Someone please remind me of what I'm getting out of this

[Still the Spank E]

I know that the road to higher levels of poker is paved by the learning experiences acquired at low level cash games, but if what I ultimately want to do is play tournaments against good/very good players, am I likely to get anything out of playing “no fold ‘em, hold ‘em” against suck-out artists? I mean, as there’s no living to be made at $2/4, and as the only thing that seems likely to be learned are lessons in appearing stoic when grandpa next to you withstands your raises pre-flop, flop, fourth and fifth streets just to see if he can turn his pair of 2s into a set, I don’t see what the real point is. Since good play against a tableful of people hoping to get lucky is both a statistical and financial uphill climb, can anyone suggest a reason not to go directly to the tournaments for the experience I REALLY want. I already know how to say “nice hand” when I don’t really mean it.

[bernie]

play tournaments then.

simple enough.

[ QUOTE ]
Since good play against a tableful of people hoping to get lucky is both a statistical and financial uphill climb,

[/ QUOTE ]

as opposed to playing well against good players being a nice downhill ride with the wind at your back?*

[ QUOTE ]
can anyone suggest a reason not to go directly to the tournaments for the experience I REALLY want.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, if you really want to, go for it.

*i may be wrong, but based on your thoughts about a gravy table texture, it doesnt sound like your game is really that strong and are overanxious to see an end result of winning. which is very common. but the main part is to have fun. it doesnt sound like you are having fun, nor the patience (yet) in the trenches grinding, so go play the tournies. however, learning to beat the ring games and why you shouldnt mind playing on this type of table at all will greatly help in building a foundation in tourney play. IMO.

in some tournies, your table will play like no foldem.

good luck

b

[Still the Spank E]

I appreciate your input, though you begin by saying "so go play tournaments," "simple enough" and finish by saying that tourney play CAN be a lot like the no foldem experience and so the latter would help to build a foundation for the former. And while I have no illusions about tournament tables being anything other than another venue for learning to "grind it out," I still could not discern from your reply what else there is to be gotten from no foldem besides thick skin. There ARE other poker skills, as you obviously already know, and was just wondering whether any of them ever come into play at the no foldem table. Otherwise, I will try the tourneys despite knowing there's no money to be made their immediately either until one gets one's skills up. Thanks again for your input.

[mmkiemo]

I think what he is getting at is does playing the micro limits online really increase your skill.

In my limited time playing at .25/.5 at 10 handed tables, I have learned you will get about 70-80% limping to a flop and probably around 50% cold calling raises. Combine this with players who are more then willing to call any amount to try and catch their prayer river card and it seems well formulated strategies arent really usefull.

I get an AA and I raise. 8 people call and the flop comes out J64, you know there is some fool who probably has J4, some fool with 3 card flush draw, some other guy with a 73, some guy with a pair of 99 and all sorts of other all whom will call your flop raise even if you showed them you had the pair of aces. And usually at least one of these players will hit their hand and you lose. But its so hard to calculate what the heck they have becuase you cant imagine anybody cold calling a preflop bet from UTG with a 73o.

At micro limits it seems that well forumlated strategies can be thrown out the window becuase so many of the players at this level play on dumb luck (one or two at a table should mean you win money, but combine 8 of these guys at a table and you are losing every hand on the river).

Becuase of this I think he is asking why bother playing at this level if everything you read and learn doesnt apply?

[scotnt73]

each level you reach in your poker career builds from the previous. i started out playing .50/1 ring games at party with a 300$ stake. i can afford to play much higher but i wanted to LEARN as cheaply as possible. when i started i thought just like everyone else new that they were too fishy to be beatable. there is nothing further from the truth. after STUDYING a couple of good poker books and posting here for a few months it finally "clicked" and i started consistantly winning. i then moved to 1/2 when my bankroll reached 500$ and i moved to 2/4 about a month ago when my bankroll hit 1000$. i am now at 1400$ and when i reach 1800$ ill move to 3/6. learning to beat the no foldem game gave me the basic skill set to build on and become a good player. what Bernie is saying is go have fun playing tournies if you are not having fun. you may learn there but more than likely you will eventually learn that you need to start at the bottom and work your way up like most every one else did. alot of poker players have some sort of obsessive compulsive personalities(i am one of them-i want it and i want it now screw waiting around and developing) but if you dont get past this you will just be another one of the fish we live off of. good luck and this post is not meant to offend you an any way i wish someone would have told me this 6 months ago. /images/graemlins/grin.gif also to answer your question-if you cant beat ring games you cant make a profit at tournies for the long run-alot of new players think this way(i had a little luck in tournies even when i was a losing ring player but it just isnt true-i eventually gave it all back and then some until i learned to beat the ring games).

