.04.

When I first started playing a few months ago, I signed up at Party and dove straight into .5/1, just as all of the new poker players must do if playing at Party. Luckily I made some pretty good dough despite being new to online poker. In contrast, if I was to go to Stars, I would have stuck around in the nanolimits. Very few new online poker players would dive right into .5/1; most new players play to have fun, not get rich.

Just tonight, there were at least five times the amount of .25/50 tables at Stars than there were .5/1. If the players at Party had that kind of choice, then Party .5/1 would be a much tougher game since all the new players are at the lowest limit game.

The players at Stars aren't "tougher" as a whole. At limits that are worth playing for an above-average player (I'll say .5/1 and above), they are relatively tougher because of the greater variety in games offered at Stars.

[Student]

Of course my experience on PokerStars (PS) relates to my personal talents, knowledge, ignorance of poker etc, but I haven't figured out how to beat the 1/2 cents NL HE tables at PS yet! I work very hard at learning, and sometimes I think that I'm establishing a bottom, but then I start losing again.

I suspect that 1/2 cents NL HE tables at PS attracts very experienced poker players, who have been having their problems at their normal higher limit tables, and they're down at the 1/2 cents tables to get refocused. One thing about my tables is most players there have a very large "range" of hands they'll enter. I'll see a player I view as Strong win a pot with A2unsuited, and I know this hand isn't just another "Ax" hole card entry for him. Of course, at a loose table everyone, even Strong players, get to loosen up with their hole cards. Then too, in the final stages of poker tournaments, when there are only a few players left, one is necessarily loose. So playing on 1/2 cents tables is useful practice for tournament last stages.

No one likes to admit they are a moron, even a poker moron, so the reader should realize some of the above is my rationalization process. I believe that ALL levels on PS are populated by strong players, which disagrees with the person to whom I'm responding. Perhaps it is that the 5/10 cents NL HE tables at PS have the dumb PS players! I haven't been there to check, but if my losing continues I might be there, or even on Pacific Poker...

Limit players will say PS has 2/4 cents tables, little realizing that for NL HE they have 1/2 cents tables. Too, limit 2/4 cents tables charge no rake at PS. 1/2 cents NL HE tables charge 5%, but only on pots of $1 and over etc. Hence, rake amount is MOD(5), namely 5, 10, 15 etc cents at NL HE. PS has 1/2 cents and 5/10 cents for NL HE, and no 2/4 cents (AND 10/25 cents, 25/50 cents, $1/2 etc etc).

Dave

[BlackRain]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course my experience on PokerStars (PS) relates to my personal talents, knowledge, ignorance of poker etc, but I haven't figured out how to beat the 1/2 cents NL HE tables at PS yet! I work very hard at learning, and sometimes I think that I'm establishing a bottom, but then I start losing again.

I suspect that 1/2 cents NL HE tables at PS attracts very experienced poker players, who have been having their problems at their normal higher limit tables, and they're down at the 1/2 cents tables to get refocused. One thing about my tables is most players there have a very large "range" of hands they'll enter. I'll see a player I view as Strong win a pot with A2unsuited, and I know this hand isn't just another "Ax" hole card entry for him. Of course, at a loose table everyone, even Strong players, get to loosen up with their hole cards. Then too, in the final stages of poker tournaments, when there are only a few players left, one is necessarily loose. So playing on 1/2 cents tables is useful practice for tournament last stages.

No one likes to admit they are a moron, even a poker moron, so the reader should realize some of the above is my rationalization process. I believe that ALL levels on PS are populated by strong players, which disagrees with the person to whom I'm responding. Perhaps it is that the 5/10 cents NL HE tables at PS have the dumb PS players! I haven't been there to check, but if my losing continues I might be there, or even on Pacific Poker...

Limit players will say PS has 2/4 cents tables, little realizing that for NL HE they have 1/2 cents tables. Too, limit 2/4 cents tables charge no rake at PS. 1/2 cents NL HE tables charge 5%, but only on pots of $1 and over etc. Hence, rake amount is MOD(5), namely 5, 10, 15 etc cents at NL HE. PS has 1/2 cents and 5/10 cents for NL HE, and no 2/4 cents (AND 10/25 cents, 25/50 cents, $1/2 etc etc).

Dave

[/ QUOTE ]

The 1/2 cent NL HE tables on stars are populated by pure maniacs, loose passives, loose aggressives and people who don't even understand the basics of the game. You may find one player who is fairly solid or a good player from .5/1 and above just amusing himself.

