no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

Hi,

I have been playing hold 'em about 4 years. I learned to play among a group of fairly serious home game players (although the limits were small). In addition to these regular games, I have played at a local Indian casino the past 2-3 years; they offer between 2-4 and 6-12 limits. I am about a 90-100 minute drive from the major cardrooms in LA.

Although I enjoy our home games and would not hesitate to keep playing them, I have become so miserable playing at the rooms in LA (Commerce, HP, Bike, esp.) that I'm at the point of basically quitting. I should mention that at these places, I usually play between 4-8 and 20-40, most often 15-30. The experience is not turning out to be why I became interested in poker, and I'm getting very little out of it.

In short, my experience is that even at limits as high as 15-30 and 20-40 (the largest I feel comfortable playing in), the games all play like 1-2 no-fold 'em games. The only difference is, they are yellow chips instead of blue. Now, I know you're thinking, "wow, you should think that's great...those games are beatable" and I know this, but I would say you are missing the point.

Even Schoonmaker falls into this trap, and his book is all about figuring the "motives" of players. In his section of LPG's, he asks, "Do you want to play in these games?", and then, without hesitation says, "UNLESS YOUR MOTIVATIONS ARE DIFFERENT FROM MOST PEOPLE'S (i.e. from MINE)", the answer is YES, YES, YES. Schoonmaker, a psychologist whose book I highly respect, makes the classic egoist fallacy, assuming everyone is like HIM. He says there are "only" 2 reasons to avoid these games, (1) They are so easy to beat it's boring. There is no challenge, and winning may not be satisfying. (2) You will get frustrated when they draw out on you, and they will do it again and again with terrible hands.

Now, for someone who has listed "making money" as their primary motive for playing, these games are great. But, to be honest, this is not why I chose to learn poker. I worked through Schoonmaker's book and here is my "motivation" breakdown:

Make money -- 10%
Socialise, meet people -- 10%
Relax -- 5%
Get excitement of risk -- 5%
Test self against competitive challenge -- 30%
Sense of accomplishment from winning -- 10%
Pass time -- 5%
Other (intellectual stimulation) -- 25%

As you can see, making money by itself doesn't matter much to me without other things. I already have a professional career, and I make more than enough money to support myself.

The home games I have played in regularly the past few years offer almost zilch in terms of "making money" but do great on the other areas. The no-fold 'em games would be outstanding for making money (I know they can be beat, and I know how to adjust) but they're miserable at other areas. Imagine if someone told you this:

"Hey, I have a great job for you. It makes pretty work wages, maybe not as much as your career, but pretty good. There's only a few caveats. First, you have to sit in an uncomfortable chair all day. Also, your 'job' will be incredibly boring and extremely frustrating. There will be little intellectual challenge in it, and it will be about as exciting as doing dishes. Not only that, your fluctuations in income will be great (like all poker) and not steady. You won't be among friends most of the time; in fact, most of the people you will have contempt for. It won't be too relaxing and probably damaging to your health. But you will definitely make a lot of money."

After hearing this description, who in their right mind would accept such a job, given that they already have a primary source of income that makes them more money and offers them more personal satisfaction??

Thank you, WPT for bringing all these new players to the game. Unfortunately, you've driven me out. I'l go back to chess. I can pick a hobby that doesn't make me miserable.

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

you'll probably get better responses by posting in the psychology forum

but based on your post, it seems like you'd rather be a break-even player at a table full of tough opponents than a winning player against a bunch of loose aggressive morons. that's completely understandable, but unfortunately it's tough to find a game like that.

there's always the option of playing online. the online games tend to be tougher than live games at the same limit. if you don't want to do that I suppose you could always move up, but I've never played in LA and I've never played even those limits so I can't say that from experience.

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

[ QUOTE ]
After hearing this description, who in their right mind would accept such a job, given that they already have a primary source of income that makes them more money and offers them more personal satisfaction??


[/ QUOTE ]

If you count all the Pro-Wanna-Be's on this forum then many people.

Jimbo

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

i suspect you arent good enough to beat the games and its sour grapes. if you want more challenging games just play higher. if you look at your list even loose games fit the bill. and 20/40 games arent that loose.

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

and 20/40 games arent that loose

totally disagree on that one. online and casino, every 15-20 game i see is loose.

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

I don't see anything wrong with your desire to test yourself but it doesn't sound like you've looked very hard for tougher games. Its not like every game anywhere is so soft.

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

[ QUOTE ]

Now, for someone who has listed "making money" as their primary motive for playing, these games are great. But, to be honest, this is not why I chose to learn poker. I worked through Schoonmaker's book and here is my "motivation" breakdown:

Make money -- 10%
Socialise, meet people -- 10%
Relax -- 5%
Get excitement of risk -- 5%
Test self against competitive challenge -- 30%
Sense of accomplishment from winning -- 10%
Pass time -- 5%
Other (intellectual stimulation) -- 25%

As you can see, making money by itself doesn't matter much to me without other things. I already have a professional career, and I make more than enough money to support myself.

