looking for an honest answer

i made a living at horse and sports handicapping for a number of years--made enough, in fact, to sit out on my porch for 10 yrs without working. lately i've been trying my hand at poker, and breaking even, basically. what has me puzzled is the claims of certain posts/threads i read here, that seem just, well, to stretch the bounds of plausibility.

there are a number of statistical hypocrisies i encountered in horse racing bulletin boards, forums, and websites i used to frequent. people would insinuate win percentages that were, frankly, impossible, and cite ROI's completely outlandish; and furthermore, villify any scepticism about their claims as symptoms of a irrational twist of mind. now, i wonder about some of material i see here. as a for instance, the thread "why you guys aren't crushing the micro-limits" has stirred some of the same "irrational scepticism" in me, as it implies that the origins of our poor results lie mostly in our "psychologies", and has little to do with the cards we hold. there were a lot of yea-saying anecdotes appended throughout this thread, swearing that by pushing the envelope of caution, the results were uniformly winning on a large scale, that the wsop was next on the agenda, and hossanah, there's a mecca for the poker player, and i done found it.

maybe this is true. but given that eighty percent of the hands one receives are unplayable; that of the remaining twenty per cent less than half of those get to the showdown; and of THOSE only fifty percent have positive outcomes--how is it possible, i wonder, to overcome the unrelenting imposts of rake and blind?

remember, we all get the same cards. we all pretty much play the same strategies. and we all pretty much suffer the same bad beats. sure, it's possible to discuss our hands, and lay them out, and comment upon them. but there are so many degrees of freedom involved in a hand of poker, that it is, i think, impossible to derive statistically sound conclusions about the play of ANY hand by looking at it extracted from the tens of thousands like it one must play to adduce some plausible conclusion about its REAL nature.

it took me something shy a week to make around a hundred dollars playing .5/1 at party poker. it took five hands--FIVE!--hands to have that profit lost to people playing 8/3o against my AA, KK, AKs, QQ, and AA again. but the recommendations all insist aggression, aggression, aggression. and if you think about this approach to the game, aggression, since it is coupled with incomplete information, MUST always run afoul of significant losses. one is committing large wagers, relatively, to events that have not just one participant but several, each of whom is motivated by standards having little to do with "the poker truths"...and who continue to play without the least regard for the money they will lose(sic) taking on my kings and aces...except that it is invariably the largest pots one loses, and loses many more times than one wins, to just those 8/2o wielding idiots.

so you get the following algorithm: you play your premium hands; you LOSE your premium hands in the largest pots; there's a levy against your wins, called a rake; and you get the blinds as the most expensive of the imposts.

now, that algorithm may or may not produce a profit over the long term. but as to running out and crushing the microlimits, well, let's just say, i have my doubts.

so my question is: are YOU winning? are YOU winning by crushing the microlimits? is there an edge in your play, significant enough, to warrant committing any sum of money in wager?

[playersare]

at 50c/$1 limit you can probably grind at least +2BB/100, maybe even 5BB/100 or more once you get more experienced. of course if you only play one table at a time, you're only talking about $1 an hour to start. to improve your earnings rate you will need to play multiple tables and pursue deposit bonus opportunities. for lower limits $2/4 and below, the latter is probably the most important tool to build your bankroll.

most of the time I 4-table at $1/2 for a 3-4BB/100 win rate (this is net after blinds and table fees), plus earn 10 cents bonus for each raked hand I am dealt. so that works out to between $25-40/hr on average. not enough to sit on the porch for 10 years, but certainly a lot closer to a living poker wage than what you forecast.

and yes I'll be happy to post my pokertracker stats.

[AKQJ10]

It sounds like you're mistaking your understandable emotional response to taking a few bad beats for a rational case why it's impossible to win at poker. Either you really can't tell the difference -- in which case you need help learning why your case isn't really as rational as it might appear -- or you can tell the difference, but you're just looking for affirmation that you're not as bad a player as your recent results erroneously indicate. I don't mind people using this forum to fish for psychological pep-talks -- part of being a beginner is not knowing how to give onesself the necessary psychological boost -- but that's a different thing than trying to make a case that poker is theoretically unbeatable.

The flaw in your post is that it's all biased in the downward direction. Yes, sometimes you work all week to make 100 big bets and lose it all in a few hands. (Your assertion of losing it in five hands, however, is suspect if there's a standard betting structure and four-bet cap.) Sometimes you dribble chips for hours and then win it back -- and then some -- in a few hands. In fact, I'm convinced that this pattern is part of correct play, because correct play makes you the favorite to win the biggest pots.

Sometimes your AA loses to 83s when the board comes K73-5-3. Other times your AA beats 83s when the board comes AT5-9-5, with the five on the river making your opponent's flush. You remember the first occurrence because it was so undeserved, but few people stop and think of all the times they won outrageously big pots with aces, because aces are supposed to win. And indeed, anyone could win that huge pot with aces-full, but not anyone could hold onto those winnings by not wasting them on playing 83-suited all night!

You're correct that the rake is a drag on earnings, and if everyone played equally well they'd all lose to the rake. But there's plenty of emperical and theoretical evidence that bad players put more money in the pot than the house takes out.

You probably need to take a break, rest up from the bad beats, read a couple of books, and come back out ready to take on the world.

thank you both.

