View Full Version : I was wrong, you were right, but that's why i joined 2+2, 80K hands...
Previously I had argued that 10K hands was a fair demographic to judge one's capabilities. I recant, my 2+2 bretheren. Tonight I played hand number 80K of 30-60, and I have to say that I regret making that statement.
After 80K hands of 30-60, I have a win rate that I can't calculate because I dont have any sort of poker software to come up with a number that microscopic. In fact, I have no poker tracker or anything of the like, which will change upon completion of this post. Eighty thousand hands, and this is not a joke, (to some it will be) I have managed to gain less than one small bet.
Was I running good for the first 10K hands? Perhaps.
Have I been running bad lately? Yes
Has that had a significant impact on my game? Unfortunately, the answer here is yes, too.
Did I really lose $9,000 in the last 16 days and not book a single winning session? Yeah, and even piss poor players dont do that....
So, I stand before you, beaten and war torn, in submission.
I never thought I would say this, but alas pride is the deadly sin in poker, I was wrong.
From hereforth I will listen and take into account, and not dismiss and argue in futility.
I can't believe I've played 80K hands and havent even earned one [censored] [censored] ass small [censored] bet.
I'd like to thank those of you who are able to consistently beat the 30 games and higher who gave me the time of day in your replies.
I'm going back to 15-30....
DcifrThs
10-31-2005, 12:35 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/Dcifrths/shocking.gif
shocking...
shocking that i recanted?
or sarcastically shocking results?
save your fingers...both.....
ggbman
10-31-2005, 12:38 AM
Just keep posting and working on your game. My first shot at the 30 didn't work out. It's good that you can admit you were wrong, and in the future, if respected posters tell you they are sure of something, they are probably right. Also, dont limp AA from the SB. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
DcifrThs
10-31-2005, 12:42 AM
btw, are you saying you won 0.0bb/100 over 80k hands or less than .5bb/100 over 80k hands, or <0.0bb/100 over 80k hands?
Barron
I beleive he is saying he is up a little less than $30.
sthief09
10-31-2005, 12:56 AM
at least you still ahve your sig. mine no longer works
QUADS4444
10-31-2005, 12:58 AM
>>After 80K hands of 30-60, I have a win rate that I can't calculate because I dont have any sort of poker software to come up with a number that microscopic. In fact, I have no poker tracker or anything of the like, which will change upon completion of this post. Eighty thousand hands, and this is not a joke, (to some it will be) I have managed to gain less than one small bet.<<
How do you know you played 80K hands if you don't have PokerTracker or any other software?
obsidian
10-31-2005, 01:10 AM
Wow, just wow. I only lurk on mid-high but I have been reading quite a few of your posts. Its not often people make the realization you have. Also, I would suggest you try out the 10/20 6-max games as well as well as read the HUSH (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=headsup) forums.
flair1239
10-31-2005, 02:52 AM
I only lurk in this forum. But I have to say this is impressive. I cannot think of too many posters, that would be this honest. Very classy post, which in my opinion bodes very well for your future.
DcifrThs
10-31-2005, 03:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I only lurk in this forum. But I have to say this is impressive. I cannot think of too many posters, that would be this honest. Very classy post, which in my opinion bodes very well for your future.
[/ QUOTE ]
did you see the posts where he pigheadedly continued with his theories or opinions in the face of many good players telling him otherwise?
this post is not only not shocking, its expected.
Barron
flair1239
10-31-2005, 03:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I only lurk in this forum. But I have to say this is impressive. I cannot think of too many posters, that would be this honest. Very classy post, which in my opinion bodes very well for your future.
[/ QUOTE ]
did you see the posts where he pigheadedly continued with his theories or opinions in the face of many good players telling him otherwise?
this post is not only not shocking, its expected.
Barron
[/ QUOTE ]
It also shows a certain amount of character, regardless of your personal opinion of him.
There have been enough times in my life where I have had to "eat crow", where I generally have more respect for people who admit error, especially after a display of pigheadedness.
btw, it is kind of low brow to gloat over someones misery.
bobbyi
10-31-2005, 03:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
at least you still ahve your sig.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not anymore.
http://img476.imageshack.us/img476/2628/22love1de.jpg
DcifrThs
10-31-2005, 03:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I only lurk in this forum. But I have to say this is impressive. I cannot think of too many posters, that would be this honest. Very classy post, which in my opinion bodes very well for your future.
[/ QUOTE ]
did you see the posts where he pigheadedly continued with his theories or opinions in the face of many good players telling him otherwise?
this post is not only not shocking, its expected.
Barron
[/ QUOTE ]
It also shows a certain amount of character, regardless of your personal opinion of him.
There have been enough times in my life where I have had to "eat crow", where I generally have more respect for people who admit error, especially after a display of pigheadedness.
btw, it is kind of low brow to gloat over someones misery.
[/ QUOTE ]
your sentiment is correct. although it does give me admitedly a sense of satisfaction in that i saw this coming.
still low brow but its like some movies i watch that i know are retarded but i enjoy them nonetheless. just....can't....help....myself....
so sorry for the low brow shocking post. im done.
Barron
Victor
10-31-2005, 03:55 AM
congratulations. i am have played far less hands and am down far more money. please keep your bragging to yourself from now on.
baronzeus
10-31-2005, 04:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
congratulations. i am have played far less hands and am down far more money. please keep your bragging to yourself from now on.
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/blush.gif
/images/graemlins/heart.gif?