I am not sure which 1/2 cent tables at PS you are playing lol. 5/10 cent is just as bad. IMO, it is not until the .25/50 cent levels that you start getting a few players who are actively thinking about the game they are playing. At .50/1 and above, pokerstars is largely populated by solid players and a few professionals with a big jump between .50/1 and 1/2.

These are my observations from a lot of experience in the micros and up to 2/4 NL HE on stars.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I just find it odd that a bunch of tough players would sign up at stars and a bunch of morons on pacific.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stars is a just a poker site, whereas Pacific gets a lot of their traffic from an online casino.

I think that's the case, anyway.
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

[Student]

Let's assume I accept your description of players at PokerStars (PS) 1/2 cents tables: "pure maniacs, loose passives, loose aggressives and people who don't even understand the basics of the game." Being a thoughtful but ignorant beginning poker player, I suppose that places me in the last group there at the 1/2 cents NL HE PS tables. For purposes of this discussion, I accept that description, too. However, my self-description would be "brilliant, handsome, worldly, loved and loving, talented, etc etc," but I'd prefer to put our differences aside for the moment.

I appreciate your analysis of higher levels of poker there at PS, since I hope to be there someday! It will be helpful to me, then (though I'm sure I'll have forgotten this all, 20 years from now when I finally arrive, but that's another story).

The pregnant question is: "How does one beat the PS 1/2 cents NL HE tables?" Since you've graduated from them, I'd certainly value your recommendations. Maybe, even, they might rescue me!

Dave

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Being a thoughtful but ignorant beginning poker player, I suppose that places me in the last group there at the 1/2 cents NL HE PS tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

On a different but related topic, Dave, did you ever read Ed Miller's discussion of domination? When you posted that hand where AT was dominated by AJ, I got the sense that this was a big area where a little studying could go a long way.

[XxGodJrxX]

You may find one or two solid players in the nanolimits at PokerStars, or any other poker site, but the overwhelming majority are not solid players at all. Look at the percentage of players that see the flop at the nanolimits. Even at .25/.50 they are well over 60%. At levels lower, I have seen them in the 80's. Do you think these are good players when they see the flop that often? In my opinion, if you can crush play money tables, you can crush these nanolimits as well. JUST tightening up preflop will give you a huge edge over the new players. If you read and understand SSHE, you are practically guaranteed to murder the nanolimits.

[BlackRain]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume I accept your description of players at PokerStars (PS) 1/2 cents tables: "pure maniacs, loose passives, loose aggressives and people who don't even understand the basics of the game." Being a thoughtful but ignorant beginning poker player, I suppose that places me in the last group there at the 1/2 cents NL HE PS tables. For purposes of this discussion, I accept that description, too. However, my self-description would be "brilliant, handsome, worldly, loved and loving, talented, etc etc," but I'd prefer to put our differences aside for the moment.

I appreciate your analysis of higher levels of poker there at PS, since I hope to be there someday! It will be helpful to me, then (though I'm sure I'll have forgotten this all, 20 years from now when I finally arrive, but that's another story).

The pregnant question is: "How does one beat the PS 1/2 cents NL HE tables?" Since you've graduated from them, I'd certainly value your recommendations. Maybe, even, they might rescue me!

Dave

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, perhaps I was exaggerating a bit. There are a few conscious players at those levels. But by and large, its on
par with play money from my experience. I didn't intend to speak in absolute terms is what I am saying.

About 6 months ago I started at those levels. I beat those games simply by playing like a rock. A basic understanding of pots odds and implied odds when drawing and a tight preflop selection.

The idea of position in selecting which hands to play was beyond me at that point. I was also very passive postflop, again, due to a lack of experience and knowledge concerning the game. I destroyed those games as a tight passive noob.
It is bad poker on pokerstars at those levels lol. Extremely bad.

Hopefully this was of some help to you. I guaruntee that you are leaps and bounds ahead of your competition already by even signing up to a website like this one.

[Student]

I've completed the section concerning large stacks play.

One thing I've picked up on is one can find words like "dominate" in the indexes of the 2+2 books (or words and phrases that mean the same), and read these references to obtain a point of view that is especially useful. For example, I didn't find "variance" in the index of one book, but did find "fluctuations," and reading the approx. 25 pages that surrounded the word gave me special understanding.

Poker books are interesting in as much as one can pick up a book at any point within the book, and start reading (like the bible). They don't seem to be serial in nature. Do you agree?

Dave

PS: I'm afraid I'm still like the little boy with his 10-piece puzzle. I can't get enough of an overview to where I can figure out how to make any piece fit, at all.

