It gets better, right? Right?!?! |
|
Posted Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:15 pm GMT by gobbledygeek
So after reading up on Texas Hold'em for a while, I've decided to dive right in and start playing 2/4 limit recreationally at the local casino. I've had 8 sessions (average 2.25 hours each) and come out a loser each time, averaging -3.125 BB per hour.
Now obviously I'm a newbie and can be expected to make some mistakes (some of which I've already recognized), but so far it seems to be a rather frustrating game. I'm a fairly tight player (especially when compared to most of the players I've played with so far, who seem to almost play any two cards) so I play very few hands and then end up folding a lot of these after the flop when it is no help plus dangerous. Right now I'm probably averaging about 1 won hand an hour.
So, things get better, right? I've only played for 18 hours so I guess that ain't much of a sample. But sometimes I find it a little frustrating to play this game when the only hand I seem to be in is the unraised big blind while others go in with 94o and flop their full house.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:16 pm GMT by supafrey
You don't really have a question anywhere here =)
Posted Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:47 pm GMT by gobbledygeek
Yah, it was probably more a rant than a question. 
Posted Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:59 pm GMT by supafrey
do ... do you .. do you have a question?
Posted Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:06 pm GMT by galderon
I think the question is: Will I eventually become less frustrated and more successful with my poker playing?
The answer is: It depends. For some people, poker just isn't a good fit. For others, it's a fun recreational activity, but not a source of income. For still others, it's very lucrative and fun.
I'm pretty much in the second category. I have fun with my buds and I usually place in the money in my home games, but I'm terrible online and I don't enjoy limit.
Posted Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:47 pm GMT by gobbledygeek
| galderon wrote: | I think the question is: Will I eventually become less frustrated and more successful with my poker playing?
|
I guess that is my overall question. I'm not looking to supplement my normal income playing poker, I'm just looking to more or less hold my own / break even and have some fun.
I guess specific questions would be:
1) Is winning about one hand an hour average for the tight player?
2) How bad is -3.125 BB per hour? Certainly sounds bad to me and doesn't seem like I'm holding my own.
2) I guess 18 hours is too small a sample time and I'll have to play a lot more to find our where I really stand?
Posted Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:00 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | galderon wrote: | I think the question is: Will I eventually become less frustrated and more successful with my poker playing?
|
I guess that is my overall question. I'm not looking to supplement my normal income playing poker, I'm just looking to more or less hold my own / break even and have some fun.
I guess specific questions would be:
1) Is winning about one hand an hour average for the tight player?
2) How bad is -3.125 BB per hour? Certainly sounds bad to me and doesn't seem like I'm holding my own.
2) I guess 18 hours is too small a sample time and I'll have to play a lot more to find our where I really stand? |
1. I have no idea, it seems low to me but I guess it depends on how fast the action is, I haven't played limit live at full tables (not too common with FL around these parts), only NL and I'm guessing NL moves somewhat faster.
2. That seems really bad. If you had been playing for a long time.
3. 18 hours doesn't tell you anything.
Posted Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:17 am GMT by Muck
| gobbledygeek wrote: |
1) Is winning about one hand an hour average for the tight player?
2) How bad is -3.125 BB per hour? Certainly sounds bad to me and doesn't seem like I'm holding my own.
2) I guess 18 hours is too small a sample time and I'll have to play a lot more to find our where I really stand? |
All of the calculations in your questions are based on this 18 hour dataset. This is too small to make any fair analysis, some people on here have had bad runs that last over 18 days.
You realise that what you’re doing at the moment is buying experience, that’s good. However, with that in mind you might want to consider switching to lower limits (these may only be available on-line) since the experience has the same value but costs you less.
Keep up the reading, keep playing, keep listening and keep learning. Given time things should improve.
Posted Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:42 pm GMT by gobbledygeek
Update:
I FINALLY won a session in my 12th try, 18.5BB over 5 hours. That brings my average losings down to a bit more respectable -1.75BB per hour but I've only played less than 30 hrs.
I may be a relative newbie to this game, and maybe I'm outta place saying this, but it seems to me this game (2/4 limit) requires a tremendous amount of both patience AND luck.
