Where to put your chips - Long

Bad subject I know....If you have read this far, I probably sound like I have lost it. Be patient, it gets worse.


I have been kicking this around for a while, and can not come to any real conclusion. I am even having a hard time explaining it. Perhaps you have some input that will help me make up my mind? Please don't bother with I wouldn't play this or that unless you have a reason why other than odds and position. I am not looking for that type of input. I have been thinking about the speed and texture of the game, and how far to go on hand/pot odds to make it worthwhile to play certain hands in certain types of games. This isn't about what hands to play in what games so much as it is about what hands are worth playing in what games dependant on the number of hands dealt per hour.


For example in loose wild games, you get the proper odds to play almost any two cards, ie, 8:1 or 9:1 (position or not, you decide). But as a result of this loose play the game may slow down from say 30 hands an hour to 18 or 20 hands per hour or slower because of the number of players in the hand and all that goes on in these types of games. The raising goes up and you see a lot of preflop capping.


The question I am kicking around in this scenario is how loose or tight is it worthwhile to become when you know this type of game may last 50 hands at best before it changes texture? You could easily tie up a many hundreds of dollars in a loose wild $4-8 game and wait a long time for this type of game to happen again to get back your losses, let alone post a win.


In a tighter game, say seeing thirty hands an hour with few players seeing the flop, can you be a little looser because you see more hands per hour and may win more albiet smaller pots? Can you make up in hands per hour where those loose game hands didn't come through?


In a 'normal' LL game four to five seeing the flop, could you play looser than you could in an already loose game because the game will probably get looser and then do you need to tighten up because the hands per hour will go down?


Is it worth it financially to play loose in a wild game due to the short time the game will be like that and the chips you put out to play those longshot cards? Or should you save those chips for a faster more stable game with a better shot at winning verses the loose wild game? There must be some sort of ratio, that makes certain plays correct (unless you have an unlimited bankroll). I just am not seeing it, or maybe it's not there, or maybe I have lost it. If you're still reading have at it, what do you think? Did I fall over the edge?

The above post brought to you by:


"You should have been here last night, an awesome game!"


"Oh yes, did you win?"


"Man one pot was a good weeks worth of winnings, chips falling off the table, every pot capped all the way through!"


"Yes, but did you win?"


"No, I lost my butt, but it was a great game!! You should have been here!"

To cut through all of your stuff, the old saying says it best: play tight in a loose game and loose in a tight game. There are, of course, variations on this depending on the texture of the game, but it is an excellent starting point.

Read HFAP. If you're playing in a game that is getting capped btf routinely, you have to play extremely tight b/c you're implied odds are shot.


On the other hand, if you're playing in a very tight game, you play a bit looser to give yourself more chances to bluff when noone gets any of the flop(but not so loose that people catch on to what you're doing).

Another interesting piece by MM is in his first volume of Poker Essays, 'The Effect of a Maniac', pp 142-144.

Okay after writing this down and sleeping on it,I have a better way to present what I am asking. Most of us have a finite amount of money to gamble with. It makes sense to manage it somewhat like an investment portfolio. What percentage of you portfolio would you be willing to invest in each type of game? Would you be willing to invest 100% in a LAG game because of the potential profit, 50%, less? How much in passive games? And so on and so forth.

If working for a living then the most profitable game, period.


However, I do this for entertainment so I like all kinds of games so long as I have a reasonable expectation of profit. Loose-aggressive-wild games are actually kinda frustrating ... don't get to play many hands at all when you have caps before the flop and 5+ people seeing the flop. Not to mention, these wild games are brutal on the variance scale.


Given my druthers, I'll take loose-passive games but who wouldn't? I also enjoy shorthanded games, if anything because I enjoy playing the man more than the cards.

Mike,


there is probably a game type that you are most comfortable in, or that you know your style works best in. Take that one.


Also, when people say 'this is a great game', it isn't always true, you got ot evaluate them yourself.


Last week, a friend of mine came over to my game, and said I should put my name on the transfer list to the one he was in, because it was a great game. I walked by, and saw some big pots, so I did. After I transferred, I realized the big pots were caused by some tricky players pushing some thin edges against each other, and that I was better off in the other game which was a little looser, and a lot more passive. Back on the transfer list....oh well.


Good luck,

Bob T.

Play the games you enjoy the most and feel most comfortable in.


Loose games can either be aggressive or passive. A "wild" game is aggressive, and can actually be boring to play because correct play calls for playing fewer hands than probably any other type of game. Plus the swings are larger. Not everyone's cup of tea, but some people love it.