|
JCarver posted:There is no such thing as "raising to find out where you are at". There are almost never ever hands where your primary reason for acting will be for "finding out where you are at". You are either ahead or behind, and raising will probably make better hands call and worse hands fold. You accomplish nothing and allow your opponent to play near-optimally. Ok so the small blind folds and the turn card comes up say a 2. He fires again say 1/2 of the pot. What do you do here? I would wonder if he thinks I have AK or something like that and missed and is betting his pp? If i was multi-tabling, I would have suggested the call and see what he does on the turn. Probably folding to a good size bet. But i feel like im more of a nit when multitabling. Thats probably a problem in my game as I should play the same whether im playing 1 or 8 tables.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
Harry Hood posted:$20 stacks, remember. Any raise (except like a min) is pretty much getting all the money in so if he's beat he's probably getting stacked and if he's ahead then he wins the pot right there. A call on the flop seems much better, not sure about the turn. Woops, I missed the $20 dollar stacks. Thought it was $50, my mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2008 20:28
|
|
|
Ok here's a general topic I've been thinking about lately. What are your guys thoughts on bankroll requirements for playing a lot of tables? In my case it's 9 tables of 6max. Obviously the oldschool 30 buyin requirements are a bad idea, but I'm struggling with exactly how much I need. My current thoughts is to drop down if I get go below 50 buyins at my current limit and start mixing in higher tables when I hit 40 buyins for the next limit (with the idea of 9 tabling it by the time I'm around 60 buyins).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 00:13
|
|
|
artard posted:Ok here's a general topic I've been thinking about lately. What are your guys thoughts on bankroll requirements for playing a lot of tables? In my case it's 9 tables of 6max. Obviously the oldschool 30 buyin requirements are a bad idea, but I'm struggling with exactly how much I need. My current thoughts is to drop down if I get go below 50 buyins at my current limit and start mixing in higher tables when I hit 40 buyins for the next limit (with the idea of 9 tabling it by the time I'm around 60 buyins). I play .5/1 nl full ring and 8 table. I have followed the 30 buyin rule generally but im full ring. I don't play 6max but im guessing you need more buyins for it. I didn't realize that you needed that many. I usually average 1 -4 buyin swings on any given day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 00:32
|
|
|
Back when I was 7 tabling .02/.04 on Cake I once dropped 10 buyins in a 90 minute period but ended up + for the session (played another 3 hours to get back to +2 buyins) 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 00:40
|
|
|
Anything less than 50 buyins for 6+ tabling your main limit of 6 max cash is insane. If you're taking a shot/only playing a couple tables then less is obviously fine (provided you are going to stop/drop back down if you lose a couple buyins). I highly recommend stop losses regardless of # of buyins in your bankroll. Last week I had a -15 buyin session at 6max and even though after thorough review I've determined that pretty much every all in was standard I should have stopped after like 5 buyins. Unless you're one of the 0.00000001% of people who don't tilt at poker, dropping 5+ buyins WILL affect your game. If you're a professional and 9 tabling 6max I'd say that anything less than 100 buyins for your main limit is a bad idea. It just makes it much easier for your mental state and game when even the worst losing session (which will happen "frequently" if you grind a lot of hands) won't put a huge dent in your BR. EC10 fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Jan 21, 2008 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 01:05
|
|
|
What about when moving up? Do you think mixing in a table of the next limit when I hit 40 buyins and adding another table every 2-3 buyins after that is solid?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 01:09
|
|
|
If you have a 100k roll and are 9 tabling 5/10, it's perfectly fine to drop 2 tables in favor of 2 10/20 tables if the 10/20 games are good. But you SHOULD (it's hard to do it while you're in the tilting/losing moment, but if you have any dsicipline you should force yourself to) quit the 10/20 games if you lose 2 or 3 buyins.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 01:26
|
|
|
EC10 posted:Anything less than 50 buyins for 6+ tabling your main limit of 6 max cash is insane. If you're taking a shot/only playing a couple tables then less is obviously fine (provided you are going to stop/drop back down if you lose a couple buyins).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 01:54
|
|
|
I don't think that 50 buyins is optimal for longterm bankroll growth at low limits unless you play in really tough games or play a really crazy style. If you play like 20/16 and are a 4PTBB winner at NL200 or whatever, your chances of going bust with a 30 buyin roll are really small, and if you're a 5 or 6 PTBB winner then your chances are pretty much 0. I also think that you need a lot less for full ring if you have a similar winrate. The games are just not difficult enough and don't play crazy enough at or below NL200 to require 50 buyins. Of course EC10 makes a really good point about the games he plays in and about stop losses and about the psychological effects of losing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 05:44