Lately I'm thinking that individual hand analysis must begin by working thru a book like HoH, since he offers hundreds of hands up for analysis, but they each are selected to be appropriate to what is being discussed. Playing poker produces hands at total random, and picking apart any single hand is probably not the optimum approach, given that each of us is at a different point in our poker trajectory learning path. Hence, what's optimum for a given poster of a hand to 2+2 at a certain time, isn't optimum to anyone else presently, and in fact won't be optimum for the poster, a week later.

[Student]

Appreciate your help immensely!

I think I'm too loose for 1/2 cents NL HE poker, even as tight as I'm trying to be. I'm not passive at all, but my aggression isn't properly harnessed. Postflop I'm presently very similar to how you were months ago: weak. Though I have an aggressive personality, which expresses itself in a willingness to go all-in using SSS, my lack of experience postflop is determining for me, to my detriment. I suppose that's net passive behavior, postflop.

I suspect I'm in a long period of substandard cards. But isn't that the lament of every beginning poker player? Importantly, I've given quite a bit of thought to the task of quantifying luck, realizing that poker is a combination of luck and skill, and if one could quantify luck, then the residual would be skill. Hence, since beginners have everything to learn, measurement of this is especially important to beginners.

Furthermore, since I'm one who wants to have an element of prowess with the very elemental aspects of things, I'm working on personal software to process hand histories. Although PokerTracker is very powerful, no doubt there will be statistics they don't carry that I'd like to, and by spending some time processing raw hand histories, then there would be at least a hope of getting the statistics I want, when the occasion arises.

So my education seems to be an especially complicated one, at least as I perceive it with my limited understanding of poker. So getting everything together is taking longer. Lastly, my stubbornness doesn't permit me to take shortcuts. It will take time...

Dave

[Student]

Appreciate it!

I think your statistics are wrong, concerning 1/2 cents NL HE on PokerStars (PS). I just went there to check, and the average percent of players seeing flops were 33%, 35, 34, 46, 38, 38, 40 and 35%, for 8 tables. I don't think these stats change very much over time. By the way, I was viewing 9-player tables only.

I never attempted to crush playmoney NL HE tables. I played them alot, but just so I could have some credits so I could play playmoney SNGs on PS.

Presently I'm trying Ed Miller's SSS (from "Getting Started in Hold'em"). I get messed up trying to customize SSS to my own purposes, but I know eventually I'll learn. Frankly, my customizing is just another way of saying I'd like to be more loose than SSS is; after all, SSS is in only 1 in 15 hands, and less.

I don't think beginners are in pressing numbers in PS NL HE games. 1/2 cents games are loose by definition. Endplay for tournaments is also loose by definition. I wish I was less the beginner so I could find references to this for your attention, and I seek help from others to substantiate these intuitions of mine. I'm a beginner, and I chose PS to play at. I liked the idea that Moneymaker and Reimer learned to play there, to some degree. I knew in advance competition on PS was toughest. I know it's going to be harder for me, but the end product will be tougher, given my choice of a practice field. If I were in it for the instant income, I'd choose Pacific Poker, or Party Poker. These have the reputation for having easier players.

Tightening up preflop has been the direction I tend to, and I often play at 15% VI$IP (or whatever). Perhaps you'd get a kick out of doing a little slumming on PS, and try out the 1/2 cents tables! After all, you're more experienced now, by quite a bit, so it should be a cakewalk. Don't spend hours playing, attempting to get some sort of statistical reliability. Just play 10 or 15 hands, and see if PS is the same place you'd experienced earlier on.

Thanks for your help!

Dave

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
The pregnant question is: "How does one beat the PS 1/2 cents NL HE tables?" Since you've graduated from them, I'd certainly value your recommendations. Maybe, even, they might rescue me!

[/ QUOTE ]

You could destroy this game simply by nut-peddling. But because of the incredible blind structure (250 BB stacks), you can play ridiculously loose and destroy it as well.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I've picked up on is one can find words like "dominate" in the indexes of the 2+2 books (or words and phrases that mean the same), and read these references to obtain a point of view that is especially useful. For example, I didn't find "variance" in the index of one book, but did find "fluctuations," and reading the approx. 25 pages that surrounded the word gave me special understanding.

Poker books are interesting in as much as one can pick up a book at any point within the book, and start reading (like the bible). They don't seem to be serial in nature. Do you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, yes. But in this specific case, Ed has given a very important and fundamental discussion of domination theory in the limit section, and it's implictly assumed that you've read it by the time you make it to the no-limit section. I know your interest is primarily in NLHE, but you really need to go back and read this (and probably all the limit section) if you haven't.