Last night for the first 2 hours I was only dealt 2 of the top 40 starting hands (A9s and KJo) but the flop took me out soon after. Just to play some hands other than the unraised big blind and not be labelled as ultratight I would limp in from late position with low straight possibilities but again always have to get out on the flop. But finally the tide turned, I was dealt some hands and even more importantly was helped / not hurt by the flop and made my money.
The weird thing is that I don't think I played any differently from my first 11 sessions. Luck seems to have a very large hand in this game. Even looking at the players around me, the guy who was killed with pocket 6s, flop 8 6 x and loses to the guy with pocket 8s. Or the guy who three times that night whose pocket suited cards is lower than someone elses pocket suited cards (ok, maybe once, maybe twice, but three times?). Or the guy who sits down at his first casino table, is dealt AA as his first hand (no lie), and AQs along with KK in his first half dozen hands (wins them all). Or the guy a couple days before who is dealt KK, JJ, AKs in his first 5 hands and loses them all. In each of these cases I woulda played my hands pretty much the same way they all did and woulda been rewarded/killed accordingly.
So, finally, the question: If I'm not playing like a total retard (which I very well could be), how much does LUCK play into this game?
Posted Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:31 pm GMT by galderon
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | I may be a relative newbie to this game, and maybe I'm outta place saying this, but it seems to me this game (2/4 limit) requires a tremendous amount of both patience AND luck. |
You have it mostly right. It requires luck to win this hand or make a profit this session, but it requires patience (and skill) to make a profit in the long run.
Posted Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:03 pm GMT by supafrey
Question:
Would you claim to "get" how much luck/skill was involved in an activity after 30 or so hours if it WASN'T poker?
Could you "get" how to be a winning basketball player after 4-5 days of playing? Snooker? Darts? Chess?
Posted Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:36 pm GMT by gobbledygeek
| supafrey wrote: | Question:
Would you claim to "get" how much luck/skill was involved in an activity after 30 or so hours if it WASN'T poker?
Could you "get" how to be a winning basketball player after 4-5 days of playing? Snooker? Darts? Chess? |
Point certainly well taken about the amount of time I've played. And I don't mean to come off as insulting, especially to those (and you too?) who've played the game a long time. In fact, it's their opinion I'm most interested due to them having logged the hours that probably gives them a better idea of the answer.
I certainly couldn't tell you how to be a winning basketball/hockey/pool/darts/chess/etc. after only a few hours. But I think I would conclude fairly early on that luck doesn't have a huge part to play in those games. Sure, you can get the occasional bad bounce in some sports games that'll cost you, but in the end skill will usually always win. If you took the top 100 players of any sport in the world and put them against each other, who's going to win? In almost every case, the one who plays the best at that time; if two guys play at the top of their own game then the one with the most skill will win (usually). But if you took the top 100 texas holdem players in the world and put them in the same game, who would win (even in the long run)? Personally, I'd bet on the guy who's dealt the best cards.
I dunno, maybe I'm also comparing it to the Blackjack I'm playing because with Blackjack it is obvious as to when you've played good. I'm just a basic strategy player (no card counting) so against my casino I'm approximately at a 0.6% disadvantage. And yet with just flat betting $5 dollars each hand and playing only this perfect basic strategy, I'm up $500 after 50 hours. Is it my play? Well, I am playing perfect (as far as I know) but it's obviously the luck. I know that the more hours I play the more likely the house'll take my money. But there's also the chance luck will keep smiling on me as it has up to now.
Any other opinions?
Posted Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:00 pm GMT by golddog
The luck factor is likely to decrease (Since you know enough to startout tight, I'm going to assume you've got a pretty good head on your shoulders and understand the basic things like pot odds, position, et cetera at some level).
Simply by gaining experience, you'll be more able to know when something's gone wrong and you need to get out. But also, you'll be more able to know when something hasn't gone right for you, but it didn't go right for anyone else either, and use that to your advantage.
Also, you'll be able to understand the game at a different level. I'm no match for many on this board, but looking back, it's amazing what I thought I understood.
Keep studying, think about what plays worked, what didn't, and why.
Posted Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:51 pm GMT by supafrey
| Quote: | | If you took the top 100 players of any sport in the world and put them against each other, who's going to win? In almost every case, the one who plays the best at that time; if two guys play at the top of their own game then the one with the most skill will win (usually). But if you took the top 100 texas holdem players in the world and put them in the same game, who would win (even in the long run)? Personally, I'd bet on the guy who's dealt the best cards. |
While an interesting analogy, not necessarily an appropriate one.
