Profitability advice

[Tsushima]

My first post and I am after some advice /images/graemlins/smile.gif

First some background. I discovered internet poker a couple of months ago and I am very impressed with the profit making potential even for a relatively inexperienced player. I decided fairly quickly it was worth the investment of both money and time to check it out more thoroughly and therefore bought Wilson's Turbo Holdem program and Poker Tracker and I have read about a dozen poker books. I played around with different sites and limits and tried both cash and tournament games before eventually deciding to concentrate on 3/6 limit at Party.

Since I started officially trying to make money from this about 12 days ago, I have won $1800 with a win rate of 12 BB/100 over 2600 hands (about $43 hour). I am playing as per Lee Carson's Low Limits book and Matthew Hilger's Internet Texas Holdem plus taking into account some advice from Theory of Poker by David Sklansky. I am playing about one hand in 5 and concentrating on playing correct pot/implied odds and ensuring I get out quickly when there is little to go for.
However, I take detailed notes on betting patterns and keep the tracker stats up to date within about ten hands so I adjust my betting depending on the styles of the players. I also change tables if the number of people seeing the flop is low.

So to my questions.

Firstly, from what I have read in books and on forums, my win rate is very high, although it has been consistent at 12BB/100 throughout with little fluctuation on a daily basis over the last 12 days. Am I correct in assuming that I am probably just being lucky and this will drop over time? If so, what is a realistic win rate for a reasonable player on the $3/$6 tables.

I read also that a lot of people play several tables. How does this usually affect the win rate. The main problem I find with playing multiple tables is that I can't do the degree of analysis of other players that the internet allows. I make most of my profit by identifying the loose passives and their betting pattern then concentrating on getting into hands with them. Once they lose all their money, I switch tables and go looking for more. Is playing multiple tables purely on good starting hands and good odds more profitable than analysing the players on just one or maybe two tables? What level of experience will I need before playing multiple tables becomes a realistic option?

I also see from the forums that people try to move to higher limits as soon as their bankroll allows. Assuming that better players play at higher limits and therefore the win rate for even a good player will be reduced, why don't players stay at lower limits and take advantage of weak players? Is this because there are weak players at higher limits too or does the increase in BB size sufficiently compensate for any reduction in win rate in BB per hour?

Any advice for a newbie welcomed. I don't mind flames either as long as they are creative /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Tsushima.

[sumdumguy]

where are you making 12BB/100H's? I want some !

[Lori]

Hi there,

First off, your question regarding your win rate.
I'm impressed that anyone with your background is winning much at all, let alone at the rate you are saying. The reality is that you have been running well.
Your methods and stats appear to be all in the right shapej and your approach is logical.
I'll let more regular limit players answer the win rate question, but yours is well over the 'maximum'
You are also lacking one thing that will drive your rate higher, and that is experience.
Despite having done everything logically and in an impressive fashion, you will still be making experience related mistakes that are quite costly.
As to my guess, which at the game you described will be less informed than other people's, I'd say 3-4BB/100 would be a very good start.

That being said, playing one table and concentrating hard will have been a very sensible move and I don't doubt that in the short term you could win at this rate.
The two-tabling question is a personal one. For me, I can do almost twice as well at two tables than three, but adding a third hardly adds any value at all, so I save three tables for burning off bonuses, where the extra speed of bonus adds to my win rate.
Many here can play three, or more, and still add more to their win rate. (I can play up to four at NL and still increase)

The simple question of bankroll is this, if you can win 3BB per hour at 3/6 or 1BB an hour at 10/20 and can afford to withstand the swings at 10/20, then you have a 10% payrise by moving up.
In time you will find a level that is your highest earn rate.

Making intelligent posts like this one is a great way to improve your knowledge, and there are players who can answer this better than me.
Thought I'd give you something to read while you await their replies as your first post is always a somewhat daunting exercise.

Good Luck,

Lori

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi there,

First off, your question regarding your win rate.
I'm impressed that anyone with your background is winning much at all, let alone at the rate you are saying. The reality is that you have been running well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought as much. For the first six weeks when I was messing around with different games and sites I was running even over time, although with fluctuations either way. The primary lesson I learned during that period was emotional control. I try to play the same if I am winning big or losing big or if my flopped straight just got beaten by a backdoor flush. I have learned to laugh at my bad beats and take them as a positive by knowing that I will win over time against players who play against the odds and get lucky occasionally. I have had one or too hilarious days /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The other big lesson I have learned is to get out fast when I don't have anything worth playing. Over time, the 'one small bet to see the turn' can prove costly if the odds don't justify it.

There are still some weaknesses in my play (that even I am aware of). I try to steal too much and try to defend too much, although I think I am now on top of the latter. When I bluff I sometimes forget to check my stats and end up trying to bluff calling stations. I need to spend a moment more considering instead of just going ahead and putting in that bet. A little occasional bluffing is OK just to get the calling stations to keep calling but I can win enough by solid play at low limits so I need to bluff less.