The passage i'm talking about is on page 45, "Hand Two - In the Small Blind" and goes to the bottom of p. 46, "Over the total range of hands...". It's then summarized on p. 102, points 9 and 10. READ THESE. Then reread them.

I'm not too worried about the hand you posted where you reraised with a dominated hand, because we all do things in the heat of battle that we regret. But the ensuing discussion indicated that you need to go study domination theory so as to understand why AT is a HUGE underdog to AJ, not a small underdog.

[XxGodJrxX]

I just finished playing 1/2 for the night on PS. I have just sat down at a table with 72% of the people seeing the flop at .25/.50 limit. As I scroll up, there are tables in the mid-90's. Those are limit numbers, I hit the NL button and saw that the .01/.02 tables are also that high. It may be the time of day you are playing, but right now at 11:30 ET, they are extremely loose.

[Student]

It's very true that I'd forgotten the emphasis Ed Miller placed on dominating hands, within the limit HE section of his book.

Here's probably what happened to me, to cause me to deemphasize domination during play. Though I'd highlighted every reference to "dominate" and its cousins in the book, and though I'd gone thru all highlighted sentences several times after I'd finished reading the limit section, when I got to no limit my emphasis changed entirely. After all, I play no limit. And, after all, the wonderful Short Stack Strategy (SSS) was about to be revealed. So rereading the limit sections of GSiH became less important to me.

Isn't it true that the raise by another player, in front of one and during preflop betting, simply states that one would be dominated by that player if one went in with too little, too late? Isn't that the pregnant point? Though KJunsuited is technically dominated by AQunsuited, we must realize each of these 4 cards is a free card, and either of the players has the same probability of making a overcard pair. 72unsuited beats AA 11.5% of the time (something I read recently, and a PokerStove result).

Strangely enough, tonight the Travel Channel on TV had a repeat of the Bellagio Five Diamonds Tournament, where Daniel Negrano (sp?) won nearly $1.8 million this year. The terminology dominating was used again and again, as in K7unsuited totally dominates 87unsuited (and then a 7 came out on the turn, if I recall). And KQunsuited is dominated by QQ, and AJunsuited is dominated by 88 etc etc.

Importantly "Wittgenstein's Poker" (John Eidinow) doesn't mention the word dominate in the index. GSiH does so, pointing to several pages within the book, relating to domination etc. Now don't be buying John's book, just because I did! It probably won't offer any useful advise for the above-average player of poker.

Dave

PS: I've just read Miller's treatment of domination theory, and I promise to reread it again tomorrow. Meanwhile I have Wittgenstein's Poker, and few others do! That should carry the day during a few sleepless nights, and maybe a few other things, too!

PPS: I'm especially guilty of ignoring raises in front of me, though occasionally I see how rediculous this behavior of mine is! Even when one is out of the hand (and with SSS one is in about 1 in 16 hands, so there is plenty of time to observe this), one can attempt to correlate the player who raises in preflop with who wins the hand. Interesting! Then too, in 1/2 cents NL HE (my game on PokerStars), I suspect players would raise in preflop with A2unsuited, and this is dominating for few hands (hand strength 0.95, vs KJunsuited with hand strength 1.41).

[Student]

I just went to PS at 12:30 PM ET (10:30 here in the Mountain Time Zone), and the numbers are 40%, 40, 39, 59, 33, 63, 56, 49, 62, 56, 46, 45, 45 and 47%. As I watched the numbers were changing rather quickly, and a 30% became visible for a short time. Similarly, I suspect if I'd tried, I could have seen a 70%, but NEVER a 95% (which is mid90s, after all).

I still think you'd have a lot of fun playing 1/2 NL HE at one of these tables. Try one that's 40%, or less, and I think you'll obtain a new higher respect for the calibre of player at these tables.

Of course, since these are the players that keep taking my money, I have no other alternative but to describe them as poker geniuses, or else it makes me look like the original poker idiot of the West! Humor me a little! Call me a poker genius, or something else nice! Life is too short, and I'm too old...

Have fun with your poker; I do!

Dave

[Student]

I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying you can hold out for hands where you have the nuts (and GSiH has a nice treatment of that), and that would win. This is the same as saying you'll be extremely tight.