...The no-fold 'em games would be outstanding for making money (I know they can be beat, and I know how to adjust) but they're miserable at other areas....I'l go back to chess. I can pick a hobby that doesn't make me miserable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think that most people would find it to be a competitive challange to learn how to adjust to and beat these no-foldem games. Either you do not play as well as you think you do, or you cannot enjoy a game where you might be the best player. As Ray Zee stated, you could always play at a higher limit, especially since bankroll is not a concern for you.

Or you can return to playing chess--although if you have been playing for at least eight years competitively, you probably realize that the odds of your ever improving further are quite slim. I gave up chess (as a Class A player), in part, due to the stagnation in skill development that most players experience after approximately eight years.

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

I also thrive on challenge & competition. I find that tournaments supply me with these needs much better than ring games. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with having to make money as I pursue the tournament scene and must play the ring games most of the time.

I'd suggest hitting the tournament scene. The cost is comparatively low as the chips aren't 'real' money and you can play competively with them without losing the rent; you're only cost is the entry fee. You also get to play against the best in the world. As a reminder, though, some of the challenges in a tournament are different than those in a ring game.

If I lived where there were casinos nearby, I'd be playing every week. Unfortunately, we moved away from Kansas City three months ago...the nearest cardrooms are now 5-6 hours away in Lake Charles, LA [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Spyder

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

The idea that these loose games are easy to beat is correct, but there are plenty of opportunities for intellectual stimulation.

These games are ripe with opportunities for unusual, profit-increasing plays. Just because your opponents are terrible doesn't mean you get to think less.

-Michael

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

[ QUOTE ]
here is my "motivation" breakdown:

Make money -- 10%
Socialise, meet people -- 10%
Relax -- 5%
Get excitement of risk -- 5%
Test self against competitive challenge -- 30%
Sense of accomplishment from winning -- 10%
Pass time -- 5%
Other (intellectual stimulation) -- 25%

[/ QUOTE ]

One big difference between chess and poker is that in chess, the cream rises to the top a lot more quickly. In poker, especially in loose games with a big variance, it may take some time until your average hourly win rate begins to mirror whatever theoretical expectation you have because of the skill differential between you and your opponents.

And that may be so frustrating to you that it's driving you back to chess.

_________
Lou Krieger

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Test self against competitive challenge -- 30%
Sense of accomplishment from winning -- 10%

[/ QUOTE ]

even the 40-80 games aren't challenging in LA. u must play higher! [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

but jokes aside, the only way to get real challenge is to play free money game with the best in the world for a title of best "Hold'em Player of the World", but i doubt most ppl care enough to play with you that way.

remember, money won IS the score in POKER.

Kenny

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

[ QUOTE ]
and 20/40 games arent that loose

totally disagree on that one. online and casino, every 15-20 game i see is loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

paradise 20 games used to be pretty tight, are the looser these days?

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

All hobbies can get boring after a while. We start to feel that we've been there, done that. That's why many poker players move up in limits; the thrill is gone and the prospect of winning (or losing) great sums of money gets the adrenaline going again.

Don't play as often. Then it will be a treat when you do play, rather than an everday occurrence. If you want more of a competitive challenge, play mid-week during the day at the 30-60 game at Commerce. While some of the 15-30 and 20-40 games do indeed play loose, the skill level required to beat the game definitely increases as the stakes get higher.

Poker is not a hobby for intellectual stimulation.

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

Maybe you should stick with chess. I am an avid chess player myself and I personally play poker 90% for the money. If you are just looking for a challenge and a chance to test yourself I think Chess is a much better game. It is very stimulating and it deep, just like poker. But in the end money isn't a factor in chess. And if you don't care about making money I would think it might be good to play a game where there isn't the risk of losing money.

Based on what you say I think you sound more like a chess player. Maybe I am wrong. I haven't been playing poker as long as you. But I think money has to be a central focus in order for someone to be at the top of their game.

The reason I say this is because I have seen a lot of players move down two or three limits just for fun and make money but they often aren't getting the ROI that they should be. And its just because they aren't worried about losing much since its a trivial amount of money anyway. So they draw more when they shouldn't etc.

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

Lou,

How are the games in the Greater Palm Springs area? Is poker growing there too, or is it 9-18 about as high as they go, haven't been out there in a while.

tobdog

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

You're asking too much from poker. Your motives sound all mixed up.

You call it a "job," yet you want it to be less boring and aggravating and unhealthy. Hey, to most people, jobs ARE boring and aggravating and unhealthy! Suck it up! Or, as they say...there's the door, buddy! See ya in the funny papers!

You want it to be as satisfying as the job you already have? Well, I would like winning the Olympics to be easy, too, because I think I'd like to win a few events, but I don't get to change reality to fit my desires. Poker, once you've done it for a good long while and your game has leveled off in terms of how much better you're getting, is a grind, simple as that. What do you expect? Very, very few jobs aren't grinds either, no matter how exciting they start out. After a while even brain surgeons can't remember their patients and movie stars can't remember all their movies. Poker's excitement is not everlasting either.

