Re: A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.
 

Hi pokerbabe. I want to say again that you are discussing something entirely different from what I was saying in my original post.

That said, I still think what you are seeing and experiencing is nothing more than a game that has higher variance, and some of the pros in that game are not emotionally equipped to deal with it.

All the examples you have given are STANDARD for every limit game I've played in. You say "Today, I watched an excellent local pro lose 2 racks in a "good game", as if it's something exceptional.

Now, the whole point of my original post was not that the clueless newcomers to your Mirage 20-40 game are actually as good as you.

My point was that today we see a lot of "no name" amateurs are doing well vs. top no limit tourney pros and a commonly voiced reaction has been that the top tourney pros are dinosaurs, that there's a new wave of young poker players with a new approach to the game that is mowing down the pros.

My take was that this was totally incorrect. The pros are just as great as always. It's just that there are way more excellent players out there than cardplayer magazine would have you believe. Even some pros seem to equate "not famous" with "not very good". But I think for the most part it's the folks who read and follow tourney poker who overestimate how rare it is to be an excellent no limit tourney player.

As far as the vegas 20-40 goes, where "The beats are just so ridiculous it's hard to believe", I can honestly say that is the only kind of experience in limit hold'em I've ever known.

natedogg

Re: A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.
 

The old man has cards. If he is in a pot (other than for free or cheap in the blinds) he will have better cards than the guys he's up against. He also of course will know not to chase draws without odds and such.

Hand reading is a good skill to have and is something experienced players tend to have over their inexperienced foes. Having said that the game is much more profitable (albeit with higher variance) if you have a couple guys at your table that will play any two and take to showdown any piece of the board.

Perhaps the key is in your last paragraph. Are these guys really losing players now, or have they just not adjusted their bankroll for the increased variance?

Re: A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really think that handreading is one of the most important skills in poker. If you disagree, please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Handreading is an integral part of winning against tough players.

Against these morons, handreading is not important. Playing premium hands that dominate theirs in the long run is more important. It's boring poker, and sometimes frustrating, but in the long run it gets the money.

Re: A brave new world for natedoggie
 

Hey natedoggie...

Excuse me if I digress..I know I took this thread on a bit of a tangent. Sorry [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: A brave new world for jdl22
 

Are these guys really losing players now, or have they just not adjusted their bankroll for the increased variance?

Very good question.

I suspect it's much about bankroll. I was thinking about our typical buy-ins in the dayshift 20 game. In the past, it was not atypical to see at least half the dayshift guys buy in for 500-600. In fact, there is one guy who still normally only buys in for that amount. I am sure that seems quite low to many of the midstakes posters here.

However, over the last year, I have noticed many guys going to 700-1K. My buy-in is typically 800, but I will sometimes adjust up depending on the average stack size.

One of the old timers who is a winning player actually got into a game for 2k about 2 months ago. That was the most he was ever in any 20-40 poker game in his life. This guy plays 6 days a week almost exclusively at 20-40, and he was really astounded at this. I was very surprized as well. Another guy who is a winning player had his worst losing day EVER in any game not too long ago (he's been playing for 30 years). I didnt' want to hear the gory details, but I asked if it was over 3 racks and he said "oh yea", like maybe it was closer to 5. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] That is extreme poker for these boyz. These numbers are simply not within their poker paradigm. Obviously, they must rethink their financial commitments to the game if they are going to play optimally.

LGPG,

Babe [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: A brave new world for Sin City Guy
 

Even though I lost to him (and he ended walking out with 6 racks), it didn't really bother me.

REALLY? Would it bother you to lose if you were outplayed?

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: A brave new world for Sin City Guy
 

[ QUOTE ]
REALLY? Would it bother you to lose if you were outplayed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, when I am outplayed, it bothers me and I am concerned.

However, I'm not overly concerned when I lose because AJo three bets my UTG AK raise, flops an ace and rivers a jack. I'm going to beat him nine out of ten times in this situation. That nine out of ten times doesn't show up in a four hour session, but it is very evident and profitable over the course of thousands of hands.

Re: A brave new world for jdl22
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the past, it was not atypical to see at least half the dayshift guys buy in for 500-600. In fact, there is one guy who still normally only buys in for that amount. I am sure that seems quite low to many of the midstakes posters here.