|
|
|
I agree with blah_blah, I really can't see needing 30 or more buyins until 5/10.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 07:21
|
|
|
Another small stakes player chiming in, 30 is definitely enough IF you don't go on tilt driven losses. Especially for inexperienced players (like myself) being able to recognise when you're on tilt is not that easy so using a stop loss is helpful. Can't count how many buyins I would have saved myself if I'd cut some sessions short instead of trying to win that money back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 12:25
|
|
blah_blah posted:I don't think that 50 buyins is optimal for longterm bankroll growth at low limits unless you play in really tough games or play a really crazy style. If you play like 20/16 and are a 4PTBB winner at NL200 or whatever, your chances of going bust with a 30 buyin roll are really small, and if you're a 5 or 6 PTBB winner then your chances are pretty much 0. True, but we agree if you consider the fact that you shouldn't really be a "professional" if you're playing < NL400. I can not brng myself to agree that playing 6+ tables of 6max with 30 buyins at your main limit is a good idea, but 50 might be a bit extreme; so I'll settle on 40. And once you consider yourself a pro and your bankroll is not expendable to you, then yes, 100 buyins for your main limit should be standard. Two other high stakes pros I know of that recommend the 100 buyin rule are Gaucho and BldSwtTrs from 2p2. EC10 fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jan 21, 2008 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 18:24
|
|
|
EC10 posted:True, but we agree if you consider the fact that you shouldn't really be a "professional" if you're playing < NL400. Definitely. But I think artard is playing like NL25. I'm just saying that having a 100 buyin BR at NL25 is crazy when a decent player can be playing NL100 on the same BR with like a 2% chance of going busto (and even then they can move down). Also I'm talking more about longterm bankroll growth and not necessarily minimizing the chances of bustoing. Depending on the player's risk tolerance and how well they play when losing money, there definitely should be some adjustments independent of their playing style and the games they are playing in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 18:34
|
|
|
I guess I'm kind of a bankroll nit but playing 9 tables on 40 buyins just doesn't sound like a recipe for success. All you have to do is get stacked a couple of times and you have over 25% of your bankroll on the tables. Basically, I'd rather play each limit longer if it also means that my chances of having to move down are slim than be jumping to the next level every time I hit 30 buyins and have to move back down after losing 5 buyins in an hour because I'm not running good. But I guess that view is why I'm currently 2-3 tabling NL25 on Stars even though I have 40 buyins for it spread between Stars/Cake.
artard fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jan 21, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 18:57
|
|
|
artard posted:I guess I'm kind of a bankroll nit but playing 9 tables on 40 buyins just doesn't sound like a recipe for success. All you have to do is get stacked a couple of times and you have over 25% of your bankroll on the tables. Basically, I'd rather play each limit longer if it also means that my chances of having to move down are slim than be jumping to the next level every time I hit 30 buyins and have to move back down after losing 5 buyins in an hour because I'm not running good. I don't think the number of tables is really relevant here. I mean, if you're playing a marathon session and lose 5 buyins and through reloading/stacking people you have 20 buyins spread out over 9 tables and 15 more in your account, who cares? It's not like somehow you're going to lose all 20 simultaneously. If you want to avoid playing super deep you can always leave tables when you get more than 250BB deep or more than 400BB deep or some arbitrary amount. Finding more tables is never that hard at low limits and they are almost all good. I used to 12 table Party NL50 and I'd frequently have sessions where I'd build up huge stacks on a couple of tables without being up much (or even down) for the session. Especially at the limits you are playing, most people will not be playing long enough sessions to get deep, so being deep yourself shouldn't really increase your RoR much. e: i'd 12 table NL50 FR if I had 20 buyins in my account as well (I can't 12 table 6max). You just need to be ready to break up big stacks frequently to keep your MT ratio high. blah_blah fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jan 21, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 19:05
|
|
|
I don't mind playing deep, in fact I prefer it, but I think playing 9 tables is definitely going to cause more variance than playing 2 or 3 since my winrate isn't going to be as high and most of my reads are based on PT stats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 19:08
|
|
|
Here is another hand to analyze. I'm questioning my turn bet with the nuts. I bet basically the pot with the nuts with 3 people in the pot, 2 diamonds on the board. Also, I decided to raise from the SB full ring with KT because there was a lot of limpers into the pot, and I decided to try to be aggressive. http://cakepoker.com/HandHistory/?Hand=xcfMwsTFxc3Bx8TExMTMwojAzMTBzcc%3d