I am also concerned that I am not aggressive enough pre-flop. My pre-flop raising is running at about 4%, which I think is on the low side. I know I need to reduce the number of players with big pairs but I am always tempted to slowplay aces and kings in early position to get more bettors in the hand then raise on the flop. I also tend to just bet/call pre-flop with high suited cards such as AKs or AQs so I can raise with a good pair post-flop or hide the potential flush draw. Again, the books reccommend raising pre-flop. I think I should just go ahead and bet them because there are enough low limit players who will call a pre-flop raise with very little. I would be interested in other's opinions on the best strategy in these situations.

[ QUOTE ]
Your methods and stats appear to be all in the right shapej and your approach is logical.
I'll let more regular limit players answer the win rate question, but yours is well over the 'maximum'
You are also lacking one thing that will drive your rate higher, and that is experience.
Despite having done everything logically and in an impressive fashion, you will still be making experience related mistakes that are quite costly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, my main concern is not knowing what I don't know (if that makes any sense at all /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[ QUOTE ]
As to my guess, which at the game you described will be less informed than other people's, I'd say 3-4BB/100 would be a very good start.

That being said, playing one table and concentrating hard will have been a very sensible move and I don't doubt that in the short term you could win at this rate.
The two-tabling question is a personal one. For me, I can do almost twice as well at two tables than three, but adding a third hardly adds any value at all, so I save three tables for burning off bonuses, where the extra speed of bonus adds to my win rate.
Many here can play three, or more, and still add more to their win rate. (I can play up to four at NL and still increase)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I will stick with one for now to see how my win rate holds up and and then try two maybe when I get to 5000 hands and see how the win rate compares. I should also be able to analyse the situation on each table faster by then

[ QUOTE ]
The simple question of bankroll is this, if you can win 3BB per hour at 3/6 or 1BB an hour at 10/20 and can afford to withstand the swings at 10/20, then you have a 10% payrise by moving up.
In time you will find a level that is your highest earn rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

After trying two tables I might try one table at 5/10 for a while and see how my hourly earn rate compares. It will take a while to find out the best level and the analysis will be more complicated because my skill and experience should be increasing over time (I hope).

[ QUOTE ]
Making intelligent posts like this one is a great way to improve your knowledge, and there are players who can answer this better than me.
Thought I'd give you something to read while you await their replies as your first post is always a somewhat daunting exercise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Its good to find a forum like this where I can increase my knowledge and hopefully avoid problems others have already run into to.

Tsushima

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
where are you making 12BB/100H's? I want some !

[/ QUOTE ]

Party Poker. Although I think I am just being lucky at the moment. Time will tell /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Tsushima

[Lori]

Despite the sometimes hostile relations between this forum (The zoo) and the Small Stakes (SS) forum, you may find reading through some posts at Small Stakes, and posting hands for critique will be beneficial, if only to confirm to yourself that you are playing correctly.

Don't expect me to say kind words about them too often /images/graemlins/tongue.gif, but they may well be of more use to you than we are.

Lori

[LetsRock]

I'd say that you are on a very hot run right now and that you can't count on continuing to win 12BB/100 hands for the long run. To continue on that pace for any length of time would be phenominal. It's easy to laugh at the bad beats when you are in this kind of zone - see how you react to them when you are in the other zone (can't win a pot for 3 days) and see how you like them then. That will be your litmus test on dealing with bad beats.

I personally don't care for multiple table play. I gain some edge by focusing on the other players (as you do) and find it impossible to keep up with 2 tables, let alone 3 or 4. And it never fails, that you seem to end up with playable hands on both tables at the same time which can really cross you up. It's probably worth it to you to try it for a couple of hours and see if it works for you.

Once you've established that you can beat a given level (your short term ressults to date do not qualify as established), you should try the next level. If your game (and bankroll) is solid enough to earn XBB/hr at one level, you'll make more $/hr if you can carry the same success rate to the higher game. You don't have to play there exclusively or any longer than you're comfortable with. If you move up and get crushed you can always go back to where it works for you. You should give it enough time to determine if you're getting crushed due to bad luck or tough opponents. If it's just the cards, give it some time; if it's the opponents you can decide to work on improving your game and sticking it out for a while or go back to where the profits are for you.

On the site where I have my biggest bankroll, I'm splitting time between 2/4 and 3/6 and am finding no significant difference in play between these 2 levels (in fact I'm doing better in the 3/6 game!). I haven't ventured into 5/10 yet (bankroll way to small for that) but I have played 4/8 live a couple times with mixed results (won first session (even with cold cards); lost second session and I knew better than to be in the 2nd session as long as I was - a combination of a self test ("lets see if I can play with these guys") and stubborness ("I don't get to play B&M much, so play damn it!").

