I'm unable to fold TPTK

[kurto]

" when I do get a hand, everyone folds. It's wierd.... Could it be that word has gotten around about my winnings?"

That must be it. All the players have been tracking your winnings. Once word got out that you made $1000, no one wanted to come near you.

That's going to change though. The Pill Newsletter went out and the lead story is that you haven't been hitting any cards lately. The buzz is spreading like mad. You're going to get so much action before you know it.

"When I'm winning, I can fold marginal hands fairly easily because I know a better hand is around the corner. Now that I'm losing, I have a different mindset. I feel that it may be hours before I get another opportunity to win a pot so I make dumb calls." Wow. That sounds like an interesting and previously undiscovered phenomenon. It merits study. Perhaps we should give it a name? I vote for calling it "Tilt," after that TV Show. What does everyone else think?

[kylma]

Unlike the majority here, I actually think NL holdem IS your game.. I also believe that you have indeed been winning in it recently, unlike when you played limit. In my own experience LIMIT holdem can be an even more frustrating game with the constant suckouts and bad beats. In NL they seem to happen a couple of times per hour maybe even less.

I don't think PL Omaha (or any Omaha) is your game either, because you don't have the patience for peddling the nuts. I don't think 7stud is your game because you would break your monitor or kill yourself with the constant bad beats.

I believe when you keep developing your NL holdem skills, you will IN TIME become more confident with your game. When you become more confident suddenly one day (maybe after 3 months or 2 years) all the hands aggregate into one BIG hand, and you simply don't care about bad beats any more..

Your major leak is your temper, there shoudln't exist such words as idiot, revenge etc in anyone's poker vocabulary. Fix this problem and soon you don't have to post every bad beat. I think temper is a not a poker related issue in this case.

[theredpill5]

I think Omaha is out of the question, though. Isn't it hard to find Omaha games online ? I can hardly find enough fishy hold'em games. I can only imagine how good the omaha players are.

BTW, I was on Party Poker just now and I don't know how you guys do it. I've never seen so many rocks in my life. I sat down at 3 tables in which the flop % had to be around 25 to 35 % at each one. That's terrible. I can spot a bad table now that I've seen so many good ones. A bad table is one where you see a whole line of 6 or 7 folds in about 1.4 seconds and all of a sudden its your turn to act.

And thanks Kylma for the kind words. I think I can play NL hold'em. I don't have to be as good as Phil Ivey to beat this game at micro limits. Frustration has sat in. I saw one AA tonight and I was 2 tabling it for 5 hours. I saw one QQ and one JJ . I remember nights where I had a Royal Flush and 2 4 of a kinds where I won about $50 on each hand.

[jbright]

question of limit vs. nl is always an interesting one. I agree that limit is often much more frustrating because of the suck-outs, and that in nl you can control your destiny more by pushing out lesser hands and punishing bad players.

on the flip side, in nl a streak of either bad luck or bad play (or a combination thereof) can completely cripple your bankroll in a way you don't see in limit. I'm usually pretty tight, but still just a few days ago I had a 3-hr nl session where I lost 5 100x buy-ins. I'd say 1/4 of the loss was bad play, the rest was either bad beats or set-over-sets or KK vs AA type situations.

that type of brutal swing could never happen in limit. so both games have ways in which it is essential to keep a cool head and not tilt when things aren't going your way.

[kurto]

"that type of brutal swing could never happen in limit." But the reverse is true as well. Last weekend, I went up 1 level then my usual (from $25 NL on PS to $50 NL) I lost 4 buyins in the first few hours (if you had a small pocket pair or drawing hand... you were guaranteed to hit if you were in a hand with me). Then made it all back in the next few hours. Only in NL can I buy in for full amount ($50) and more then triple your money on one hand.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
on the flip side, in nl a streak of either bad luck or bad play (or a combination thereof) can completely cripple your bankroll in a way you don't see in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know why you think that. Conventional wisdom has always been that variance is much higher in limit than in nl.

[kylma]

We should start a new thread.
But intuitively you are maybe right.
However, numerically, mathematicall, variance is much higher in NL than limit.. At least my Std Deviation per 100 hands in limit hovers around 15 while NL is around 35 and I think those numbers are pretty standard..
However, the reason we *think* variance is higher in limit is because the mean rate is (for many players) smaller than in NL, thus you tend to lose more often, even when the actual variance is higher

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
At least my Std Deviation per 100 hands in limit hovers around 15 while NL is around 35 and I think those numbers are pretty standard..

[/ QUOTE ]
15 and 35 what? If you mean $15 and $35, it's not meaningful without knowing the stakes of the game. Regardless, it still isn't meaningful without knowing the stakes of the game. Obviously if you play no limit games with $10,000 buyin and play $.50/1 limit, you will have higher variance for the NL game.

[kylma]

sry.. BB's. so that NL's BB= 2x big blind which make the numerical variances thus comparable

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
sry.. BB's. so that NL's BB= 2x big blind which make the numerical variances thus comparable

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, you are comparing different sized games. I agree that your s.d. in a limit games with $1/2 blinds will be smaller than in a NL game with $1/2 blinds. However, the former is simply a lower-stakes game, so this is expected.