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, I will try the tourneys despite knowing there's no money to be made their immediately either until one gets one's skills up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You won't know until you try. Some people meet with instant tournament success. Others develop it. Usually they have a good sense of the fundamentals of ring poker, but are not necessarily expert or professional level. The luck factor allows new tournament players a chance at the money.

I started with 4-8 on a trip to Vegas and didn't play a tournament until a year later after playing probably 15 more times at a casino. I didn't cash, but I came in 13th out of 90. The tournament paid 9 spots. Since then, I have had many cashes and several wins and would say that I have won more than I have invested.

[bernie]

the others have some good stuff, so ill try not to rehash.

tournies play much differently than ring games. i fully believe that learning the ringgame will help you beat tournies. youll learn to play tighter than you will in a tourney. a tourney you have to take some bigger chances (which can be fun) since there really is no long run. it's a definitive time on the game. once you're out, you're out. you cant wait the bad players out for the cards to turn. just as there are skills that one develops to beat 'normal' games, there are also skills to beat 'no foldems'. it's not about what limit you play since you can face any texture on any limit. though some textures are more common on some limits than others. ringgames will help you become more rounded overall in your game. IMO.

you dont learn to 'grind it out' in tournies. the game ends when either you're out of chips, or you win. grinding involves the occasional rebuy and waiting hours on end for hands and situations to present themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
There ARE other poker skills, as you obviously already know, and was just wondering whether any of them ever come into play at the no foldem table.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are aware there are some higher limit players who have lots of trouble beating LL no foldem tables? (they usually end up table coaching and tilting. which is a good sign that there is a lack in his game as far as adjusting) i used to love those guys on my table at my old room. it's a different set of skills. though there is alot of crossover. but there is alot involved in even beating the 'easy' games consistently. see all the posts about hw to beat the loose passive games that crop up every 4-6 months. why arent they easily beating those games?

my point was, if your heart is in tournies, play tournies. you can learn alot from playing those, however, there are definite adjustments when going back to ring games.(if you're planning on switching) primarily to tighten up. but your learning may accelerate more if you're enjoying it and not fighting it( not getting anything out of it) and becoming disillusioned. also remember, it's not always the best player who wins the tourneys. sometimes even the biggest mope will win. one example, in a home tourney i used to play in there were a couple 2 + 2ers in it. there was a guy who was playing holdem basically for his 1st time. and he won. actually beating the 2+2er at the end. lots of the 'best' players will be close or make the final tables, but rarely actually win the thing. many pros and cons of ring player v tourney players.

im talking from my experience where i learned 1 form of holdem at a time. i had trouble switching from tournies to the ringers to where i finally said 'F' it and concentrated on beating the rings. then once i did that and had a good grasp of the game, i started dipping into tournies. again, i found there are bad habits a tourney player can develop that can hurt when going to the ringgame if you're not strong in one or the other. i had that problem which is why i finally decided to learn one at a time. kind of like learning one foreign language makes learning others easier.(though not as tough as languages) i dont see many bad habits from a ring game that will hurt a tourney game. i can see a strong ring player becoming a strong tourney player much faster than the other way around. but who knows, you may really grasp and excel in tourneys to where you wont feel like playing rings much. this is just how i approached it.

others may have a different take on it.

have a good one...

b

[sucka]

but combine 8 of these guys at a table and you are losing every hand on the river

Bleh - I twiddle my thumbs and play LL online to kill time in the evenings and build my bankroll.

I've been at it for months and consistently beat the .5/1 & 1/2 games for over 5BB/hour. Granted, I'm not going to retire or anything from my winnings but what I have done is parlay my inital $50 into nearly $1000 thanks to "grandpa's" that cold-call my raises with trash.

It's ABC poker down there in no foldem land. It teaches you how to play tight and aggressive and how to fold like the wind. Taking a bunch of horrid beats isn't all that bad either as you do build a skin.

Example - last night I raise 3 limpers from the SB with AA and the BB (who sucks) 3 bets me. Of course, this could mean anything - anyway - long story short he 3 bets me with K9c (I have the Ac) and flops a flush/open ended straight flush draw. Turn comes 5c and makes the nut flush for me and the straight flush for him.

