EV and time.

[EjnarPik]

I am reletively new to poker theory, but I am a little surprised that no-one ever includes the time spent playing, into their considerations.

If you simply see poker as a job, meaning you don't care about aestetics, or your ego, but simply care about the bottom-line, I think time should be included in the equation.

Let us assume you are a very good player, playing in a soft game. You are able to determine the strategy to give you the best EV. But as I see it, everybody calculates their EV by each dollar invested, disregarding the time spent.

Couldn't there be a better strategy, that would lower you EV, if calculated in (outcome/dollar invested), but raise it if calculated in (outcome/time invested)? Of course you would need an adaquate bankroll.

Something like it may be happening on internet poker. I sometimes plays in 4 games at a time. (I have a 19" monitor with good resolution, thus I can have 4 tables open and no overlaying.) I do believe that my game at each single table, is not as good as it would be if I concentrated solely on that game, but overall I believe my (outcome/ time invested) is bigger.

Another factor I have not seen mentioned, is the need to play with the fish'. If you are in a game with 2-3 very soft players, could it not be right to get in there with hands that are a notch below, what you would usually play. I think it is, for two reasons:

1) They are easier to outplay, thus giving your hand +EV your cards would normally not have.

2) You have to take the fish money before someone else does.

Of course such strategy would create greater variance, but again, you just need an adaqute bankroll.

I will have to add, that almost all my experience is from Pot-limit Omaha. That may easely have something to do with my wiews. (I believe it is easier to outplay people in Omaha, as the game is more complex.)

Any comments are welcome.

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[playerfl]

This is why people talk about big bets per hour, or BB/hr for short. Its pretty common on this board, keep reading.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Something like it may be happening on internet poker. I sometimes plays in 4 games at a time. (I have a 19" monitor with good resolution, thus I can have 4 tables open and no overlaying.) I do believe that my game at each single table, is not as good as it would be if I concentrated solely on that game, but overall I believe my (outcome/ time invested) is bigger.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not wrong.

When playing multiple games on the Internet the amount of attention you can spread around the games you are playing becomes the critical resource. (Well ok monitor space is a likely alternative.)

When playing live games, the amount of hands you get dealt is the limiting factor, so you need to get as much as possible out of each one.

There is a diminishing returns effect associated with the amount of effort you spend on a game compared with EV gain. There quickly comes a point where rather than spend extra time increasing your rate on one game, you gain more by opening a new game and spending the extra effort there.

The exact details of this effect is obviously very dependent on the individual and its probably difficult to make to many general statements.

As to you point about playing more hands against weaker players. Pot limit Omaha and limit Hold’em are worlds apart here. Be careful not to confuse.

[Louie Landale]

Good post.

The time factor is why most of us prefer to express our results in $/hour; since that compares readily to a job. If you make $20/hour playing poker and earn $25/hour plus benifits at a job, keep the job.

I don't think there is merit if figuring out at what point you would forgo a slight EV advantage by folding just to make the game go a tad faster. Thus, once in a game go for you best EV. Exception below.

But there IS a lot of merit to what you are saying in game selection. I don't play B&M Omahaha hi/low since its SO slow. Your 4 internet games at once is a great example; you make less per game than in a B&M but you get to play 4 games at once. And if you ARE playing 4 games I WOULD give up the real marginal starting hands since it playing those hands distracts you from more important decisions you could be making at the other tables: if you are in a raised multi-way pot on one table then don't call the raise marginally with KQ at the other. Also, playing tight on 4 tables is probably more profitable than playing "correctly" on 3, even if you play the same number of hands all together.

Yup, its well known and well talked about loosening up against the fish, such as calling UTG with KJ in a good game. The problem is that its a trap of the first magnitude and you will often find yourself playing twice as many hands as is "correct", and its tough to outplay them THAT much. But no, don't do it to get the fish money before someone else does, unless you are on a desert island: tomorrow is another fish.

Yup, this stuff is a lot more important than knowing when to call a raise with KQ and when not to.

- Louie

[playerfl]

just wanted to say dead right about pot limit omaha being a different beast. Playing 3 low limit holdem tables at once is no big deal, you can treat it like you are playing against a video game. Don't even try that with PLO.

[EjnarPik]

Do I have to return the money?

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[playerfl]

lol

just play 4 PLO tables at once and you will return it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[playerfl]

you might be able to play several limit omaha/8 tables at once at microlimits if you read your hands very quickly and accurately. I did this once when I was bored and it was ok but it dramatically increases the likelihood of misreading a hand. I was just warning you about pot limit because you can lose several hours profit in one hand.

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ QUOTE ]
I will have to add, that almost all my experience is from Pot-limit Omaha. That may easely have something to do with my wiews. (I believe it is easier to outplay people in Omaha, as the game is more complex.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think that PLO is more complex? I've played a fair bit of PLO and I think it's substantially simpler than, for example, holdem.