Mason Malmuth
10-31-2005, 04:53 AM
Hi Tx:
Losing $9,000 in a $30-$60 game doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Best wishes,
Mason
Victor
10-31-2005, 04:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
congratulations. i am have played far less hands and am down far more money. please keep your bragging to yourself from now on.
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/blush.gif
/images/graemlins/heart.gif?
[/ QUOTE ]
i am down like 150bb over like 8k at 30/60. i cant say i played optimally tho.
thankfully bc of 10/20 i can break even overall. /images/graemlins/heart.gif
baronzeus
10-31-2005, 05:01 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
congratulations. i am have played far less hands and am down far more money. please keep your bragging to yourself from now on.
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/blush.gif
/images/graemlins/heart.gif?
[/ QUOTE ]
i am down like 150bb over like 8k at 30/60. i cant say i played optimally tho.
thankfully bc of 10/20 i can break even overall. /images/graemlins/heart.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
if it makes you feel any better (it shouldn't!!! /images/graemlins/mad.gif) i started off 30/60-50/100 with a 170BB downswing (multitabling 3 of 30/60 and 1 of 50/100, like 3K hands) and then more recently 75/150 with a 60BB "downswing" (1 table like 300 hands /images/graemlins/frown.gif )
You had 16 straight losing sessions and only lost 150 BB? No [censored] way.
[ QUOTE ]
congratulations. i am have played far less hands and am down far more money. please keep your bragging to yourself from now on.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd rather be in your shoes. He's much more confident he's not a winner.
mike l.
10-31-2005, 07:18 AM
hi it's 700,000 hands you need to really know something fairly definitive.
Tommy Angelo
10-31-2005, 09:39 AM
"it's 700,000 hands you need to really know something fairly definitive."
Just in case you're serious, consider that if I play 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, it takes me TEN YEARS to play that many hands. Are you saying that during year number 8 or thereabouts, I still shouldn't look to my results for "something fairly definitive?"
Tommy
Barry
10-31-2005, 10:35 AM
C'mon Barron
Many folks came here thinking that they knew a lot and would like to argue their point of view, so there is no harm in that. At least his arguments made a little more sense then the other person, who is now on my ignore list.
Tx had an epiphany and has publicly stated so. You should be congratulating him, not beating him up on his old posts.
well you got The Publisher to respond, that must be worth something /images/graemlins/grin.gif and at least you aren't down 580 BB like this fellow (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3818578&page=0) . /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif
....< one small bet after 80K.
surfdoc
10-31-2005, 11:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"it's 700,000 hands you need to really know something fairly definitive."
Just in case you're serious, consider that if I play 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, it takes me TEN YEARS to play that many hands. Are you saying that during year number 8 or thereabouts, I still shouldn't look to my results for "something fairly definitive?"
Tommy
[/ QUOTE ]
Mike came up with that number pretty randomly. Many of us "internet guys" think it is probably a bit lower like 300-400K hands. Enjoy the next 4 years and then get back to us.
mack848
10-31-2005, 11:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
well you got The Publisher to respond, that must be worth something /images/graemlins/grin.gif and at least you aren't down 580 BB like this fellow (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3818578&page=0) . /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it would be awful to be as big a loser as BK /images/graemlins/wink.gif
Mason-
Thanks for taking the time to respond, and i am in agreeance with you that 9K is not an unreasonable amount to lose in 30-60. However, I think that I am not ready to play at that level yet, and I wonder where I would be right now had I not had immediate success in the 30 game. I am going to take about two weeks off from the game and try to go over my weaknesses and strengths and asses <sp> each. I think that there are decisions that are very obvious to a good player that are not obvious to me, yet.
In response to whoever said 16 losing sessions and losing 9K no f'ing way<<< Yes way. And while any losing session is a bad experience, the kind where you play for six ir seven hours and lose 10 BB's are very hard to deal with, because if two or three pots go your way they become winning sessions.
I plan on submerging myself in literature for the next two weeks (i'm considering a month) before I play another hand of poker.
Tex
[ QUOTE ]
congratulations. i am have played far less hands and am down far more money. please keep your bragging to yourself from now on.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this....
Victor
10-31-2005, 01:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this....
[/ QUOTE ]
it means you arent doing very bad and you will do way worse in the future even if you are the best player in the world.
btw, did you just jump in the 30-60 or did you work your way up? have you played any shorthanded? you might be better served to play at lower stakes and develop your game more before you try to play at the higher level.
I played 5-20 limit for about one month, then I played 15-30 for 8 months, and i've been playing 30-60 for about three months....
that is the extent of my poker life
The 9K loss isn't devastating. It's the small losses before that coupled with the last 16 days that hit me hard. I kept 9K in PP to play and wiped it smooth out, and then some. I'm sure i'll have larger swings than this in my days, but this isn't about the swings- it's me saying I'm scaling back to 15-30, and vowing to improve my game before I even do that. I played 80K hands and couldnt win a small bet. I dont belong at those limits, not yet.
Lestat
10-31-2005, 01:49 PM
I'm not sure about the 700,000 number, but I am sure that you have a much larger edge in your live games than any of us do online. This means you don't need nearly as many as hands to arrive at conclusions about your game.
Lestat
10-31-2005, 01:51 PM
Well you still proved many people (including me?), wrong about one thing:
In turns out you are humble enough to one day become a very good player. Admitting mistakes is a good first step. gl.
mikelow
10-31-2005, 01:55 PM
Really, I would think 80,000 hands would be enough of a sample size, that's got to be at least 800 hours of play or equivalent.