You're also saying, since stack sizes can be 250, 500, or even 1,000 BBs, that a clever strategy involving considerable looseness could work too. Isn't that pretty much what they do in freeplay games? Variance would be very large. I'm trying to play in a more controlled manner, and have consciously turned away from this brand of very loose play, though I recognize players all around me scoring really big, using strange opening hands for their purposes.

Thanks, much!

Dave

[McNeese72]

[ QUOTE ]
Just tonight, there were at least five times the amount of .25/50 tables at Stars than there were .5/1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it because PS has a lot of 6 max tables at .5/1? I've got my bankroll up and feel comfortable enough to play full ring .5/1 at PS but lately at the time I play there are only four or five full ring tables going and there are usually several people waiting to get on each of them. Since my playing time is limited, instead of waiting, I usually jump on a couple of .25/.50 tables. I guess I could play some .5/1 6-max but I'd like to get my bankroll up a little higher before I do that. There would be a little bit of a learning curve as I try to figure out the difference in starting hands and aggressiveness of the 6-max game.

I've played on Pacific some and it seems a little fishier than PS. There is definitely a difference in the looseness of the PS .25/.50 tables compared to the PS .50/1 tables. I've seen some loose players on the .50/1 tables but there are less of them than the .25/.50 tables.

I do like the PS SNG table setup. I've dabbled some in $5 + .50 SNG's with some success. I do it more for just fun and a change of pace.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
You're also saying, since stack sizes can be 250, 500, or even 1,000 BBs, that a clever strategy involving considerable looseness could work too.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm understanding what he's saying, it's that hands like small pairs or [suited] connectors can be worth playing, even at the risk of getting raised behind you, because when you hit you will be paid off. As Ed Miller would say, big stack NLHE is all about implied odds (http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/Implied_odds).

However, IMO you have to be pretty good at NLHE to have confidence in getting paid off. I'm a NL newbie and I still blow people out of pots more than I should. I keep having to remind myself that I want them to stick around and try to draw out on me (but at the wrong price)!

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Though KJunsuited is technically dominated by AQunsuited....



[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is not. KJo can hit a king or a jack and be leading against AQo.

Contrast AJo, which is dominated by AQ. AJ can only spike a jack to beat AQ; an ace does it no good. THAT is domination, when you can make a pair and still be losing to another (preflop) hand.

Incidentally, suitedness doesn't really impact domination, although Ed et al will stress that offsuit hands suffer more from it. And it also is generally talking about hands heads-up, although something like KQ could really be dominated badly if one opponent has AQ and another has AK!


[ QUOTE ]
And KQunsuited is dominated by QQ,

[/ QUOTE ]

True, because KQ has to spike a king to beat QQ; the case queen does it no good.

[ QUOTE ]
... and AJunsuited is dominated by 88 etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

No! AJ can catch either an ace or a jack to beat 88. But AA, KK, QQ, and JJ would all dominate AJ.

[pzhon]

You don't need to have PokerTracker to improve your game. It is a great tool, but it is much more helpful for limit than for NL. For example, its statistics do not distinguish the sizes of the bets, and usually rate NL players as passive, just because there are fewer bets and raises in NL.

You should play on other sites if you want to improve your game. Average playing styles vary a lot from site to site, and you should practice beating other styles.

I think you should be concerned about being underbankrolled. You have 15 full buyins for NL 100 and 7.5 for NL 200. That might be enough for a solid winner at NL 100, but you aren't sure you are a winner, much less a solid winner. With any downswing, you should be prepared to move down in limits.

Rakeback is worth something, but NL players usually win more in relation to the rake than limit players do. That makes rakeback less important for NL players. It's still a plus to get an extra 2 big blinds per 100 hands at NL 100, but your win rate can be 10 times that, so a small decrease in your win rate would be more important.

[BlackRain]

Student,

I think your enthusiasm for the game is great. Also, you might become the most prepared poker player in the history of poker players. What I mean is %95 of people at those limits have likely never skimmed one poker book. %80 probably have never taken the time to review a hand of theirs or participate on a forum like this one. I know when I played at those limits I was in the majority categories that I speculated about above.

So my advice to you would be this. Perhaps just diving in and playing a bunch of hands (10k+) and not worrying about your vpip, positional analysis etc. etc. might be of some benefit to you. Just go out and wing it. Then if you find that you can find ways to beat these games without any outside help, move up in limits and start studying again.

