no fold 'em at higher limits (15-30, 20-40)

[had_enough]

Hi,

I have been playing hold 'em about 4 years. I learned to play among a group of fairly serious home game players (although the limits were small). In addition to these regular games, I have played at a local Indian casino the past 2-3 years; they offer between 2-4 and 6-12 limits. I am about a 90-100 minute drive from the major cardrooms in LA.

Although I enjoy our home games and would not hesitate to keep playing them, I have become so miserable playing at the rooms in LA (Commerce, HP, Bike, esp.) that I'm at the point of basically quitting. I should mention that at these places, I usually play between 4-8 and 20-40, most often 15-30. The experience is not turning out to be why I became interested in poker, and I'm getting very little out of it.

In short, my experience is that even at limits as high as 15-30 and 20-40 (the largest I feel comfortable playing in), the games all play like 1-2 no-fold 'em games. The only difference is, they are yellow chips instead of blue. Now, I know you're thinking, "wow, you should think that's great...those games are beatable" and I know this, but I would say you are missing the point.

Even Schoonmaker falls into this trap, and his book is all about figuring the "motives" of players. In his section of LPG's, he asks, "Do you want to play in these games?", and then, without hesitation says, "UNLESS YOUR MOTIVATIONS ARE DIFFERENT FROM MOST PEOPLE'S (i.e. from MINE)", the answer is YES, YES, YES. Schoonmaker, a psychologist whose book I highly respect, makes the classic egoist fallacy, assuming everyone is like HIM. He says there are "only" 2 reasons to avoid these games, (1) They are so easy to beat it's boring. There is no challenge, and winning may not be satisfying. (2) You will get frustrated when they draw out on you, and they will do it again and again with terrible hands.

Now, for someone who has listed "making money" as their primary motive for playing, these games are great. But, to be honest, this is not why I chose to learn poker. I worked through Schoonmaker's book and here is my "motivation" breakdown:

Make money -- 10%
Socialise, meet people -- 10%
Relax -- 5%
Get excitement of risk -- 5%
Test self against competitive challenge -- 30%
Sense of accomplishment from winning -- 10%
Pass time -- 5%
Other (intellectual stimulation) -- 25%

As you can see, making money by itself doesn't matter much to me without other things. I already have a professional career, and I make more than enough money to support myself.

The home games I have played in regularly the past few years offer almost zilch in terms of "making money" but do great on the other areas. The no-fold 'em games would be outstanding for making money (I know they can be beat, and I know how to adjust) but they're miserable at other areas. Imagine if someone told you this:

"Hey, I have a great job for you. It makes pretty work wages, maybe not as much as your career, but pretty good. There's only a few caveats. First, you have to sit in an uncomfortable chair all day. Also, your 'job' will be incredibly boring and extremely frustrating. There will be little intellectual challenge in it, and it will be about as exciting as doing dishes. Not only that, your fluctuations in income will be great (like all poker) and not steady. You won't be among friends most of the time; in fact, most of the people you will have contempt for. It won't be too relaxing and probably damaging to your health. But you will definitely make a lot of money."

After hearing this description, who in their right mind would accept such a job, given that they already have a primary source of income that makes them more money and offers them more personal satisfaction??

Thank you, WPT for bringing all these new players to the game. Unfortunately, you've driven me out. I'l go back to chess. I can pick a hobby that doesn't make me miserable.

[sthief09]

you'll probably get better responses by posting in the psychology forum

but based on your post, it seems like you'd rather be a break-even player at a table full of tough opponents than a winning player against a bunch of loose aggressive morons. that's completely understandable, but unfortunately it's tough to find a game like that.

there's always the option of playing online. the online games tend to be tougher than live games at the same limit. if you don't want to do that I suppose you could always move up, but I've never played in LA and I've never played even those limits so I can't say that from experience.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
After hearing this description, who in their right mind would accept such a job, given that they already have a primary source of income that makes them more money and offers them more personal satisfaction??


[/ QUOTE ]

If you count all the Pro-Wanna-Be's on this forum then many people.

Jimbo

[Ray Zee]

i suspect you arent good enough to beat the games and its sour grapes. if you want more challenging games just play higher. if you look at your list even loose games fit the bill. and 20/40 games arent that loose.

[astroglide]

and 20/40 games arent that loose

totally disagree on that one. online and casino, every 15-20 game i see is loose.

[Tosh]

I don't see anything wrong with your desire to test yourself but it doesn't sound like you've looked very hard for tougher games. Its not like every game anywhere is so soft.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, for someone who has listed "making money" as their primary motive for playing, these games are great. But, to be honest, this is not why I chose to learn poker. I worked through Schoonmaker's book and here is my "motivation" breakdown:

Make money -- 10%
Socialise, meet people -- 10%
Relax -- 5%
Get excitement of risk -- 5%
Test self against competitive challenge -- 30%
Sense of accomplishment from winning -- 10%
Pass time -- 5%
Other (intellectual stimulation) -- 25%

As you can see, making money by itself doesn't matter much to me without other things. I already have a professional career, and I make more than enough money to support myself.

...The no-fold 'em games would be outstanding for making money (I know they can be beat, and I know how to adjust) but they're miserable at other areas....I'l go back to chess. I can pick a hobby that doesn't make me miserable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think that most people would find it to be a competitive challange to learn how to adjust to and beat these no-foldem games. Either you do not play as well as you think you do, or you cannot enjoy a game where you might be the best player. As Ray Zee stated, you could always play at a higher limit, especially since bankroll is not a concern for you.

Or you can return to playing chess--although if you have been playing for at least eight years competitively, you probably realize that the odds of your ever improving further are quite slim. I gave up chess (as a Class A player), in part, due to the stagnation in skill development that most players experience after approximately eight years.

[Spyder]

I also thrive on challenge & competition. I find that tournaments supply me with these needs much better than ring games. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with having to make money as I pursue the tournament scene and must play the ring games most of the time.

I'd suggest hitting the tournament scene. The cost is comparatively low as the chips aren't 'real' money and you can play competively with them without losing the rent; you're only cost is the entry fee. You also get to play against the best in the world. As a reminder, though, some of the challenges in a tournament are different than those in a ring game.

If I lived where there were casinos nearby, I'd be playing every week. Unfortunately, we moved away from Kansas City three months ago...the nearest cardrooms are now 5-6 hours away in Lake Charles, LA [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Spyder

[Michael Davis]

The idea that these loose games are easy to beat is correct, but there are plenty of opportunities for intellectual stimulation.

These games are ripe with opportunities for unusual, profit-increasing plays. Just because your opponents are terrible doesn't mean you get to think less.

-Michael

[Lou Krieger]

[ QUOTE ]
here is my "motivation" breakdown:

Make money -- 10%
Socialise, meet people -- 10%
Relax -- 5%
Get excitement of risk -- 5%
Test self against competitive challenge -- 30%
Sense of accomplishment from winning -- 10%
Pass time -- 5%
Other (intellectual stimulation) -- 25%

[/ QUOTE ]

One big difference between chess and poker is that in chess, the cream rises to the top a lot more quickly. In poker, especially in loose games with a big variance, it may take some time until your average hourly win rate begins to mirror whatever theoretical expectation you have because of the skill differential between you and your opponents.

And that may be so frustrating to you that it's driving you back to chess.

_________
Lou Krieger