You're assuming that there's a huge amount of variance in athletic accomplishments based on better skill, teamwork, and a million other invisible factors that are utilized that specific day...
And you're saying that this is simply not the case with poker, because luck will often be the deciding factor between the top players..
BUT, even with the set of assumptions you're going by, you're ignoring a much more obvious and possible point:
Perhaps there are simply far less "skills" to be learned in poker than a dynamic, team based collective sport or game? These top 100 poker studs could merely have learned the good majority of these skills, so the difference is small. Ask poker pros (or even lucksack pros like our own ScanX... *cough*) and you'll hear the same thing more often than not: they avoid playing on tables with other strong players. The margin of profit is too tight.
Posted Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:29 pm GMT by Geno
Play some 3/6 next time. You'd think it'd be no different to 2/4 but since the big bet is over 5 bucks, people do think twice sometimes, though not very often. "OMG, that's another 6 bucks! I fold"
Posted Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:29 am GMT by Muck
Time seems to be the key to this discussion.
How long can the blackjack player win?
How long can the good poker player lose?
How long can it keep landing on red?
How long can variance swing?
I can’t give you an exact number, that’s the nature of random events. However…
| gobbledygeek wrote: |
I dunno, maybe I'm also comparing it to the Blackjack I'm playing because with Blackjack it is obvious as to when you've played good. I'm just a basic strategy player (no card counting) so against my casino I'm approximately at a 0.6% disadvantage. And yet with just flat betting $5 dollars each hand and playing only this perfect basic strategy, I'm up $500 after 50 hours. Is it my play? Well, I am playing perfect (as far as I know) but it's obviously the luck. I know that the more hours I play the more likely the house'll take my money. But there's also the chance luck will keep smiling on me as it has up to now.
|
…you understand about the house edge, so think of casinos as the largest and most well financed scientific experiment in history. Their hypothesis:
“Probability overcomes variance/luck given sufficient time.”
Check their profits for the result.
Posted Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:17 am GMT by gobbledygeek
quote="supafrey" | Quote: |
Perhaps there are simply far less "skills" to be learned in poker than a dynamic, team based collective sport or game? These top 100 poker studs could merely have learned the good majority of these skills, so the difference is small. Ask poker pros (or even lucksack pros like our own ScanX... *cough*) and you'll hear the same thing more often than not: they avoid playing on tables with other strong players. The margin of profit is too tight. |
This definitely makes sense to me (playing at tables with fewer strong players). I could see how in the long run a really good poker player could take money off a really bad poker player. It would be the same as comparing my overall blackjack winnings (or in the end, losses) against a fool who has no idea what they are doing at the blackjack table and hits their 15 against dealer 6; the fool might luck out every once and a while but over the long haul I'm sure I'll lose less money than he will. But I've noticed the majority of people play fairly reasonable basic strategy at the blackjack tables; if the poker tables become full of people playing fairly reasonable poker then I kinda think its a total crapshoot after that.
Posted Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:23 am GMT by supafrey
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | if the poker tables become full of people playing fairly reasonable poker then I kinda think its a total crapshoot after that. |
They won't. 99.9% of players don't know crap. Heck, like.. 85% of this forum does, too 
Posted Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:26 am GMT by gobbledygeek
| Muck wrote: |
…you understand about the house edge, so think of casinos as the largest and most well financed scientific experiment in history. Their hypothesis:
“Probability overcomes variance/luck given sufficient time.”
|
I agree with this, however their games have a built in mathematical advantage in their favour. While I could see a really good poker player taking money off really bad poker players over the long run, is there that many really bad poker players out there playing regularly? If the really bad poker players even begin to learn some of the basic ideas I'm thinking they could greatly reduce the difference between them and the good poker players, thereby reducing most games to luck. This would not be the case in most other games; for instance, I wouldn't think any of us could learn the basic ideas of hockey/basketball/etc. over a year or two and then expect to be able to compete with the pros because skill would still be the determining factor (not luck). But I almost kinda think you could do that in poker.