I know the fluctuations can be huge, even when your set is snapped off at the river (capped on flop and turn) by a two-outer, but to wait for 700,000 hands would suggest a standard deviation of 50-100 big bets per 100 hands.
Could it be that most limit poker is simply a game of chance?
BarronVangorToth
10-31-2005, 02:37 PM
Something you should remember, as it might be helpful, is that a majority of posters on 2+2 couldn't run the 30 game for 80K hands and be, effectively, a break-even player.
So, while you're not up what you were after 10K, there are many many many that would like to be "even" after that long a stretch that I'm sure are down thousands and thousands.
15 ahoy.
Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com
andyfox
10-31-2005, 02:49 PM
"Could it be that most limit poker is simply a game of chance?"
IIRC, mike l. once claimed that. My feeling is that it's a game of chance in that, over the next few thousand hands, the best player in the world might be a net loser. But there's no way the worst player in the world will be a net winner.
I can tell you whether the core group of players in my limit game will be winners or losers in the next year with a very high degree of accuracy.
I dont like losing 9K anyless than the rest of you. But, the point is that I put myself in a situation where defeat was not beyond me and I had a closed minded approach to my game, both of which have now resulted in me taking time off to analyze my play and gain further insight into the game before I go back to the 15-30 tables.
Why i decided to go from 5-10 to 15-30 to 30-60 in a 12 month period.....well i know why, but that's beside the point....it was too fast.....way too fast.....I'll still play higher when i'm in Vegas, because, my record there is good enough to warrant it, however, I am not ready for the 30 on PP.
PokerBob
10-31-2005, 03:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I plan on submerging myself in literature for the next two weeks (i'm considering a month) before I play another hand of poker.
[/ QUOTE ]
This seems a bit excessive to me, but I hope it works out.
Barry
10-31-2005, 03:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I plan on submerging myself in literature for the next two weeks (i'm considering a month) before I play another hand of poker.
[/ QUOTE ]
This seems a bit excessive to me, but I hope it works out.
[/ QUOTE ]
Me too. I've been running bad since the Party split, but I could only manage a 4 day break.
DcifrThs
10-31-2005, 03:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'll still play higher when i'm in Vegas, because, my record there is good enough to warrant it, however, I am not ready for the 30 on PP.
[/ QUOTE ]
uh, apparantly you have learned nothing (EDIT: about analysis of games you should be playing)
Barron
You think that 30-60 on PP is softer than 30-60 at bellagio?
I'm not talking about the tables with three vegas grinders on them, either. I'm talking about the tables with your run of the mill mediocre tourist players.
Why would I not want to play in a game that I can beat?
I can't beat 30 on PP, but i'm 5 for 6 in vegas....
What's the word, dcrifr?
James282
10-31-2005, 03:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You think that 30-60 on PP is softer than 30-60 at bellagio?
I'm not talking about the tables with three vegas grinders on them, either. I'm talking about the tables with your run of the mill mediocre tourist players.
Why would I not want to play in a game that I can beat?
I can't beat 30 on PP, but i'm 5 for 6 in vegas....
What's the word, dcrifr?
[/ QUOTE ]
You broke even for 80k hands and you are using being "5 for 6" as justification for playing this high. That is a problem.
-James
I.Rowboat
10-31-2005, 03:56 PM
Tex,
First, let me say that I have enjoyed your posts here. Some were pretty brash, but overall I find you to be a refreshing alternative to the relentless sarcasm that seems to dominate the M-H Limit forum. Please continue posting.
You haven't really asked for any advice in this thread, but I'll offer some anyway: as you indicate in your OP, buy PokerTracker (and probably PokerAce Heads Up Display) and learn to use it/them religiously. Not using PT + PAHUD when your opponents are is a HUGE leak. Beyond the obvious statistical relevance, PAHUD will also reveal the mucked hole cards of any opponents who are still in the hand at showdown. Want to see who calls down a river bet with A high...or worse? PAHUD will reveal that to you...and will also reveal that info to your opponents. So it is a double edged sword, but it's one you need to have to be competitve at this level. Buy it, learn it, use it, and accept it as part of your life if you play on a site that is compatible with PT.
Another advantage of PT is that you will get a completely unbiased view of your own tendencies, and the tendencies of your opponents. I used to think that I was fairly tight, but my PT stats convinced me otherwise and gave me reason to examine my play in a fresh light, especially PF and blinds defense, and this really helped my game.
Alternatively, you can play on sites that are NOT (currently) compatible with PT (e.g., Bodog, others). This at least will level the playing field in this critical area.
Anyway, don't lose heart. You need confidence to play at this level, and you should fall back and regroup until you feel confident in your game again.
DcifrThs
10-31-2005, 04:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You think that 30-60 on PP is softer than 30-60 at bellagio?
I'm not talking about the tables with three vegas grinders on them, either. I'm talking about the tables with your run of the mill mediocre tourist players.
Why would I not want to play in a game that I can beat?
I can't beat 30 on PP, but i'm 5 for 6 in vegas....
What's the word, dcrifr?
