Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

Hello Everyone,
This is my first post. I'm winning at Play money 5-10$ and I'm wondering if this is any indication of how well I might expect to do in the real money rooms at .50-1.00$ or maybe 1-2.00$ rooms. I've been playing for about 3 month with 3700 hands played this month and staying around 30 to 35% of flops seen and 70 go 80% hands won. I just started to track my stats this month and I have 87 hours of play since the first of this month. I've won 4560 chips playing stictly 5-10 play money. Since the 10th of June I have had 22 playing sessions with 16 of them winning and 6 losing. I'm hoping for some input from some more experienced players. My thanks in advance for any comments you might post.

bhunter
bhunter

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

Welcome to the forums! Check out the FAQs - there's some good stuff in there.

To answer your question, in my opinion play money tables are good for getting a feel for the site's software (and game rules, if necessary) and not much else. Even a $0.05/$0.10 game would be a much better test of your skills than a play money game. Also, you might want to bring that VPIP down a bit if you're playing full ring games.

Good luck!

Steve

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

you can expect to do that well at the .02/.04 limit game at poker stars. you most certainly can not expect to do that well at .5/1. i suggest you read up, start at micro limits at PS, and read the microlimit forum here.

righty how about bringing down your vpip. buy Pokertracker, and play 10k hands or so at the lowest level you can bear to play. the microfaq'll give you an idea of where your numbers should be.


good luck and welcome to the boards.

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

Welcome to the site!

Here's an FAQ answer to your question: http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/Beg...money_games.3F

VP[$]IP = "Voluntarily put money in pot" - that's covered in the FAQ too but basically lowering your VP$IP meaning playing tighter, i.e. don't play as many hands.

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

WOW, thanks for the quick reply from all of you. I have purchased your books and I'm am studying them everyday, not just reading them. They have been a great help. With some play and studying the books the light bulb comes on and I understand alittle more. I will start doing what you have suggested and start at the micro levels. Thanks again for the help and quick reply.

bhunter

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

I don't think you can make any assumptions based on your play at play money tables. At play money tables anything goes and there are no consequences to your actions. If you lose all of your play money you simply hit the refill button and you're right back in the action. The only thing good about play money is when learning the basics of a new game. I started playing hours of Omaha8 at the play money tables to get a general feel and understanding of the game. After that though I knew that I would learn nothing else from play money and began playing at the microlimits. It seems as though you already have a good enough understanding of the basics and should start off playing at the micros, or by playing in small-buy tournaments because you will gain a lot of real money experience at a low cost. Good luck.

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

Actually, you can get a strong indication of your SNG play, by playing specifically the playmoney SNGS at stars. If you can get up to, say, $250000 play money at stars, and consistently beat the $25k P$ sngs, you are ready for low limit SNGS.

This is because, normally playmoney is replenishable - but at stars they only let you have $3k an hour. This causes the players playing playmoney near the top to be comparable to an $11 player.

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hello Everyone,
This is my first post. I'm winning at Play money 5-10$ and I'm wondering if this is any indication of how well I might expect to do in the real money rooms at .50-1.00$ or maybe 1-2.00$ rooms. I've been playing for about 3 month with 3700 hands played this month and staying around 30 to 35% of flops seen and 70 go 80% hands won. I just started to track my stats this month and I have 87 hours of play since the first of this month. I've won 4560 chips playing stictly 5-10 play money. Since the 10th of June I have had 22 playing sessions with 16 of them winning and 6 losing. I'm hoping for some input from some more experienced players. My thanks in advance for any comments you might post.

bhunter
bhunter

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning at play money is only an indication of winning at play money. It would be a major mistake on your part to start at the .50/1 or 1/2 tables IMO. Start at the lowest limits no matter your bankroll.

True micro-limits
 

It dawned on me that perhaps the OP is coming from the Party-and-skins world where $0.50/$1 is the lowest limit. If so, I would suggest setting up an account somewhere that offers $0.05/0.10 or lower. Pokerstars has $0.01/.02 I believe (although at higher limits it's known for being tough, which probably doesn't matter to the .01 game). Pacific starts at .05 and is incredibly fishy regardless of limit. Paradise is decent and has .02.

With any of these, read up on bonus whoring/hunting and rakeback before you open an account.

Good luck!

Re: True micro-limits
 

I agree with most of the advice in this thread, but I don't think it's necessary to tell new players to play penny poker. The 50 cent/1 dollar games are mighty beatable if you study and if you get killed, it shouldn't hurt that bad. I think most people wouldn't find playing 2 cent/4 cent interesting at all; if that's all you can afford, that's one thing...but I don't think most working professionals will be entertained playing the super low limits. Also, I personally wouldn't play well at a limit where the money means absolutely nothing. Maybe it's just me.

Jeff

Re: True micro-limits
 

Once you know you're playing with +EV, I agree. Until then, unless you really don't care whether you lose $100-200 or not, seems to me like you're better off making sure you really understand Lee Jones or Ed Miller before you play at stakes high enough for it to hurt.