Posted Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:02 pm GMT by Muck
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | however their games have a built in mathematical advantage in their favour. |
Indeed and my bets can offer the same unfair odds in my favour 
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | is there that many really bad poker players out there playing regularly? |
In a word Yes. Poker is like an economy. The money trickles in and usually upwards. It’s like saying are there enough blackjack players? Surely the bad ones would lose all their money and stop playing so casinos would soon be unable to fill the seats.
| gobbledygeek wrote: |
If the really bad poker players even begin to learn some of the basic ideas I'm thinking they could greatly reduce the difference between them and the good poker players, thereby reducing most games to luck.
|
The learning curve does offer a sharp increase in profit/reduction in lose at first but you’ll still be behind to someone better. They may not be making $10 an hour off you but they’re still making $6 an hour off you. It’s not a case of winning this hand or that hand because you make a flush and he had a straight, it’s about the long term.
| gobbledygeek wrote: |
for instance, I wouldn't think any of us could learn the basic ideas of hockey/basketball/etc. over a year or two and then expect to be able to compete with the pros because skill would still be the determining factor (not luck).
|
I think you’d be surprised at what you could do with a personal trainer and expert tuition Seriously though I know what you’re trying to get at but it’s not the same. Yes there’s less luck in physical games but is it so significant in poker that it removes the scope for skill? No, quite the opposite, the luck factor is usually what makes bad players lose more and good players win more.
Humm I don’t like that last paragraph but need to get home.
Posted Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:48 am GMT by lwestatbus
gobbledygeek is asking all of the right questions--and that's a HUGE head start over most of the herd, especially at low limit tables.
Sure there's luck in poker. But luck is short run. There's a great quote from Rounders that goes something like, "If poker is nothing but luck why do you see the same five guys at the WSOP final table year after year? What are they, the five luckiest guys in Vegas?" Somebody made the comment responding to one of my posts that all the poker you ever play is just one big session. In other words, how you do over the long haul is what matters.
Your description of hand distributions, hours of playing nothing, bleeding away, watching other bozos get stupidly lucky are certainly common. This is really, really normal. And then the rush when everything comes together and you can't miss. We've all had that.
I'm surprised nobody brought this up but I strongly recommend getting Sklansky, Miller, and Malmuth's book on winning low limit Texas Hold'em. It is spectacular. From your posts I think you'll really see what they are getting at. It almost sounds like you're in tune with the important principles already.
And it does get better. Sometimes, by the way, "Better" just means that you successfully avoided bleeding away more than you had to when the luck went against you.
Good luck.
Posted Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:26 am GMT by gobbledygeek
Thanks for the responses.
An update: Now played just over 50 hours of 2/4 limit in the Casino, things not getting better. Only 1 winning session, a couple of almost break evens, the rest losses. -2.75BB / hour on average. Have gone from playing twice a week to once, now gonna have to cut it down to once every couple of weeks or maybe once a month.
Sure, it's only been 50 hours but I still can't get by the luck factor. Here's the killer hand from the other night. Bad luck or bad play?
Hero: AA in small blind. Bunch of calls by the time it gets to me, I raise, everyone who is in calls.
Flop: 4 5 6 rainbow
Hero bets, big blind raises, one other person calls and I call. I'm thinking big blind might have two pair, perhaps three of a kind and outside chance at flopped straight. I wasn't supposed to fold here was I?
Turn: 4 5 6 A
Hero bets, big blind raises, one other person calls and I call. At this point I'm fairly convinced big blind has flopped his straight. But I figure I've got lots of outs to pair the board for the full house. Plus, if he only has trips or two pair I've got him crushed.
River: 4 5 6 A 5
Hero bets, big blind raises in disgust and other person RAISES. Me and big blind call. Big blind shows his flopped straight, other person shows his quad 5's. Ug, if it hadda been quad 10's I woulda won 10 grand on the bad beat. Funny, very next hand the Mr. Flopped Straight gets pocket As and they hold up.
I dunno, I just can't seem to get by the luck part of this game. It still really seems to be an absolute crapshoot to me. Anyone else having the same sort of experience on a 2/4 casino table?
Posted Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:27 pm GMT by BeerWench13
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | Anyone else having the same sort of experience on a 2/4 casino table? |
I've only played $2/4 FL at a casino once. It was the worst poker experience of my life. I couldn't get anyone to fold and they were catching on me left and right. I think Geno had a great suggestion when he said that perhaps you should try $3/6. At least at $3/6 you might be able to get a few players out of the hand postflop.