[/ QUOTE ]

12.5 big bets is a horrible buy-in for any game. In a 20/40 game, you should be buying in for at least two racks.

Re: turnipmonster
 

[ QUOTE ]
limit games on the net (as a general rule) have a much larger variance and require a much much bigger bankroll to play successfully.

there's a lot to be said for a pro avoiding a high variance game they can't afford to play.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hence my move from limit holdem online into NLHE. I am a limit animal with very good earn and 6 years experience who has moved to NL online to reduce the variance and earn more money. They want to make mistakes? Let it not be for one bet but for their stack.

You can\'t bluff a bad player?
 

I am a bad player and I have been bluffed many times.

Re: A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.
 

Skansky wrote an essay stating that when your opponents are playing anything, you don't win that much money with your mediocre hands. You make money by winning a ton more when you have premium hands (e.g. high pocket pairs) and get paid off all the way. The value of hand reading against a good player has got to be less than the overlay you have playing better starting hands against a terrible player for multiple bets.

Re: You can\'t bluff a bad player?
 

LOL, Ray. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: turnipmonster and NL
 

Two local pros who played 10-20 for years here are now almost exclusively playing NL at Bellagio. They feel the same way as turnip.

Babe [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: A brave new world for buyins
 

Sin-
Yes, that is a bit low, but this guy doesn't get involved in too many pots. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

For me, 20 big bets seems a good place to start, unles there are humongous stacks on the game.

Some people like to keep their buy-ins smaller because they feel it makes them play tighter.

Babe [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: A brave new world for buyins
 

PokerBabe,

Sounds like you've got a great gig going on the dayshift with a bunch of people who are afraid of their own shadows.

You are smart to buy in for 20 bets, but the guys who buy in short stacked are being very foolish. How would they like to be all-in with a straight flush against a nut flush and quads? (I've seen it happen).

I've been playing at night, but I think I'm going to have to stop by and check out the dynamics of the dayshift crowd.

Re: A brave new world for buyins
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some people like to keep their buy-ins smaller because they feel it makes them play tighter.


[/ QUOTE ]

True. But it could also cause them to play overtight. there-by missing some profitable situations. Essentially, so tight it strangles part of their profits. 12.5 BBs is barely over a maxed hand up here. 1 hand.

It's one thing to buy in for that much knowing you will rebuy later, but another to limit one's session to this amount. That would be unreasonable.

b

Re: A brave new world for Sin on Dayshift
 

Sin,

You are certainly welcome to check out my gig, but remember one thing; when an "old school" player raises you on the turn, run spot run. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

LGPG,

See you on the 10-5 shift [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Babe [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: A brave new world for Sin on Dayshift
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are certainly welcome to check out my gig, but remember one thing; when an "old school" player raises you on the turn, run spot run. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem, as long as they fold to my turn raises, too. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.
 

Right idea - wrong analogy/example..
poker stars doesn't have many internet crazies! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: turnipmonster
 

fwiw, I almost never play anything but PL/NL live, but online I much prefer limit, mainly because I feel that earn is higher (obviously variance is higher as well) than in NL. plus, there aren't enough big NL games on the site I play (party). to me the main value of playing online is the increased volume of hands, and the game where that increases my earn the most is limit. for NL/PL, I don't mind a slow game but need to watch and know my opponents as well as the table rhythm to make good decisions.

--turnipmonster

Re: A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.
 

most online pros seem to be extremely tolerant to very large swings. on the heads up and shorthanded forum, those guys talk about 200BB downswings like it's another day at the office.

--turnipmonster

Re: A brave new world for jdl22
 

[ QUOTE ]
Very good question.

I suspect it's much about bankroll. I was thinking about our typical buy-ins in the dayshift 20 game. In the past, it was not atypical to see at least half the dayshift guys buy in for 500-600. In fact, there is one guy who still normally only buys in for that amount. I am sure that seems quite low to many of the midstakes posters here.

However, over the last year, I have noticed many guys going to 700-1K. My buy-in is typically 800, but I will sometimes adjust up depending on the average stack size.