[/ QUOTE ]
jesus christ man. for the last time, your results over small samples are just that, small sample returns. your posterior belief, given that you played 10k hands at party and won $X was that you are good enough to play the party 30/60. after 80k hands, you had a prior belief based on 10k hands and it has changed after another 70k hands. NOW, your posterior belief is that you are NOT good enough to play the party 30/60.
similarly, being 5/6 in vegas can be analagous to your first 10k hands at party. irrespective of the quality of the games in vegas, im talking about your analysis about which games you should be playing. your prior in vegas is now that you've won 5/6 times and you're good enough to play X/2X limit. you see, its the same method you used at party to play the 30/60...except now you've learned that 10k (or analagously 5/6 wins) is not good enough to determine your win rate.
i agree vegas games on average are better than party games of a similar limit(or even a limit above etc.) ...i took issue with your statement that given your short term results in vegas, you are good enough to play "higher" limits in vegas. very simple elementary probability theory at work here.
FINALLY, and you should answer this question b/c everybody has asked and i dont see you ever answer it: how do you know you have played 80k hands if you dont have a tracking program like pokertracker? where do you get that #? do you keep results for vegas? how many hours have you played in those 6 times? what were your results? w/o records, everything is meaningless and you can NEVER adjust your beliefs based on your results b/c you have no results to adjust from.
Barron
DcifrThs
10-31-2005, 04:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You think that 30-60 on PP is softer than 30-60 at bellagio?
I'm not talking about the tables with three vegas grinders on them, either. I'm talking about the tables with your run of the mill mediocre tourist players.
Why would I not want to play in a game that I can beat?
I can't beat 30 on PP, but i'm 5 for 6 in vegas....
What's the word, dcrifr?
[/ QUOTE ]
You broke even for 80k hands and you are using being "5 for 6" as justification for playing this high. That is a problem.
-James
[/ QUOTE ]
yea...way to make my 3paragraph post into 1 sentance...man do i ever suck.
Barron
EDIT- PS- playing live short term is way more of a crapshoot for a winning player than playing online. in those 6 sessions you got dealt way fewer hands than you get multitabling on the internet. further, measuring your "wins/loses" ratio is useless for overall analysis imo.
mike l.
10-31-2005, 04:25 PM
"Are you saying that during year number 8 or thereabouts, I still shouldn't look to my results for "something fairly definitive?"
you will know *something* after 8 years full time, but not the nut answer where you can say with real affirmation (or is it affirmity?) "im a $xx per hour player in that game". one would be off by more than anyone would like to accept having put in that sort of hard work for 8 years. it takes 10-15 years live to really reach a definitive conclusion.
on other words, youve (barely) reached the long run, and andy has. not sure about gabe. but most of us are not even close. we wouldnt be able to say for sure that we're beating a game for 1/2 a bb, a whole bb, or 2 bbs per hour. it'd be off by 1/2 a bb at least most of the time.
that's why all i concentrate on is how i play session to session. because the long run is too long to worry about.
mike l.
10-31-2005, 04:30 PM
"Many of us "internet guys" think it is probably a bit lower like 300-400K hands."
because if you didnt all believe that youd crack up. anyway some math guy showed me it was 700k on this very forum in fact in one of my previous rants about this back when i was saying it must be 2 million hands and a lifetime of live play to reach the elusive long run.
justin a was telling me about some guy who posted in hush and in a 500k hand span he had one 650 bb downswing. and the guy is up 3bb/100 playing 10-20 6 max over that many hands. that's the guy i want to talk to, the rest of you are all chump change.
That sounded bad in type. My point of focus was that the 30 in Vegas can be a soft enough game for me to have an edge worthy of me playing it instead of the 15. It is contradictory for me to say 5 for 6 and then talk about 10K vs. 80K online. I guess i'm saying I dont have an edge playing 30 online but if I do in a tourist and home game occasional player rich 30-60 in LV, I might as well play it.
70k hands really isn't that much. There is over a 1.1bb/100 different between my first 75k hands in the 30/60 and the next 68k. I have very little idea what my winrate will eventually converge to, and I've played 140k hands.
[ QUOTE ]
I kept 9K in PP to play and wiped it smooth out, and then some.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you're going to regularly play the 30 game, you should probably keep a minimum of 20 on the site. That's not enough for a bankroll mind you, but it is what I would consider a reasonable amount for an immediate sort of "working" bankroll.
JTG51
10-31-2005, 06:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
you will know *something* after 8 years full time, but not the nut answer where you can say with real affirmation (or is it affirmity?) "im a $xx per hour player in that game". one would be off by more than anyone would like to accept having put in that sort of hard work for 8 years. it takes 10-15 years live to really reach a definitive conclusion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mike, I think you're hung up on this idea a little too much. Worrying about playing enough hands to definitively say you can win $X per hour is silly because by the time you've played that many hands the game is totally different than when you started, and your own play most likely is also. No one can ever say exactly how much they should earn in a game because the games constantly change.
And anyone that's good enough to beat a game should know well before 100,000 hands if they're a favorite in the game or not without even looking at their results.
mike l.
10-31-2005, 07:03 PM
"And anyone that's good enough to beat a game should know well before 100,000 hands if they're a favorite in the game or not without even looking at their results."
wrong. anyone that's good enough and lucky enough to beat a game for 100k hands will at least sometimes be thinking he's a bigger favorite than he really is in a game or if he's run bad/played bad he will think he's not nearly as much as a favorite as he actually might really be.
see? all that matters is this: the long term is so long to worry about it is silly. playing your best (and that includes game selection) each hour of each session is all that ever matters. but how much you beat a game for in 50k hands doesnt mean much of anything.