I am a NL player. I realized that I just don't have what it takes to play FL. It can be profitable for those that are good at it, but it's not my cup of tea. I don't like having 7-8 players still in the hand when the river hits. You will find this to be a common occurrence at $2/4.
Posted Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:35 pm GMT by kainARGH
| Quote: | I think Geno had a great suggestion when he said that perhaps you should try $3/6. At least at $3/6 you might be able to get a few players out of the hand postflop.
|
Sorry but I'm gonna go ahead and confirm this as not accurate. Theres basically a range , I've found ... between 1-2 and up to 4-8 , depending on the casino will be played nearly identically to whats been described. Too many to the flop , no one will fold.
I've played alot at those ranges and always found itt he same ... but Might i sugest this.
Watch the table your about to play at. If you don't like it , request another. Trust me not ALL tables at these ranges are exactl;y the same.... though alot are , every now and again you'll find a good table with people actually trying to play poker.
The biggest sugestion I would make is check between 2-4 3-6 and 4-8 , and try to find a good table.
as far as the quad 5's , nothing can be done , nor the flopped str8. If your truly looking to overcome luck , all i can sugest is to make sure you buy in for alot and play for a long time. keep at it
Posted Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:36 pm GMT by kingetje
those quads 5's were rough.... you really should have raised on the river though 
Posted Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:21 pm GMT by kainARGH
| kingetje wrote: | | those quads 5's were rough.... you really should have raised on the river though |
You know , I awas thinking the same thing lol. In theory , hes going to show you quads maybe once every million bajillion times , so for every other time hes a donk and gets excited over his trips , this really is a value raise - unless your 99.999% sure he has quads
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:08 am GMT by BeerWench13
| kainARGH wrote: | | Sorry but I'm gonna go ahead and confirm this as not accurate. |
No need to be sorry. I honestly wasn't sure, but it seemed like a good suggestion. I don't play FL in casinos. Only NL. Thank you for clarifying though. I would hate to be giving bad advice.
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:11 am GMT by gobbledygeek
You guys were serious about raising on the river after getting raised twice after my original bet? Maybe that's a weakness in my game, I never re-raise a raise on the river if I don't have the nuts, I'll simply call.
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:27 am GMT by gobbledygeek
Ok, here's an example hand I played where I have a feeling a may have made a few mistakes. Any advice would be appreciated.
It's an hour or so after getting my AAA55 crushed by 5555, I've won a small pot since then. I'm ready to go home so I'm just staying around for one more rotation of the table (2/4 limit).
Last hand of the night UTG, I'm dealt QTo. I call, a few other callers along with small blind and big blind checks. Question: I know this ain't the greatest starting hand in early position, did I play too loose here? Again I'm in the frame of mind that this is my last hand of the night and what the hell, the cards don't look too bad.
Flop: Q 3 3 rainbow
Blinds check, I bet to see what happens. Small blind (a very weak player) calls as does big blind. I'm thinking the bet was the proper play, right?
Turn: Q 3 3 4
Again blinds check, so I bet. Small blind folds. At this point I believe the big blind raises me. He's big blind so he coulda flopped trip 3's with his junk hand I think. Is my QQ33 with ok kicker no good here? Anyways, I call. I'm thinking that was the wrong move?
River: Q 3 3 4 4
I check. Big Blind raises. I call. Even though I've probably made mistakes up until this point I'm guessing a call here is the correct play cuz I'm not 100% convinced I'm beat and I'd hate to make the worst of two bad plays and give the pot away, correct?
Big blind shows pocket Q's, he had flopped the full house. Disguised it pretty well by not raising pre-flop (I had noticed that he'd never raise good hands preflop, but he would re-raise them).
This hand bled the chips away that I had won in the previous small pot. Comments and how would you have played this?
