A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.

[chrisjp]

Kurn,

That's what I believe. I have begun to study with the intent to play tournament NLH. I will never play in a single cash game ever.

First book I read: you guessed it, Sklansky's Tournament book.

Plus I went to the WSOP and just watched from the rail. Watched 25 hours of play the last 4 days.

I don't want to play any limit games, and I don't want to play any NL cash games.

I'm going to play a board game called Tournament NLH. I have an extensive successful background in playing in BJ, CRAPS, Baccarat, Keno, and Sports Tournaments (helps to live in Vegas).

Plus I will be setting up a video library of all the televised contests. With an index to all the players.

And the help of all of you at 2+2 will be invaluable. Thanking you all in advance. I hope that I will be able to return the favor.

We will see how it goes.

Chris

[chrisjp]

Hi Zeno--

You stated,

"But what 'Pro' would limit themselves to options and one type of game? Should not a 'Pro' be able to not only play multiple limits but multiple types of poker? Especially Stud and Omaha 8 - thus, increasing the pool of good games to choose from. I would think that this would be a sound strategy for trying to make a living playing poker."

I have a different take. I'm not out to be a "Pro" if that is your definition. I want to be an expert Tournament NL player--that's it for me. I don't need or want recognition. In fact I've been quite successful playing in Casino game tournaments, but have tried to avoid any pub.

And now with the proliferation of online tournaments I can play as much as I want. I won't have to wait for a game that I want to play because my expertise is in quite a narrow field.

I enjoy the intellectual challenge, and I especially enjoy the interaction with all of you, so we can bounce these ideas around and all improve -- whatever our goal is.

Chris

[adios]

Before I get started I really respect what you have to say about poker. I like your posts a lot and I really like your approach to the game. What you seem to be saying too in my mind is that importance of reading hands has diminished in certain games as opposed to other skills. I'm not saying that reading hands isn't important, just that the importance of other aspects of sound play go up in value as people play in a way that makes them harder to read. A long time ago, somewhere in the old archives, there was a discussion that involved Ray and Dave regarding the importance of different skills related to type games and limits. At the time it was an eye opener for me.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

I'm not out to be a "Pro" if that is your definition. I want to be an expert Tournament NL player--that's it for me. I don't need or want recognition.


Hi Chrisjp,
I agree with your concept about what I call "poker specialization". Personally, I don't have the inclination to become a "pro" at MANY different games. I am specializing in one and that is limit hold 'em. If I ever feel I have learned all there is to know about limit, I can move to another game. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] I recently played some "other games" during the WSOP and found it was not very profitable. I think it's great if a player can move between games with equal success, but it's a challenge that I don't need. I sometimes enjoy playing no limit for small stakes and playing the 2 tier satellites for the WSOP entry. Other than that, I am just focused on limit.

LGPG and do what works...

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

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

[chrisjp]

Hey Babe,

Nice to meet you. Yes, I admire those that want to master all games, and those that can are amazing. I don't believe I could actually, but it's not something I aspire to anyway. Good luck to all of them, and to you too.

Chris

[Zeno]

For PokerBabe and Chrisjp:


A 'pro' is obviously someone that makes their living exclusively by playing poker.

There is an old joke about Specialization - knowing more and more about less and less.

Having a pre-estabished plan and outline to poker and sticking to it is obviously an excellent approach especially if you want to make a living at it - but only to a point. Expansion and learning should be maintained to avoid stagnation, boredom, and self imposed limits that can cause decay of playing ability.

I'll use an example - say that at the Orleans a particular jucie Omaha 8 game goes on from about noon on for 3-4 days out of the week - Say you invest $30 bucks and two days time to read and study Ray Zee's High-Low-Split Poker. You set aside X dollars from the Hold'em bankroll and embark on a new game.

I submit that:

A. You will see the carryover in geneal poker concepts very readily.

B. You could consistently win at the Omaha 8 game.

C. Playing Omaha 8 will help your overall poker playing ability and improve your hold'em play as well.


You have just 'doubled' the games you can play in and game selection is key to maintaining a long-term winning stradegy.

