Making money at poker

[JinX11]

[ QUOTE ]
blah blah blah...then you cannot win over time...

[/ QUOTE ]

You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

[Blartman]

Yes please! 7-1 for a 4-1 shot is a good payout.

The online statement intrigues me. I can virtually predict what is going to come up next depending on the hand I'm holding. Two pair on the flop will ALWAYS produce a flush or straight for someone else on the river.

Examples:

Before I came back here today, I lost a flopped, all-in'd, nut flush to a FH on the river.

That was followed by Q 9 paired on the flop, to 3 of a kind Aces, where Aces 2 and 3 appeared on the Turn and River after I'd all-in'd again.

I understand that long-shots do come in. Occasionally. But if multiple people are hitting long-shots, and you're not, then how does it work ?! [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

And online sites seem to hit long-shots at very small intervals.....

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
I suck at poker and reading comprehension and logic so therefore no one can win at poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed.

[Blartman]

Well, I guess this is the wrong site to come to for help.

Maybe I should find a UK site.

[JinX11]

How many hands have you played? Seriously.

Yes, the beats are frustrating. I can think of four hands this morning alone where I was two-outted in big pots. But then I remember all the other times I dragged the pot when my opponent's card didn't hit.

The latter instance happens to a variable degree more than the former; this is how money is made and lost playing poker. If I'm wrong, I'm due for an ungodly downswing.

[AngryCola]

Maybe, but I doubt the majority of people in a UK forum would support your notion of online poker being rigged. It's funny how all these same thoughts seem to come together in certain people.

And you wanted help?

Your first post was just a blatent bashing of one of 2+2's most respected authors. In not so many words, what you were implying is that he is selling lies to people.

How was THAT asking for help? Also, how is it asking to help by telling anyone who disagrees with you that they must be wrong?

I think you just wanted to vent and are even more pissed that anyone could dare disagree with you. Sorry, but that's the way it goes.

[JinX11]

Dude - you have one of the cooler avatars on here, btw. Nice.

[Blartman]

Online? Probably thousands.

I admit that when I started I had my own theories. I read Doyle Brunson's (first) book, and I've read two of David Sklansky's. I've even read Tony Holden's Big Deal!

I changed my playing style after reading Small Stakes, and regularly beat the local game in our village. But we have a maximum of 6 players. Most of them fold at the slightest hint of a raise. Some bluff and get slaughtered.

My question/frustation, is that most new players haven't read the book, and don't know what the odds are of certain cards making a good hand. So they stay in, and if 9 players stay in after a 10-1 shot, at least one of them is going to beat me 'most' of the time.

Combine that with the dubious nature of online sites (ie the amount of times that 10-1, and even 20-1 shots come in) and I'm surely onto a loser, no matter what.

You guys dismiss me (ok, as I said, my opening line was more frustration than anything), because you're winning, but what is the key?

Mr Sklansky's footnotes noting the exceptions seem to be what I'm facing nearly every hand.... [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
but what is the key?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I'm really going to try here.

The key is in your post!
[ QUOTE ]
My question/frustation, is that most new players haven't read the book, and don't know what the odds are of certain cards making a good hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY! This is why you beat them and isn't something you want to change...ever.


[ QUOTE ]
So they stay in, and if 9 players stay in after a 10-1 shot, at least one of them is going to beat me 'most' of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

No... if you have read SSHE, I advise you to read it again. I do not mean that in a condescending way. The way you are looking at poker is very backwards.

Also, if you are going to persist with this notion that online poker is rigged in some way, you might as well just quit now. If you can't accept the huge amount of statistics that show a normal (read: not rigged) hand distribution, nothing will ever convince you that you can beat the games.

[Zarl]

In loose online games you win fewer pots but the ones you win are huge. That's how you make money.