Re: Winning the Most on the Internet

[The Dude]

This article is filled with absalutely terrible advice.

I could spend several hours picking apart every little detail in this article I disagree with, but instead I'll just mention a few of the particularly terrible suggestions he makes and leave it at that.

-Don't Think... a few seconds is too long.
-Or to put it another way; if you can comfortably stop and think for say five seconds about a decision, then you could make more money if you were playing more games and didn't spend so long thinking about your actions.
-Any thinking should be done away from the table. (NOTE: I'm a big fan of spending time away from the table thinking, but claiming that you shouldn't be thinking during a hand is assanine.)
-In most games you will find on the Internet, treating all opponents, as one generic opponent is sufficient.
-You have aces, there are three cards on board, and you have the option to raise. Well, maybe another option is better, but can you really spend the time getting enough information to make a better decision?
-3. Studying the board, the cards, betting patterns, the opponents percent "Folded to river bet," "River Aggression Factor," and any other related information before making a considered opinion. You should never have enough time for Option No. 3

Card Player Magazine would be ashamed to publish this article; I have no idea why 2+2 did.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
This article is filled with absalutely terrible advice.

I could spend several hours picking apart every little detail in this article I disagree with, but instead I'll just mention a few of the particularly terrible suggestions he makes and leave it at that.

-Don't Think... a few seconds is too long.
-Or to put it another way; if you can comfortably stop and think for say five seconds about a decision, then you could make more money if you were playing more games and didn't spend so long thinking about your actions.
-Any thinking should be done away from the table. (NOTE: I'm a big fan of spending time away from the table thinking, but claiming that you shouldn't be thinking during a hand is assanine.)
-In most games you will find on the Internet, treating all opponents, as one generic opponent is sufficient.
-You have aces, there are three cards on board, and you have the option to raise. Well, maybe another option is better, but can you really spend the time getting enough information to make a better decision?
-3. Studying the board, the cards, betting patterns, the opponents percent "Folded to river bet," "River Aggression Factor," and any other related information before making a considered opinion. You should never have enough time for Option No. 3

Card Player Magazine would be ashamed to publish this article; I have no idea why 2+2 did.

[/ QUOTE ]

My interpretation is that the author is talking about ways to maximize the number of tables you're playing at once. These tips are for players who are trying to find the absolutely highest number of tables to play. So if you want to play 12 (or 16, or more) tables, you may need to implement some (or all) of these ideas.

In that context, these guidelines are fine.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
In that context, these guidelines are fine.

[/ QUOTE ]
Under absalutely no context could the following two statements be correct:
-In most games you will find on the Internet, treating all opponents, as one generic opponent is sufficient.
-You have aces, there are three cards on board, and you have the option to raise. Well, maybe another option is better, but can you really spend the time getting enough information to make a better decision?

Written to small- and micro-stakes players, this article gives the exact opposite advice as what should be given. He says multi-table like crazy, and play 20 tables if you can - it's worth it. Small- and especially micro-stakes players should, in fact, be most concerned with improving their game.

Starting at .5-1 and working his way up, a beginner should be able to build a bankroll faster than he is ready to move up. Assuming he's not withdrawing from his bankroll, there's just no way it's not going to get built faster than he improves.

A decent 2-4 player, playing like this author suggest, could be pulling down about 1.5 BB/100 12 tabling. That comes out to a little over $43/ hr, so it'd take about 300 hours to build a bankroll for 15-30. That's 2 months of full-time work.

Do you think there's any way this player will be ready for 15-30 after 2 months? No way in hell - he'd be a donator. And a good 15-30 player can make much more than $43/ hr 1-tabling.

[phish]

I too am surprised at all the negative reaction this article has gotten. When I first read it, I thought it was the best article in the March magazine. Now I've never done anything close to 8-tabling, though I have done three. And even w/ 3 tables, you don't have a lot of time to focus on who you're playing against. All you can hope to do is have the best general strategy that you can, and apply it. And I think that's all he's saying: if you want to make the most money at say the 5/10 limit, you should develop the best general strategy that you can and multi-table. If your strategy is good enough, you should be able to make more per hour than much better players playing 30/60 even. You won't ever get better this way to move up, but if your sole concern is to maximize your win-rate, then this may be the way to go.
Also, please keep in mind that not everyone is capable of developing into a great enough player to crush the 100/200 games. Beating those games requires different skills than beating the 5/10 game. There may well be people who can make a ton of money multi-tabling at 5/10, who could never, no matter how hard they try, beat the 100/200 game for very much. For example, most important skills for the 5/10 game may be playing tight, not chasing without the proper odds, and betting for value. For the 100/200 game (many of which are played short-handed), the most important skills may be reading hands, aggression, and knowing your players (knowing who's willing to fold on the turn for a checkraise, for example).
I know many players who can play a solid mathematical game but yet who can seem to master (or even understand) the skills/concepts necessary to beat the bigger games. For those guys, this article presents the best advice for making money at internet poker.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
And a good 15-30 player can make much more than $43/ hr 1-tabling.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but what will his swings be like? Not everyone has the same tolerance for losing $1500 in a session and maintaining a $10K BR online. Some people would rather play small easily beatable games where ABC poker will get you 2+BBs/100 and you stand absolutely no chance to lose any significant amount of money over any significant period of time.