JTG51
10-31-2005, 07:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
see? all that matters is this: the long term is so long to worry about it is silly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't that what I just said?
dankhank
10-31-2005, 07:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
but how much you beat a game for in 50k hands doesnt mean much of anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
other than it can change your standard of living
Not to mention when I walk into B's PR, I have to force myself to not try and pull a mike mcdermott in the HL section. Of course, insaneo put=your-whole BR-and-livelyhood- at risk game of choice would be the 300-600 not some whacky self dealt 25K buy in bs NL game.
Justin A
10-31-2005, 08:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"And anyone that's good enough to beat a game should know well before 100,000 hands if they're a favorite in the game or not without even looking at their results."
wrong. anyone that's good enough and lucky enough to beat a game for 100k hands will at least sometimes be thinking he's a bigger favorite than he really is in a game or if he's run bad/played bad he will think he's not nearly as much as a favorite as he actually might really be.
see? all that matters is this: the long term is so long to worry about it is silly. playing your best (and that includes game selection) each hour of each session is all that ever matters. but how much you beat a game for in 50k hands doesnt mean much of anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the foundation of my new belief that downswings don't exist.
If your hand sample is infinite, then how could you really argue that downswings did exist? Excellent point. I'll tell myself that next time I have one....and try my hardest to believe it.
mike l.
11-01-2005, 01:50 AM
"Isn't that what I just said?"
yes but when you said i was "hung up" about the long term, i wanted you to understand that i wasnt at all. ive just come to terms with it, rather than the permanent state of denial about it most posters are in.
bernie
11-01-2005, 04:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I guess i'm saying I dont have an edge playing 30 online but if I do in a tourist and home game occasional player rich 30-60 in LV, I might as well play it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Based on what?
His contention is how you clocked the game you played in in vegas. So far your justification is flawed, which he pointed out.
You realize many don't need that much time to figure out if we're in a good beatable game? We certainly don't base it on our win-loss record at the place.
b
Lawrence Ng
11-01-2005, 05:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
see? all that matters is this: the long term is so long to worry about it is silly. playing your best (and that includes game selection) each hour of each session is all that ever matters. but how much you beat a game for in 50k hands doesnt mean much of anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lawrence
Leaky Eye
11-01-2005, 06:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess i'm saying I dont have an edge playing 30 online but if I do in a tourist and home game occasional player rich 30-60 in LV, I might as well play it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Based on what?
His contention is how you clocked the game you played in in vegas. So far your justification is flawed, which he pointed out.
You realize many don't need that much time to figure out if we're in a good beatable game? We certainly don't base it on our win-loss record at the place.
b
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are both muddling and making the same important point. If you have an understanding of game conditions at, or around your stakes, you can and will make this decision without mathematical proof that you are a winner. If you are wrong you a losing player, but you don't have any other tools to work with.
And the 30/60 Bellagio game is about 5/10 Party in toughness. (If you have live play skills to complement the skills involved in online poker).
Dazarath
11-01-2005, 08:11 AM
Tx, it's good that you've realized that there's flaws in your game and that you're willing to drop down. Continuing to be stubborn about your play style is the demise of a lot of people. It's also what keeps our fish pools juicy.
To people who have been replying in condescending manners:
I understand that his first few posts were arrogant and blatantly incorrect at times, but he's admitted that he realizes there's something wrong with his game. This is a good step to becoming a good poker player. A lot of people start off this way. There are a lot of players who think they're good just because they whomp on their friends at $5 tourneys. The ones who are willing to read and learn actually become good, whereas the rest just live in their own little world where they're the gods of poker. I was like this before, though, I was playing 2/4 at the time, not 30/60. I'm pretty surprised that Tx stayed around after all the initial bashing. To me, that says that even if he's misunderstanding certain concepts now, he's willing to put in the effort to learn.
[ QUOTE ]
If you have an understanding of game conditions at, or around your stakes, you can and will make this decision without mathematical proof that you are a winner.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a little OT, but I've always had trouble agreeing with this statement. A large percentage of players believe they're winning players, and that they have a good understanding of the game. Yet, only something like 5-10% can beat the rake. Let's take a solid 2+2er and a WSOP wannabe fish. In both of their minds, they are winning players and understand the game. One of them is not though, but it's not that easy to tell for the person himself. Ok, maybe this is a little too extreme. What about an intermediate player instead? He reads the books, learns some from the forums; it's still the same situation. It's not so easy to look at your own game and "know" that you're a winning player. It's easy for a lot of you guys, but that's because you have the experience and results to show for it.
based on the hours i've played the 30 in vegas and the hours i've played online (the basis for an edge live vs. the non edge online).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess i'm saying I dont have an edge playing 30 online but if I do in a tourist and home game occasional player rich 30-60 in LV, I might as well play it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Based on what?
His contention is how you clocked the game you played in in vegas. So far your justification is flawed, which he pointed out.
You realize many don't need that much time to figure out if we're in a good beatable game? We certainly don't base it on our win-loss record at the place.
b
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are both muddling and making the same important point. If you have an understanding of game conditions at, or around your stakes, you can and will make this decision without mathematical proof that you are a winner. If you are wrong you a losing player, but you don't have any other tools to work with.
And the 30/60 Bellagio game is about 5/10 Party in toughness. (If you have live play skills to complement the skills involved in online poker).