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:39 am GMT by kingetje
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | You guys were serious about raising on the river after getting raised twice after my original bet? Maybe that's a weakness in my game, I never re-raise a raise on the river if I don't have the nuts, I'll simply call. |
yes we were serious. you had the second nuts for cryin out loud 
and to your last post, i think you played it well. not a problem to call with Q-10 under the gun...
maybe you could have checked on the turn instead of betting, because on a paired board 2 callers or more im scared someone has the trips. so i would just check/call on the turn after being called by 2 people on the flop.
that guy was a weirdo though for not raising with his pocket QQ
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:48 am GMT by kainARGH
| BeerWench13 wrote: | | kainARGH wrote: | | Sorry but I'm gonna go ahead and confirm this as not accurate. |
No need to be sorry. I honestly wasn't sure, but it seemed like a good suggestion. I don't play FL in casinos. Only NL. Thank you for clarifying though. I would hate to be giving bad advice. |
I guess more so sorry , that it isnt true lol :D
I rememebr back first ever playing casino 2/4 , and getting so frusterated. Not knowing much about poker , all I knew was to play tight and fold alot , and I got miserable that so many people called to the river. If I couldnt get lucky , I couldnt win , and I was angry. I remember moving up in limits hopeing what you said would be true
Alas , It wasn't.
*edit*
| Quote: | | You guys were serious about raising on the river after getting raised twice after my original bet? Maybe that's a weakness in my game, I never re-raise a raise on the river if I don't have the nuts, I'll simply call. |
Dead serious , and here is why.
You lose to quads once every 1000 times you have the second best hand possible , nut full house. Thats not an exact number , but its VERY RARE. Now , if everytime this scenario came up , you haveing nut full house , them re-raiseing you on the river - and you simply call instead of 3 bet , you lose out on winning an extra bet about 99% of the time , or 999 times out of 1000 you lose an extra BB by not 3 betting. Now once every 1000 you save yourself 2 BB's by simply calling.
Its about as easy a value bet situation as you can encounter. If you don't know about value betting , look it up
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:43 pm GMT by gobbledygeek
I'm going to post a new thread in Basic Theory regarding re-raising on the river without the nuts cuz I'm interested in other opinions.
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:13 pm GMT by kainARGH
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | I'm going to post a new thread in Basic Theory regarding re-raising on the river without the nuts cuz I'm interested in other opinions. |
value betting can be tricky , takes a little bit of knowledge of the other player and the situation. Theres usually alot to assess when attempting to correctly value bet.
The reason its so easy here is , the ONLY hand that can beat you is 4 of a kind. An extremly rare unlikly holding.
Posted Mon May 08, 2006 10:46 am GMT by gobbledygeek
Ug, now limiting myself to one poker game a month if I lose $100 at a sitting, so I'm now done for May after losing $134 yesterday at 2/4 limit over 4 hours. I suck suck suck at this game, now averaging about -3.2BB/hour over first 55 hours or so.
Here's a couple of hands, the one I remember the most first:
HAND ONE:
Dealt Kc 7c on the button. Everyone calls so I call (not too loose, right?). Big blind then raises, everyone calls so I call (maybe too loose now?).
Flop: Ac Kd Jc
Tight lady in the small blind raises, buncha callers, I raise. Was the raise proper? I've got about a 1/3 chance of getting the high flush, the pair of kings doesn't hurt plus I know this flop is gonna get lottsa action for high pairs and straights.
Turn: Ac Kd Jc Jh
Tight lady in the small blind raises again, some callers, this time I just call. I definitely have the odds to call for my top flush. But at this point she is kinda freaking me out with the raises. But perhaps she only has the high straight?
River: Ac Kd Jc Jh 4c
Couldn't be a better river for me but tight lady doesn't even seem to notice the third club on the board and leads off again. One or two callers. At this point I have that sick feeling my top flush ain't good enough but I raise anyways (wasted BB?) and she timidly just calls.
Comments?
HAND TWO:
The drawback with playing in the casino is I can't quite remember the exact way the hands were played in order to post them later for comments. I know I've probably run into some bad luck but I figure I've also got to be pissing away money here and there on bad play, I just wish I could remember all the hands. Do other casino players take notes on their hands while they can remember them?
Anyways, I guess at how the hand was played:
Dealt: AJo, I think early position so I don't raise.
Flop: Q J 7, no flush
I raise early position, get a few callers.
Turn: Q J 7 10, no flush
I think I checked at this point and then called a raise. Me and two or three others in the hand still.
River: Q J 7 10 A, no flush
I check, one bet, one caller, I call.
