Probably know the answer but ... (help needed)

[jat850]

and for the boredom factor, stay at the same limit or lower, but play stud or Omaha for a session or two. If you play live, go online, if you play online, go B&M. I've found that switching games is surprisingly helpful at the skill of putting other people on hands. A different game really tests me and sometime teaches me things that I pass right by when I am in my comfort zone. And this adds to the fun factor as well.

[Pocket77s]

[ QUOTE ]
But, to not really beat a smaller level and then wish to move up, that's just looking to give money away. And, if that's what you want to do, that's cool too.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cool!!! Make sure you sit at our table if that's what you want to do!

[habsfanca11]

Thanks Harv, I appreciate your reply. As many have noted, you're posts are always thoughtful and on the mark.

I hope that my post flop play is average by 2+2 standards, I have no delusions that I am great post flop. From my lurking here it is my understanding that if you are "good" post flop, that a VPIP of low 20s was probably ideal for 2/4(based on a number of posts including "you play to tight" and "I hate you Tiger Woods") Good isn't terribly well defined. How far off base am I here?

So that is what I thought I should be striving towards - to be very good post flop, improve my hand reading ability (I think my biggest weakness skill wise), better at reading players and to tighten up my VPIP to try and get to that "ideal" mix for 2/4. Then make adjustments based on other limits or 6 max. Goal is to, yes, learn the game and become a very good player. Ultimately, I would like to become very good, good enough to play any table, any reasonable limit (low or mid) and feel comfortable/confident enough that I can play. I like to play. It's never going to be my job. The 4 to 8 table grind doesn't have a lot of appeal for me and I don't see how I can improve my hand and player reading playing so many tables.

Any reccomendations on working out the kinks? Based on your advice, I went out and got poker tracker and have been spending some time (not being quite diligent enough here) every session reviewing hands. So that is one thing I have added, any others?

Care to suggest what a large amount of hands is and what would be a good benchmark for a positive win rate? I'm assuming that 100,000 is usually considered a minimum large amount. I have 30,000 in poker tracker and 4x that undocumented prior to poker tracker. I do have a positive win rate but I have been using an (assumed) benchmark of 1.3 - 1.5 as an indicator that I am solidly beating 2/4. Obviously I have a long way to go. Are my assumptions accurate?

Again, thanks for the time you took to reply. Cheers.

[Harv72b]

[ QUOTE ]
From my lurking here it is my understanding that if you are "good" post flop, that a VPIP of low 20s was probably ideal for 2/4(based on a number of posts including "you play to tight" and "I hate you Tiger Woods") Good isn't terribly well defined. How far off base am I here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I've actually said as much in past posts, and I wish I hadn't. The reason that all the books & starting hands charts and whatnot teach a relatively weak/tight game (SSH being the exception, but even then many veteran 2+2'ers play looser & more aggressive than SSH recommends) is that it's the easiest style to play well. That in mind, I think that shooting for the low VPIP/relatively low AF mold that many of these authors suggest is a good way to get your grounding in the game. As time goes by and you get more hands in and start to feel more comfortable with your decision-making process, you will start to recognize when it's correct to deviate from this model. After enough time and with enough poker acumen, this will (probably) lead to a VPIP in the low 20s, although I would suggest that you should probably be moving up before you get to that point.

[ QUOTE ]
So that is what I thought I should be striving towards - to be very good post flop, improve my hand reading ability (I think my biggest weakness skill wise), better at reading players and to tighten up my VPIP to try and get to that "ideal" mix for 2/4. Then make adjustments based on other limits or 6 max. Goal is to, yes, learn the game and become a very good player. Ultimately, I would like to become very good, good enough to play any table, any reasonable limit (low or mid) and feel comfortable/confident enough that I can play. I like to play. It's never going to be my job. The 4 to 8 table grind doesn't have a lot of appeal for me and I don't see how I can improve my hand and player reading playing so many tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible to continue improving your game while multitabling (note that I don't even consider two tables to be "multitabling" anymore), but it's a lot more difficult than if you limit yourself to one or two tables.

As far as improving your game goes, remember--what separates winning players from breakeven or losing players are decisions. That's it. Every time you make the wrong decision, you lose money; maybe not on that hand if you catch a lucky card, but over the long run while making that play. As you are learning the game, the fewer decisions you present yourself with, the fewer mistakes you will make. This is why you want to start off playing a very tight game, and only loosen up as your decision-making skills (particularly postflop) become better.

[ QUOTE ]
Any reccomendations on working out the kinks? Based on your advice, I went out and got poker tracker and have been spending some time (not being quite diligent enough here) every session reviewing hands. So that is one thing I have added, any others?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are the two biggest, aside from the usual "read books, play hands" thing. Posting hands that you're not sure about on here helps a lot, as does replying to other posts (even if just to ask another poster to better explain his reply). There are a finite number of possible scenarios that can come up in limit hold'em; the number of possibilities is huge, but it is finite (and many are so similar as to be indistinguishable). Once you've found yourself in a situation, or read enough posts on here concerning the same situation, your decision-making will become reflexive. And that's the key--when you can make the "easy" decisions reflexively, that allows you to train your brainpower on making the tougher, read-based decisions that are imperative at higher limits.

[ QUOTE ]
Care to suggest what a large amount of hands is and what would be a good benchmark for a positive win rate? I'm assuming that 100,000 is usually considered a minimum large amount. I have 30,000 in poker tracker and 4x that undocumented prior to poker tracker. I do have a positive win rate but I have been using an (assumed) benchmark of 1.3 - 1.5 as an indicator that I am solidly beating 2/4. Obviously I have a long way to go. Are my assumptions accurate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not one of the math geniuses that you'll find on here, so all I can go by is my own gut and what I've read from those folks. I believe that 100,000 is the number of hands required to get a decent fix on your "true" win rate, which is an entirely different beast from whether or not you are a winning player (statistically). The key is to accumulate enough hands that, when taking into account your standard variance, you can postulate a positive window of win rates. I'm more than a little fuzzy on the exact formula to do that, sorry.

What I believe is that some people can tell after as few as 10k hands or so, while others may not ever be able to truly say if they are good enough to beat a particular game. The statistics that you get from poker tracker are very useful, don't get me wrong; but you can't just look at your end win rate and say "oh, I'm a winning player because I played X thousand hands with a 1.5 BB/100 win rate." It's really about how comfortable you feel at the tables, how consistent your success is, and how you honestly rate your own poker skills vs. that of the average player at that limit. I honestly believe that, at least at every limit I've played (which is up through 15/30), a 2.0 BB/100 rate is not only possible but should be the desired benchmark for any good player. That of course assumes that you're not playing 8 tables or something; the more tables you play, the lower your BB/100 will be, no matter how good you are. But I think that it's achievable for anyone playing up to 4 tables. Easy? Not hardly, but achievable. The 1.3-1.5 level that you're talking about is perhaps more realistic for most players, but most players aren't going to put in the time and effort necessary to be truly good players. And like I said in the first post, there's nothing wrong with that--it's all about your own personal goals and motivations. Many people would be completely satisfied to post a longterm win rate of 1 BB/100 at their chosen game, while plenty more would be content to play breakeven poker. Hell, there are a good number of regular poker players who are happy to lose consistently, so long as they don't lose too badly.

Try to focus more on the decisions you're making in each hand, and less on the statistics--PT stats are most useful in terms of personal analysis when you use them in general terms, to point you in the direction of where you need to look on individual hands (i.e., PT says that I'm folding to a river bet too often, so I should start focusing more on my turn decisions as I'm probably making too many loose calls there). Think of your stats as a tool to help you analyze your game, and not so much as the final analysis of it.