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say that you are on a very hot run right now and that you can't count on continuing to win 12BB/100 hands for the long run. To continue on that pace for any length of time would be phenominal. It's easy to laugh at the bad beats when you are in this kind of zone - see how you react to them when you are in the other zone (can't win a pot for 3 days) and see how you like them then. That will be your litmus test on dealing with bad beats.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have those days. When I was learning my way around I lost $600 in three days and that was when I finally brought my tendency to tilt under control.

[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't care for multiple table play. I gain some edge by focusing on the other players (as you do) and find it impossible to keep up with 2 tables, let alone 3 or 4. And it never fails, that you seem to end up with playable hands on both tables at the same time which can really cross you up. It's probably worth it to you to try it for a couple of hours and see if it works for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have tried playing four tables at once this afternoon for an hour and broke even. The problem is I feel like I am betting with no information about the person betting and that would normally have a major influence on whether I bet or not. I am going to stick with one table for the foreseeable future because I think my reading of other players (along with solid play) is my best route to profit (at the moment anyway).

[ QUOTE ]
Once you've established that you can beat a given level (your short term ressults to date do not qualify as established), you should try the next level. If your game (and bankroll) is solid enough to earn XBB/hr at one level, you'll make more $/hr if you can carry the same success rate to the higher game. You don't have to play there exclusively or any longer than you're comfortable with. If you move up and get crushed you can always go back to where it works for you. You should give it enough time to determine if you're getting crushed due to bad luck or tough opponents. If it's just the cards, give it some time; if it's the opponents you can decide to work on improving your game and sticking it out for a while or go back to where the profits are for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried a 5/10 table this afternoon for an hour and won $160. Apart from being a little scary at first due to the size of the pots the standard on the one table I tried didn't seem very different to 3/6. The See Flop percentage from Poker Tracker was about 40%. I am going to keep trying 5/10 for a while and see how it pans out.

Tsushima

[tiltboy]

Who is Lee Carson? I've never heard of him/her. Do you mean the books by Lee Jones and/or Gary Carson?

Do I understand you correctly that you are claiming a win rate of 12BB/100 hands playing on one table?

I do thank you for posting your finely constructed story for us to mull over. These stories are always a delight.

[shandrakor]

So, you regularly play one table, but to "try out" the idea of multiple tables, you jumped straight to four tables, played for an hour, and then gave up on the whole idea?

You know, your original post made you seem semi-rational, but now I'm convinced that you're either insane, or making this whole thing up. Care to share which one it is?

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
Who is Lee Carson? I've never heard of him/her. Do you mean the books by Lee Jones and/or Gary Carson?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I didn't have the books in front of me. Holdem Poker by Gary Carson and Winning Low Limit Holdem by Lee Jones. I have read that many poker books in the last few weeks its no wonder I get them confused /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Do I understand you correctly that you are claiming a win rate of 12BB/100 hands playing on one table?

I do thank you for posting your finely constructed story for us to mull over. These stories are always a delight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't claiming anything. I was just reporting the stats from Poker Tracker. My bankroll has gone up at the correct rate though which confirms PT is correct.

I assume from the tone of your mail that you think I just made it all up. If you choose to believe I would waste my time and effort making that up that's entirely up to you but I glad I don't live in your machiavellian wonderland.

If my reported win rate (which I said I thought was probably luck) bothers you, then simply don't read any of my posts.

Tsushima

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you regularly play one table, but to "try out" the idea of multiple tables, you jumped straight to four tables, played for an hour, and then gave up on the whole idea?

You know, your original post made you seem semi-rational, but now I'm convinced that you're either insane, or making this whole thing up. Care to share which one it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see this is going to be an entertaining forum /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Why would it take longer than an hour for me to figure out that playing four tables doesn't allow me to do any analysis?

People are reportedly playing on six or more tables so I thought I would try four, which is the maximum allowed by Party. I managed to play all four without too much of a problem and I could calculate the pot odds fast enough to determine whether to draw or not but no study of other bettors made it a robotic experience. I don't think three would be any better. Two is possible but I am going to stick with one for now.

I'll let you decide for yourself if I am insane or a Walter Mitty lookalike /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Tsushima

[shandrakor]

What you're not taking into account is that those people who are playing 6 tables have been playing poker for longer than 12 days. Much, much longer.

Are you familiar with the saying "You must learn to walk before you can run"? What we have here is a situation where you've effectively just started walking and then signed up for the Boston Marathon. Having done poorly in the race, you've given up on jogging alltogether.

Learning poker, like most things in life, is a series of baby steps. Jumping straight from one table to four for an hour, and using that to make a decision about all multitable play? Perhaps insane was too strong a word to use, but it's certainly very irrational behavior.

What you're dismissing out of hand, the ability to play two tables at once, is one of the greatest profit-making opportunities inherent in online poker. The jump from 3/6 to 5/10 is 60%. The jump from 3/6 to two tables of 3/6 is 100%

Maybe it's not for you, but dismissing it without trying it is...silly.