[/ QUOTE ]
I've seen 5-10 that was tougher OL than 30 @ bellagio, but I also sat in a game with four grinders that I couldnt beat unless I got hit in the head w/ the deck.
DcifrThs
11-01-2005, 12:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
based on the hours i've played the 30 in vegas and the hours i've played online (the basis for an edge live vs. the non edge online).
[/ QUOTE ]
you thought you were a winner after 10k hands at party. what fraction of those 10k hands have you played live?
Barron
well, there's two things to consider here. one, i dont get out to vegas that often...probably wont be back until new years. and secondly, if the game is right, i dont have a problem playing 100-200. and by right i mean optimal conditions where i have an edge. If i don't, i get up and leave. I've done that in vegas twice. I didnt think i had an edge after several hours of play, so i quit.
However, I dont think my game selection online is as good as it is live. I dont have stats on players, just notes, and my tilt factor is higher online. All of this adds up to me not being able to play 30 online anymore, because I have no edge. But if my friends from high school called me and said lets play a private table of 30-60 online, i'd join in a heartbeat because i have an edge. That's my point, in a nutshell. If i think i have an edge, i'll play, but I know that on a day to day basis, i have zero edge in the party 30 games....
CardSharpCook
11-01-2005, 01:29 PM
You realize, of course, that this is exactly why you need to get tracking software. To the online community, to say that you have better reads live is ludicrius (sp?). How can you really know if you are facing a 19/12 or a 25/16? Also, I think it is easier to overestimate your edge online. Putting a human face on your competition devalues them. A faceless machine is more intimidating. However, I also believe that live 30-60 is softer than some online 5-10 games.
that means my ability to read a player is better in a live game because of the time i've spent playing live, and i have nothing to go with online...what do you reccomend for tracking software? i searched some the other night, but was going to ask opinions here, first. what do you use?
DcifrThs
11-01-2005, 02:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
that means my ability to read a player is better in a live game because of the time i've spent playing live, and i have nothing to go with online...what do you reccomend for tracking software? i searched some the other night, but was going to ask opinions here, first. what do you use?
[/ QUOTE ]
i'll tell you what to get and where to get it if you simply exmplain to me how you know you played 80k hands online.
Barron
i thought i already posted this....
i have a journal that i record start and stop times and number of tables for online play, and i record each table as a separate game with a separate result. i count for 80 hands per hour per table.
DcifrThs
11-01-2005, 02:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
i thought i already posted this....
i have a journal that i record start and stop times and number of tables for online play, and i record each table as a separate game with a separate result. i count for 80 hands per hour per table.
[/ QUOTE ]
Poker Tracker (http://www.pokertracker.com)
Playerview (http://www.playerview.net)
Barron
JohnnyHumongous
11-01-2005, 02:44 PM
Does anyone else get this odd sense that TxRedMan is the ultimate troll poster / gimmick account? I have had this nagging feeling ever since his first posts and every new post I see just seems to fit in line with this intuition... Am I alone on this one?
Nigel
11-01-2005, 02:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Am I alone on this one?
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope.
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone else get this odd sense that TxRedMan is the ultimate troll poster / gimmick account? I have had this nagging feeling ever since his first posts and every new post I see just seems to fit in line with this intuition... Am I alone on this one?
[/ QUOTE ]
what do you mean by the ultimate gimmick account? what are you getting at? and define troll, please.
I've been called a troll for a while now, and i dont know what you mean. I picture an ugly monster guarding a bridge that crosses some river. What the hell does it mean here?
JohnnyHumongous
11-01-2005, 03:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I've been called a troll for a while now, and i dont know what you mean. I picture an ugly monster guarding a bridge that crosses some river. What the hell does it mean here?
[/ QUOTE ]
See what I mean? Every single post.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been called a troll for a while now, and i dont know what you mean. I picture an ugly monster guarding a bridge that crosses some river. What the hell does it mean here?
[/ QUOTE ]
See what I mean? Every single post.
[/ QUOTE ]
yeah, i see what you mean....
answer the question guru.
JohnnyHumongous
11-01-2005, 03:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
yeah, i see what you mean....
answer the question guru.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not with that attitude.
PokerBob
11-01-2005, 03:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I've been called a troll for a while now, and i dont know what you mean. I picture an ugly monster guarding a bridge that crosses some river. What the hell does it mean here?
[/ QUOTE ]
A troll is someone who stirs up a ruckus for the sake of stirring up a ruckus. Usually said individuals had an uncle who touched them as children or are incapable of satisfyng a woman sexually. There are other ways that trolls are spawned, but these are the predominant means.
i have no desire to be a rabble rouser.
the only person who touched me as a child was my sisters friend when she was babysitting me. if only you guys could have been that lucky....
krishanleong
11-01-2005, 03:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i thought i already posted this....
i have a journal that i record start and stop times and number of tables for online play, and i record each table as a separate game with a separate result. i count for 80 hands per hour per table.
[/ QUOTE ]
Poker Tracker (http://www.pokertracker.com)
Playerview (http://www.playerview.net)
Barron
[/ QUOTE ]
Barron,
try out pokerace. It's an amazing app. Better than playerview.
www.pokeracesoftware.com (http://www.pokeracesoftware.com)
Krishan
DcifrThs
11-01-2005, 04:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i thought i already posted this....
i have a journal that i record start and stop times and number of tables for online play, and i record each table as a separate game with a separate result. i count for 80 hands per hour per table.
