Advancing to the 5/10 cents Limits

[Student]

[ QUOTE ]
"I strongly recommend that you learn to beat NL $0.01-$0.02 before moving up. Having a few winning days doesn't mean you are beating a game."

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"If you can't beat the 'fruitcakes and maniacs' consistently, you have a lot to learn at the penny-ante level. Knowing how to extract money from bad players is a crucial part of success in every level I play through NL $400."

[/ QUOTE ]
These are the helpful words that got me to thinking; Thanks Pzhon! Here are some facts leading to this advise. I'd started at PokerStars with $50 (the minimum at the time), and I played 1/2 cents NL HE poker. Knowledge makes a bloody entrance, and I fought it as hard as I could, but over the course of 4 months of playing, thinking and reading (not necessarily the correct books), I just couldn't figure out how to make money! Then one day a lightening bolt struck (documented in my "Metamorphosis" post to 2+2, 7-16-05), and I then knew how to make money. As difficult as my trajectory had been, and given levels of hard work without any signs of reward, it was going to be resolved explosively.

During the 4 months of losing money, my bankroll dropped from $50 to $34.12. Only 2,000 hands were played (approx), so most of my time was spent reading poker magazines, 2+2 articles and books. I've also posted close to 300 messages to 2+2, and have read very many more. I was learning, but never did I figure out how to win money. Yes, I'd done lots of reading, and that's why I'm caving in on my planned move to 5/10 cents poker; having met my goal of getting back to $50, I'm eager to have a little space to just think, read, and play my 1/2 cents poker recreationally.

Here's my track record since 7/16/5:

7/16, 102 Hands, $34.12 to $37.10
7/18, 83 Hands, $37.10 to $40.55
7/19, 214 Hands, $40.55 to $39.77
7/22, 152 Hands, $39.77 to $43.22
7/23, 240 Hands, $43.22 to $44.48
7/25, 163 Hands, $44.48 to $43.09
7/26, 103 Hands, $43.09 to $48.56

I haven't reached my goal of $50.00 yet, but I'm hoping it will be attained this week. A total of 722 BBs were earned (1 BB = 2 cents), over 7 playing days, or 120 BBs/day. The average was 68 BBs/100 hands. Days with the largest numbers of hands were bereft with losing; on 7/19 I simply gave up with a loss! 7/23 had losing, but I just kept fighting until I got bankroll positive.

Do you have any recommendations for me, as to when I should move up to 5/10 cents NL HE? Should I accept Pzhon's recommendation that I just keep playing 1/2 cents until I get bankroll to $75.00? Is $50.00 an acceptable bankroll for 5/10 cents games (500 BBs)? Is the education value of staying with 1/2 cents so significant that I owe it to myself to stay here for awhile? After all, maybe a little vacation would be nice!

I really mean it, I'll really appreciate your comments and advice. I know many have posted questions of this nature to 2+2 before, but isn't this a crazy mixed up set of circumstances?

Thanks in Advance!

Dave

[Me and You]

My advice would be to mix it up. Play a little at the higher limit (continue to play at lower limiit) and work out what the differences is between the games. Once you understand these differences and counteract them. With a significant BR you should move up. Of course I'm a noob so BR ain't my specialty so sorry can't help you with that section

[Student]

I've done a little bit towards gathering info about players at the 5/10 cents tables, but it's a daulting task! It happens that 5/10 cents games are far more popular than 1/2 cents games, so there are very many PokerStars players who frequent the 5/10s, vs the 1/2s. Since I've been at the 1/2s for so long, I have a good handle on who the Multitablers are, who the strong players are etc. It's going to take an all-out effort to gather a useful database (notes etc) for players at the 5/10 cents tables.

Gee, if I have a few more days like today, whereas I make 273.5 BBs in a single day, it won't take much to pursuade me to stick with 1/2 cents a bit longer. I played only 103 hands today, which is quite a light day. I could envision playing not less than 100 hands of 1/2 cents, and then swing into pure opponent research concerning the 5/10 cents tables, hoping to put in maybe 6 hours a day on that alone. Then too, some other avenues of inquiry, which I just worked on today, are bringing in some good opportunities.

The entire idea is to find where the weakest players are, and then play against them. I'm fairly sure these same table selection ideas would work at higher levels, but of course I haven't the slightest idea how much higher than 1/2 cents!

The thing is I would profit from finishing reading of GSiH, taking on SSHE and TOP, and maybe even doing more. I'd love to work on HoH, but haven't even started with it. After all, that's where my focus will be, NL HE tournaments.

It makes alot of sense to stick with 1/2 cents as to playing it, research opponents on 5/10 cents, and reading these very important foundational books. So I continue a bit confused, as to priorities! Help!!!

Dave

PS: I forgot to mention that I can and will add capital to my poker playing, if and when I become totally convinced I'm going to be a winner at it! I'm a bit like Pzhon, in as much as I'm thinking my present winning pace might be a total fluke. Here's a dichotomy for you - they talk about playing for 2 BBs/100 at some of these higher levels, and my average over these 1,000+ hands was 68 BBs/100. No, that's not a typo! It was 722 BBs total, and 1,057 hands were played.

[TaoTe]

[ QUOTE ]
My advice would be to mix it up. Play a little at the higher limit (continue to play at lower limiit) and work out what the differences is between the games. Once you understand these differences and counteract them. With a significant BR you should move up. Of course I'm a noob so BR ain't my specialty so sorry can't help you with that section

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to say just about the same thing.

[TaoTe]

I don't really understand the question, but I'm tired and perhaps misread it. Is it only a concern about BR or ability? The best time for me to move up in levels is whenever I feel like it. Perhaps this goes against sound advice from better players but playing at a level where, if I lose, it doesn't sting, doesn't drive me to play my best. I'll often play above what I should with my BR.

I don't depend on poker for my income. It's great to have a good win, cashout and buy and Ipod (or whatever) but if I go bust, I'll still be fine. That's not to say a big loss doesn't hurt, but I need the pressure to fuel me on.