One of the old timers who is a winning player actually got into a game for 2k about 2 months ago. That was the most he was ever in any 20-40 poker game in his life. This guy plays 6 days a week almost exclusively at 20-40, and he was really astounded at this. I was very surprized as well. Another guy who is a winning player had his worst losing day EVER in any game not too long ago (he's been playing for 30 years). I didnt' want to hear the gory details, but I asked if it was over 3 racks and he said "oh yea", like maybe it was closer to 5. That is extreme poker for these boyz. These numbers are simply not within their poker paradigm. Obviously, they must rethink their financial commitments to the game if they are going to play optimally.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Babe,

This is only post in this thread that is sound. The rest is sounds like you've been taking a beating in these games and are not sure where to point the finger other than than the bad play of your opponents (which is absurd and I know you know this). I hope that you are not and are only trying sympathize with your collegues.

Yes, the variance has increased in the games that you are used to, however, what you have increasingly said is the variance is damaging. I have built a bankroll in a year from 1/2 online to 20/40 live in these games with constant study, reading and posting. I believe if you know how to make adjustments to each and every game, the increased variance can work largely in your favor over time.

Take care, Babe.

Peace,
Joe Tall

Re: A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.
 

[ QUOTE ]
most online pros seem to be extremely tolerant to very large swings. on the heads up and shorthanded forum, those guys talk about 200BB downswings like it's another day at the office.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did you expect? I'll step out a little and suggest the average online pro plays 3 games simultaneously. Actually, I personally know one that plays up to 7 shorthanded games at once, but he can only maintain it for a few hours - he doesn't like working long hours. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

3 games x 60 H/hour = 180 hands in 1 hour. That's the equivalent of almost 6 hours of live play. They shouldn't experience more big swings per 100 hands than a B&M player, but they will experience many more big swings on a per year basis. Also, SH can hit 110+ hands/hour and swings are naturally bigger in SH as well.

You have to be tough as nails, hard as rock and cold as steel.
The dicipline of an online pro can be... inhuman.

Re: A brave new world for JoeTall
 

Hi JoeTall,

I am not a big fan of "high variance" games. This is mostly because I play 5 days a week, and at the end of the day I really, really dislike losing [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Give me the easier way, cuz at the end of the day it's all money to me.....

LGPG,

Babe [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

P.S. I am not losing my skirt, but my win rate is way down and my std. deviation is up. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

LGPG,

Babe [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The bluffees couldn't be reached for comment, because they were still at the table, playing poker.



[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Good points, natedogg and PokerBabe
 

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone should quit whining about the "bad players" and focus on playing the poker needed to BEAT the new wave...

[/ QUOTE ]

EasyE,

My observations on this, FWIW:

The players who are suffering the most from the influx of mid-limit idiots are the old-time weak/tight players and the "fancy play syndrome" players.

The old weak/tight players are caving in and folding too many winners to the morons, and the "fancy play syndrome" guys are wasting their chips trying to outplay them. As I mentioned in another post, the secret to beating these guys in the long run is through dominated hands. The swings are not for the squeemish, but eventually they lose their money.

Re: A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.
 

Long time lurker unlurking, so please forgive me if this is naive…

Is not the number of hands played/hour a major factor here? Say the variance live and on-line is the same per hand played. Measured in real time, the downswings will be much longer playing live. A bad month on-line could easily translate into 6 months or longer live. Very difficult to deal with psychologically, i.e. its take a very solid player to continue to play his A game after taking continual beats for 6 months.

Bankroll considerations also become much tougher (for the pro player), who needs 6 months living expenses as well as X BB.

Steve

Re: A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.
 

I think that's an excellent point!

An online pro could take a 3 day downswing and still finish up for an avg week. If they are playing 3-4 tables at once this 3 day downswing could equate to a 2 week downswing for the live player.

During this time the the live player could go bust due to expenses, where the online dude is fine.

Both playing the "new game" that is [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: A brave new world for buyins
 

When you two are talking buy-in, are you referring to the initial buy-in, or how much you are willing to go into your pocket for? I typically buy-in to a 20/40 game with $500, but am aware that this may not be enough and will often go into my pocket $500 at a time as needed. If I get up early, I don't like all the extra "buy-in" chips in my way. Usually, as long as I have enough to handle an entire hand of betting, I do not buy more chips.

actually...
 

...most of the mid limit pros in vegas ARE blundering idiots in my experience. they stick out like sore thumbs, they play an incredibly predictable game, they have extremely short fuses and high tilt factor, they work off slim bankrolls and have leaks in and out of the poker room and have been bust dozens of times in their "career" and will be bust again. the mid/high limit pros in l.a. and the bay are much tougher and more adaptable. most of us eat vegas pros for for breakfast...especially in the big bet games where, as you pointed out, they like to hang out now. i noticed several at Palms a few weaks back...soooo comical.

