A brave new world for poker pros? Yeah right.

[Clarkmeister]

"As for the midlimit boyz here in Vegas, they are not blundering idiots by any means. They are not failing to adjust anymore than the wannabes are. It works both ways, you see?"

No.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
4 of nine players at final table qualified through Pokerstars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Confirming the consensus opinion here that the fish are at Party??

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The variance is much higher, but I don't mind playing against these people. Last night, I was playing against a guy from LA who plays a lot at the Commerce Club. He was 4-betting preflop with hands like AJo and KQo. Even though I lost to him (and he ended walking out with 6 racks), it didn't really bother me. Most of the big pots that he won against me were with dominated hands that ended up hitting their weak kicker on the turn or river, or getting runners for a straight, etc. He had a lot of the old timers on tilt, but they couldn't really see through what was happening.

The secret to beating these people is good old fashioned tight/aggressive play, and eventually their dominated hands end up as long term losers.

[Zeno]

Some of this does not make sense to me. I assume that mid-limit is say 10/20 to 30/60 Hold'em. Even in Vegas this limits the games you have to choose from. 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, and also a network of cooperative friends to get info on the best games X, Y, or Z at casino, A, B or C etc.

In addition any 'Pro', by definition should be able to adjust, readjust, and continually be able to play a deceptive game and with the influx of new players should thrive and not go downhill. Variance, perhaps, would increase but overall such players should thrive.

-Zeno

[Sam Rolstein]

I think this years huge field in the WSOP has had to have made the pros very uneasy.The old days of having to overcome the luck of a few dead money players at your table is over. Next year every wacko gambler with $10,000 will be wanting a seat in this game. They will have to put tables out on Freemont Street!

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Yes, Zeno, you are correct that a real pro will adjust his/her game to suit conditions. Certainly, the best ones are doing that now. The games in Vegas are outstanding at the moment, but as you surely understand, that does not guarantee that the local pros are "getting the best of it." There are some of those "old school" guys currently getting hammered. I mean not just losing a bit, but getting hammered.

Today, I watched an excellent local pro lose 2 racks in a "good game". One guy played so dreadfully it was disgusting. Clark hints that (at times) these losses are due to the locals only being able to play a "certain type" of game. What kind of game are you supposed to play when a guy calls 3 cold with trash and then takes down the best starting hand on the river several times in an orbit.? The beats are just so ridiculous it's hard to believe. I certainly don't think that the local pros are being outplayed like Clark seems to suggest. I do believe that it's much harder to win when you cannot put a player on a hand, and OZ himself could not read the guy in my game today. Does that make him a "good, deceptive and creative player?" Hell no. It makes him an idiot who will go broke because he doesn't understand the fundamentals of the game. So sure, in the final analysis, the pros will overcome (if they don't quit or go broke first) [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

It is often implied in some of our colleagues' remarks that a "higher variance" game is a better one. Why do people believe that? When the stock market goes way up and then crashes, it takes a long time to recover. In fact, there is no guarantee that it ever will recover. When a pro's bankroll gets decimated because of these "higher variance" games, what guarantee does he have that he will overcome the losses? Quite simply, if your bankroll is cripled, the point is moot, isn't it?

I believe (unlike Clark) that some of the new guys fail to adjust their game as much as some of the oldtimers do. How else can you explain calling 3 cold with 10,5 off vs a solid pro who raises UTG and then is 3 bet by another solid pro? Can you really tell me that Mr. wannabe poker player is "adjusting"? Or, is it "adjusting" to a "tight" game when a wannabe poker player limps in 2 UTG with J, 4 offsuit, catches a 4 on the flop and then a J on the river? LOL. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] How about when a guy 3 bets me with Q, 9 offsuit after I raise a board of Q, 7, 2? If he's watched me at all, he cannot possibly think he has the best hand. He also cannot possibly think I am folding A,Q there. So, as I said, these guys are failing to adjust just as much as their tight-butt old school opposites [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. They are making huge and multiple errors and I would hardly classify any of these plays as "adjustments" which are designed to beat 20-40 Vegas pros.

LGPG,

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

[mike l.]

"They literally beat up on the same 20 or so people day in day out for years."

hey that's what im doing...

uh oh.

[jdl22]

You seem to be saying that it's impossible to beat games where people call 3 cold with trash. That's a fascinating point of view.

Obviously there are major adjustments that need to be made but if you think that games like this can't be beaten or aren't good games (why else would you use quotation marks) then to be honest I don't know how to respond.

If you're playing in one of these games you would rather have the guy fold than call three cold with J4o?

Am I supposed to feel sorry for pros that can't beat a 10/20 game that plays like .5/1 on party when people can beat that game for more than 3 bb/hr?

[andyfox]

"I do believe that it's much harder to win when you cannot put a player on a hand"

Yes and no. Yes, if the guy is a good player, so that you don't know whether he has A-K or A-A. No, if the guy is, as you phrase it, an "idiot" who is playing "trash" for 3 cold, so that you don't know whether he has J-T or J-9. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) still holds. If these guys are going broke because they don't understand the fundamentals of the game, I'm going to get a piece of their bankroll.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Hi jdl22

Of course, the guy with the J,4 is beatable. Of course, the players making numerous errors are beatable. Of course, it's all good in the long run.

However, when years of work at handreading goes out the window, what tools does the "old school" guy have? The guy that beat the game for 20 years now cannot tell if his opponent has AA or 10,5 off [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]. I really think that handreading is one of the most important skills in poker. If you disagree, please explain.

Now, as for how we decide if a game is "beatable", that really depends on your goal, doesn't it? Are you trying to beat the game on a regular basis and avoid large losses while doing so? Are you trying to take Lithium while you play to mellow out those "swings" we take in the "higher variance" games? What is it that you are trying to accomplish? I think it's not about winning the most pots or the biggest pots, but about winning consistently with minor drawdowns.

I was an options trader for many years and I still trade. The most important thing I learned was to trade size that would never corrupt my capital and to avoid large losses. The phrase which still rings in my ears is "if you cannot take a small loss, you are destined to take a large one" (or something to that effect). The other one was "let your profits run but cut your losses short". I think many Vegas midlimit pros understand these concepts, but many newer players do not. Maybe they didn't take a course in risk management in college, or maybe they just enjoy gambling. All I know is that many of the guys I play with at the Mirage are really struggling lately. Maybe you don't understand that because you are doing well. Maybe you dont' understand that because you think they are not "adjusting". I am simply telling you that it's been difficult for the experienced pros to beat the games as they once did.

LGPG,

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