A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.

[natedogg]

Hi pokerbabe. I want to say again that you are discussing something entirely different from what I was saying in my original post.

That said, I still think what you are seeing and experiencing is nothing more than a game that has higher variance, and some of the pros in that game are not emotionally equipped to deal with it.

All the examples you have given are STANDARD for every limit game I've played in. You say "Today, I watched an excellent local pro lose 2 racks in a "good game", as if it's something exceptional.

Now, the whole point of my original post was not that the clueless newcomers to your Mirage 20-40 game are actually as good as you.

My point was that today we see a lot of "no name" amateurs are doing well vs. top no limit tourney pros and a commonly voiced reaction has been that the top tourney pros are dinosaurs, that there's a new wave of young poker players with a new approach to the game that is mowing down the pros.

My take was that this was totally incorrect. The pros are just as great as always. It's just that there are way more excellent players out there than cardplayer magazine would have you believe. Even some pros seem to equate "not famous" with "not very good". But I think for the most part it's the folks who read and follow tourney poker who overestimate how rare it is to be an excellent no limit tourney player.

As far as the vegas 20-40 goes, where "The beats are just so ridiculous it's hard to believe", I can honestly say that is the only kind of experience in limit hold'em I've ever known.

natedogg

[jdl22]

The old man has cards. If he is in a pot (other than for free or cheap in the blinds) he will have better cards than the guys he's up against. He also of course will know not to chase draws without odds and such.

Hand reading is a good skill to have and is something experienced players tend to have over their inexperienced foes. Having said that the game is much more profitable (albeit with higher variance) if you have a couple guys at your table that will play any two and take to showdown any piece of the board.

Perhaps the key is in your last paragraph. Are these guys really losing players now, or have they just not adjusted their bankroll for the increased variance?

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I really think that handreading is one of the most important skills in poker. If you disagree, please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Handreading is an integral part of winning against tough players.

Against these morons, handreading is not important. Playing premium hands that dominate theirs in the long run is more important. It's boring poker, and sometimes frustrating, but in the long run it gets the money.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Hey natedoggie...

Excuse me if I digress..I know I took this thread on a bit of a tangent. Sorry [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Are these guys really losing players now, or have they just not adjusted their bankroll for the increased variance?

Very good question.

I suspect it's much about bankroll. I was thinking about our typical buy-ins in the dayshift 20 game. In the past, it was not atypical to see at least half the dayshift guys buy in for 500-600. In fact, there is one guy who still normally only buys in for that amount. I am sure that seems quite low to many of the midstakes posters here.

However, over the last year, I have noticed many guys going to 700-1K. My buy-in is typically 800, but I will sometimes adjust up depending on the average stack size.

One of the old timers who is a winning player actually got into a game for 2k about 2 months ago. That was the most he was ever in any 20-40 poker game in his life. This guy plays 6 days a week almost exclusively at 20-40, and he was really astounded at this. I was very surprized as well. Another guy who is a winning player had his worst losing day EVER in any game not too long ago (he's been playing for 30 years). I didnt' want to hear the gory details, but I asked if it was over 3 racks and he said "oh yea", like maybe it was closer to 5. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] That is extreme poker for these boyz. These numbers are simply not within their poker paradigm. Obviously, they must rethink their financial commitments to the game if they are going to play optimally.

LGPG,

Babe [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Even though I lost to him (and he ended walking out with 6 racks), it didn't really bother me.

REALLY? Would it bother you to lose if you were outplayed?

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
REALLY? Would it bother you to lose if you were outplayed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, when I am outplayed, it bothers me and I am concerned.

However, I'm not overly concerned when I lose because AJo three bets my UTG AK raise, flops an ace and rivers a jack. I'm going to beat him nine out of ten times in this situation. That nine out of ten times doesn't show up in a four hour session, but it is very evident and profitable over the course of thousands of hands.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
In the past, it was not atypical to see at least half the dayshift guys buy in for 500-600. In fact, there is one guy who still normally only buys in for that amount. I am sure that seems quite low to many of the midstakes posters here.

[/ QUOTE ]

12.5 big bets is a horrible buy-in for any game. In a 20/40 game, you should be buying in for at least two racks.

[bunky9590]

[ QUOTE ]
limit games on the net (as a general rule) have a much larger variance and require a much much bigger bankroll to play successfully.

there's a lot to be said for a pro avoiding a high variance game they can't afford to play.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hence my move from limit holdem online into NLHE. I am a limit animal with very good earn and 6 years experience who has moved to NL online to reduce the variance and earn more money. They want to make mistakes? Let it not be for one bet but for their stack.

[Roy Munson]

I am a bad player and I have been bluffed many times.