What keeps most people going when it gets dull are either the sociability, the challenge, or the money. The money doesn't do it for you, and the sociability doesn't either. I don't blame you for the latter, as after a while it gets to be the same old faces -- and you don't choose the faces, either, so some of them can be real cussed jerks and there's nothing you can do about it.

But the challenge part is what throws me off about your post. You say challenge is important, but you sound like you aren't exactly cleaning up at the levels you're at but don't want to move up either -- that's the reading I and a few others on this thread got. Yet...doing EXACTLY one of those two things is precisely wherein the challenge lays. Beat the game you're in, or try new ones, tougher ones that fit your play style better or scare or excite you more. You have to make your own challenges, not wait for them to drop into your lap.

If you are afraid to move up or feel defeated by the loose games you feel forced to stay at, and aren't held to poker by the lure of the sociability and cash, perhaps you have reached your natural limits in your love for the game and need to move on, perhaps coming back for a visit once in a while. No shame in that; everyone likes different things, and you had the adventurousness and initiative to try poker on for size for a while and see how you liked it. Maybe now you know.

Either that, or you need to refocus where you find challenge in the game really to be. It sounds like there may be untapped depths to your skills and the game that you haven't plumbed yet. I assure you, thought, that very few of the pros grinding out their hours are any more thrilled to be at the table than you are, so don't expect mere grinding to ever have the ability to thrill you or anybody else.

If you are done with poker, though, like you said, it's unhealthy to sit around in a casino too long, and you might be overdue to try something healthier. Not sure that chess is much healthier myself, but....

Also, have you ever tried the game of Go? The Japanese and Chinese love that game, and it's just as deep as chess. To me it's much more interesting. Could make for some very nice variety.

After all that poker playing, too, maybe you should try something a little more physical for your next hobby or obsession or whatever. Tai-chi or something you can do that you can use to get in shape and keep mentally healthy too, and do well even when you're an old man.

Anyway, I'm not sure you've given poker a fair chance, but if you have, no big deal. There's a big wide world out there and nobody has to like everything, be good at everything, or hang around where he feels uncomfortable. If poker's not for you, you haven't experienced a loss; you've had an adventure and explored part of the big, wild, crazy world.

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

[ QUOTE ]
In short, my experience is that even at limits as high as 15-30 and 20-40 (the largest I feel comfortable playing in), the games all play like 1-2 no-fold 'em games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure? Try the 10-20 at the Bike, weekdays. There are always at least a couple props playing, and the other night, there were six at the table. I find that game to be pretty darn tough, and on a regular basis.

Sparks

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Hey, I have a great job for you. It makes pretty work wages, maybe not as much as your career, but pretty good. There's only a few caveats. First, you have to sit in an uncomfortable chair all day. Also, your 'job' will be incredibly boring and extremely frustrating. There will be little intellectual challenge in it, and it will be about as exciting as doing dishes. Not only that, your fluctuations in income will be great (like all poker) and not steady. You won't be among friends most of the time; in fact, most of the people you will have contempt for. It won't be too relaxing and probably damaging to your health. But you will definitely make a lot of money."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to figure out how this is different from most 9-5 jobs. The only thing I can find is the fluctuating income part [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

Yup, sounds like everyday life -- or better -- for probably well over 95% of people on earth.

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

Just took a very unscientific look with my poker tracker at pp 30-60, 15-30, and 3-6, the limits where I have the most players. I chose a table at random and put the players in the game time window. Results:

30-60 v$ip = 20% (table average)
15-30 v$ip = 26%
3-6 v$ip = 19%

This seems to confirm my gut feeling that some of the 3-6 games are as tight if not tighter than the 15-30 games. Again these results might be way off since only one table of each was chosen. I know the 30-60 game is much tighter than either of the other two.

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

I am not sure if I am more annoyed by your post or the fact that i read the entire thing.
The very tables your a posting about are the ones I look for. If you cannot beat a table full of LAG's then your game needs help.

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

[ QUOTE ]
there's always the option of playing online. the online games tend to be tougher than live games at the same limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you find this true with Party Poker 15/30?

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

MrGo,

Everyone talks about how easy the online games are. They may indeed be easy, but they are the toughest games out there.

-Michael

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

[ QUOTE ]

Do you find this true with Party Poker 15/30?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely.

Re: no fold \'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)
 

If you think poker as a job will be bad, try imagining your chess tournaments as a job [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

You'll go to work with people where it seems like the less well set you are in your life, the better you will do. You'll work long long hours with the goal of perhaps getting your money back, but generally nothing. Don't forget as well that each time you lose, you'll have to face the fact that the other guy was simply better than you, end of story.

Based on your breakdown:

Make money -- 10% - zero from chess
Socialise, meet people -- 10% - maybe some
Relax -- 5% - little to none; a chess game is much more demanding mentally than a poker session
Get excitement of risk -- 5% - not much risk in chess
Test self against competitive challenge -- 30% - lots of this anyways
Sense of accomplishment from winning -- 10% - and lots of this
Pass time -- 5% - well no argument here
Other (intellectual stimulation) -- 25% - possibly

Sincerely,

A chess burnout [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]