I am not saying that what you are doing is wrong or even harmful to you. I am saying that a bunch of just playing by the seat of your pants experience at these limits might be better for your game longterm than re reading page 82 of SSHE. Just a thought. GL

[Student]

OK, I've done some research on the word "dominate." Ed Miller uses it as a technical term, and here's how he defines it in SSHE, within the section The Power of Domination, p. 54: "The community board cards in hold'em can create a unique preflop relationship sometimes called 'domination.' It occurs when two hands hold cards of the same rank, but one hand has a higher second card." He then goes on to compare AKu with AQu, and declares AQu dominated. There is quite a bit more about the dominating situations, described in both GSiH and SSHE.

It happens I grabbed a pile of 2+2 poker books to see what others had to say about domination, and none had a mention of it in their index.

I'd gotten some papers from a fellow as a gift. They described PokerTracker in some detail, but interestingly they also mentioned domination. They described a common mistake beginners make, concerning cold calling of raises with unsuited hole cards. They too defined domination as being the case when the one raising before us has the same higher card as we do, but their second card was higher than ours. Declared was this situation could get very expensive, and a losing proposition, in the event the shared higher card came up on the board. So both have paired aces, for example, and the money starts flowing into the pot. I've seen this same situation happen on TV.

But being a beginner, I certainly don't view dominate as a technical term, having a narrow meaning. After all, the word is in common usage in the English language. So in my post, the one you were responding to, I described some domination situations that have nothing to do with the technical usage of the term. It's terminology...

Somewhere else I read that this single cause could change a player from a successful and profitable one to one who never wins, net. I'm sure that's why you've been so concerned in my behalf, since I sure don't make net profits, yet!

Most of these sources relating to domination also say that very loose games are the exception to the rule. Whereas one never calls an early position raise with one-gap overcards such as KJu (in limit poker), especially in low limit NL HE where play is generally quite loose, calling can be prudent. It's explained on the basis of pot odds. The PS average pot size for 1/2 cents poker is about 85 to 90 cents. I grabbed some stats one day, and pot size averaged $1 that day. That's an unbelievable 50 BBs, when the BB is 2 cents! So the raise is to 4 cents in early position, and the Hero takes his KJu and raises to 8 cents, so as to see the flop, and establish his hand as being strong. Gee, he might be doing it against a known maniac, who would raise on nice hole cards to 20 cents (10 BBs)!

Now I'm going to stop babbling, because I'll soon betray my ignorance... But rest assured that I've learned from this topic, and I appreciate your insistence that I secure this victory in understanding! I'm not done learning, and Thanks!

Dave

[Student]

Thanks alot!

I've been playing some poker lately (winning and losing).

Lately I've been jumping all over the map with the many poker books I've bought, and that beats the approach I'd been using. Lately I've been interested in answering specific questions, and using an entire battery of books is a real help for that pursuit.

The other day I became interested in variance, found the word "fluctuations" in the index of a book, and read maybe 30 pages in the book, splattered all over the subject of poker. It was exhilerating, fun, and importantly educational.

Things are coming together for me, and I expect to meet escape velocity rather shortly in my 1/2 cents game at PS. Don't you agree it's harder to beat the game when sticking to a single internet casino, thus making yourself a stationary target? I'm not necessarily interested in finding the easiest way to success, though I don't mind saying finding the best way might be something I'd enjoy, if I could find it!

Dave

[Student]

This poker stuff is REAL tricky, eh? It won't be as much fun for me when I start winning a few pennies...

Dave

[3TJ]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't need to have PokerTracker to improve your game. It is a great tool, but it is much more helpful for limit than for NL. For example, its statistics do not distinguish the sizes of the bets, and usually rate NL players as passive, just because there are fewer bets and raises in NL.

You should play on other sites if you want to improve your game. Average playing styles vary a lot from site to site, and you should practice beating other styles.

I think you should be concerned about being underbankrolled. You have 15 full buyins for NL 100 and 7.5 for NL 200. That might be enough for a solid winner at NL 100, but you aren't sure you are a winner, much less a solid winner. With any downswing, you should be prepared to move down in limits.

Rakeback is worth something, but NL players usually win more in relation to the rake than limit players do. That makes rakeback less important for NL players. It's still a plus to get an extra 2 big blinds per 100 hands at NL 100, but your win rate can be 10 times that, so a small decrease in your win rate would be more important.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks pzhon
What bankroll should I have for the $1/$2 tables? and should I be playing full ring tables or sticking with what I know and the 6 max tables?
So any suggested sites I should try? - Pokerstars?
thanks again

[Mooski]

Hi Dave,

Like you, I'm a relative newcomer to the poker scene and am keen to learn. it seems to me though that you're reading a hell of a lot more than I am and I can tell by your posts that you are an intelligent person who is enjoing the learning experience. That's always nice to see, enthusiasm will see you a long way in poker, from what i understand.