For me going through the swings at Pacific $0.05/0.10 gave me confidence to pull through them at B&M $3/6 and 4/8. The Pac micros are only a tad looser/more passive than Foxwoods low-limits. And while the stakes may not mean much to your opponents, it's up to you whether they matter to you.

To each his own, though. If being down $150 and still not knowing if you're playing +EV poker is no concern, then play 50c/$1. If you can say the same thing about being down $24,000, then go learn in the Bellagio $80/160. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] It's all relative.

Re: True micro-limits
 

I assumed he was talking about NLHE. I think you guys are talking about limit.

Re: A real beginner\'s perspective
 

As someone who did really well with play money for about 6 months and just started with real money at PokerRoom (Mac user) about a month ago, I thought I'd jump in with my first post.

Playing NL SnGs is definetly more challenging but I think more fun. Most play money games would finish before blinds even became an issue. Also a ten person play table would be down to 6 or 7 players after a couple of rounds, because of crazy all-ins at the beginning. That made it easy to get in to the "money". At real tables you have to play real smart poker to get in the money.

Also playing NL .25 ring games, because that is the lowest they have at Pokerroom. Probably would prefer at .10 table given the choice. I am holding my own, down just a little. The difference I see is it's much harder to extract money with a really good hand, and you can loose a bunch with a really good hand that is not the nuts.

I also found that it is hard to build a big stack and make money by "ruling" table. In play if you build a huge stack, people stick around or more players fill empty seats. In real money if you double your stack people leave and no one is anxious to sit in with you. Quickly you'll find yourself playing heads-up. I don't like playing really short handed (2-4 players) at a ring table. So you have to sit in with the standard buy-in at another table.

That's my 2 cents as a beginner.

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

Well, if you were losing at play money, regularly, I'd say that you need a serious change in tactics to win at real money.

Winning at play money regularly, means it's time to test the waters with real money.

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

If you are beating the playmoney big, there is no doubt you can beat the real money too. Play is mostly the same, bluffs, valuebetting, semibluffs, slowplaying etc. The main difference is perhaps a much bigger bankroll, a bit more maniacs, and the fact that you play more hands in playmoney.
All-in preflop by Ak is likely to get called by J8off just like in playmoney. Microlimit is stronger, but not that much.

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

Play money is great practice. When I first learned the game of poker but was reluctant to play for money, play money let me learn my style and get comfy with the cards (as well as reading books). When I won $400k at a $2000 NLH game one night, I decided I was good enough. I sort of went through culture shock, because people defending and trying to win real money is much much different than people who have an infinite amount of (play) money to gamble with. Depending on your bankroll, I would start off at 1-2$ games. It's still cheap enough to get a feel for the game, and be profitable. Good luck, and welcome to the forum!

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

I think that playing play money games has some value for 2 reasons.

1. Just getting used to the game: calculating odds, learning how to use the checkraise, etc.
2. It teaches you how to play against loose players. This is very important. Now, real money players arent going to play as loose as play money, but its pretty close some times.

I think you should have no problem starting off at .5/1 as long as you are adequately bankrolled. Start off tight and then loosen up with the more speculative hands once you get comfortable.

FWIW, I think that Chris Ferguson started off playing at the play money tables. Not to say he needed it, but obviously he thought it had some value.

P.S. I just reread your post. Get your flops seen down [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you are beating the playmoney big, there is no doubt you can beat the real money too. Play is mostly the same, bluffs, valuebetting, semibluffs, slowplaying etc. The main difference is perhaps a much bigger bankroll, a bit more maniacs, and the fact that you play more hands in playmoney.
All-in preflop by Ak is likely to get called by J8off just like in playmoney. Microlimit is stronger, but not that much.

[/ QUOTE ]
(Emphasis added.)
Where on earth do you play play-money games? I don't think I've ever seen one where bluffs and semibluffs worked, or where slowplaying was necessary. In fairness I've probably played more play money limit than no-limit, but either way people will call down with anything.

On your last point I agree with you: it's really just a matter of degree, because micro games are pretty loose too. They're probably often more passive (easier to raise just for fun when it's only play money) but not always. I'm not saying someone should stay at $0.05/0.10 forever, or even to accumulate 300 BBet/20 buyins for the next level, just long enough to know they can beat it.

To the poster who pointed out my limit bias: you're right, the post was fully neutral until I brought up Jones and Miller. Incidentally i generally indicate betting limits with a slash ($2/4) and NL blinds with a dash ($2-4), and the OP used a dash, so I must have really been predisposed to thinking in limit to override this convention that AFAIK i dreamed up by myself. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I dunno, but...
 

...you seem serious enough, and that's more important than your play anyhow.

If you're taking the time to track your sessions, winrate, stats, etc, you are on the right path (and you're doing things that most other players are just ignoring), and should consider switching to real money as soom as possible. While a player can learn at play money or nano limits, they will undoubtedly learn much faster at a limit where people CARE about the money. .50/1 or .25/50 (at paradise) is an excellent place for a person to start, imo.


You'll likely take a beating when you make the switch, and should expect to "pay for lessons" for a while, but if you're diligent and committed (looks like you are) and willing to study (HARD) you should be able to become a winner or at least breakeven (anyone beating the rake is a good player, IMO).