[itsmarty]

I'd stick with one table for a couple of months, especially if you're also working on moving up in limits. You'll learn a lot more about your game and other's.

[ QUOTE ]
A little occasional bluffing is OK just to get the calling stations to keep calling but I can win enough by solid play at low limits so I need to bluff less.

[/ QUOTE ]

At low limits, not bluffing at all would be more correct than bluffing frequently, so I think you're definitely on the right path by cutting back.

Martin

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
What you're not taking into account is that those people who are playing 6 tables have been playing poker for longer than 12 days. Much, much longer.

Are you familiar with the saying "You must learn to walk before you can run"? What we have here is a situation where you've effectively just started walking and then signed up for the Boston Marathon. Having done poorly in the race, you've given up on jogging alltogether.

Learning poker, like most things in life, is a series of baby steps. Jumping straight from one table to four for an hour, and using that to make a decision about all multitable play? Perhaps insane was too strong a word to use, but it's certainly very irrational behavior.

What you're dismissing out of hand, the ability to play two tables at once, is one of the greatest profit-making opportunities inherent in online poker. The jump from 3/6 to 5/10 is 60%. The jump from 3/6 to two tables of 3/6 is 100%

Maybe it's not for you, but dismissing it without trying it is...silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't dismissing it, I was simply saying that I didn't think it would be a good idea for me to play four tables at the moment based on my style of play. When I have more experience I will try it again.

I am not convinced that playing two tables at once would double my current profit because I would be able to apply only half my effort to each table. When I am not in a hand I am recording how others bet so I can determine their hands more effectively when I am in a hand. I can't do that to the same degree on two or more tables at once.

However, with two tables I obviously only need a little over 50% of the win rate to make it worthwhile. I will give it another try with two tables and see if I can still carry out my analysis effectively.

Tsushima

[Lori]

However, with two tables I obviously only need a little over 50% of the win rate to make it worthwhile. I will give it another try with two tables and see if I can still carry out my analysis effectively.



You may wish to start off by assigning a main table and a secondary table, and concentrating more on one than the other.

Lori

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
However, with two tables I obviously only need a little over 50% of the win rate to make it worthwhile. I will give it another try with two tables and see if I can still carry out my analysis effectively.



You may wish to start off by assigning a main table and a secondary table, and concentrating more on one than the other.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea. I was considering playing one table as normal and then doing my best to play the other solidly without worrying too much about player analysis.

In fact, I'll go and try that right now /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Tsushima

[tiltboy]

[ QUOTE ]
If my reported win rate (which I said I thought was probably luck) bothers you, then simply don't read any of my posts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, but I think in the nearly four years I've posted here I've managed to figure out what my options are with regard to posts such as the one you made. Believe me, my time has been wasted here responding to much more inane topics than the one you presented. And since I firmly believe the old aphorism 'what's good for the goose..', if you are offended by the tone of my responses you are free to ignore them.

Do you mind sharing your Party nick? I've got about 12k $3/6 hands in pokertracker there myself. Maybe we have crossed paths.

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If my reported win rate (which I said I thought was probably luck) bothers you, then simply don't read any of my posts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, but I think in the nearly four years I've posted here I've managed to figure out what my options are with regard to posts such as the one you made. Believe me, my time has been wasted here responding to much more inane topics than the one you presented. And since I firmly believe the old aphorism 'what's good for the goose..', if you are offended by the tone of my responses you are free to ignore them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take your sound advice

Tsushima

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, with two tables I obviously only need a little over 50% of the win rate to make it worthwhile. I will give it another try with two tables and see if I can still carry out my analysis effectively.



You may wish to start off by assigning a main table and a secondary table, and concentrating more on one than the other.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea. I was considering playing one table as normal and then doing my best to play the other solidly without worrying too much about player analysis.

In fact, I'll go and try that right now /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I have tried playing two and three tables for about ten hours over the last two days and overall I lost about $50. I tried to concentrate on a primary table but it is more difficult with the distraction. I also found to difficult to remember the betting patterns when involved in multiple simultaneous hands which meant it was far harder to figure out the hands of other players. Overall, compared to concentrating on heavily analysing players on one table it felt like playing in the dark and was far less profitable.

Although ten hours may not be seen as a sufficiently long test period, it has convinced me my highest profit lies in one table for now. Maybe as I get more experience I will try two and three tables again.

One thing I did notice however was that when playing multiple tables is that the flop you are hoping for (given your hole cards) always happens on the next table /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Tsushima

[Norm]

[ QUOTE ]
Although ten hours may not be seen as a sufficiently long test period, it has convinced me my highest profit lies in one table for now. Maybe as I get more experience I will try two and three tables again.