I'm surprised at your stats for the pennies games at PS though. I haven't been there for a while, but an average of 80c does seem a lot. I actually started on the 0.02/0.04 tables and even found them annoying, as the majority of players seemed to be capping every street, not caring on how they were playing, so I moved up to the dizzy heights of 0.05/0.10 and haven't regretted it.

The average on those tables seems to be around the 0.90 mark for the pot, but the players on there do have more of a clue. You do see some post go over $3, but it's not that often, with the majority of the larger pots around the $1.50-$2.00 mark which may seem a little daunting for you.

It depends on your bank roll of course as to where you are comfortable.

A friend of mine is considering playing on the PS tables and also for money and my advice to him was to go straight to the Limit 0.02/0.04 tables and play tight, just to get used to the game. He'll not be sitting on a luxury yacht any time soon, but he will have more of a knowledge of certain situations within the poker game.

Hope this helps and good luck!

[Student]

Appreciate it, and the encouragement!

Importantly, the PS 1/2 cents table I refer to is No Limit (NL HE). Not only is 80 cents for the average of pot size a conservative one, but the big pots can reach $10. That's primarily because NL HE permits enormous esculation of bet sizes, even in preflop betting. When two persons think they each have the "nuts," crazy pot sizes are easily possible.

PS also has minimum and maximum starting bankroll sizes, and these are $1.00 and $5.00 (50 BBs to 250 BBs). The minimum bankroll is actually twice the size of the Small Stack that is basis for Ed Miller's SSS, which makes usage of SSS for me an interesting experience, being at odds with basic parameters Ed has established for SSS. So mine is a peculiar personalized strategy, a subset of SSS actually. What I was getting at is NL HE bankrolls of $20 are not infrequent for 1/2 cents tables. Since these boys started with no more than $5, obviously they took down one or two really large pots, so as to get to $20.

Your advise to your friend is excellent. Because of structured betting levels associated with limit poker, he's not going to loss a fortune, as he grapples with the intricacies of poker at the 2/4 cents PS tables. Realize 2/4 cents limit tables are the entry level for money play, just as 1/2 cents NL tables are entry level for those of us who aspire to be tournament players some day.

I've spent $400 buying books about poker, 12 from 2+2 alone, but way under $20 losing at poker. So I continue to describe myself as a loser at poker, but it's not because my bankroll is dwindling at prohibitive rates! Shortly I'll spring for the $55 for PokerTracker, and that too I consider a capital expenditure, rather than operating expense. After all, at age 67 I expect to play another 30 years, so I don't mind spending bucks of capital expense nature. Of course, I definitely recommend the same procedures for a much younger player!

Thanks again, and I'll continue to apply good hard work, expecting luck to take a lesser role as a consequence...

Dave

[celiboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't need to have PokerTracker to improve your game. It is a great tool, but it is much more helpful for limit than for NL. For example, its statistics do not distinguish the sizes of the bets, and usually rate NL players as passive, just because there are fewer bets and raises in NL.

You should play on other sites if you want to improve your game. Average playing styles vary a lot from site to site, and you should practice beating other styles.

I think you should be concerned about being underbankrolled. You have 15 full buyins for NL 100 and 7.5 for NL 200. That might be enough for a solid winner at NL 100, but you aren't sure you are a winner, much less a solid winner. With any downswing, you should be prepared to move down in limits.

Rakeback is worth something, but NL players usually win more in relation to the rake than limit players do. That makes rakeback less important for NL players. It's still a plus to get an extra 2 big blinds per 100 hands at NL 100, but your win rate can be 10 times that, so a small decrease in your win rate would be more important.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks pzhon
What bankroll should I have for the $1/$2 tables? and should I be playing full ring tables or sticking with what I know and the 6 max tables?
So any suggested sites I should try? - Pokerstars?
thanks again

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever you do, play only at sites that are offering bonuses. With so many options out there you should always be playing under some kind of bonus. A lot of the bonuses are cleared at 10X the bonus amount in raked hands which usually means an extra 5 BB/100 to your "winnings". Sign up at bonuswhores.com for email updates on where the latest bonuses are offered.

I play .5/1 and after about 6000 hands I am break even (having never read a book - just started reading Hilger's book), however I've made $300 in bonuses in 6 weeks due to reload, initial deposit bonuses, etc. My goal is to play 1bb/100 poker and pocket the various bonuses each month for about $200 per month.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
What bankroll should I have for the $1/$2 tables?