Re: A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.
 

Kurn,

That's what I believe. I have begun to study with the intent to play tournament NLH. I will never play in a single cash game ever.

First book I read: you guessed it, Sklansky's Tournament book.

Plus I went to the WSOP and just watched from the rail. Watched 25 hours of play the last 4 days.

I don't want to play any limit games, and I don't want to play any NL cash games.

I'm going to play a board game called Tournament NLH. I have an extensive successful background in playing in BJ, CRAPS, Baccarat, Keno, and Sports Tournaments (helps to live in Vegas).

Plus I will be setting up a video library of all the televised contests. With an index to all the players.

And the help of all of you at 2+2 will be invaluable. Thanking you all in advance. I hope that I will be able to return the favor.

We will see how it goes.

Chris

Re: A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.
 

Hi Zeno--

You stated,

"But what 'Pro' would limit themselves to options and one type of game? Should not a 'Pro' be able to not only play multiple limits but multiple types of poker? Especially Stud and Omaha 8 - thus, increasing the pool of good games to choose from. I would think that this would be a sound strategy for trying to make a living playing poker."

I have a different take. I'm not out to be a "Pro" if that is your definition. I want to be an expert Tournament NL player--that's it for me. I don't need or want recognition. In fact I've been quite successful playing in Casino game tournaments, but have tried to avoid any pub.

And now with the proliferation of online tournaments I can play as much as I want. I won't have to wait for a game that I want to play because my expertise is in quite a narrow field.

I enjoy the intellectual challenge, and I especially enjoy the interaction with all of you, so we can bounce these ideas around and all improve -- whatever our goal is.

Chris

Re: Good points, natedogg and PokerBabe
 

Before I get started I really respect what you have to say about poker. I like your posts a lot and I really like your approach to the game. What you seem to be saying too in my mind is that importance of reading hands has diminished in certain games as opposed to other skills. I'm not saying that reading hands isn't important, just that the importance of other aspects of sound play go up in value as people play in a way that makes them harder to read. A long time ago, somewhere in the old archives, there was a discussion that involved Ray and Dave regarding the importance of different skills related to type games and limits. At the time it was an eye opener for me.

Re: A brave new world for POKER SPECIALISTS to Chrisjp
 

I'm not out to be a "Pro" if that is your definition. I want to be an expert Tournament NL player--that's it for me. I don't need or want recognition.


Hi Chrisjp,
I agree with your concept about what I call "poker specialization". Personally, I don't have the inclination to become a "pro" at MANY different games. I am specializing in one and that is limit hold 'em. If I ever feel I have learned all there is to know about limit, I can move to another game. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] I recently played some "other games" during the WSOP and found it was not very profitable. I think it's great if a player can move between games with equal success, but it's a challenge that I don't need. I sometimes enjoy playing no limit for small stakes and playing the 2 tier satellites for the WSOP entry. Other than that, I am just focused on limit.

LGPG and do what works...

B [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]abe

Babe [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: A brave new world for POKER SPECIALISTS to Chrisjp
 

Hey Babe,

Nice to meet you. Yes, I admire those that want to master all games, and those that can are amazing. I don't believe I could actually, but it's not something I aspire to anyway. Good luck to all of them, and to you too.

Chris

Re: A brave new world for POKER SPECIALISTS to Chrisjp
 

For PokerBabe and Chrisjp:


A 'pro' is obviously someone that makes their living exclusively by playing poker.

There is an old joke about Specialization - knowing more and more about less and less.

Having a pre-estabished plan and outline to poker and sticking to it is obviously an excellent approach especially if you want to make a living at it - but only to a point. Expansion and learning should be maintained to avoid stagnation, boredom, and self imposed limits that can cause decay of playing ability.

I'll use an example - say that at the Orleans a particular jucie Omaha 8 game goes on from about noon on for 3-4 days out of the week - Say you invest $30 bucks and two days time to read and study Ray Zee's High-Low-Split Poker. You set aside X dollars from the Hold'em bankroll and embark on a new game.