[/ QUOTE ]
Stick to one for now, but periodically try 2. I know 4 months ago when I first started online, 2 tables would boggle my mind. Then it became easy, and then 3, 4, 5. Just do it slowly (one added table at a time) and get used to it. Also you do not have to test yourself for 10 hours - do an hour and if you get tired, drop down to one again, rinse, repeat.

[paland]

I too, have noticed that my win rate is fairly high (8BB/H) and was wondering why it is reported so low on the forum at times. I think that there are several reasons (hot streak) that ours is so high is:

1) Since we concentrate on one table, we can assess the situation better than in multiple tables.
2) The 2-4 and 3-6 tables are much looser, with as many as 2-3 extra players in many winning pots. If 60 Hands per hour is played, 5-7 wins, that makes about $4-$12 extra in the pot through extra callers in about half of the wins. This can add up to $30-40 per hour on that alone. Subtract the occasional river hit these extra callers get and you still pick up an extra nifty profit from them.

I found that many pots at the $5-10 are about the same as the 3-6 or even the 2-4 sometimes, because of the tightness of the game. The lower limit games and still leave a decent size pot with low cost.

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although ten hours may not be seen as a sufficiently long test period, it has convinced me my highest profit lies in one table for now. Maybe as I get more experience I will try two and three tables again.


[/ QUOTE ]
Stick to one for now, but periodically try 2. I know 4 months ago when I first started online, 2 tables would boggle my mind. Then it became easy, and then 3, 4, 5. Just do it slowly (one added table at a time) and get used to it. Also you do not have to test yourself for 10 hours - do an hour and if you get tired, drop down to one again, rinse, repeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't ten hours at one go /images/graemlins/smile.gif I tend to play in 2-3 stretches then do something else for a while because I begin to lose concentration.

Thanks for the advice. I will try it again when I have more experience.

Tsushima

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
I too, have noticed that my win rate is fairly high (8BB/H) and was wondering why it is reported so low on the forum at times. I think that there are several reasons (hot streak) that ours is so high is:

1) Since we concentrate on one table, we can assess the situation better than in multiple tables.
2) The 2-4 and 3-6 tables are much looser, with as many as 2-3 extra players in many winning pots. If 60 Hands per hour is played, 5-7 wins, that makes about $4-$12 extra in the pot through extra callers in about half of the wins. This can add up to $30-40 per hour on that alone. Subtract the occasional river hit these extra callers get and you still pick up an extra nifty profit from them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I also carry on in post-flop situations where I would normally fold if I am against those players who play 60% (or more) of hands and tend to bet with nothing. I can't do that on multiple tables because I don't have time to assess that possibility. Likewise, I can build up the pots better when I do have a good hand if I know how players respond to raises and whether they like to bluff if they think I have nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
I found that many pots at the $5-10 are about the same as the 3-6 or even the 2-4 sometimes, because of the tightness of the game. The lower limit games and still leave a decent size pot with low cost.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which of the limits you mentioned do you find gives the best return? Does 5/10 give you enough BB per hour to make it better than 3/6 or does the increased tightness mean that overall the sixty percent rise in BB value does not compensate for the reduction in BB/Hour (assuming there is a reduction /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

Tsushima

[astroglide]

8bb/hr is unreasonably high.

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
8bb/hr is unreasonably high.

[/ QUOTE ]

So people have said. I made 7BB/Hr over 2500 hands playing one table (party 3/6). I tried playing 2-4 tables at once for about 1200 hands and just about broke even.

Are there any readers who just concentrate on one table because I am wondering if people saying that 8BB is unreasonably high are comparing that to the win rate of someone playing 4 tables at once.

Is 7BB/Hour unrealistic under any circumstances, or just if you play multiple tables? What is a realistic win rate concentrating entirely on one table with all the benefits gained in reading opponents

For instance, I won a $50 pot earlier on a 3/6 because I figured out someone's betting pattern and knew they probably had nothing. So I called to the river with second pair and won. I would never do that playing multi-tables because I would usually assume I needed at least top pair with a decent kicker. So that's maybe 5BB profit from one hand that I wouldn't have made playing multiple tables.

I win that type of hand all the time concentrating on a single table, plus I can get the pot higher when I have a good hand because I know how different players respond to checks, bets and raises.

Tsushima

[paland]

Tsushima, I couldn't agree more with you. It seems as though we play the same game. I play differently on 2-4 and 3-6 than on higher games or B&M games. The 2-4 is very nice to me and I can make just as much there as the 5-10. I too, learn the betting tendencies and take advantage of them. This only works at Party Poker for me. I don't see the same looseness at UB or Paradise.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any readers who just concentrate on one table because I am wondering if people saying that 8BB is unreasonably high are comparing that to the win rate of someone playing 4 tables at once.

[/ QUOTE ]
read a book. any book. they play in casinos, 1 table at a time. almost all of them will suggest that 2bb/hr is a PROFESSIONAL'S win rate. more hands per hour will fire off online, so 3bb/hr could be closer to appropriate.