Comments?
The one thing I definitely remember about that hand is that the caller had KK all along and therefore had the nuts. Why in the world would he only call the initial bet instead of raising? The only thing I could think of is that there was still one person (me) to call after him (or maybe one other person), so maybe he was afraid a raise would scare them off? This guy had won a bunch of money and would leave the table soon with at least 3 or 4 times what he started with, so he wasn't completely retarded. Or was he? Is this game total luck or what?
Posted Mon May 08, 2006 12:34 pm GMT by Muck
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | Ug, now limiting myself to one poker game a month if I lose $100 at a sitting, so I'm now done for May after losing $134 yesterday at 2/4 limit over 4 hours. I suck suck suck at this game, now averaging about -3.2BB/hour over first 55 hours or so. |
Why not drop down limits and play on-line? You’ll get a lot more hours experience per $.
Posted Mon May 08, 2006 1:00 pm GMT by gobbledygeek
| Muck wrote: |
Why not drop down limits and play on-line? You’ll get a lot more hours experience per $. |
Good suggestion. But I'm on the computer all day at work and don't really wanna hang out on it during my free time, plus I'm internetless at home. If they had lower limits in the casino I'd definitely drop down. I can afford the losses, I just can't really justify them.
Posted Mon May 08, 2006 2:45 pm GMT by Muck
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | Muck wrote: |
Why not drop down limits and play on-line? You’ll get a lot more hours experience per $. |
Good suggestion. But I'm on the computer all day at work and don't really wanna hang out on it during my free time, plus I'm internetless at home. If they had lower limits in the casino I'd definitely drop down. I can afford the losses, I just can't really justify them. |
I started off in casinos too. If you’re confined to B&M casinos you could play tourneys, although it might not be the format you like it should get you more hours play per $ and it’s very easy to budget for.
As for your hands I don’t play FL much so can’t really comment I’m afraid.
Posted Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:21 am GMT by 72o
Regarding the original question: When I played my first real money game online i lost about 100 BB per hour. And it definitely became better by time.
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | Dealt: AJo, I think early position so I don't raise. |
You definitely should raise 4 times the BB preflop in early position. AJ isn't the best hand there is but its pretty good and you cannot just sit there and wait for AK or a big pocket pair.
| gobbledygeek wrote: | Turn: Q J 7 10, no flush
I think I checked at this point and then called a raise. |
Fold.
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | River: Q J 7 10 A, no flush |
Fold!
Posted Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:49 pm GMT by Jefecaminador
A wise man once said, you make more money off other peoples mistakes then you will by your own fancy play. That being said, its pretty hard to tell from just your descriptions on how you play, my best advice would be to find someone you know is a winning player and have them play with you for a few hours. They'll be able to point out a lot of flaws that you have. Limit is all about saving bets and getting extra bets out of your opponent. If you can save yourself even 1 bet for every 4 hand you lose, or gain an extra bet for every 4 hands you win, it can add up to a lot, prolly more than what you're losing at the moment. Poker is about making the best decision each time, and even if you're a little sloppy, it can add up in a hurry.