[/ QUOTE ]
Poker Tracker (http://www.pokertracker.com)
Playerview (http://www.playerview.net)
Barron
[/ QUOTE ]
Barron,
try out pokerace. It's an amazing app. Better than playerview.
www.pokeracesoftware.com (http://www.pokeracesoftware.com)
Krishan
[/ QUOTE ]
i wasn't of the opinion he deserved the immediate jump to pokerace /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Barron
bernie
11-01-2005, 04:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
To the online community, to say that you have better reads live is ludicrius (sp?).
[/ QUOTE ]
fwiw...I get better reads live than online.
[ QUOTE ]
However, I also believe that live 30-60 is softer than some online 5-10 games.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this in comparison to the live game where I play.
b
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i thought i already posted this....
i have a journal that i record start and stop times and number of tables for online play, and i record each table as a separate game with a separate result. i count for 80 hands per hour per table.
[/ QUOTE ]
Poker Tracker (http://www.pokertracker.com)
Playerview (http://www.playerview.net)
Barron
[/ QUOTE ]
Barron,
try out pokerace. It's an amazing app. Better than playerview.
www.pokeracesoftware.com (http://www.pokeracesoftware.com)
Krishan
[/ QUOTE ]
i wasn't of the opinion he deserved the immediate jump to pokerace /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Barron
[/ QUOTE ]
at some point, did i really really seriously offend you?
Victor
11-01-2005, 04:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
To the online community, to say that you have better reads live is ludicrius (sp?
[/ QUOTE ]
ummm....have you ever played live? i can play 25 hands live and know damn well how everyone at the table plays.
[ QUOTE ]
How can you really know if you are facing a 19/12 or a 25/16?
[/ QUOTE ]
this is pretty funny. there are far far more important reads than preflop numbers. live, it is very easy to see how ppl play on all streets.
there is a reason good live players make 2bb/hr(that comes out to 2bb/30 hands) while good online players make 2bb/100.
bernie
11-01-2005, 04:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This is a little OT, but I've always had trouble agreeing with this statement. A large percentage of players believe they're winning players, and that they have a good understanding of the game. Yet, only something like 5-10% can beat the rake. Let's take a solid 2+2er and a WSOP wannabe fish. In both of their minds, they are winning players and understand the game. One of them is not though, but it's not that easy to tell for the person himself. Ok, maybe this is a little too extreme. What about an intermediate player instead? He reads the books, learns some from the forums; it's still the same situation. It's not so easy to look at your own game and "know" that you're a winning player. It's easy for a lot of you guys, but that's because you have the experience and results to show for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you know how to analyze a hand and the right plays in the right spot and can back your plays up with solid reasoning, it's not that hard. It just takes effort to get to that point.
Most likely the WSOP fish can't really give you an in depth reason as to why they played a certain hand a certain way when pressed for a reason beyond his own ego and his thinking that he can just simply outplay everyone. This is why many times you can tell a persons skill level just by talking to them about playing without even seeing them play a hand.
[ QUOTE ]
It's not so easy to look at your own game and "know" that you're a winning player. It's easy for a lot of you guys, but that's because you have the experience and results to show for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
It starts with brutal honesty with yourself.
For many players it just 'clicks' at a certain time in their development. A great example is a prime person on here who's results sucked but once it clicked for him he 'knew' he was on the winning track. He kept losing for awhile even after it clicked for him. This was before pokertracker. Back then you had to recognize plays of opponents and assess them w/o the aid of stats.
b
bernie
11-01-2005, 04:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To the online community, to say that you have better reads live is ludicrius (sp?
[/ QUOTE ]
ummm....have you ever played live? i can play 25 hands live and know damn well how everyone at the table plays.
[ QUOTE ]
How can you really know if you are facing a 19/12 or a 25/16?
[/ QUOTE ]
this is pretty funny. there are far far more important reads than preflop numbers. live, it is very easy to see how ppl play on all streets.
there is a reason good live players make 2bb/hr(that comes out to 2bb/30 hands) while good online players make 2bb/100.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention, it's easier to concentrate on just 8-9 opponents than 40-60 opponents at a time.
b
Klepton
11-01-2005, 04:58 PM
give us your party name, many of us play in the 30, we'll help you with your game.
Turning Stone Pro
11-01-2005, 05:17 PM
Or a lo-limit clown like PokerBob who posts in the mid-high forum and has never played a hand of 15-30 or higher in his entire life.
TSP
Klepton
11-01-2005, 05:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Or a lo-limit clown like PokerBob who posts in the mid-high forum and has never played a hand of 15-30 or higher in his entire life.
TSP
[/ QUOTE ]
stick to making fun of tommy, you're a lot better at it.
have you guys known eachother for a long time?
Klepton
11-01-2005, 05:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
have you guys known eachother for a long time?
[/ QUOTE ]
quit stalling and give us your party name.
well it's not TxRedMan....but, um, why are you asking?
two days and counting.....
hey Barry, is that a pic of you?
Hey, BTw, according to the response above, how can you call me a troll?
Hey les,
What do you think those edges are in live play as opposed to online play?
Leaky Eye
11-01-2005, 08:05 PM
You left off a sentence in your quote, and butchered the meaning of my post.
Dazarath
11-03-2005, 10:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If you know how to analyze a hand and the right plays in the right spot and can back your plays up with solid reasoning, it's not that hard. It just takes effort to get to that point.
[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that everyone thinks they can analyze plays correctly.