As for suggestions, I would make another 50$ deposit and start bonus whoring. When should you move up? There are no tests or exams to take so do it whenever you feel like. Now sounds like a good idea, but it's your call. Playing at both levels will also be helpful. I have little NL ring game experience so I don't know the difference between the two levels but I can't imagine the difference being great.

I apologize if this makes no sense; I'm very tired.

[bholdr]

student, i earerly await each update that you post- if only i had had your willingness to learn slowly and surely, i could've saved myself a couple hundred dollars... but i'm not gonna tell you to stick at the nano nano limits.

Here is MY story, how i got into poker and how i progressed from a noob to a donk to a fish to a player to a (low-limit) shark... hopefully it will prove instructive for you and any other nano NL player looking to move up, you know, learn from my mistakes, profit from my experiences, etc:

Two years ago i suffered an incapaciting back injury while skiing. I had blown out knees before, as well as broken just about everything at least once, so i was ready for the two-months of do-nothing down time spent convalescing. i read some books (notably, Shelby Foote's three volume 'Civil War, a narrative"- i highly reccomentd it)... problem was, two months turned into four, then eight, and nothing was getting better, and i was SERIOUSLY bored.

So i downloaded partypoker, and started playing the play money tables. that lasted about an hour before i was like: "screw this. what the hell is intresting about poker without the money?" (i had always been a gambler, winning or not). A week later, after doing some (heh-nowhere near enough) research, i opened a neteller account and made a deposit to goldenpalace poker. the reason i chose that site? they let you deposit as little as $20, and had a 100% bonus (that took forEVER to clear, but i didn't know that yet). I jumped right into the .05/.10 NL games (with a 2 buy-in bankroll, no less) and actually managed to run my little $20 up to over a hundred! that took about 20 hours of play (i was laid up, remember, nothing much else to do), and i thought, HEY! this online poker stuff is pretty damn easy! everyone here is a total fish! am i the only one at this limit that knows how to play?

no. enter the downswing. It took about two more weeks and 40 hours to lose it all. my play was improving, but, now that i look back, i realize that i had basicly no clue beyond the starting hands chart that was taped to the side of my monitor. I took a week off, but the gamble in me pulled me back.

I thought I’d try another site. Paradise seemed to have nice software, and they were also offering a sign up bonus (which I failed to take full advantage of), so I made a $50 deposit. That one lasted about a week. I made another $100 deposit. That was a good one. I ran it up to about $300 playing 10cBB NL almost exclusively. It took me about a month and a half to lose THAT one. Sooo… I was getting a little frustrated at this point, and decided to stop screwing around and learn about this game a bit so I would stop losing everything and hopefully be able to earn $10/hr or more- not working for about 7 months at this point was starting to put the ‘ol vise grips to my savings, and the last thing I needed to do was lose more money playing poker.

So I bought Supersystem. Big mistake. It totally threw off my game, as I was trying to apply advanced, agro strategy to games where people hardly cared about their money. $100... Gone! Two weeks.

Next book: TOP. I found this site a week after that (more than a year ago, now), and things started to shape up. Still playing the .05/.10 NL tables, I took my final $100 deposit and built it into over $600 in less than a month, about 70 hours of playing time. I was playing well and running hot, and felt on top of the world. Then life threw up a major roadblock: my back got better (DAMN IT! Lol…), and I went back to work (I owned a house painting company at the time, where I made $50/hr+, so, sorry, but, screw poker).

I was happy where I was with the poker, winning almost $10/hr and having a good time at it. I was playing two or three tables at a time, often even venturing into the $25 and $50 buy in tables…. (ooooo!). Then, I decided that A: I hate painting houses, B: I need to learn property management skills (I plan on owning and being a landlord someday soon), and C: I missed playing poker more than I was (about 1 hr/day- I felt that I‘d like to play about 2-3hrs/day on average). So what’s a dude to do? I closed the company. Screw it. All that job ever got me was a bad back and a bunch of ladders. (well, that and $50.hr, but I’ve never been terribly materialistic).

So I took a job as a building manager/handyman/leasing agent. It pays the bills, and I actually am earning a lot more at it than I’d expected. (lotsa hotties in my building to, a fringe benefit, I suppose). I cashed out most of my developing bankroll to pay for the move ($500...), to pay myself back for my early losses ($320), and to buy my family some nicer than usual x-mas gifts ($400- I said nicER, not nice…)- this left me with about $600 in my roll. I made a resolution to take that money and leverage it. That is, put it ALL to work for me. I did the party sign-up bonus… then the cryptos… then empire, UB, stars, some prima and boss media skins, some play techs… I was on a roll, up over $1000 in play and $1000 in bonus in my first three months- more than I’d made in more than a year of playing. By this time, I’d moved up, and was playing mostly the %50 buy in NL games and a lot of ½ six-max to clear bonus. I flirted with Omaha/8 for a month or so in there somewhere. Here’s what I learned: Omaha /8 sucks. It’s boring, simple, and slow. Yuck.

That was December through febuary of this year. Lifetime, I was up over $2800, and was feeling pretty damn good about my growing skills. Then, in late Feb, I decided to try two things that have TOTALLY changed my poker life.

I started casino whoring,

And I started playing seven stud as my main game. (I’m NOT recommending this one, I just like it more, and when I like a game, I am much more apt to win at it)

The rest is history. I’ve made over 10k since then, slightly more than half of that has come from bonuses, both poker and casino, and the rest has been good old fashioned winning play. I play mostly 2/4 and 3/6 now, with occasional forays into 5/10. When I play NL, it’s $1/2. I make a point to withdraw $1000 every month as a salary, and I’ve used that money to buy some nice things, take some girls out, and spent a lot of it on my friends and family. I’m feeling a bit of bad variance right now… my roll is down to under 3k (uh-oh…) but I’m not really worried. It happened before and it’ll happen again. I am confidant that I can win about $25/hr now, and I play about an hour and a half per day.

