Loose Games -EV?

[xniNja]

I disagree with most of this; Most of the analysis and points have already been made, but my main point wasn't so much about downswings as it was about winning in both games and preferring consistant money vs. a game you know you will eventually beat for more, but are just as likely to get run down by the table. I still contend these games are higher standard deviation, and thus require a larger bankroll. I also don't think your analysis of marginal situations is that relevant to being run down. (I'm assuming you're betting strong holdings & getting paid off when they hold up already.)

[steamboatin]

Okay, come back tomorrow and reread this thread. If your replies still sound correct, you need a lot of work on your game and your understanding of poker in general.

If it is just temporary insanity, don't worry, it happens to us all.

[xniNja]

Note that I am a tight-aggressive/aggressive player talking about playing in weak-tight games, not playing a weak-tight strategy... (your last post sounded like there may have been some confusion.)

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, come back tomorrow and reread this thread. If your replies still sound correct, you need a lot of work on your game and your understanding of poker in general.

If it is just temporary insanity, don't worry, it happens to us all.

[/ QUOTE ]

i do'nt understand, do you think the staff at twoplustwo are crazy? because they and every other expert poker player agrees with me. I can't explain myself any better so maybe you could take this up with ed miller in the internet magazine forum. Heres what he writes:

"If you are broke, you can't be a pro player. You need a bankroll and some modest savings to get started. Before you take the plunge and quit your job, you should have at least three month's expenses in savings plus 500 big bets in bankroll (if you are playing limit poker). If your winrate is relatively low, less than 1.5 BB/100 hands, if you play shorthanded, or if you play a relatively high limit such as $15-$30, you might want to start with a bigger 800 big bet bankroll."

Do you think 15-30 has more loose-calling stations than 3/6, where recomends only 500BB?????????????

[xniNja]

Nowhere in that quote does it say the reason for the bigger bankroll is because of higher standard deviation in the higher limit game. You're drawing a conclusion that isn't necessarily there. Yes, he includes short-handed because the deviation is higher, but probably includes higher-limit because 800 big bets will ensure normal to high downswings (+ errors) won't kill the bankroll while adjusting to going pro.

Note that having a low win-rate doesn't necessarily have a direct connection with standard deviation.

[steamboatin]

This is my last attempt.

[ QUOTE ]
Note that I am a tight-aggressive/aggressive player talking about playing in weak-tight games

[/ QUOTE ]

You said it right there. WEAK_TIGHT GAMES The very definition means that they fold to often to aggresion. So when you bet out hard, they fold unless they have the NUTS. So you win small pots and lose big pots. Even the most mathmactically challenged person on the planet understands that winning a bunch of small pots is less profitable than winning a few giant pots.

I am beginning to understand that your goal may be to win more pots and playing aggressively in a weak-tight game pretty much guarantees that you will win a lot of pots.

The weak-tightees will not be drawing dead against your aggression, but the calling stations will happily contibute dead money to the pot. Just the fact that you don't get any of all that dead money that goes in the pot during a loose game,decreases your profit in the long run.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
but probably includes higher-limit because 800 big bets will ensure normal to high downswings (+ errors) won't kill the bankroll while adjusting to going pro.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not making any sense. Yes 800 big bets will ensure normal to high downswings (+errors) in a high limit game. 500 big bets will ensure normal to high downswings (+errors) in a low limit game. THEREFORE, the swings in the better high limit game are larger than the weaker low limit game! You just admiitted this, do you see why?

[ QUOTE ]
Note that having a low win-rate doesn't necessarily have a direct connection with standard deviation.

[/ QUOTE ]

did i say that it does?

[steamboatin]

I think you have to rethink the conclusions you have drawn from that article. The reason you need a higher bankroll when you begin to play 15-30 is, THE PLAYERS ARE BETTER!

They will beat you like a drum.

Also take the time to realize that the passage you quote is in reguards to a beginning professional player so it assumes that you have to buy lunch and pay rent so unless you want to be homeless, you need more cash.

[Dave H.]

[ QUOTE ]
Note that having a low win-rate doesn't necessarily have a direct connection with standard deviation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry xNinja, but this is mathematically untrue. Win-rate absolutely is utilized in the computation and therefore is directly connected.

Standard Deviation Computation

[beekeeper]

[ QUOTE ]
Some players simply don't know how to play well in loose games. They don't make the required laydowns, and they don't extract full value from their winners. The suckouts annoy them and cause them to play improperly, and ultimately such players probably *would* be better off in tighter games.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, this is me right now. I'm not a losing player, and I'm not a rock, but I get frustrated in super loose games (where just about everyone else plays loose and never lays down a hand) and I don't win as much or as often as I think I should. (I'm not an online player).

I just ordered Small Stakes Hold"Em , by Miller, Sklansky, and Malmuth, on the recommendation of 2+2ers. What else can I do to improve this part of my game?