2500 hands is absolutely nothing. you are not special, and you should come to terms with this now so that it won't hit you like a ton of bricks.

[paland]

But the professionals percentage takes into consideration; tips, drinks or soda's and they take a decent hit on those too.

They are also playing against much better players than the very low limits (1-2 thru 3-6). Sure they may get a few fish, but not generally. The worst players are at the very low limits.

Also we play at least twice as fast online. I played at the Bellagio on one of their 4-8 games and it's not the same. Even when they try to go fast, errors occur, drinks spill, people take time to get chips, someone pinches the cocktail waitress' ass, etc.. It's just not the same. I think that a person averages much more per hour online.

[astroglide]

i already stated what i needed to state. re-read it.

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
Tsushima, I couldn't agree more with you. It seems as though we play the same game. I play differently on 2-4 and 3-6 than on higher games or B&M games. The 2-4 is very nice to me and I can make just as much there as the 5-10. I too, learn the betting tendencies and take advantage of them. This only works at Party Poker for me. I don't see the same looseness at UB or Paradise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also found Party to be the best site. The play seems generally looser at low limits than other sites I have tried.

Tsushima

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are there any readers who just concentrate on one table because I am wondering if people saying that 8BB is unreasonably high are comparing that to the win rate of someone playing 4 tables at once.

[/ QUOTE ]
read a book. any book. they play in casinos, 1 table at a time. almost all of them will suggest that 2bb/hr is a PROFESSIONAL'S win rate. more hands per hour will fire off online, so 3bb/hr could be closer to appropriate.

2500 hands is absolutely nothing. you are not special, and you should come to terms with this now so that it won't hit you like a ton of bricks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed to be special and stated several times that my win rate could be just luck. I have also read a LOT of poker books and my playing stats in PT seem to match the recommended amount of VIP, PFR, etc. I am obviously not hugely experienced but I believe I am playing sensibly which is probably enough to win at 3/6 Party. However, your reply doesn't answer my original question.

I am happy to accept that a professionals win rate is perhaps 3BB hour on the internet but I assume you are talking about 30/60 limits or similar where the standard of play is much higher.

Are you seriously stating that a professional that makes 3BB/Hr on 30/60 would still only make 3BB/Hr on 3/6 with the FAR lower standard of play?

Tsushima

[paland]

You also have to consider that many who think they are professional, aren't. By reading at many websites, I have found very contradictiing strategies. You have to really weed out the players who play and think they are professional so they make a website.

[astroglide]

answering directly, most 30/60 players would get killed at 3/6, just like most 3/6 players would get killed at 30/60. there is a huge difference in the type of poker that is being played.

the 3bb/hr rate would roughly apply to professionals at both levels.

[MicroBob]

"someone pinches the cocktail waitress' ass"


whoops....sorry, didn't mean to hold up the game.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
answering directly, most 30/60 players would get killed at 3/6

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? This is an absurd thing to say lol.

[astroglide]

no it isn't. there is a huge adjustment that is necessary, and most mid-limit players will take marginal hands way too far, try to put moves on people before they realize that they're calling stations, etc. 3/6 is many-way showdown poker, and 30/60 players are not used to that. it's the same effect that causes tourney players to lose in ring games - it's a large, backward adjustment.

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
answering directly, most 30/60 players would get killed at 3/6, just like most 3/6 players would get killed at 30/60. there is a huge difference in the type of poker that is being played.

the 3bb/hr rate would roughly apply to professionals at both levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...

I think we are far enough apart in our estimate of the abilities of professional poker players to survive in the hostile world of 3/6 limit on Party that we can just agree to disagree /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Tsushima

[richie]

If you continue to win 12BB/100 hands over the next 30,000 hands or so please let us know. If you do, perhaps you should write your own book /images/graemlins/smile.gif Good luck

[astroglide]

i look forward to your 'what happened?' post.

[jonahmavesin]

Hi tsushima and paland,

Welcome to the forum. Tsu, very nice first post. You are thinking very clearly and rationally.

To answer your questions directly:
8BB/hour is unrealistic even for 1 table taking notes, etc.

The way this is usually calculated: Professional rates for a live game is around 2BB/hr. We mortals are usually in the 1-1.5 range. Live games hit ~30 hands/hr. Online you should hit ~50+ hands/hr. So the online BB/hr per table should be in the 2+ range for a winning player. BB/100 at 50 hands/hr, therefore, would be about double that figure, or 4-5BB/100. Multiple tables multiplies the rate, accounting for a loss of performance.

So, 8BB/100 is almost certainly too high, and the result of a good run. 8BB/hr is pretty much inconceivable.

Here's the real key - you don't really know your win rate for sure until you hit at least 10,000 hands, and no one will really believe you until you hit 30,000. Variance is just too high otherwise.