GL to you, and remember- the only stupid question is the one that doesn't get asked...

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

Deposit a few bucks. Play at micro/nano limits. Post hands. Read. Study.

Play money is play money. Who worries about losing it?

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
If you are beating the playmoney big, there is no doubt you can beat the real money too. Play is mostly the same, bluffs, valuebetting, semibluffs, slowplaying etc. The main difference is perhaps a much bigger bankroll, a bit more maniacs, and the fact that you play more hands in playmoney.
All-in preflop by Ak is likely to get called by J8off just like in playmoney. Microlimit is stronger, but not that much.

[/ QUOTE ]
(Emphasis added.)
Where on earth do you play play-money games? I don't think I've ever seen one where bluffs and semibluffs worked, or where slowplaying was necessary. In fairness I've probably played more play money limit than no-limit, but either way people will call down with anything.

On your last point I agree with you: it's really just a matter of degree, because micro games are pretty loose too. They're probably often more passive (easier to raise just for fun when it's only play money) but not always. I'm not saying someone should stay at $0.05/0.10 forever, or even to accumulate 300 BBet/20 buyins for the next level, just long enough to know they can beat it.

To the poster who pointed out my limit bias: you're right, the post was fully neutral until I brought up Jones and Miller. Incidentally i generally indicate betting limits with a slash ($2/4) and NL blinds with a dash ($2-4), and the OP used a dash, so I must have really been predisposed to thinking in limit to override this convention that AFAIK i dreamed up by myself. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify a few thing. I meant the stratagems is the same in playmoney as in realmoney. Bluffs rarely work for me either in playmoney or for realmoney (lowstakes). Whether it works or not is player dependent. There are tigthies in playmoney too who you can bluff and slowplay against.

A semibluff on the other hand is not really a bluff at all in playmoney, since you usually have the correct pot odds to chase draws in multi-pots.

I think there is a bigger difference between playmoney limit and realmoney limit. Most of the play limit Ive played has been like 10 players enter the pot and all raise and checkraise with any 2 to the end. Ive played a little real-limit too and it seems to me way to many people who call and call to the end there too, so I guess a good player can pick up easy money there.

Re: True micro-limits
 

[ QUOTE ]

For me going through the swings at Pacific $0.05/0.10 gave me confidence to pull through them at B&amp;M $3/6 and 4/8. The Pac micros are only a tad looser/more passive than Foxwoods low-limits. And while the stakes may not mean much to your opponents, it's up to you whether they matter to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny you should say that. I have often wondered where Foxwoods would fall. Seems like one of the best B&amp;M places for a beginner to play, and it generally is only expected that you need about $80 to sit down at the $2-4 with comfort.

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

If you are hesitant about money, I would suggest you try 200-400 play chips tables at stars. If you consistently beat that, then you can jump to 2c/4c. The play not very different. Then move slowly up 5c/10c, 25c/50c, etc. Play at different sites, you'll see some interesting dynamics though the games at low limits are still loose.

Re: Winning at Play money any indication for real money??
 

When I first started out, I played .25/.50 and thought it was really hard to beat. Eventually I got it and moved up to .50/1 then to 1/2 and now slowly moving into 2/4. The other day though I jumped into a .25/.50 game and after playing a few hands I remebering thinking how easy the game was and how I could have ever had trouble beating it. Maybe if I move up to 3/6, 5/10 I'll say the same things about 1/2 and 2/4.

Re: True micro-limits
 

[ QUOTE ]
it generally is only expected that you need about $80 to sit down at the $2-4 with comfort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I finished down $80 in a 15-hour $2/4 session there last weekend. If anything you have more variance to contend with, but all the dead money in the pot is mostly adding upside. So many times, I've been down a bit only to hit a big set/full house or two before leaving, and finished up a nice chunk. (Yeah, small sample but I'm talking about a few different sessions.)

Some people think low-limit rake is impossible to beat, but for reasons I posted there I think that argument doesn't make sense. A better question is whether, after $20-30 in tokes and tips, and half a gas of tank to get down there, it's worth it for me to play $2/4 or if I should be spending more time building a bankroll online and holding out for $4/8.

Re: I dunno, but...
 

Hi! Thanks for the post to my question a couple of weeks ago. Just wanted to let you know that I took your suggestions. I did start at the .02/.04 cent limit....but...that was so boring. I found myself not concentrating on the game at that level and after about 2000 hands tried .05/.10. and that was about the same....boring. I took your suggestion and went to .25/.50 and this limit keeps my interest and so fat I have played 1473 hands in 23.0 hours. I have won 39.85 dollars so far at this limit. If I'm doing the math right that works out to 79.7 big bets won so far. I guess about 3.46 big bets per hour or 5.42 big bets per 100 hands. I realize that this could be just a lucky winning streak. I'm constantly studying the books and working out the hand problems with cards and chips. My goal is to earn at least 100 big bets at this level. Just giving you a quick over view of how your suggestion has helped me so far. Thanks again for taking the time to post a reply to me.

Thanks,
bhunter

Re: I dunno, but...
 

Congrats! Keep workin it.