Posted Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:29 pm GMT by craggoo
I would like to make a few comments on B&M FL poker. It seems for me that everything comes in streaks. At one point, I had 12 wins in a row in $3/$6 coming out each time with a profit of $100+ (had a couple $500 in there as well). During this stretch, i pulled a few all nighters (on the weekends only... tons of fish on the weekends). During my all nighters, dude i have to tell you. There were so many ups and downs its scary. At one point, one night there was this one older gentlemen that would call all the way down with any PP no matter what the board read. I flopped two pair 3 or 4 times in a row only to have him hit his 2 outter those same 3 or 4 times in a row. Sometimes the poker gods just shit on you and laugh in your face. There are other times however that i can boast the same luck (not 2 outters but something else amazing). The thing is in FL if you raise pre-flop you have to continue betting all the way through regardless of if you have it or not. If i raise pre-flop with AK (which of course i will) im going to continue betting it all the way through regardless if i hit or not. The reason for this is simple: the hand where i have AA and people think "oh he just has AK again im check calling him all the way down" i clean up that hand. Or any other pot for that matter. I dont just raise with face cards, i raise with suited connectors to just to throw off people. This is what you have to be thinking: "If you can call with it you can certainly raise with it". One of the best hands i had recently in $3-$6 FL was 8d7d. I raise under the gun, the WHOLE table calls. Flop is 965. Flop the nuts and people think "goold ol' AK is a loser here". I have 7 callers all the way down because they believe im just betting with high cards. Slowplay is also a key in FL. I don't mean slowplay by not raising AA, KK, etc preflop. I mean if you flop a set slow-playing it to perfection. One of my most recent hands that i had in $3-$6 FL was 99 in the BB. I think there are 5 limpers and a raise on the button. I call of course. I flop top set and im thinking what i can do to get the most value out of the hand. There is one person in the hand that flopped a set of 7's (the button). There are 2 best on the flop, i just smooth call. The turn pairs the board so theres no way i can be beat. I do a check-raise on the river which happens to get capped at 4 bets. That pot was one of the bigger ones that night @ just under $175. Another thing i've noticed in FL... sometimes you really do have to go for miracles... by that i mean runner flushes. The only time i go for hands like that would be with 2 overcards on the flop (like AQ). Think about it this way: if you hit your A or Q you're probably good. If you turn the nut flush draw and hit it on the river, your hand will be perfectly disguised. No one will expect the flush since people dont expect you to go for it. The best thing to do is do the opposite of what your opponents expect. The moment you become a predictable player is the moment you will not get action on your big hands. Sorry this is all kind of jumbled together. I hope it helped.
-Cragg
Posted Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:51 pm GMT by Jefecaminador
Um, I'm going to have to disagree with a lot of what you just said. In limit the bets you win are the bets you save. And while occasionally betting all the way down with AK when you don't hit can have its positives, doing it the majority of the time isn't a good thing. For all the times you dont hit with AK, how many times do you think you'll get paid off with an AA? Surely its nowhere near one to one. It's good to have a loose image in limit, but it seems like your advocating playing like a maniac, which isnt good.
Posted Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:31 am GMT by craggoo
I'm simply advocating that if you show strength preflop you show it after the flop too. If everytime you raise AK you miss and check on the flop. People are going to know when you have it and when you dont. A lot of the hands that i play when i raise preflop since i usually end up playing with a lot of the same ppl ALWAYS pay off my high PP's, sets, etc because they alawys assume that its AK which misses that flop. There is no way people can really put me on hands when im betting it all the way through. Now of course, if someone check-raises me on the turn and i still have just ace high im going to fold there. I think of it this way: for all the times that i miss with AK, im going to make at least double it back with the times i hit. I generally have either really big nights where im moving up constantly or nights where im really stale. Aggression is key in FL The only thing i dont advocate that i think was mentioned somewhere in this thread is raising on draws. ~25% (im not exactly sure of the percent but its somewhere around there) of draws (open ended straight draws, flush draws) will hit. If you have position then i like to raise on draws but otherwise its check-call and check-raise if i hit it on the turn or the river. I hope this was helpful.
-Cragg
Posted Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:32 pm GMT by 72o
When I started to play (online) poker I considered myself a pretty tight player, too. But after I opened the statistics window I was facing the truth: I played almost every second hand, at least every third! A real tight player would play only one out of five hands!
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | Dealt Kc 7c on the button. Everyone calls so I call (not too loose, right?). |
That is very loose play! Playing a rag ace or king on the button is only a good idea when all players before you folded so only you and the blinds are still in the hand. And its only good if you raise on the button to drive out at least the small blind to end up heads-on. And even then it's difficult to play unless you don't know how to ace out an opponent. I won't recommend such play to a beginner. If everybody called and "you called too" this is not only loose but poor play. Play big hands from AK to QJ, big pocket pairs from AA to maybe TT and occasionally check from the big blind. That will make you play about 20% of your hands. Basically, that's the way a pro plays at a loose table.
I give you an advice: Once you have learned how to play tight say to yourself "I'm a tight player and everybody at the table knows it. When I hit the flop I hit something big and if you want to win a hand against me you must be either stupid or very lucky!" And if you play quality hands only and you hit the flop you will almost always hit something that is worth a strong bet. Make a big bet after the flop to drive out the smart players and to make the stupid players pay. As Howard Lederer put it "If you play a hand then play it like you mean it!"
|
|