Along the way, I lost a few hundred dollars that I didn’t have to lose. I could’ve saved that money by simply being more studious and realizing that this is not a game that you can just play well… you must study, study, practice, lose, study, practice… you get the point. I also missed out on THOUSANDS of dollars by not bonuswhoring those first few months. Think of that… thousands, plus the money I would have been able to make with a larger roll, probably thousands more. Bummer, eh? BONUS WHORE! DO IT NOW!

Enough. That’s my poker story in a nutshell. Hopefully you can pull some good advice out of it, as I made no specific effort to tell you how it applies to your situation… GL, onward and upward and all that.


Now that I think about it, I’m gonna edit this for spelling, grammar, and entertainment value (there are some good stories that I could work into it…) and maybe re-post it as it’s own thread so people can look and say: hey! If THAT guy manages to win a little bit… maybe I can too.


Bholdr


and, student, here's the advice: at some point in a poker player's progression, they have to decide what they play for. for the game? the thrill of victory? the comraderie, social interactoin... sheer boredom (where i started). or is it for the gamble? the RISK! ...or, as is the case with a lot of players here, is it for the money?

eventually, penny poker's not gonna do it for you. either you'll get good enough that it' no fun, or the risk will become meaningless, or you'll realize how much time you're spending in front of a screen on these pleasant suummer nights. so, i'd advise this (after that incredibly long-winded reply): move up. take a risk. play for money that means something to you and your opponents. have fun.

for me it's about the game, mostly. i enjoy it, moreover, i enjoy being good at it, which means winning, which means money. so, really, that's what i'm after, not because i need the dough (i do not), but because that's how, long term, one judges their skill: winnings.

that, and the GAMBLE. the RISK. i hate to admit it, but i love plunking down that last big bet on sixth with nothing but a monster draw against my opponents strong but vulnerable made hand... what will the river bring?

screw it, i'm gonna go play right now. HA! gl student.

[bholdr]

I just made a huge, rambling reply, but (as i sip bourbon and play a little 5/10 stud) i'd like to address a couple points you raised in this post, short and sweet:

[ QUOTE ]
I could envision playing not less than 100 hands of 1/2 cents, and then swing into pure opponent research concerning the 5/10 cents tables, hoping to put in maybe 6 hours a day on that alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

screw that. here's all the research you'll need: they are ALL fish. you can beat them. seriously- FORGET about researching opponents until you hit at least .10/.25. forget about table selection unless you see a known fish or shark. (there are no sharks at that level)

[ QUOTE ]
The entire idea is to find where the weakest players are, and then play against them. I'm fairly sure these same table selection ideas would work at higher levels, but of course I haven't the slightest idea how much higher than 1/2 cents!


[/ QUOTE ]

the very first level where you will run into decent players is .10/.25- there are actually pros that grind out a decent ammount playing 4 or more tables at that limit. find them, flag them, go after the fish instead, there are still TONS of them there.

[ QUOTE ]
I forgot to mention that I can and will add capital to my poker playing, if and when I become totally convinced I'm going to be a winner at it! I'm a bit like Pzhon, in as much as I'm thinking my present winning pace might be a total fluke. Here's a dichotomy for you - they talk about playing for 2 BBs/100 at some of these higher levels, and my average over these 1,000+ hands was 68 BBs/100. No, that's not a typo! It was 722 BBs total, and 1,057 hands were played.

[/ QUOTE ]

good. add enough that you can do the GRANNY bonus at paradise (50% to $100). this will conviently give you enough to have a reasonable roll for the .05/.10 games- 20 buy ins, just right. even if you lose a little, the bonus will pad that, and if you win a little, you'll soon have $500 and will be whoring the party skins at .10/.25, which is when you'll hopefully start making enough to maybe eat out once more per week or whatever other little bonus tickles your fancy.


one more thing- one poster mentioned gradually moving up. GOOD idea. maybe play both limits until you're comfy at the higher one.

GL, but i'm quite sure you'll do fine.

[Pov]

First thing: Great story. I always love hearing these.

Second note: The GRANNY bonus is gone. "She" posted in the zoo that Paradise was losing money on the bonus code (surprise surprise) and they had to kill her cut down to the point she cancelled it. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Student]

Thanks very much, Bholdr!

I've read both your posts, but it's too early in the morning to respond. I'll wake up in half an hour! But I realize you've bent over backwards trying to help me, and I appreciate it. Especially concerning your longer post, I'll probably break it up into more than one answer, as it will require that.

My trajectory in poker will be like mine in apartments. I bought my first duplex in 1964 (got married shortly after), and bought a second a year later. By 1965 I had a big house and 30 rentals. My wife and I did all the repairs, renting out, cleaning, bookkeeping etc. We learned by doing. By 1974 I went to Dallas and bought 1,700 apartment units. Of course, given our slow entry into apartments, we were able to do things in a totally novel, and yet insanely profitable way.

This is how I hope my trajectory in poker will be. Everything is planned (as in ompha-ompha, boom, boom, boom; the Germans are on the March!!!).

I'll play 1/2 cents NL HE as always, with a serious intent to make money. It simply won't be much more than 100 hands per day, if that! I'll do opponent research (OR) in 5/10 cents PS poker, simply because that worked so very well with 1/2 cents. I think I've got a pretty good practical solution for how to proceed with 5/10 cents OR.

Here's the theory I'll use. PS has a minimum buy-in of $2, and a maximum of $10, in their 5/10 cents games. So I'll cut and paste the following into opponents who presently have $15 or more in their bankroll:

Opening Hands:
Large Bankroll $........... Wed. morning
Multitabling

I'd quickly search all the 5/10 cents tables for players with qualifying large bankrolls. As quickly as I find a candidate, I'll paste into their Notes the above. Anytime I see a hand (potential Strong player, or not) I'll put that into the person's Notes too, but that's a separate databasing consideration. Of course, if it were Sat. evening I'd have the message altered to reflect that. The only personalizing would be the actual bankroll size I'd found.

Then, when I go to play 5/10 cents, I'd simply check to see which opponents I had Notes on, and whether I'd confirmed whether they are Strong, or not (also placed into Notes), and I'd view these players as potentially Strong.