I submit that:

A. You will see the carryover in geneal poker concepts very readily.

B. You could consistently win at the Omaha 8 game.

C. Playing Omaha 8 will help your overall poker playing ability and improve your hold'em play as well.


You have just 'doubled' the games you can play in and game selection is key to maintaining a long-term winning stradegy.

Now continue on and do the same for Seven Card Stud and get the 2+2 book on stud.

I do not think that it is all that hard to become proficent in at least 3 different types of poker, especially if you stick to limit poker. There are many basic concepts that are similar - the differences and nuances can be readily learned over time and picked up rather quickly. And each type of game adds perspecitive to the other and enhances the play of all.

IMO.

-Zeno

Re: A brave new world for POKER SPECIALISTS to Zeno
 

Having a pre-estabished plan and outline to poker and sticking to it is obviously an excellent approach especially if you want to make a living at it - but only to a point. Expansion and learning should be maintained to avoid stagnation, boredom, and self imposed limits that can cause decay of playing ability.

Hi Zeno....,

When I feel bored or not sufficiently challenged I take a break from playing or play a higher limit. I think your points are well taken, and for some, it's fine to branch out and become proficient in more games. It's simply a matter of what you choose to do. For me, Omaha plays a little too loose and stud requires tracking way too many cards (lol). Also, in Vegas, I suspect that the midlimit stud players are probably better than the midlimit hold'em players, overall.

Or, maybe I am just happy in my own little specialized world, eh?

LGPG,
Babe [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even in my own little microcosm of the Vegas dayshift, I have seen 4 or 5 very good players bust out over the last 18 months. These LONG time EXPERIENCED players used to beat the game and no longer found that they could. Did they suddenly "forget" how to play? Surely not. What happened is that they could not beat the "newer contingent" of player who is difficult to read. Because the "newer contingent" I am describing makes so many errors (both before and after the flop, it often requires the pros to pay off more at the river and to put more bets in on other streets. Obviously, this can impact short term results and increase variance until the pros can master the "learning curve" required to play in the "new world".
Additionally, bankroll drawdowns have created problems for previously winning players who can't overcome the variance they are experiencing. Remember, some people actually live off their poker income, so they don't have other sources to fall back on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Babe, I have read through most of this thread and if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the influx of new, wild players has meant that the longtime winning players (in your microcosm) have experienced lower EV (for a short period while they learn what adjustments to make) and higher variance (likely permanent, as long as the games stay wild). However, even though the longtime-winning players' EV may be lower than it used to be, it is still positive; and the higher variance is the reason 4 or 5 of them busted out. Does that fairly paraphrase your argument?

As I understand Clarkmeister's responses, he argues that the longtime-winning players were probably never very good at poker in general, but just had a strategy which was able to beat a tight passive game. If I understand him right, he believes that the players who busted out were likely not playing with positive EV at all after the games were no longer tight-passive.

My question is, how large a fraction of the sample size was the 4 or 5 players who busted out over the last 18 months?

If there are 10 or 15 other longtime-winning players who now are thriving under the new conditions (i.e. doing better now than they were doing 18 months ago, and sometimes over stretches of a month or two doing much better), it would tend to support the view that it was primarily increased variance that resulted in the 4 or 5 players busting out. But if most of the longtime-winning players are doing worse over the last six months than they were doing 18 months ago, it would tend to support Clarkmeister's view that they really are not that good overall holdem players. Because a good player's EV is necessarily going to be higher in a loose game where people are calling three cold with AJ than in a tight passive game where hand-reading is a more important skill.

Re: A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.
 

If there are 10 or 15 other longtime-winning players who now are thriving under the new conditions (i.e. doing better now than they were doing 18 months ago, and sometimes over stretches of a month or two doing much better), it would tend to support the view that it was primarily increased variance that resulted in the 4 or 5 players busting out. But if most of the longtime-winning players are doing worse over the last six months than they were doing 18 months ago, it would tend to support Clarkmeister's view that they really are not that good overall holdem players.


Hi MBE,

For the most part, and from what I CAN DEDUCE most of the long term players on "dayshift" are doing worse than they have in the past. I know of only 2 guys who APPEAR to be doing MUCH better lately. One is an outstanding player and so this is not surprising. He is often the best or second best player in the game. The other plays what I would call "a higher variance" game, in that his chips are "always in play". No cobwebs on those stacks [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] He is an anomoly of course, so by next week he could be broke too [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

It was great seeing you.

Take Care,

Babe [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]