Poker: What's so difficult about it???

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the only statement of yours I really disagree with. I started playing 0.5/1 in October 2004. It's still 2005 and I am now playing 10/20 and 15/30. I still have weaknesses in my game and I will likely stay at these levels for a while to improve my game, but I am now playing in games that, while hardly world class, are substantially more difficult than the games I initially started playing, and I am pretty confident I am at least a marginal winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course their are anomalies for people that are just very gifted at learning this game, and those that run very hot. From the sounds of it, you probably have benefitted from both of those factors. I have played roughly 6 months, and have reached 5/10 and take shots at 10/20 - however, I look at some of the posters that I was playing .5/1 with when I started, and they are playing 1/2 now, or getting beat at 2/4. I still believe for the average person, even if they are serious about learning, it takes quite a lot of time and patience to be able to beat a game where the money is significant.

[12AX7]

Haven't read all the other posts yet. But the answer is imperfect information.

The SOB check raises you. Is he trying to knock you out and protect his mediocre hand, or trying to get more money in the pot with his monster?

You have QQ and an ace falls on the flop. He bets. Does he have it? Or is it a bluff? How do you know.

Unlike chess, and somewhat more like financial trading, you don't have all the facts. It is a guessing game in many situations. And like financial trading, best you can do is estimate.

That, I believe is the bottom line on the subject.

[12AX7]

OK, I just finished reading all the other posts.

Some intersting points made.

The one I'm really interested in is the sub-debate about what it takes to get to a level of significant income, and how long.

My story is that I used to play stud in Vegas at the 5/10 to 10/20 level.

Like another poster stated somewhere, "I bought SSHE, deposited xxxx dollars and lost more than I care to admit".

I had started playing at around those levels believing it was no big deal.

Like that other poster I realized I just screwed up. Like him I busted myself down to the 0.02/0.04 level... with just $2.63 left in that account.

I have worked since worked that back up to a high water mark of $200, jumping levels as bankroll permitted. I did not have a losing day until last night. Got kicked back to $130 seemed like I've been fighting over those same few $20 bills for 2 weeks now.

This has been occuring at the 0.25/0.50 and 0.50/1.00 level.
(Ok, I admit it. Been taking shots at 0.50/1.00 under bankrolled...but not losing there, oddly. Just not winning much either.)

So apparently the Peter Principle has set in and I've hit some sort of plateau. (Though I do see that the games are tighter once there's a rake too.)

Sometimes I theorize that once the regular players get a line on me at a level... or more likely thier Poker Tracker... Profits dry up.

That's why I was taking shots. Seems my profits are high in the early days at any given limit, then I get nailed.

So this brings up some questions.

1) How to bust plateaus
2) What do I have to do to beat these limits and the next ones up. (I'm wanting to rapidly replace my regular work with this.)
3) At the levels where it starts to tighten up (0.50/1.00 at least on Stars) should I switch from SSHE to HPFAP at these limits. Granted the book was originally for 10/20 and above. But that was based on the game difficulty if I recall correctly, right?

Anyway, any thoughts appreciated.

[sweetjazz]

12ax:

It's good to hear you are working your way back up. Stay focused and be patient. To get over those plateaus as you describe them, you need two things:
(1) a big enough hand sample for skill to show -- even a good player can run bad for several tens of thousands of hands;
(2) continuing improvement in your game -- to me, the most important part of beating poker is understanding the mistakes your opponents are making and figuring out how to best exploit them.

Do *not* focus on whether others are pegging you right -- at least not at these limits. Chances are that they aren't, and even if they do know how you play, they likely won't adjust optimally anyway. Focus on observing their play carefully, and making the optimal adjustments against them. You could have A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] on a board that is K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], with the 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] hitting the turn. Let's say you raised preflop and had several callers. You bet the flop and had just one caller. You bet the turn and he raises you.

Should you raise, call, or fold? The answer is that it depends. Against some maniacal opponents, you should raise him back, as you likely have the best hand. Against some more reasonable but still aggressive players, you are likely beaten but your odds for improving plus the possibility you are best (maybe he is aggressive enough he would raise K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] x [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]) make calling down best. Against some very passive opponents, the chances your opponent has a straight or set may be so high that you should just fold here.