[ QUOTE ]
Most likely the WSOP fish can't really give you an in depth reason as to why they played a certain hand a certain way when pressed for a reason beyond his own ego and his thinking that he can just simply outplay everyone. This is why many times you can tell a persons skill level just by talking to them about playing without even seeing them play a hand.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that a lot of the time, I can talk to someone about poker (or watch them play), and I can tell that they cannot be a winning player. Usually glaring mistakes in their play, or their approach to the game make it so they just cannot win in the long run.
What about examining one's own play? Ok, like for myself. I don't have the years of experience that a lot of the players on this forum have. I've only been playing for a little over 2 years, and only "seriously" for less than a year. I don't have enough hands under my belt to draw any real conclusions. I don't find it quite as easy as many suggest to just "know" I'm a winning player. This is why I don't claim to be one, and I just try to work on my game. Being relatively new to the game, it's sometimes hard for me to deal with downswings, as it makes me believe that maybe I was just running hot for the last X hands.
Or here's another situation. When I was at home for the summer, I played at Bay 101 since I couldn't play online. I ran at 2 BB/hr over ~50 hours. With such a small sample size and a probably over-inflated winrate, I can't actually determine that I'm better than the opposition. Sure, while watching them, I notice a lot of preflop mistakes (ie. calling raises cold with any two cards T+ and never folding blinds because of the "discount"), but I also know that I make postflop mistakes some of the regulars there don't make. Does my preflop advantage outweigh the occasional postflop mistake enough that I will win in the long run? I can't tell.
Many people have lost small fortunes to finally realize they are not ready for a certain limit, all you lost is time, so I think you should still feel fortunate. Just keep studying the game and thinking about the game when youre away from the tables, and keep posting and reading on 2+2, and sooner or later things will turn around.
bernie
11-03-2005, 04:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Being relatively new to the game, it's sometimes hard for me to deal with downswings, as it makes me believe that maybe I was just running hot for the last X hands.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dealing with downswings will come with experience in playing through the swings. That's what seperates the good players from the bad. It's one thing to read about them, but another to actually experience them.
Imo, the best way to get better is to get involved on the forum and hash out your game. It seems like you're doing that so that alone puts you well ahead of most opponents you'll face on the tables
You break the streak down into hand for hand as much as you can. Look back at how you played the hands. If you do this regularly, the fact you are on a streak, up or down, will be secondary. Many of us analyze a hand in our mind as soon as it's over. Sometimes it's just a quick thought, other times we may ponder it for a few hands. Even the ones we're not directly involved in after we've folded. Those can be the easiest hands to analyze while on the table as your mind is generally clearer when just watching.
[ QUOTE ]
With such a small sample size and a probably over-inflated winrate, I can't actually determine that I'm better than the opposition. Sure, while watching them, I notice a lot of preflop mistakes (ie. calling raises cold with any two cards T+ and never folding blinds because of the "discount"), but I also know that I make postflop mistakes some of the regulars there don't make.
[/ QUOTE ]
Like what kind of postflop mistakes are you making? Maybe you're not noticing their postflop mistakes? Hand protection, value betting and chasing long odds are very common mistakes that when compounded over many hands cost lots of chips.
If you know how to break down your expectation of a play against an opponent(s) vs their plays, or plays that they do that you'd do differently and vice versa, that's where you can compare. Remember, the money is made up to the showdown regardless of who gets pushed the pot.
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that everyone thinks they can analyze plays correctly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know. Everyone in a cardroom thinks they are a winning player. Like everyone in prison is innocent. /images/graemlins/wink.gif That's why I mentioned the brutal honesty with oneself. One way to do that is to really ask oneself why they played a certain hand and look at the reasoning regardless of what the results of the play/hand were.
b
Dominic
11-03-2005, 06:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
....< one small bet after 80K.
[/ QUOTE ]
that means you're a winning player, Dude! Congrats!
/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Dazarath
11-03-2005, 07:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Like what kind of postflop mistakes are you making? Maybe you're not noticing their postflop mistakes? Hand protection, value betting and chasing long odds are very common mistakes that when compounded over many hands cost lots of chips.
[/ QUOTE ]
My problem isn't any of those. My problem is that I like showdown too much. So I end up convincing myself that they "could" be bluffing 1 out of 10 times to justify calling with my obviously beaten hand. Or, I take a check/call line when a bet/fold is called for.
[ QUOTE ]
Imo, the best way to get better is to get involved on the forum and hash out your game.
[/ QUOTE ]
I read the forums almost every day, but I don't post too many hands. I try not to post hands that seem boring and standard, and prefer to look for ones that may generate some discussion or that I'm really unsure about. A lot of my hands fall into two categories anyways:
1) I knew how to play correctly and I did play correctly.. or
2) I knew how to play correctly and I [censored] up.
There's not really much point in posting either of these hands.
bernie
11-04-2005, 01:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I read the forums almost every day, but I don't post too many hands. I try not to post hands that seem boring and standard, and prefer to look for ones that may generate some discussion or that I'm really unsure about. A lot of my hands fall into two categories anyways:
1) I knew how to play correctly and I did play correctly.. or
2) I knew how to play correctly and I [censored] up.
There's not really much point in posting either of these hands.
[/ QUOTE ]
Respond to other peoples hands. If you don't agree with someones take on a hand, throw it out there and see how your reasoning compares. Test your thinking.
You will run into alot more concept discussions that way than waiting for yourself to experience it so you can post it.
b
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.