I'd better cut this short, as I didn't want a huge post this early in the morning!

Dave

[Student]

Thanks!

It's partially about bankroll, but I realize 500 BBs for 5/10 cents is quite a bit larger than most people use. The 500 BBs figure is more about achieving demonstrated prowess at present levels, before moving on. If I were to accept 500 BBs as the standard, then I need $50 for 5/10 cents, $125 for 10/25 cents, $250 for 25/50 cents etc. This is a money management statement, kind of automatic goals.

It's about achieved results, and not so much ability. The assumption is, provided I can get bankroll up to this arbitrarily preselected level, that I shall have learned lessons implicit at the old level, and hence am qualified to move to the higher one.

Importantly, it's about taking the opportunity to take in an "Education," and this is an intangible. I know I haven't finished reading GSiH, and have read most sparingly from SSHE and TOP. I also know that neglecting this further education will result in hitting a brickwall down the road. What I've learned is a combination of 2+2 (enormous teaching tool), magazine articles, and from reading much of GSiH. If I don't read just the books mentioned, then I'll be just like the folks we meet all the time, who are proud of the fact they've never read a poker book! Experience is normally believed to be the best teacher, but with poker that's seriously flawed thinking. Some of the most experienced and vocal poker players are also some of the most consistent losers at poker. We need to avoid the trap they've fallen into.

With my native talents (except for the fact I'm starting poker at age 67, which can't be helped at this late juncture!), I believe it possible to make a nice living playing poker. I plan on it being by playing tournament NL HE, but I'm also more than willing to play in live NL HE ring games. But I have a healthy respect for the size of my inadequacies! Maybe too healthy a respect...

I agree I should jump to 5/10 cents whenever I think I'm ready, without regard to bankroll. This morning, after posting a brief response to Bholdr, I did the very research I'd described to him, regarding Opponent Research. It was an absolute piece of cake! I was able to go thru all the 5/10 cents tables in less than an hour. Of course, at the heart of the evening it will take much more time! The most surprising thing to me was the number of players I saw at the 5/10 cents tables, whom I recognize as also being at the 1/2 cents tables. That has helped me to see that you are correct in advising starting play at 5/10 cents, without regard to anything else, while retaining 1/2 cents as my primary anchor.

[ QUOTE ]
"There are no tests or exams to take so do it whenever you feel like."

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, Ed Miller would disagree with you, and I'm afraid I'll have to too. Every single hand should be viewed as a test. It doesn't matter whether you win or lose the hand, but just that you've played it correctly. If you have, then you've passed the test for that hand. Next hand! Next test! etc, etc. Played in this manner, the player learns and learns, and grows and grows. A hand played badly and yet very profitably is a bad experience; a hand played well and yet net unprofitable is a good experience. That's all we as poker players can do; pass tests hand after hand.

I know that PS doesn't even have rakeback for 1/2 cents poker, but does for 5/10 cents. I'd always thought all of this bonus and rakeback stuff was useful only when the player escapes from the real micro-limit tables, perhaps coming into play at the 50/100 cents tables, and above. PLEASE dispel this misconception from my mind, if possible!

Dave

[Student]

It shall be an interesting journey! Presently I've about decided to stay with 1/2 cents NL HE, even as I dabble into the 5/10 cents games. I could stay inbetween these 2 levels for months, as I get caught up on reading these few books. Then too, it will be impossible to ignor differences between these tables, and to draw inferences about these differences. Of course, as always I'll be on the look-out for differences that might also be present for future steps upwards in levels.

Thanks!

Dave

[Student]

Sounds like a good trade-off, because I also like the encouragement! So I write something, you tell me you like it, and I like it that you like it. Such a deal!!!

Dave

[Student]

[ QUOTE ]
"Here's all the research you'll need: they are ALL fish. you can beat them. seriously- FORGET about researching opponents until you hit at least .10/.25. forget about table selection unless you see a known fish or shark. (there are no sharks at that level)"

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, in fact I did Opponent Research (OR) at 5/10 cents NL HE yesterday, and I view it as quite important. The procedure I'd outlined, whereby I identify into player Notes the size of their bankrolls, if over $15, and the info as to when they were playing (such as Wed. morning, Wed. afternoon, or Wed. evening - their weekday habits, net), is possible to do quite quickly, half an hour at most.

Not only that, but I identified half a dozen multitablers, including one using an alias of a prominent TV player. That's not to say it's the actual person, but I can envision reasons why such a person would practice his online poker at a 5/10 cents game. To wit, it's cheap, it's devoid of tells and hence purely probabilistic, it's convenient (doing it at any time of the day or night), and it's fun! I'd identified a player from Korea who multitabled quite a few 1/2 cents tables, and had a bankroll of about $55 on one of them; this player was certainly a shark, in every respect! I don't know what incomes are in Korea, but I suspect $1 buys much more there than here. Hence, he's motivated to play 1/2 cents poker, and at a fairly high skill level.

Naturally it's possible that a skilled player could go to a 1/2 cents table, and ignor player ratings. That's because such a player would quickly identify better players, before lots of blood is spilled. But for a beginner, every advantage must be taken, since the mere process of getting into winning ways is such an iffy thing.

Not only do I do OR, but I also do "table selection." Why? Because it's just good business to do so. Why would one play at a table where everyone at the table was tight and passive? Even when you get the nuts, the reward for your efforts (the money!) will be small and unsatisfying.

I believe methods I use (including the OR method I've described in detail in this thread) are fitting for the micro-limits, and will become less important at higher levels. I suspect that at higher levels there is much more importance in correctly identifying the fish, and then exploiting them, while leaving the sharks alone. Of course, when in the course of a particular hand, several persons have "the nuts," that's when analytic skills are applied, leading to folding very strong hands, but not the true nuts, and in these hands sharks attack sharks too.

I'll cut this short. I intend to review your entire post, and might treat some subtopics as above. Thanks for keeping the questions and comments coming; this is grist for the mill, prompting me to think and respond! And in the process I learn, of course, and hopefully others do as well...