So keep studying, and post your hands on the strategy forums. It looks like the microlimit forum is the place for you right now; many people (like myself) have started there and eventually moved up to small stakes and sometimes further.

Lastly, I should add a word of caution. You aren't anywhere near the point of being able to make a living off of Hold 'Em. You need a large bankroll and several months of expenses covered -- in addition to the skill needed to beat the higher limit games -- in order to be successfully professional. Ed Miller has written several great articles on that topic in the forum magazine, and I believe the articles are available on a webpage that he started. (Search the archives and you'll hopefully come across the link.)

Best wishes,
Mike

[allen314159]

I have tried to write a post back I cannot in a small time frame. In summation, it's a game that must be learned but then it's a business. You must master the game, then have money management skills, emotional stability, you have to be mentally tough, and competitive and possibly above all have a burning desire to get better and better and better. You have to walk with arrogance while understanding you don't know nearly enough yet. And if you have any personal flaws like drinking, drugging or pit gambling or sports betting you better cut that crap out, or you may watch all you hard work spiral out of control......it's tough man....but do-able!

[Nomad84]

[ QUOTE ]
Ed Miller has written several great articles on that topic in the forum magazine, and I believe the articles are available on a webpage that he started. (Search the archives and you'll hopefully come across the link.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Link

[AlanBostick]

[ QUOTE ]
For the people who are serious about getting good at poker, they have some big obstacles to overcome. You cannot just read a book and jump into a 5/10 game and start winning. You probably can't even just jump into a .5/1 game and start winning. It takes a lot of discipline and study and experience to become a winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny. I read a book and jumped into a $2-$4 game and started winning.

[AlanBostick]

Not only do most people not put the effort into becoming money-winning players, they simply don't want to do so.

Likewise, I enjoy playing Scrabble, but I have absolutely no interest in putting the effort needed to become a successful tournament Scrabble player. Doing so would destroy what it is that I enjoy about the game.

Bridge writer Victor Mollo wrote a wonderful book called You Need Never Lose at Bridge. The introduction was all about how how his various characters with whom he populated his chapters on play were each and every one of them winners ... because whether or not they won any particular rubber, they each and every one of them got what they were really playing to get. Many of the so-called fish from whom we money-winners take the money in poker are also winners, because they are getting satisfaction out of the game that maybe some of us money-winners don't get any more, and that this satisfaction, not the money, is why they play.

All this self-congratulation about how hard it is to become a winning poker player is nonsense. How many of you have tried to get good at, say, chess? Jeebus, compared to the work you have to do to become a decent chess player, getting good at poker is child's play.

I consider myself a mediocre poker player, not a good one. I work on my game to improve, and I do improve, but in the grand scheme of things I'm a spear-carrier compared to the stars like Chip Reese and Doyle Brunson.

I've been a winning poker player for almost a decade now. That part was easy.

[silkyslim]

rake.

[12AX7]

Hi Mike,
Oh yeah, I *know* I'm nowhere near being able to make a living at it. LOL! No question about that.

I do have a living expense bankroll, and can bankroll the game. However, it would have to work soon if I were doing if full time. After living bankrolls burn fairly quick these days. I'm just forcing myself to win my way up to be sure I'm really winning. Call it an act of self discipline (and maybe defiance, LOL!).

Given that multi-tabling seems to be the rule these days, I don't know how anyone ever gets the kind of reads you are talking about against 40, 50 or 80 opponents at a time.

FWIW, I came back last night with a nice $30 win at 0.25/0.50. So guess I gotta keep tryin'. That bad day I mentioned I played about 5500 hands trying to get back to even, finally had to stop after 20 hours. LOL!

So here's a strategy question for you... "The Dreaded Ace" problem.

You have large PP's say KK... and Ace drops. Get out? Seems like in these smaller games folks play literally any Ace.

Anyway, just wondering what everyone's thought on the default play in that situation is?

I've seen it go either way naturally. But I'd swear there's always an Ace in the field opponents. Seems like a long term losing play to even try to fight it?