[MEbenhoe]

I agree. The problem with this article is that if you're playing $0.50/$1 or $1/$2 where you can make money just by playing autopilot these suggestions will work to help you make the maximum amount you can make. However, this will serve to give the player an inflated sense of their ability, and they will move up levels without the skill to play at that level. So while this can be good short-sighted advice, over the long run this is terrible for the player.

[VegasVixen]

The advice of this article goes COMPLETELY against what was written in the February article "Why some struggle making The mirco to small stakes jump" by Scott Armstrong. According to Scott, the type of play recommended by Mr. Shepperson is exactly what will cost you your bankroll if you are a serious player intending to move up in limits:...
"While there are plenty of soft spots at small stakes tables online, it requires better reads and concentration to find them. You can't play multiple tables on autopilot the way you can at the micro levels. The necessary adjustments become even more vital if you plan to move up past the small stakes level in the future. It's not even the particular adjustments that are important here -- it's the process of recognizing those adjustments and adapting your game to a different level."
In my opinion, Shepperson's article is filled with terrible advice for anyone who is interested in improving their poker skills and growing their bankroll, which are the principals that I thought the 2+2 forums were all about...

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
The advice of this article goes COMPLETELY against what was written in the February article "Why some struggle making The mirco to small stakes jump" by Scott Armstrong. According to Scott, the type of play recommended by Mr. Shepperson is exactly what will cost you your bankroll if you are a serious player intending to move up in limits:...
"While there are plenty of soft spots at small stakes tables online, it requires better reads and concentration to find them. You can't play multiple tables on autopilot the way you can at the micro levels. The necessary adjustments become even more vital if you plan to move up past the small stakes level in the future. It's not even the particular adjustments that are important here -- it's the process of recognizing those adjustments and adapting your game to a different level."

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand by what I wrote last month too. Personally, in my experience, I don't doubt that there are people who can play multiple tables without having to put much thought into their play. But I doubt highly that EV can be maximized if you're literally trying to eliminate any THINKING from your decision making.

I have a hard time playing 4 tables, honestly. Even thinking about reads, concentrating on hands, etc, I know I'm probably sacrificing a small amount of EV so I can work through a bonus faster, etc.

[theBruiser500]

doe this guy post on 22 what is his sn?

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The advice of this article goes COMPLETELY against what was written in the February article "Why some struggle making The mirco to small stakes jump" by Scott Armstrong. According to Scott, the type of play recommended by Mr. Shepperson is exactly what will cost you your bankroll if you are a serious player intending to move up in limits:...
"While there are plenty of soft spots at small stakes tables online, it requires better reads and concentration to find them. You can't play multiple tables on autopilot the way you can at the micro levels. The necessary adjustments become even more vital if you plan to move up past the small stakes level in the future. It's not even the particular adjustments that are important here -- it's the process of recognizing those adjustments and adapting your game to a different level."

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand by what I wrote last month too. Personally, in my experience, I don't doubt that there are people who can play multiple tables without having to put much thought into their play. But I doubt highly that EV can be maximized if you're literally trying to eliminate any THINKING from your decision making.

I have a hard time playing 4 tables, honestly. Even thinking about reads, concentrating on hands, etc, I know I'm probably sacrificing a small amount of EV so I can work through a bonus faster, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you should standby your previous article. Your articles have both been spot on, which makes me wonder why 2+2 would put something so contradictory to other articles in their magazine. Considering this also goes against everything The Dude said in his article this month. So in one issue, we have one guy telling us that we should work on our hand reading ability in order to become a better poker player and another guy telling us that trying to figure out what hand another player has is unimportant. I'm confused how it makes sense to print these both [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I really wish Mason or the author would come comment on this.