Dave

[sekrah]

Honestly Dave.. I think you're putting way too much thought into this.

If you spend the same amount of time studing solid NL game theory and strategy as you are doing researching your opponent, you will be a successful NL player.

For example, I'll play in these same micro blind NL games as you are stepping up into.. My play dictates the table I'm at. Within 2 orbits I can put everybody at my table on a style, and the style I play at that table completely depends on these opponents.

Now, if I am playing with certain opponents who I find to be extraordinarily weak, and I see them having a deep bankroll for those limits, I will add them to my watchlist and sit down with these players when they are on.

But doing all of this scouting without actually playing, is a collosal waste of time at these limits IMO.

You are putting way too much thought into something this is relatively simple.

[Student]

I appreciate constructive criticism, and Thanks!

Poker is a game of skill and luck. Play can increase skill, but without reading books and doing research, play can also lead to misconceptions and nearly permanent big leaks, if fully ingrained. Examine the typical player who has stuck with it for 10 or more years. If he's in MY circle, he's no doubt a person who has achieved only a tiny part of his potential, concerning winning and profitable play.

Being an optimist, my ultimate goals are set very high. In time I might have to become a realist, as I will have hit my personal brickwall. You're assuming I'm getting way ahead of myself with my study, research, planning etc, and have recommended playing poker more.

I don't know how one can quantify skill levels, but when I first started here on 2+2 I wrote a number of posts relating to measurement of luck. After all, luck we've had in the past is very quantifiable. Now you and I might disagree on relative importance of interpreting a string of hole cards, in terms of luck based on hand strength, but I think we can agree hole cards we're dealt has much to do with the luck we've experienced.

My contention is that skill levels can actually be measured, if we could also measure past luck. We'd say "well, here's the reality I've experienced (lost $1.07 in 108 hands), and here's the size of luck I had (23%). Thus, my skill level for my play was about an A minus." You'll have to adapt a very broadminded interpretation, but you can see what I'm getting at. You might believe strongly that no one will ever be able to measure luck, much less skill, but I disagree and I'll actually take a crack at doing this, though it will have to wait awhile before it again takes top priority for me.
[ QUOTE ]
"If you spend the same amount of time studying solid NL game theory and strategy as you are doing researching your opponent, you will be a successful NL player."

[/ QUOTE ] I suspect I'll spend 100 times as much time studying solid NL game theory and strategy, as doing Opponent Research (OR), between now and the end of the year. The OR I've described in this thread was applied to 1/2 cents NL HE today, and it took 10 minutes to do it for all players at tables at that time. And it's very powerful!

I believe it useful to KNOW the strong players, at these limits. When going head-to-head with Mr. Strong, the beginner would be well-advised to take much more time before calling a big raise, or going all-in, more time than usual. At higher limits all players are strong enough, so you must be careful, and players spend their energy trying to detect the occasional weak players that spring on the scene. Why? To pluck. For they realize the money that weak players lose is going to be distributed between those that most quickly recognize the weakness among them! But at micro-limit levels identification of Strong players is of utmost importance.

Then too, the beginner can track these Strong players to observe tables where they are, and come to understand how they play when on the prey! Frankly I haven't done that, but I sure see the wisdom of doing that. One doesn't even have to play in the hand, so that all facilities can focus on this one single predator.
[ QUOTE ]
"My play dictates the table I'm at. Within 2 orbits I can put everybody at my table on a style, and the style I play at that table completely depends on these opponents."


[/ QUOTE ] This is a very powerful statement! I can't say I haven't seen references to this kind of play elsewhere, but the way you've put it is very revealing. By "style," do you mean tight/passive/aggressive, and all the variations on that theme, or something else? I can understand adapting my play to my presumption of weaknesses of my opponent, but presenting myself (selecting an image) to the table is way, way beyond where I am today. Can you offer a few more words on this subject of style, theirs and yours?

Appreciate it!

Dave

PS: Since my "Metamorphosis" on 7-16-05 I've played almost exactly 100 hands per day, even though I sat out 4 of those days. I'm at about 50/50% priority on playing vs nonplaying poker activity (research, reading etc), at present. There are limits to time available, of course. Even though I'm retired, my days are very full. At this moment in midafternoon, I sit here unwashed, with teeth unbrushed, hair disheveled, and unshaved, simply because life outside of that mundane stuff is altogether too exciting a thing, and these things have a certain priority to me.

[bholdr]

Dave;

i am once again impressed with your approach. I think the best peice of information that you're gleaning from your research is the identification of multitablers. you will eventually find that there are moves that you can pull against these players that won't work against single table players, and vice-versa.

my comment was intended to encourage you to spend much more time playing than doing research- since you CAN research WHILE playing, after all.

[ QUOTE ]
Not only do I do OR, but I also do "table selection." Why? Because it's just good business to do so. Why would one play at a table where everyone at the table was tight and passive? Even when you get the nuts, the reward for your efforts (the money!) will be small and unsatisfying.

I believe methods I use (including the OR method I've described in detail in this thread) are fitting for the micro-limits, and will become less important at higher levels. I suspect that at higher levels there is much more importance in correctly identifying the fish, and then exploiting them, while leaving the sharks alone. Of course, when in the course of a particular hand, several persons have "the nuts," that's when analytic skills are applied, leading to folding very strong hands, but not the true nuts, and in these hands sharks attack sharks too.

[/ QUOTE ]

tight/passive NL tables are big 'ol cash cows, actually... players that will only bet the nuts are very easy to beat- just fold when they make a bet and bluff them a lot (it's more complicated than that, of course, but, you know).

Finding weak players and exploiting their bad play does become more and more important as you move up levels, as does avoiding the sharks. but, make sure that you learn how to deal with the solid oplayers, too. there is no reason that a person with your dedication cannot learn to earn money from the sharks as well as the fish.

speaking of those micro 'sharks'... they're generally not really 'solid' players, not like the ones you'll start to encounter at .50/1 and 1/2 anyway... they've likely just developed a strategy that is targeted at exploiting the very bad play that one often encounters at nano NL. Their 'stuff' will not work against you, and you should be able to defeat them as easily as you crush the fish. they are usually 'nutpeddlers'- weak-tighties that wait for the nuts to bet... and we know how to punish that, right? remember that doyle brunson once said about NL (in 'supersystem'):

"it's not a game where you can just play a solid, safe game- to be a big winner, you HAVE to get in there and gamble."

nano sharks generally DON'T gamble- they play it safe, which is why they're stuck in the nanos, while you'll take their money and eventually move up to bigger games.

[magates]

[ QUOTE ]
It's partially about bankroll, but I realize 500 BBs for 5/10 cents is quite a bit larger than most people use. The 500 BBs figure is more about achieving demonstrated prowess at present levels, before moving on. If I were to accept 500 BBs as the standard, then I need $50 for 5/10 cents, $125 for 10/25 cents, $250 for 25/50 cents etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a quick note . . . you play NL right? You may be confusing Limit bankroll requirements for NL. In limit you generally want at least 300bb, but in NL most recommend having 20 buy-ins. For NL you don't use the size of the blinds to calculate the required bankroll. There's no way you should be sitting down at a $25 NL table with a bankroll of $125, or a $50 NL table (.25/.5) with $250. Not if you want avoid having to re-deposit that is.

Ignore the size the of blinds and base your bankroll requirements on the buy-in instead.

[Student]

Good point! But then too you may have missed my point.

Let's assume an expert player of $30/60 has learned a certain amount about poker, and we'll call this amount 100%. The expert player of 1/2 cents NL HE poker might know poker at the 50% level. This same expert player of 1/2 cents NL HE might flounder with $5/10 poker, and could easily enough breakeven at 50/100 cents poker (all NL).

A beginner, such as me, can't possibly know at what level he's playing. Especially because I'm employing opponent research and table selection filtering, procedures that are of doubtful usefulness even at 50/100 cents poker, the mere fact that I'm winning very big at 1/2 cents poker doesn't demonstrate that I understand poker, even at the 20% level.

Well, all of these levels are completely nebulous, and that's why no one uses them, computes them, etc. The methodology simply doesn't exist. I'm using supposedly concrete terms to illustrate a concept, attempting to explain what I'm trying to prioritize, for future planning.

This, because I can decide where to spend my time, attempting to get to a very high level of poker as quickly as possible, yet learning poker techniques while still a beginner playing 1/2 cents poker, techniques that will be useful as I approach my own personal poker brickwall. It's not a question that the brickwall exists, it's merely a question of where it's located! Unfortunately, some players play at their "level of incompetence," and if they'd drop down just one single blinds level they'd be making excellent money playing poker! But their ego precludes such a simple solution for them. Their optimum profits might be multitabling 3 tables 2 levels lower, actually.

I believe in learning way too much, way too early, in my trajectory. Mistakes I make along the way will be resolved with blinds of 2 cents, rather than $2, and hence I can take on much more adventurous learning than one who is driven more towards immediate cash rewards from his poker play. Mine controls expenses beautifully, whereas his maximizes current income. Mine leads towards a brickwall that's situated much further away, simply because the very process of learning, researching, reading, thinking and playing (at such a low level of blinds) wars against the brickwall being put in place. My hope is my approach will make it possible for me to play $30/60 eventually, whereas a less ambitious set of learning goals might assure that some other player will have his brickwall firmly in place at the $5/10 tables, where he dare not venture.

The question is "Will I throw away large future benefits in favor of decent present income?" I'm a futurist. I think in the future. I want my entire birthright, being unwilling to accept much less so that I might have it right away.

But your point is that one would be using good money management technique to enter NL, at a certain level of blinds, with just 30 blinds in the bankroll. I agree that's the common wisdom. Hopefully you agree with the direction I've chosen for myself! Thanks much for your patience...

Dave

[Student]

Well, once again you've overwhelmed me with tremendous content, way beyond my capacity to keep up with in terms of well thought out comments!

Most noteworthy are your comments about the nature of the micro-level-sharks, compared to real live NL HE poker sharks. Yes, tight nut peddlers is a good description. They too can be bluffed, is your point!

I had resolved to just kind of get caught up with my messages on 2+2, and then go to the tables exclusively as an unobserved observer. I'd be watching 10 different tables, attempting to find when the Micro-Level-Sharks [MLS, which also stands for Multiple Listing Services in real estate brokerage (I've owned my own Realty, at one time)] have gotten into a hand. I'm especially interested in their strategies, beyond what I've observed to date. Since I know who they are, I can hound them until they involuntarily demonstrate their special weaknesses, and then Notes will be added to show that. Then I can go to any table at 1/2 cents NL HE and know I can win there, and win biggest against the sharks when the cards are there (or the bluff is there, if not the cards!).

So again I must defer a complete answer until later, just to keep up. By the way, have you read my post in the Beginner's Forum thread about staying in the Zone? It's kind of lost, so I'd appreciate your comments on it! TIA!!!

Dave

[theRealMacoy]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't know how one can quantify skill levels, but when I first started here on 2+2 I wrote a number of posts relating to measurement of luck. After all, luck we've had in the past is very quantifiable. Now you and I might disagree on relative importance of interpreting a string of hole cards, in terms of luck based on hand strength, but I think we can agree hole cards we're dealt has much to do with the luck we've experienced.

My contention is that skill levels can actually be measured, if we could also measure past luck. We'd say "well, here's the reality I've experienced (lost $1.07 in 108 hands), and here's the size of luck I had (23%). Thus, my skill level for my play was about an A minus." You'll have to adapt a very broadminded interpretation, but you can see what I'm getting at. You might believe strongly that no one will ever be able to measure luck, much less skill, but I disagree and I'll actually take a crack at doing this, though it will have to wait awhile before it again takes top priority for me.