[/ QUOTE ]
That depends on whether you are a winning player, and how much you win on average.

You should not assume that you are a winning player when you have so little experience at a level. If you are a losing player, or a break-even player, you will burn through any amount.

If you are a solid winner, you may be comfortable with a bankroll of 10-20 buy-ins. It depends on your level of risk tolerance and whether you can move down in limits if you hit a bad streak.

[ QUOTE ]

and should I be playing full ring tables or sticking with what I know and the 6 max tables?


[/ QUOTE ]
You don't have to change. You can change if you want to.

[ QUOTE ]

So any suggested sites I should try? - Pokerstars?
thanks again

[/ QUOTE ]
I suggest trying a Cryptologic skin instead. I think the NL 200 games are softer and there are more bonuses. Try William Hill, UKBetting, TotalBet, PokerPlex, Betfair, InterPoker, Caribbean Sun Poker, or Littlewoods. They all offer bonuses and the same tables.

[AKQJ10]

Ah, I missed this reply earlier (these days I can only glance at the forums during the day). I'm glad I read back and found it! Sorry if it sounded like I was scolding you earlier -- none of us is born knowing poker terminology so I certainly didn't intend to put you down.

As you ascertained in your reading, domination is a big factor in turning marginally good hands into real money-losers. Of course your opponents don't show you their hole cards, so you can't really be sure you're dominated -- but you can know that you're likely to be.

And yes, loose games can turn unprofitable hands into very profitable hands, but make sure you understand why. You mentioned KJ-offsuit as a hand that should be folded against a raise by a reasonable opponent, but might be playable against an ultra-loose opponent. I generally agree (although keep in mind, even loose opponents get hands like KK or AJ!). If there's a reasonable chance your opponent would raise with hands you dominate like K9 or JT or worse, then by all means play your KJ strongly because it's probably better than this opponent's hand. Just keep in mind that all poker requires adjusting to specific game conditions, and in this case you're adjusting to the expectation of loose raising. So it's not that 1c-2c NL is giving you worthless practice or anything -- it's just practice adjusting to one very specific kind of play, very loose play.

At any rate, sounds like you had a good educational journey, which I'm happy to hear. I figured you'd enjoy reading about the technical meaning of domination more than having us explain it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Student]

I'm grateful that you've been persistent, because apparently preflop play is often a place where strong hands are revealed. I have by no means exhausted my readings concerning domination, and I've been especially behind reading the treatment in SSHE concerning it, and revisiting the separate papers I'd referred to. I'm in process of adjusting to importance of this factor.

Today I went to PS and put up 5 tables simultaneously. There was always one of them that was just starting on a hand, so I was able to trace "first preflop raise," to see what happened to the fellow doing it. Here's what I learned.

17 wins without the raiser's cards revealed
7 losses without the raiser's cards revealed
AA wins, KK wins, and JJ wins (against TT, actually)
AJu won by making the nut straight
AJu won, when opponent failed to make his flush draw
AJu won against 66, because the board posted KK and 99, so the raiser won with the A kicker
In one case the raiser mucked to 67s, because the fellow got either a stright or flush (too fast for me)
In another case raiser mucked to Q8u. I believe the board showed 2 eights plus a Q, for a full house.

What did this tell me? I should mention I've read nothing about domination today, even though I picked up from 2+2 some great info about taking notes, learned of a great new poster to 2+2, and saw some real good insights into KJu posted by this self-same great new poster.

But I digress. I found that raises in preflop, whether the first raise, the second raise, a small raise, a big raise etc, are important because they reveal unreasonably strong starting hands. I saw that very many players responded exactly correctly, by folding. I also saw some others stayed in the hand with nothing. Since I probably have been ignoring this raise during preflop, I suspect I would have been one who would have pressed ahead preflop, principally because I valued seeing the flop too high.

I'm not done digesting this, and it also seems I'm not done digesting my dinner either (unless the tells lie!). "The papers" say this so-called cold call of a preflop raise can explain all by itself some players being net winners, vs other players being net losers, both over the long haul. And it's a common leak with beginners.

Today I've been alerted, but I can't say I've figured out fully how I should be reacting to this new intelligence. If I have AA as hole cards and someone raises during preflop, I can stay with him on the flop, and the fur can really fly, in this instance! Somehow players have to figure out how to be the winner of occasional really big pots; I believe I've been pretty successful at taking great hole cards to big wins status. It's disheartening to have AA, and then end up winning a pot of 6 cents, 4 of which are my own! It happens...

Thanks, very much!

Dave