[POKhER]

i kinda skim read it, Huge post by my standards when its past Midnight.

you lost $100 in 5 hands? Thats $20 in each hand? Thats umm Impossible?

2xBB preflop, Flop2xBB, turn 4xBB and river 4xBB = 12BB = $12 = x5 = $60.

Gee you pushed some hands like a maniac.

"remember, we all get the same cards. we all pretty much play the same strategies. and we all pretty much suffer the same bad beats. " No... a 80/50/5 Fish does not play like i do nor a 7/2/3 ROCK.

thats all i have to add sorry, play 20K hands and post. See what your conclusion is. I say conclusion but 20K is nothing.

wow..in 5 hands you lost $100 at .5/$1?!!! I've played a LOT of hands of .5/$1, and have rarely seen pots over $20, much less a pot where one player put in $20....seems like kind of an "outlandish" claim to me....

To your question though, how much of an edge do you need? A small edge, over thousands of hands, can equal big results. As a former handicapper, you should realize that it only takes a small edge repeated enough to equal a HUGE profit.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

remember, we all get the same cards. we all pretty much play the same strategies.

[/ QUOTE ]
We get the same cards, but we don't play the same strategies.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] I know to fold A8o in middle position. Many bad players will play any ace, even ones much worse than A8o. If it's a good hand in blackjack, they think it is a good hand in poker. See how much people lose here. No hand ought to be losing outside the blinds.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] I know to raise with AK and QQ for value. Many times, I've found someone limped in with these hands to be tricky, or just so they wouldn't get too attached on an unfavorable flop. Of course they still win on average with these premium hands, but not as much as if they bet their hands.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] I know it is almost never right in limit to "cold call," that when you have not limped and are not in the blinds, you should almost always either fold or 3-bet when someone raises immediately in front of you. Yet, some people will cold call several times each hour, often with hands that are not worth limping in. This mistake doesn't cost the full 2 small bets they put in, but they can make this mistake frequently.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] I know not to peel a card off on the flop with a hopeless draw, but many people are happy to pay a small bet to see the turn just in case the bettor is bluffing, and so are all of the other callers.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] I know not to open limp in late position. If it's worth being the first to enter the pot, it's worth entering with a raise. Many players open limp, letting the blinds outdraw them cheaply.

There are many other situations in which a serious poker player will outplay a casual poker player. Casual poker players lose enough to pay for our rake and a nice win rate on top.

[ QUOTE ]

it took me something shy a week to make around a hundred dollars playing .5/1 at party poker. it took five hands--FIVE!--hands to have that profit lost to people playing 8/3o against my AA, KK, AKs, QQ, and AA again.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't lose more than $12 on a hand, or $60 on 5 hands. You feel frustrated, so you are exaggerating. That's not helpful.

[ QUOTE ]
now, that algorithm may or may not produce a profit over the long term. but as to running out and crushing the microlimits, well, let's just say, i have my doubts.

[/ QUOTE ]
You probably have unrealistic standards for "crushing" a game. You can be making less than half of minimum wage by playing a table of $0.50-$1, and correctly call it crushing the game. People achieve much higher win rates (in BB/100) at microlimits than are sustainable at higher limits.

The short run is dominated by luck. In the long run, you can make a lot of money playing poker with little risk.

[ QUOTE ]

so my question is: are YOU winning? are YOU winning by crushing the microlimits? is there an edge in your play, significant enough, to warrant committing any sum of money in wager?

[/ QUOTE ]
I've had only one losing week in 18 months of playing poker. I dream of finding games as soft as those I remember in the microlimits, but I play for much higher stakes because that is much more profitable.

[Onaflag]

Awesomely worded question. That is all.

Onaflag..........

ps. Oh. I almost forgot:

[ QUOTE ]
we all get the same cards. we all pretty much play the same strategies.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where your logic breaks down. I'm no expert and I have a ton to learn, but I am winning over two years of play and winning mighty finely. So, yes, to answer the question directly, yes, I am winning at the microlimits if I understand your definition if microlimits.

[ QUOTE ]
I've had only one losing week in 18 months of playing poker. I dream of finding games as soft as those I remember in the microlimits, but I play for much higher stakes because that is much more profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I don't belive you, but how do you manage to only have one losing week over 75? No matter how much I want to win, sometimes the cards just don't hit. Like this past week [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that I don't belive you, but how do you manage to only have one losing week over 75? No matter how much I want to win, sometimes the cards just don't hit. Like this past week [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess (not having done anything close to this: (1) play many hands per week (2) play at limits where you have a substantial edge (3) run good for most of that time. Without knowing how many hands per week this person plays, it's hard to put into context "only one losing week."

Eight-tabling for 150 hours a week means a week is a pretty good sample (and playing good poker on two hours of sleep per day is pretty impressive to boot). Conversely, playing four hands a week means the overall sample is extremely tiny, hence running good over 300 hands wouldn't be strange at all (although always recovering your initial blind within just four hands would be strange unless you're just bullying the table at NLHE). In either one of those extremes "only one losing week," would take on a different meaning, but each could provide a possible explanation. Reality probably lies somewhere between these two extremes, and I have no reason to doubt the statement comes from a capable, consistent player; I'm just curious what the real number of hands per week is!