Winning at Play money any indication for real money??

[Komodo]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
If you are beating the playmoney big, there is no doubt you can beat the real money too. Play is mostly the same, bluffs, valuebetting, semibluffs, slowplaying etc. The main difference is perhaps a much bigger bankroll, a bit more maniacs, and the fact that you play more hands in playmoney.
All-in preflop by Ak is likely to get called by J8off just like in playmoney. Microlimit is stronger, but not that much.

[/ QUOTE ]
(Emphasis added.)
Where on earth do you play play-money games? I don't think I've ever seen one where bluffs and semibluffs worked, or where slowplaying was necessary. In fairness I've probably played more play money limit than no-limit, but either way people will call down with anything.

On your last point I agree with you: it's really just a matter of degree, because micro games are pretty loose too. They're probably often more passive (easier to raise just for fun when it's only play money) but not always. I'm not saying someone should stay at $0.05/0.10 forever, or even to accumulate 300 BBet/20 buyins for the next level, just long enough to know they can beat it.

To the poster who pointed out my limit bias: you're right, the post was fully neutral until I brought up Jones and Miller. Incidentally i generally indicate betting limits with a slash ($2/4) and NL blinds with a dash ($2-4), and the OP used a dash, so I must have really been predisposed to thinking in limit to override this convention that AFAIK i dreamed up by myself. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify a few thing. I meant the stratagems is the same in playmoney as in realmoney. Bluffs rarely work for me either in playmoney or for realmoney (lowstakes). Whether it works or not is player dependent. There are tigthies in playmoney too who you can bluff and slowplay against.

A semibluff on the other hand is not really a bluff at all in playmoney, since you usually have the correct pot odds to chase draws in multi-pots.

I think there is a bigger difference between playmoney limit and realmoney limit. Most of the play limit Ive played has been like 10 players enter the pot and all raise and checkraise with any 2 to the end. Ive played a little real-limit too and it seems to me way to many people who call and call to the end there too, so I guess a good player can pick up easy money there.

[Ilovephysics]

[ QUOTE ]

For me going through the swings at Pacific $0.05/0.10 gave me confidence to pull through them at B&amp;M $3/6 and 4/8. The Pac micros are only a tad looser/more passive than Foxwoods low-limits. And while the stakes may not mean much to your opponents, it's up to you whether they matter to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny you should say that. I have often wondered where Foxwoods would fall. Seems like one of the best B&amp;M places for a beginner to play, and it generally is only expected that you need about $80 to sit down at the $2-4 with comfort.

[rr2000]

If you are hesitant about money, I would suggest you try 200-400 play chips tables at stars. If you consistently beat that, then you can jump to 2c/4c. The play not very different. Then move slowly up 5c/10c, 25c/50c, etc. Play at different sites, you'll see some interesting dynamics though the games at low limits are still loose.

[TaoTe]

When I first started out, I played .25/.50 and thought it was really hard to beat. Eventually I got it and moved up to .50/1 then to 1/2 and now slowly moving into 2/4. The other day though I jumped into a .25/.50 game and after playing a few hands I remebering thinking how easy the game was and how I could have ever had trouble beating it. Maybe if I move up to 3/6, 5/10 I'll say the same things about 1/2 and 2/4.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
it generally is only expected that you need about $80 to sit down at the $2-4 with comfort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I finished down $80 in a 15-hour $2/4 session there last weekend. If anything you have more variance to contend with, but all the dead money in the pot is mostly adding upside. So many times, I've been down a bit only to hit a big set/full house or two before leaving, and finished up a nice chunk. (Yeah, small sample but I'm talking about a few different sessions.)

Some people think low-limit rake is impossible to beat, but for reasons I posted there I think that argument doesn't make sense. A better question is whether, after $20-30 in tokes and tips, and half a gas of tank to get down there, it's worth it for me to play $2/4 or if I should be spending more time building a bankroll online and holding out for $4/8.

Hi! Thanks for the post to my question a couple of weeks ago. Just wanted to let you know that I took your suggestions. I did start at the .02/.04 cent limit....but...that was so boring. I found myself not concentrating on the game at that level and after about 2000 hands tried .05/.10. and that was about the same....boring. I took your suggestion and went to .25/.50 and this limit keeps my interest and so fat I have played 1473 hands in 23.0 hours. I have won 39.85 dollars so far at this limit. If I'm doing the math right that works out to 79.7 big bets won so far. I guess about 3.46 big bets per hour or 5.42 big bets per 100 hands. I realize that this could be just a lucky winning streak. I'm constantly studying the books and working out the hand problems with cards and chips. My goal is to earn at least 100 big bets at this level. Just giving you a quick over view of how your suggestion has helped me so far. Thanks again for taking the time to post a reply to me.

Thanks,
bhunter

[MrTrik]

Congrats! Keep workin it.