Ring games VS Sit and goes |
|
Posted Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:51 pm GMT by Pokerdealz
Which should we play?
Always a big debate 
Personally, I play cash ring games, normally $50 NL tables.
I play tight, and can normally reach about $80 - $100 in one session.
This became my target to reach, as I can normally reach this before I get bored, and start losing concentration.
Once I reach my target, I normally use $10 of the profit to enter a sit and go. This gives me a chance at multiplying my profit at quite an easy level.
If I finish in the money, I then use some of this profit to enter a MTT, with the long shot at making some serious profit.
This seems to be quite a profitable system, and when I have grown my bankroll some more, and have improved my patience and concentration level I can move up the levels of play.
Anyone else play any strategies like this, or have any ideas about building your bankroll with limited risk.
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 Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:58 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Personally, at the low stakes I think SnG's are a better deal for the skilled players. You get more hands for less proportional rake, and the caliber of player tends to be quite low at the $11 SnG's and below. These can be great for building a decent bankroll (I made about $1000 playing $11 SnG's over a span of a few months).
Once you move up to $2/$4 - $3/$6 or so in FL and somewhere in the $50NL - $100NL range, I think the ring games are potentially much more profitable considering the time investment. Also, once you hit the $22 SnG level or so, the competition seems to ramp up sharply. Given that it generally takes an hour or so to play a SnG, I think the hourly rate of a good player can be higher at $100 NL or $2/$4 FL than in $22 or $33 SnG's, but this again depends on the player and his/her individual tastes and set of skills.
Posted Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:57 pm GMT by ninetensuited
someone else who plays ring games, correct me if I am wrong, but is it -EV to set a goal to reach? thats seems to me as the same thing as a stop-loss? just opposite
Posted Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:04 am GMT by Poto
| ninetensuited wrote: | | someone else who plays ring games, correct me if I am wrong, but is it -EV to set a goal to reach? |
Well, at least I don't think it's a very good idea. It can easy lead to long sessions when you're losing and short ones when you run good/play good.
Posted Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:06 pm GMT by Pokerdealz
I am not sure if you are commenting on my strategy, but if you are I will reply.
I dont think its a bad thing to set targets to reach, when winning or losing. When first starting out (or should I say when I first started to learn how to win) I would often sit at a cash table, and win for a while.
I used to play a lot more aggressive than I tend too now.
There where times I would sit at a $50 table and build my stack to about $250, on occasions even $300. Then I guess I was getting over-confident, and lost all profit, or even the whole lot in half the time it took to get there.
Now, I dont get involved in big pots, if I am in any doubt.
I wait for top ranking starting hands, then raise the standard 3-times the BB.
If I dont hit the flop, and someone else bets, I get out before I get pot commited.
Playing this was has cut-out all the disaster hands that cost me dearly.
When the flop hits, because you are only playing the premium hands, you have a pretty good chance of having you opponent beaten...even if he catches what he was looking for.
It has taken patience for me to learn to play this way, but it is definetely paying off.
I started a new account, to get a bonus I was interested in, but needed 250 raked hands to qualify. At the time I thought, I will play super-tight, break even cash wise, and claim my gift.
From the initial $50, playing like this I reached over $350 by the time I reached the 250 hands.
I have done the same on 3 other sites since, to get more bonus gifts.
The sit and goes, give me a chance to vent off, and get involved with more action, as I actually find them more fun. You get the chance to get involed with more action. However, I think I am better off using cash tables to generate income, and fund these "fun" games.
Posted Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:52 pm GMT by ninetensuited
hmmm
Posted Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:04 pm GMT by UrAteUp
I like the idea of using your ring games to fund your SNG and MTT games. Usually people tend to do it just the opposite but whatever works for you.
I do not like putting a limit on what you can win. The better way to do that was mentioned by Skribbles awhile back. That is put a lose cap on your winnings. Say you set down and win $200. Keep playing but tell yourself your going to stop when you get down to say $150. This way you know your maximizing profits while avoiding large losses.
The way it sounds you might be leaving alot of money on the table. By not taking advantage of big pot situations. I am sure what you ment to say was you avoid big pots with marginal or lower hands.
DC made the comment that in low stakes ring games you can get murdered by rake. He makes a valid point but I still find the win rate and competition better at the lower levels then I do higher ones. You just have to win more often and find ways to win bigger pots.
It sounds to me like you know what works best for you and your play. I won't comment on that though. People still really get mad at me and call me mean names when they find out I always buy in short in ring games. I usually buy in for min. and turn it into max or better before I leave or switch tables.
Posted Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:28 pm GMT by LeafsFan1122
I like the meathod of how the ring games "pay" for the SnGs.
About reaching a certain goal per session though, that's no good.
Playing until you get bored is very acceptable / reasonable, and playing for a set amount of time, predetermined before you sit down is also "recommended".
OP: do you use a poker tracker?
Posted Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:42 pm GMT by Pokerdealz
Thanks for all the comments.
I will take all your comments into consideration, and may well adapt it slightly.
The comment about capping my leave the table limit sounds like it may be a good idea.
Just to confirm what I meant about keeping out of big pot, I do mean with marginal hands. Obviously, I take more things into consideration than just my cards, which leads onto one of the other questions asked.
I do use a poker-tracker. This not only tracks my success, but also the hands every opponent I have ever played against are at the click of a button.
This is one of the best tools I have found, so I did become affiliated with them.
If you want more info on this, you will have to PM me, as I would hate to be accused of spamming.
Posted Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:09 pm GMT by ninetensuited
if you spam, we will not be to harsh, just death threats:)
Posted Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:55 pm GMT by khaosanroad
I will sometimes give myself a number of hands limit, like after 200 hands I will take a break, and after 400 hands I will probably call it a day.
UAU: I just finished reading Sklansky's NLHE theory & Practice and there is some advantage to playing the short stack game, so keep it up.
|
|