I have 7,000 hands booked at 1/2. My BB/100 is 5.27, which I suspect is still a bit on the high side. But in 7,000 hands, I have had rates of 10+, to (-3), for sustained periods.

Play for a few months, then come back and post your results. You will find a lot less hostility to claims of super-high win rates. Of course, long before then, you will likely come back to post the "How long can I go on with these god-danged suckouts????" message. I know I did.

Be prepared. The downs are way longer than you can believe. My rule of thumb is, a bad run tends to last until such a time as you can't remember what it was like to win. It feels like a totally different game. Only then will it change. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jerome baker]

is possible cuz the 30/60 players wont be able to play their A game. that say, winning 3/6 players playing their A game very likely might get smoked at 30/60 cuz of the difference in style (more agg), mental aspects (higher steaks yum), and collusion (3060 games has a higher chance of collusion than 36).

[paland]

I'm not worried about bad luck. I gave some Hare Kirishna's some money at the airport and they said that I will have good luck for the rest of my life. The next day, my wife left me. So it seems to be working.

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi tsushima and paland,

Welcome to the forum. Tsu, very nice first post. You are thinking very clearly and rationally.

To answer your questions directly:
8BB/hour is unrealistic even for 1 table taking notes, etc.

The way this is usually calculated: Professional rates for a live game is around 2BB/hr. We mortals are usually in the 1-1.5 range. Live games hit ~30 hands/hr. Online you should hit ~50+ hands/hr. So the online BB/hr per table should be in the 2+ range for a winning player. BB/100 at 50 hands/hr, therefore, would be about double that figure, or 4-5BB/100. Multiple tables multiplies the rate, accounting for a loss of performance.

So, 8BB/100 is almost certainly too high, and the result of a good run. 8BB/hr is pretty much inconceivable.

Here's the real key - you don't really know your win rate for sure until you hit at least 10,000 hands, and no one will really believe you until you hit 30,000. Variance is just too high otherwise.

I have 7,000 hands booked at 1/2. My BB/100 is 5.27, which I suspect is still a bit on the high side. But in 7,000 hands, I have had rates of 10+, to (-3), for sustained periods.

Play for a few months, then come back and post your results. You will find a lot less hostility to claims of super-high win rates. Of course, long before then, you will likely come back to post the "How long can I go on with these god-danged suckouts????" message. I know I did.

Be prepared. The downs are way longer than you can believe. My rule of thumb is, a bad run tends to last until such a time as you can't remember what it was like to win. It feels like a totally different game. Only then will it change. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the advice. I am going to stick with one table at 3/6 for a while and see how things develop, although I have started logging on to two tables together for 20-30 hands to see how they play and they choosing one to stick with for a while.

I have noticed that games with high pot averages are only good for a while as better players come into the game for some action. Once the average number seeing the flop drops into the 32-33 range, unless there are some seriously loose players still at the table, I quit and find two more tables and start again.

Is this a good idea or should I stick to the table where I have developed some knowledge of the players?

Tsushima

[Ulysses]

I agree w/ Paluka.

[astroglide]

it is very well-documented. higher players are not used to lower games, try to play on a higher level, and don't care enough about the money. i've seen it happen all the time when people are slumming at the casino waiting for a bigger seat.

[tiger1]

No freaking way. 30/60 players can win at any limit if they are winning players. They must change their strategy somewhat but most sophisticated players can and must adjust to the game they are playing in.

I've playing in some 30/60 games that are like 3/6 and vice versa. Most people I know build their bankroll by playing at low limit and then can move up as their bankroll grows.

Also, it is harder to win 2 BB per hour as the limits go up. 2 BB/hr is a good earning at low limit and 1 BB/hr is good at higher limits.

[astroglide]

you want to disagree with me, not ulysses. people lose their low limit 'skills' when they move up. it's not like riding a bicycle. they will tend to overplay (trying to get a fold vs a calling station) and pay off too much (calling down because their opponents are so terrible).

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]

Play for a few months, then come back and post your results. You will find a lot less hostility to claims of super-high win rates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the entire post, minus the above quote. I know in the past when I was a little more of a newb to this forum, I posted my winrates a couple times and asked stuff about it. The truth of the matter is, a majority of posters don't care and don't want to read them. The feedback you give to posted hands will say enough about how much of a winning player you are.

[Nottom]

Theres a difference between not beating a lower limit game and not being able to beat the game. Sure there are probably some high limit players that will get too tricky in low limits or just don't care about losing $100, but I think most truely winning players should easily be able to beat your average 3/6 game if they wanted to.

[Poker blog]

There's no question the average 30/60 player can beat the 3/6. There may be a player somewhere who can beat the 30/60, but not the 3/6....but I wouldn't take that bet.

Interestingly enough, I played with this Tsushima guy yesterday or today. He caught cards on me. Not that he played incorrectly, but he definitely caught cards twice when we were headsup.