Jerrod

[EjnarPik]

Thank you for your reply.

[ QUOTE ]
Good post.

The time factor is why most of us prefer to express our results in $/hour; since that compares readily to a job. If you make $20/hour playing poker and earn $25/hour plus benifits at a job, keep the job.

I don't think there is merit if figuring out at what point you would forgo a slight EV advantage by folding just to make the game go a tad faster. Thus, once in a game go for you best EV. Exception below.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice put. That properbly says what I meant; when you decide to play, and you hold the hand, go for any +EV your bankroll can justify. (An infinit bankroll would justify any +EV, while a small bankroll would have you play only high +EV hands.) Right?


[ QUOTE ]
But there IS a lot of merit to what you are saying in game selection. I don't play B&M Omahaha hi/low since its SO slow. Your 4 internet games at once is a great example; you make less per game than in a B&M but you get to play 4 games at once. And if you ARE playing 4 games I WOULD give up the real marginal starting hands since it playing those hands distracts you from more important decisions you could be making at the other tables: if you are in a raised multi-way pot on one table then don't call the raise marginally with KQ at the other. Also, playing tight on 4 tables is probably more profitable than playing "correctly" on 3, even if you play the same number of hands all together.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's what I try to do, though I dont always succeed. I often play to many starting hands, even by my own loose standards, but I do not find it to be a big problem in Pot-limit Omaha, where the pots often get huge. Of course thats a leak in my game, more on that below. (I dont play high/low, and know very little about it.)


[ QUOTE ]
Yup, its well known and well talked about loosening up against the fish, such as calling UTG with KJ in a good game. The problem is that its a trap of the first magnitude and you will often find yourself playing twice as many hands as is "correct", and its tough to outplay them THAT much.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point, you have to be careful.

[ QUOTE ]
But no, don't do it to get the fish money before someone else does, unless you are on a desert island: tomorrow is another fish.

[/ QUOTE ]
Being from a different environment is proberbly what makes me comsider this. In Denmark, before the internet, tomorrow the fish would be gone. Also, if I should consider trying to make it as a pro, with only Pot-Limit Omaha as a game in which I could make money, I think I would have to consider it, as I can only make money in relatively soft games, which are not always at hand. But I agree that it is a seldom occurring thing, and therefore should only to be included in theory as an appendix.

Also, might such considerations not apply in some tournaments?


[ QUOTE ]
Yup, this stuff is a lot more important than knowing when to call a raise with KQ and when not to.

- Louie

[/ QUOTE ]
One of the major points I wanted to get across.

So I will ask what I should have asked in my first post: Is there anything written about this, or does no authors take it into consideration?


Now I'll move on to what I proberbly should have written in my first post. What I want poker to be for me, and many others I think:

Easy money. The easier, the better.

That's what I mean by disregarding the aestetics and ego. I will try to give an example: I love to play bridge. I memorize probabilety-charts, discuss theory in dephts and spend my holiday and my money travellign 400 miles, to play somebody I know will beat me. All because I want to play against and hopefully like, an expert. And I would like to be recognized as a good bridge-player. In poker I just want the money. I dont care if my game "sucks" by theoretical standards, and that I only win because my opponents games suck even more.

Some may feel like that about poker. That is fine. I do not consider my opinion on poker to be worth less or more than theirs. Just different.

I believe, that if you want make money playing poker, you have to put some resources into it. For me, and I think quite a number of people, the trick is to make as much money as possible, with as little effort as possible.

An obvious ressource to put into the game is time. Another ressource is mental effort.

Again, in bridge, if I let my concentration slip 10%, I might not qualify for a tourney, which I otherwise would have.

That is not so in Pot-Limit Omaha.

You can let your concentration slip, when the bet is $1, and shape up when the bet is $100. (Of course paying the one dollar. That will only cost you $1, while folding to a $1 bet, may cost you a big pot.

Going back to the mental effort, a game with some leaks in it, may have merit. Not because of the leaks, but because of the mental energy you save, not closing them. mental energy that can be used better elsewhere, inside or outside the game.

Now lets say you decide to play poker for 4 hours, just to make money. If you concentrate fully, you will make $200, while if you "take it easy" you will make $150. Now you have "thrown away" $50. But as a person, I would walk away from from the first game drained of energy, while the second game would actually refresh me.

This can also be put another way. Assume you have two ganes to choose from: Fully concentrated, making $50/hrs., or @at ease", making $40/hrs. If you can only play the first game for three hrs. before needing a break or getting unconcentrated, ant the second for four hours, the the second game is actually best.

I know, I know, I'm babbling, but I cannot bring nyself to delete.

Anyway, I think these things do deserve a place in Poker-theory, because I belive that so many players want what I want:

Easy money, the easier the better.

The place should of course not be at the core of theory, but rather presented as an "what happens in real life" chapter.

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks