Paying Tuition at the Micros

[DavidC]

I'd posted some HU hands at 0.5/1 and Shill, correctly, stated that due to rake / playing a tough opponent I was going to lose (with emphasis on rake regardless of opponent in this particular instance). He's right, if we're looking at this in terms of bb/100, but he got me thinking to such a degree that Boz will have a stroke. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

---

Basically, I played about 20 hands HU with this guy. If we assumed that my edge, after rake, was -3/100, then this cost me only 0.6bb, or $0.60. Heck, if I lived in the states and paid tax on poker income, it would be slightly less, since I could write it off, hopefully anyways; I don't know your tax laws. My point is, it's really not that much money. Also, paying 0.60 now, if it improves my performance in a whole ton of HU 2/4 hands, will pay off big-time.

So, this leads me to a kinda new concept: Game Anti-Selection. If you're looking at going up to the 1/2 game from the 0.5/1 game, why not play a few sessions of .5/1, looking for the absolute worst, sharkiest games possible? That should prepare you for almost the worst of what you'll see when you do move up, with the exception that it's half as costly.

[aces_dad]

Or, you could play .02/.04 in the MLL on PS with no rake and pay no 'tax' on the learning. Play the best and potentially lose $1. Or play me and get $1 out of it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
Or, you could play .02/.04 in the MLL on PS with no rake and pay no 'tax' on the learning. Play the best and potentially lose $1. Or play me and get $1 out of it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed on the HU thing.

[Guruman]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're looking at going up to the 1/2 game from the 0.5/1 game, why not play a few sessions of .5/1, looking for the absolute worst, sharkiest games possible? That should prepare you for almost the worst of what you'll see when you do move up, with the exception that it's half as costly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I disagree with this concept in general at the micro level because of one important distinction:

the worst .50/1 games are not sharky at all - they're just rocky. You're sitting down with a bunch of guys afraid of ghosts and winning 3bb pots over and over again. I just don't think that will prepare you for 1/2. The .50/1 games that are the hardest to beat are not full of sharks, but maniacs. More than two or three at a table and you're going for a ride baby. GL playing poker there.

Instead, I would do a few other things:

1)learn shorthanded and headsup play
2)engage in the practice of starting your own tables.
3)build your roll to $600 and take a shot! Now you'll see exactly how lots of these 1/2 guys play.
4)either stick at the level or move down if your roll hits $300
5)rinse, repeat.


I think that aggressive shot taking is one of the best things an aspiring poker player can do (assmuing that he knows how to move back down when he's beaten). It demonstrates in full living color the type of play at that level, it gets you accustomed to the size of the pots, it teaches you things that you can use to crush the level below you if you move back down, and it keeps you pushing the edges of your skills.

take a shot
get beat back down
crush the level that you were at before
take another shot
stick
get laid
drink beer
build for your next shot.

[trainslayer]

[ QUOTE ]
DavidC - So, this leads me to a kinda new concept: Game Anti-Selection. If you're looking at going up to the 1/2 game from the 0.5/1 game, why not play a few sessions of .5/1, looking for the absolute worst, sharkiest games possible? That should prepare you for almost the worst of what you'll see when you do move up, with the exception that it's half as costly.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
the worst .50/1 games are not sharky at all - they're just rocky. You're sitting down with a bunch of guys afraid of ghosts and winning 3bb pots over and over again. I just don't think that will prepare you for 1/2.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only difference I've noticed between .50/1.00 and 1/2 is the dollar amounts. The level of competition is exactly the same IMO.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
...Boz will have a stroke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Wha? Sorry, just woke up.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're looking at going up to the 1/2 game from the 0.5/1 game, why not play a few sessions of .5/1, looking for the absolute worst, sharkiest games possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. The problem, as my clot-addled mind sees it, is that the problem most people have with moving up ONE level has little to do with the opponents (assuming they've played enough, etc, etc). It's the stakes. Make the bets twice as big, and most of us go weak-tight and then believe we're getting out-played when we move up, so that we don't have to deal with the fact of being weak-tight.

Doing 15BB challenges really helped me with this. You're moving so fast that the stakes don't really impact you. I found myself playing 5/10 the other day with about 30 minutes left, and was doing well until I actually thought about the 3-bet I'd just put in on the turn and then I flipped out, got chicken and quit with 15 minutes to go.

From the Great Minds Think Alike Dept.:

I've been clearing the recent Eurobet bonus for the past week or so (10x for $200). I've been doing it at 1/2 and pretty much crushing the game (I also cleared the next-to-last Empire bonus at 1/2...not doing the current one). Yesterday I did a quick stat-check and realized that I was only hitting just over 50% raked at 1/2, and thought to myself, "F**k, what's the point? I should just be clearing this at .5/1, I'm getting the same clearance rate, and it'll be cheaper for me." Of course, I didn't take it as seriously, let my VPIP creep up a little, and wound up losing 28BB. So, an adjustment DOWN limits can be as hard as an adjustment UP limits? I don't know.

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
"F**k, what's the point? I should just be clearing this at .5/1, I'm getting the same clearance rate, and it'll be cheaper for me."

[/ QUOTE ]
The fist part of this statement is true. The second isn't. Playing .5/1 is much safer as far as risk of ruin goes, but 1/2 clears much faster.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"F**k, what's the point? I should just be clearing this at .5/1, I'm getting the same clearance rate, and it'll be cheaper for me."

[/ QUOTE ]
The fist part of this statement is true. The second isn't. Playing .5/1 is much safer as far as risk of ruin goes, but 1/2 clears much faster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at the x-skins, recently. Even before the split I was only seeing 1/2 hands raking about 10% faster than .5/1. Over the past month (and, granted, I've got sample-size issues, but I think this is a stat that converges pretty quickly) 1/2 has come down to the same 50%, or so, that I get from .5/1.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"F**k, what's the point? I should just be clearing this at .5/1, I'm getting the same clearance rate, and it'll be cheaper for me."

[/ QUOTE ]
The fist part of this statement is true. The second isn't. Playing .5/1 is much safer as far as risk of ruin goes, but 1/2 clears much faster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget lost wages caused by the dif between playing for 1/2 and for 0.5/1.

at 4 tables that's something like $4/hr in difference.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"F**k, what's the point? I should just be clearing this at .5/1, I'm getting the same clearance rate, and it'll be cheaper for me."

[/ QUOTE ]
The fist part of this statement is true. The second isn't. Playing .5/1 is much safer as far as risk of ruin goes, but 1/2 clears much faster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget lost wages caused by the dif between playing for 1/2 and for 0.5/1.

at 4 tables that's something like $4/hr in difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you're winning....