I think he's a winning player. But not a 12BBs/100 winning player.

[Jim Kuhn]

[ QUOTE ]
I played around with different sites and limits and tried both cash and tournament games before eventually deciding to concentrate on 3/6 limit at Party.


[/ QUOTE ]

It appears to me that you may be 'choosing your starting point based on your results'. What are your overall stats? It is very easy to have a losing streak and disregard it. Everyone wants to see their stats inflated. This could be a case that 'figures do not lie! But liars do a whole lot of figuring!'. I think you need to look at your whole poker playing picture and not just a 'hand picked segment of your results'. I wish you luck and hope you can keep it up as long as you are not sitting at my table!

[Lunamondo]

[ QUOTE ]
I have won $1800 with a win rate of 12 BB/100 over 2600 hands (about $43 hour).

[/ QUOTE ]

300 big bets in 43 hours; I could tell that's Party poker without knowing it. The bad news is that you will also get similar down streaks.

Personally I think something is wrong about Parties fluctuations, and it not being only because of their loose games, but as long as one makes what one suppose to make in the long runs I suppose one might handle them, but one better be mentally and emotionally prepared for them. You got lucky to get the up swing first. With good luck you might not get anything bad for a long time, that though also will tell that there are times when one gets a huge down swing and doesn't get up for weeks or even months.

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have won $1800 with a win rate of 12 BB/100 over 2600 hands (about $43 hour).

[/ QUOTE ]

300 big bets in 43 hours; I could tell that's Party poker without knowing it. The bad news is that you will also get similar down streaks.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is so true. Up 300BB last week, cash out all but 90BB, then down to the felt yesterday.

[astroglide]

if they wanted to, but i suspect not many could be made to want to - thus the statement. it's about practice, not theory. as tourney players get crushed in ring games, so do higher limit players in lower games. it's not to say it's impossible, it's just that's it's not (often) done.

[JohnShaft]

Anyone who has worked their way up from Low Limit to Mid/High Limit games could *crush* LL games if they wanted to.
Anyone.

[astroglide]

'if they wanted to'

that is my point.

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have won $1800 with a win rate of 12 BB/100 over 2600 hands (about $43 hour).

[/ QUOTE ]

300 big bets in 43 hours; I could tell that's Party poker without knowing it. The bad news is that you will also get similar down streaks.

Personally I think something is wrong about Parties fluctuations, and it not being only because of their loose games, but as long as one makes what one suppose to make in the long runs I suppose one might handle them, but one better be mentally and emotionally prepared for them. You got lucky to get the up swing first. With good luck you might not get anything bad for a long time, that though also will tell that there are times when one gets a huge down swing and doesn't get up for weeks or even months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am hitting that at the moment. I won another $400 the day after I made the post to take me up to $2200 but the last few days have taken me back down to $1800. I don't think I am playing any different but taking a lot of bad beats through players staying with unrealistic hands and getting lucky. However, I am not too bothered about it as those are the sort of players I want to play against. I might get more bothered if it continues /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Tsushima

[MS Sunshine]

Spend less time looking at the profits and more at how to take advantage of other players. "Make good decisions" is your mantra.

MS Sunshine

[Tsushima]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no question the average 30/60 player can beat the 3/6. There may be a player somewhere who can beat the 30/60, but not the 3/6....but I wouldn't take that bet.

Interestingly enough, I played with this Tsushima guy yesterday or today. He caught cards on me. Not that he played incorrectly, but he definitely caught cards twice when we were headsup.

I think he's a winning player. But not a 12BBs/100 winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's OK, I don't think I am a 12BB/100 winning player either /images/graemlins/smile.gif My original post said I thought I was being lucky and wanted to know what a realistic win rate is. It sounds like I should be aiming for maybe 2BB/hour on 3/6.

I have also started playing a few sessions on 5/10 and there is a noticeable difference as players seem tighter, However, it also seems easier to read what people have as they play more realistically than at 3/6 and semi-bluffs work more often.

I have learned that bluffing is usually a bad idea at 3/6, (apart from the occasional one just to keep people guessig /images/graemlins/smile.gif) but there seems more scope for it based on the few 5/10 sessions I have played. Intersted to know if that really is the case or it just happened to be for the few sessions I played

What is your ID on Party?

Tsushima

[MS Sunshine]

I don't think your listening to what posters are saying. If you move to $30-60 in measured steps then you have learned the strategy needed to win at each level and have moved on. Refreshing your skills should take a mininum of time.

A winning $30-60 player could crush a $3-6 game if needed.

MS Sunshine

[astroglide]

i am listening, and i am aware. what i am saying is that in reality, it is unlikely that a 30/60 player would be able to play 3/6 well. one reason is the fact that they would have slight difficulty gearing down, and another is that they would have trouble taking the money seriously.

i did not, do not, and will not doubt that it is possible. what i am saying is that it is highly unlikely.