[/ QUOTE ]


Dave,

you have to check out this site:
pokergrader.com (http://www.pokergrader.com/)

all you have to do is copy and past all of your hand history files from a session (put them into one long text document first, in notebook). it will calculate you your luck for the session, quantified into various numbers for the different streets.

you get a printout of stats but also be sure to view your report card as well (you even get a grade...although i am not sure of the merit of the grade).

i use it to get a feel for my luck for a session (somehow doesn't hurt as much if i get hammered and my luck was in the toilet for the session).

cheers,
the Real Macoy

[Student]

Thanks for the linkage to PokerGrader! Yes, I've been to that site.

Quantifying luck is only part of the task I described in my post. There are an essential infinity of possibilities for how luck might be calculated. At the least, the important luck elements would have been considered, if the calculation procedure is to have utility. In fact I'm attempting to take the actual facts, such as taking bankroll from $1.00 as the entry point to a table, and playing in such a way that I leave the table, after playing for 68 minutes, with 87 cents left. Since results are the sum of luck plus skill, and since we have a means of quantifying both results and luck, only skill remains, and it can be solved for (at least in theory). That said, no one has ever done it and publically admitted that, though I suspect it has been done in some sort of way. In the example, if luck had been very bad, skill might quite easily have been excellent! But without an apparatus for making this determination, one remains in the dark.

This facility would have most usefulness to beginners, since their skills are enduring the greatest rates of changes over the days. A reasonable estimate of actual skill level, such as 19%, would have utility to the player. He would study his books, play some poker, and then submit hand info to a calculation process (including the consideration of a profit/loss trajectory thruout the play), and the computer would say he's now at 17% skill. Whoops! I thought I was learning. Well, have you considered throwing that book away? Did that screaming baby affect your play? Was it a bad day at work? Have you considered that your head is taking info in thru your eyes and ears, and losing it somewhere else? Finally, maybe the calculation methods need some tweaking, and then again maybe one of the inputs to the calculation was done wrong.

But, even with such limitations, the beginner would mostly know he's got one heck of a lot more to learn, if he's to be competitive at poker!

Dave

PS: I agree! Any sort of useful computation of luck involved in a session would be consoling! Otherwise we find ourselves just yelling and screaming about those several hands that really got our goat, and no one is listening...

[sekrah]

If it's a wild table with lots of loose calls, I'll be sitting back waiting for a hand.

If it's a tight table, with lots of people looking for big hands, I'll build a roll by slowly and steadily accumulate lots and lots of their dollars through steals, while trying to avoid the big pots.

I much prefer table #2 as the variance is lower. At a .25/.50 game I could turn $5-$10/hr through just steals at these tables, and it feels good to consistantly churn that out with very few hiccups. These are the tables that you want.

Table #1 is more of a gambling/grind.. Get your money in as 60-40 and hope for the best.

A mix of the two is very nice if you can identify and apply, But I much prefer Table #2.. That's where the money is made at NL imo, and there's plenty of tight-weak players online to have it lasting for a long time.

[Student]

That's an amazing insight, and Thanks!

[ QUOTE ]
"If it's a tight table, with lots of people looking for big hands, I'll build a roll by slowly and steadily accumulate lots and lots of their dollars through steals, while trying to avoid the big pots.

I much prefer table #2 as the variance is lower. At a .25/.50 game I could turn $5-$10/hr through just steals at these tables, and it feels good to consistantly churn that out with very few hiccups. These are the tables that you want."

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm especially drawn to your strategy of actually avoiding the very hands that the others are poised to pounce on! These big hands are the very ones where you've got KK in the hole, and a K flops, yet the others have competing straights and flushes. Yes, one could get rich from just one hand, but the other side of the coin is you're PROBABLY going to get poor, instead! There's no feeling like having a full house going into showdown, and then seeing all the chips running over to the other guy's bank, as he's got a better full house! That's happened to me too many times, so I'm more then just a little bit sceptical about pairs on the board.

So it's a tight table, so everyone has the objective of waiting patiently for their big hand, everyone but you. They'll go into the pot from the blinds, if for no other reason, and you'll be outplaying them at that game, simply because you've specialized on this strategy!

At my 1/2 cents NL HE games, even when the table is tight, there will be 4 players in the hand, so that's 8 cents right there. I'd raise with my 9Tu, waiting for the flop. The flop misses me entirely, but it misses everyone else too. So I bet 2 cents, and one folds (now there are 3). The turn pairs the board, the pot has 14 cents in it, and I raise to 20 cents. The other 2 fold, because they KNOW I have a set. After all, they have only 4 cents in the pot, and they're not going to risk another 20 cents to see the river. So I make a net profit of 10 cents here. On my $1.00 stake, that's 10%! If I do this every 3rd hand, I'll be there less than an hour to reach my $2.00 objective. After all, even in my recent great run, I earned an average of only 68 cents/hour. Of course, this compares with your $10/hr at the 25/50 cents table, a factor of 25 times higher blinds. Comparatively, my 68 cents/hr would be $17/hr in 25/50 cents. Yet I've just made $1.00/hr using your strategy, and that's better than I've been doing!

[ QUOTE ]
"That's where the money is made at NL imo, and there's plenty of tight-weak players online to have it lasting for a long time."

[/ QUOTE ]
Most people wouldn't believe it, but there are plenty of tight/passive tables at 1/2 cents! Last night I updated my opponent research (OR) for these tables. I'd been doing OR at 5/10 cents, because I'm preparing to play there. I was amazed at the number of players who were multitabling both 5/10 and 1/2 cents. These are sharks, they are proficient, they are tight, and they are passive. They come in with big stacks, and they lay in wait for the big hands. Then they become AGGRESSIVE. They believe their hand is PROBABLY best, and they go all-in with ease. At the least, they are more aggressive than any of the fish. And they have been frightening to me in the past. But now I'll view them as my accomplices and contributors, simply because their interest in hands is diametrically opposite to mine.

It's especially encouraging to me to realize there will be even more tight/passive tables at the higher levels, because in time I'll be moving on up to those tables!

Thanks for your super contribution!