Now continue on and do the same for Seven Card Stud and get the 2+2 book on stud.

I do not think that it is all that hard to become proficent in at least 3 different types of poker, especially if you stick to limit poker. There are many basic concepts that are similar - the differences and nuances can be readily learned over time and picked up rather quickly. And each type of game adds perspecitive to the other and enhances the play of all.

IMO.

-Zeno

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Having a pre-estabished plan and outline to poker and sticking to it is obviously an excellent approach especially if you want to make a living at it - but only to a point. Expansion and learning should be maintained to avoid stagnation, boredom, and self imposed limits that can cause decay of playing ability.

Hi Zeno....,

When I feel bored or not sufficiently challenged I take a break from playing or play a higher limit. I think your points are well taken, and for some, it's fine to branch out and become proficient in more games. It's simply a matter of what you choose to do. For me, Omaha plays a little too loose and stud requires tracking way too many cards (lol). Also, in Vegas, I suspect that the midlimit stud players are probably better than the midlimit hold'em players, overall.

Or, maybe I am just happy in my own little specialized world, eh?

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

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Even in my own little microcosm of the Vegas dayshift, I have seen 4 or 5 very good players bust out over the last 18 months. These LONG time EXPERIENCED players used to beat the game and no longer found that they could. Did they suddenly "forget" how to play? Surely not. What happened is that they could not beat the "newer contingent" of player who is difficult to read. Because the "newer contingent" I am describing makes so many errors (both before and after the flop, it often requires the pros to pay off more at the river and to put more bets in on other streets. Obviously, this can impact short term results and increase variance until the pros can master the "learning curve" required to play in the "new world".
Additionally, bankroll drawdowns have created problems for previously winning players who can't overcome the variance they are experiencing. Remember, some people actually live off their poker income, so they don't have other sources to fall back on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Babe, I have read through most of this thread and if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the influx of new, wild players has meant that the longtime winning players (in your microcosm) have experienced lower EV (for a short period while they learn what adjustments to make) and higher variance (likely permanent, as long as the games stay wild). However, even though the longtime-winning players' EV may be lower than it used to be, it is still positive; and the higher variance is the reason 4 or 5 of them busted out. Does that fairly paraphrase your argument?

As I understand Clarkmeister's responses, he argues that the longtime-winning players were probably never very good at poker in general, but just had a strategy which was able to beat a tight passive game. If I understand him right, he believes that the players who busted out were likely not playing with positive EV at all after the games were no longer tight-passive.

My question is, how large a fraction of the sample size was the 4 or 5 players who busted out over the last 18 months?

If there are 10 or 15 other longtime-winning players who now are thriving under the new conditions (i.e. doing better now than they were doing 18 months ago, and sometimes over stretches of a month or two doing much better), it would tend to support the view that it was primarily increased variance that resulted in the 4 or 5 players busting out. But if most of the longtime-winning players are doing worse over the last six months than they were doing 18 months ago, it would tend to support Clarkmeister's view that they really are not that good overall holdem players. Because a good player's EV is necessarily going to be higher in a loose game where people are calling three cold with AJ than in a tight passive game where hand-reading is a more important skill.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

If there are 10 or 15 other longtime-winning players who now are thriving under the new conditions (i.e. doing better now than they were doing 18 months ago, and sometimes over stretches of a month or two doing much better), it would tend to support the view that it was primarily increased variance that resulted in the 4 or 5 players busting out. But if most of the longtime-winning players are doing worse over the last six months than they were doing 18 months ago, it would tend to support Clarkmeister's view that they really are not that good overall holdem players.


Hi MBE,

For the most part, and from what I CAN DEDUCE most of the long term players on "dayshift" are doing worse than they have in the past. I know of only 2 guys who APPEAR to be doing MUCH better lately. One is an outstanding player and so this is not surprising. He is often the best or second best player in the game. The other plays what I would call "a higher variance" game, in that his chips are "always in play". No cobwebs on those stacks [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] He is an anomoly of course, so by next week he could be broke too [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

It was great seeing you.

Take Care,

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