Bad Beat? I dunno. Yeah, I lost 9BB's on that hand but got 14 back from him before the session was over.

Make sense?

[trillig]

2/4 tables, tight is right... don't bother bluffing, you already know why, play solid poker... only REAL enemy then is the rake.

Tournaments: Assuming you like NL...

Tight is right at first, let all the maniacs or wannabes ALL-IN knock each other out, or donate to your stack, then play solid poker after the first break...
I've played in 4 live tournaments so far, I did not get knocked early in any of them.

-t

[trillig]

I love dumb luck online play, I play only cheap online, and I rarely lose, I had some moron try to bluff me with his $10 stack in .01/.02 NL, it's a beautiful thang!

Stick to solid poker tactics, and ignore their baffoon play and it just doesn't matter, I still come out ahead.

I think the really hard thing about poker is this: PATIENCE... if you can't manage it, you'll mess up.

I just smile when I see someone consistently play Qxs and worse, because I know their chips WILL be mine eventually.... patience....

Keep working even when you fold... it's a must... online you get to take notes at most places, DO IT! [back up your files too, because the notes are stored on your PC only]

-t

[RydenStoompala]

You're right. I once read a book on the psychology of poker (in fact, I think that is the title) where the author admitted he spent too much time at low limits before moving up. Me too. Once I moved up, I got way better, way faster. Those 3-6, 48-8 and most of the 5-10's can drive you insane if you get consecutive bad tables full of lottery players. You tune your game up at those limits and move into the middle as quickly as you comfortably can afford. If you want to concentrate on tournaments, then get the hell out of the small stuff right now and change your game.It's a different world in tournaments.

[Still the Spank E]

Really—thanks! Everyone said very helpful things. This past weekend I decided to try the no-limit tournament at the Tropicana and found precisely those things I was looking for in the poker experience: 1. Few/No Lottery players; and, 2. Tough Play; 3. No Betting Limits. I didn’t place—I didn’t expect to—but I LOVED IT! The difference, it seems to me, in getting one’s poker lessons here, versus at the low limit tables is the cost: one can play the same super-tight game at either and the tournament is going to cost you a minimum of 1 buy-in, (& registration fee) plus however many rebuys and add-ons one is prepared to go for until one begins playing well enough to place in the money. The LL’s, by contrast, offer the possibility of learning for free, for very little cost, or even finishing positive.

The fact is, I’m torn as to what I want to do. No Limit is what I want to play, while I recognize—thanks to the learned council of the 2+2ers—that the process of working one’s way up through the levels is either incredibly valuable, according to many, or even inescapable, in the view several. By contrast, though, a couple of you have maintained that going directly to the NL tournaments is the thing to do if that’s where one’s heart is.

From everything I’ve read, I’m still not the sure that the poker skills to be learned from both aren’t identical, as one apparently CAN run into lottery players playing tournament poker, just like at the low-limits. I’m not in any way disregarding what those of you who’ve recommended dues-paying at the low limits have to say, just trying to glean from what’s been written what my next move is. It will probably be bankroll-dependent from one week to the next. I’ll tell you this: once the day comes when I begin to fairly regularly start sneaking into the lower tiers of the payout structure at the tourneys, I don’t anticipate ever going back—no limit is just too much fun!

[trillig]

Yeah NO LIMIT rocks... problem with it is, inconsistency...

Without a doubt (in my feeble mind anyhow) there is a ton of luck involved in tournaments. One mistake and you could be toast... but yes the excitement is definitely worth the price of admission....

I can't imagine (ok I am lying here I can) staring down Johnny Chan and Layne Flack at my WSOP table after one comes in for a 50k raise and the other reraises 100k in front of you pre-flop with AA in your hand, and you have exactly 150k in chips. You are of course calling but... this could be it... adrenlin rush waiting for the board...

-t

[bernie]

congrats!

you will run into lots, and lots of lottery players in tourneys. in fact, ill go so far as to say you (generally) have to have some 'lottery' in ya to really win em.

one example: phil ivey against moneymaker in the WSOP. moneymaker flops trips. ivey way overcalls a huge bet with a mid pair. hits, then gets resucked out on on the river.

although phil lost, he had enough 'lottery' in him to go for it. which is one reason he is somewhat successful in tourneys.

much funner game when you're having fun though, isnt it?

b