Dave

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm especially drawn to your strategy of actually avoiding the very hands that the others are poised to pounce on! These big hands are the very ones where you've got KK in the hole, and a K flops, yet the others have competing straights and flushes. Yes, one could get rich from just one hand, but the other side of the coin is you're PROBABLY going to get poor, instead! There's no feeling like having a full house going into showdown, and then seeing all the chips running over to the other guy's bank, as he's got a better full house! That's happened to me too many times, so I'm more then just a little bit sceptical about pairs on the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you switch to pot-limit Omaha or are we still talking hold 'em? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Seriously, if you're serious about playing KK, sets and full houses this cautiously, you really risk becoming weak tight (see here (http://poker.wikicities.com/index.php?title=Player_types) under "Weak"). KK is a monster preflop. Any set is usually the best hand on the flop, a set of kings is usually the nut hand, and even though you need to be prudent about noticing straights and flushes on board you don't want to assume you're up against one. If you hold KK and flop something like K /images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif, you want to play your set HARD. You mustn't ever fail to put money in in this situation because you think you'll be outdrawn. To the contrary, bet at least 3/4 of the pot, but as much as you reasonably think a spade draw will call. (Check-raise if you're quite sure you'll get a bet behind you, but if not then BET! You must not allow a free card here.) The flush only gets there 1/3 of the time by the river, so you have the nuts and by far the majority of the pot equity. Even if the third spade hits, don't assume you're beat although you're clearly going to have to keep the flush in mind. And don't forget the board is 4:1 to pair (filling you up) on the river.

As as for full house vs. full house (which is what prompted my Omaha comment -- this situation is much more common in that variant) -- you must have been extremely unlucky. The only time to even worry about this is something like 33 on a QJJT3 board (i.e. one with coordinated ranks), where treys full might lose to QJ or JT. Even then, assume you have the best hand until proven otherwise. And putting together your KK comment and your full house comment, if you fill up from a set of kings the only things that can beat you are aces full, quads, and the very occasional straight flush. Kings full is an exceptionally strong hand (even at Omaha, where full boats are nothing special!).

[Student]

I very much appreciate your conducted tour into the land of advanced poker!

Unfortunately it's beyond my competence and/or experience presently, so I'll have to revisit your post in the future. I suppose the full house situation I got burned on again and again, until I finally slowed down on this, was the case where the board is paired, and both my opponent and I get the set, and we also both pair up with the board. Three out of 4 times I'd lost in this situation. I think the similar situation, which I'm thinking are part of those 3 of 4 times, was when the board had 2 pairs. In one terrible hand my full house was KKKAA, and my opponent had AAAKK. It sure got my attention!

Thanks!

Dave

PS: If you keep pushing me, I'm going to LEARN, and that's a threat!

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the similar situation, which I'm thinking are part of those 3 of 4 times, was when the board had 2 pairs. In one terrible hand my full house was KKKAA, and my opponent had AAAKK. It sure got my attention!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah... when the board is double paired (or with trips showing on the board), then you've got a different situation. If your one-card full house is the lower pair on board (or even if you have an in-between set, something like 99 with KK944 showing) then you have to be very careful because your opponents can easily have a better one-card full house.

Recall what Ed Miller says in GSIH about hold 'em hand values being relative to what's on the board, and about hands with both hole cards playing being stronger than just one hole card playing. (Above is a minor exception: I'd rather have K2o that 99 on that board. But it's the freakish rare nature of the double-paired board that makes this so; nines full would almost surely win if only the kings had paired.)

This is where those "what's the nuts?" exercises will help. Kings full is the second-nut hand with K8842, but a dodgy hand with AAKKx because either remaining ace will beat you (and people like to hang on to aces when they shouldn't!).
Also note that with the board double-paired, quads are more likely -- still not very likely, but moreso.

Quick: what's the nuts?

A /images/graemlins/spade.gif K /images/graemlins/heart.gif J /images/graemlins/heart.gif K /images/graemlins/club.gif A /images/graemlins/heart.gif

What's the second nuts? Third nuts? Fourth nuts?

[ QUOTE ]
PS: If you keep pushing me, I'm going to LEARN, and that's a threat!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and a threat I'm happy to help enforce! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[sekrah]

Where are you playing at? Which gaming site?

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly Dave.. I think you're putting way too much thought into this.

If you spend the same amount of time studing solid NL game theory and strategy as you are doing researching your opponent, you will be a successful NL player.

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts exactly. Master the game, and you'll do well. Then master the opponent. Mastering the opponent with little knowledge of the game means nothing.

i would suggest gettin free money and gettin ur bankroll that way. i always scavenge for sites for free money, i suggest u guys try www.thepokerpromo.com (http://www.thepokerpromo.com) they give 75$ free at party /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Student]

I don't disagree with you, concerning this free money! It's just that timing isn't correct for me.

I play 1/2 cents NL HE. The internet casinos aren't going to get rich taking in rake income for this game. Hence they simply have nothing to divide up, in the way of earned rake. Then too, mine is a program of studying poker, mixed in with a bit of poker playing, not the other way around! Accordingly, it's required 4 months for me to play 3,000 hands of 1/2 cents poker. I'm just guessing, but I suspect I've ventured about $150 during this time. Total rake would thus be about 5% x $150 = $7.50, and that's spread over 4 months of play! So for $2/month in gross revenue, do I expect the casino to hand me the keys to the fortune? Not likely!

I started with $50 at PokerStars, dropped to $34.12 at the worst, and now I'm back to $50 again. During this trajectory I've faced up to all sorts of poker reality, and now I believe I'm about ready to start moving up the limits at PS! First I intend to take a short detour with Max-6 NL HE tables, in honor of Doyle Brunson, who just won his 10th World Series of Poker braclets, and doing so fittingly at Max-6 NL HE!

I figure it will be about 1 1/2 months per limit for me, so it will be about 6 months to move to 5/10 cents, 10/25 cents, 25/50 cents, 50/100 cents, and to $1/2. I'm assuming I'm ready for 5/10 cents, already! Now that's not so long to wait, so as to get into bonuses and rakeback. Of course, by then, there might not be such fine opportunities...

Dave