Starting over online... - Page 2

PokerSlut · #11 09-18-2004, 06:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Tell the truth, you're busted, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not even close.
[ QUOTE ]
You won't "get in touch" with your game playing online. There are many more opportunities to do so in live games.

[/ QUOTE ]
That depends on what I'm focusing on. I believe that online play demands more mathematically sound poker than live play, due to the absense of tells. The last several weeks I have made a lot of money bluffing pots when I "knew" my opponent felt his/her hand was weak thanks to a tell, and likewise saved a lot of money by spotting tells indicating a much stronger hand than they were representing. This has been great for me and a major contributing factor to my success. A couple of weekends ago I think I would have posted two or three losing sessions consecutively had I not had any tells to go by, and instead they were all winning sessions. However, tells should not be a replacement for mathematically sound poker, and I think I'm starting to depend too much on tells instead of considering whether I have the correct odds to make some of the plays I do.

greg nice · #12 09-18-2004, 10:45 AM

PokerSlut, excellent reply. it seems youre doing this for the right reasons.

cagedman · #13 09-18-2004, 02:56 PM

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to call BS on this.

If you're not busted and you're serious... play the 25NL at least. At least you'll have SOMETHING to show for your time while still meeting all the criteria of your post.

bunky9590 · #14 09-18-2004, 03:21 PM

Thats how I started my online roll about a year ago. With a 14.60 freeroll tourney 3rd place finish. Grinding up the low limits and have now hit just shy of 10K. Its a real grind at the low limits but jeez the earn is great when you multi the 200 and 400 NL games.

culs2004 · #15 09-18-2004, 04:10 PM

I am doing a similar thing by trying to move from limit to no limit. In my opinion, playing micro limit does not help build skill because players at micro limit are so bad that those games reinforce bad play. I am finding the $25 NL tables to be much more beneficial to the learning process, while still be soft enough to not bust out.

Justin A · #16 09-18-2004, 06:57 PM

PokerSlut,

Sounds like a good idea, I know my game has improved tremendously since I stopped playing so much live poker and have been focusing on my online play.

However, starting at the $5 game is way too small IMO. It'll take forever to get up to ten buy ins of the $25 level. I'd suggest putting in about three hundred, starting at the $25 games and working your way up from there. At least then when you double your stake you can move up. You're talking about turning fifteen into 250 with blinds of .01/.02. Not worth the time.

Good luck,
Justin A

PokerSlut · #17 09-19-2004, 02:34 AM

Well today I did a lot of housework during the day and was too tired to shower and drag my lazy ass out to the casino, so I played a bit online while chilling on the sofa instead.

I actually played two online sessions today; one longer off-and-on session where I was doing laundry and other things while multi-tabling earlier in the day, and another later in the evening while enjoying a beer and watching movies.

The early session wasn't the best. I finished it down about $5 after catching a couple of bad beats to larger stacks, and felt like for all the hands I played I wasn't making any progress. The evening session was much shorter, maybe an hour or so, and I stuck to a single table since I was already pretty distracted from watching the movie. This session was pretty good in terms of earnings as I finished up a bit over $15 and only caught a couple of beats to smaller stacks, so they didn't hurt as much.

About half of that money came in a single hand, where a guy continued calling me down after I had raised larger than normal preflop with AA, and he had almost as many chips as I did so I won about a $16 pot. I'm guessing he had AQ since that's the only thing I could imagine him calling with as the flop was Q-rag-rag, with rags on the turn and river. I suppose he might have had KK but I think he would have popped me back preflop if that were the case.

So, after day 3 my online bankroll stands at just over $35. If the games continue to be this easy I don't think it will take me long at all to move to the next level.

Justin A · #18 09-19-2004, 03:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So, after day 3 my online bankroll stands at just over $35. If the games continue to be this easy I don't think it will take me long at all to move to the next level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it should take you at least 200 hours of table time to reach $250. That's if you're running good. Please just buy in for a little more and play the $25 games.

Justin A

PokerSlut · #19 09-19-2004, 12:30 PM

I like the extra challenge of starting out with such a small bankroll. I really don't think I would be as motivated to do well if I didn't start out so small. If I were interested in doing this from a purely monetary perspective, it would be a different story, of course.

So, having not used PokerTracker much before, what kind of BB/hour and BB/100 hands do most NL players see longer-term (say at least 40k+ hands)?

dogmeat · #20 09-19-2004, 01:34 PM

Sounds like you are doing fine. Good for you. I still miss the point of playing the micros, but to each his own.

A good NL win rate for online games in the micros and up to at least $2/$4 is 10x the big blind per hour. If you are playing the $25 max game with a .50 and $1 blind, you should be able to manage $10 per hour.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]