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 19:09
|
|
|
PF is horrible (you shouldn't be raising many hands into a ton of limpers from the SB). For an illustration of how bad it is, I'm pretty sure that completing is > raising with AJo, much less KTo. Flop is horrible as well since you're, you know, cbetting into 5 people on an ace high board without an ace. On the turn this is a great spot to bet like 1.15 or 2 and hope one of the shorties shoves so you can get the rest in. I mean shoving isn't that bad but I think that a smaller bet is better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 19:30
|
|
|
I think I'm getting confused as to when to be aggressive then, and when to complete. I remember from the last hand I posted, i think it was said to never allow limpers in (but I also had Aces, which is way different from KTo) I'm guessing the C-Bet is bad because if I get raised with 3-5 people in the pot, then I have to fold anyways - which basically means I lose money for no reason? I was check/folding the turn unless a Jack came off. I can see why you would bet small, but my thinking with the 2 diamonds was to make someone pay a dear price for chasing the flush. If I bet $2 in a 7.65 pot, wouldn't that give the guy close to 5 to 1 to call? I've love to try to close the leaks while I am playing at NL10 before I earn enough to move to NL25. I think I'll get crushed at that level. Maybe I can post some stats sometime in another thread so I can get a feel for for my game, if I'm too tight, not aggressive enough, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 20:12
|
|
|
Basically with AA you want to make people pay for drawing against you. This is a different situation. Raising KT in sb is horrible because you're definitely getting callers and you'll be out of position with a weak hand. REALLY weak actually. You rarely make monsters and you'll lose a lot of money when you hit a king and are outkicked. Get in the habit of folding in the sb. You'd be surprised how much those small errors like completing with thrash because 'hey it's just half a bb more' add up over time. EDIT: might as well post a hand of my own. Don't have the hand history cause I forgot to save it and looking for it is a chore but I remember it. NL100 Folded to me in the CO and I raise with KQo, button calls and blinds fold. Both of us have 100bb stacks Flop: TJ4 - two diamonds (I have Kd) I bet 3/4 of the pot and quickly get called. Turn: 9h - 20BB pot I bet 3/4 wanting to make the flush draw pay. He calls again. River: Ad - 50BB pot I bet half the pot get raised all in and fold. The reason behind my river bet is that I feel like most hands I'm beating that would call (TJ, AJ etc.) would check and the flush would bet. If I check I'd be faced with a hard decision to call what would probably be a big bet. Is this bad logic or just a bad spot to use this type of thinking? dsquash fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jan 21, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 20:55
|
|
|
I would definitely not be raising there with KTo in the SB, maybe on the button but there are a lot of limpers. For your cbet, forgetting that you raised with KTo, I would bet anywhere from 1/2 pot+. I like to mix it up and bet anywhere from 1/2 pot to pot with a cbet this way your not making any patterns(hopefully). Your turn bet is too much I think. I didn't do the math but if the pot is 7.65 like you said, I would bet 2 or 3 bucks there. If there was a flopped flush draw than I would bet like 4 on the turn.
souLjah fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Jan 21, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 21:09
|
|
|
I see what everyone is saying, KTo is very very weak, and that shouldn't of been the spot to try to be aggressive. I guess here would be a decent spot to post some stats on my NL game so maybe I can get some feedback as far as loose/tight and so on. This is through 2474 hands of NL4 (~1600 hands) and NL10(~800 hands) this month. (Edit: All games are full ring - 10 seated) Flops - 593/2474 ~ 23.97% SB Defend - 146/297 ~ 49.16% BB Defend - 203/311 ~ 65.26% Hands Won - 264 Showdown - 76/155 ~ 49.03% NL4 P/L = +42.17 NL10 P/L = -21.31 SNG ($1 + $5) = +40.70 My BR is about $130 right now from an initial investment of $50. I started on NL4 and $1.20 SNG's until about $100, now I am taking 1 table shots at NL10 FR. When I lose a buy in for NL10, I drop down to NL4 until that buy in is remade. From those stats though can there be a generalization made on my play, at least preflop?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 21:56
|
|
|
Big Poppa posted:I see what everyone is saying, KTo is very very weak, and that shouldn't of been the spot to try to be aggressive. What's the % of hands that you're raising preflop? It looks like you're playing too many hands from the SB. That's a pretty high showdown% but I'm not sure if you're calling too often, your oponents are, or if everyone's just playing really passive. Just as a general suggestion, I would advise tightening up the amount of hands you play preflop, it may be boring playing less hands, but you can multitable to make up for that. Pretty much everyone at those stakes likes to call anything, so just play really straightforward and value bet like crazy, and don't try to get too fancy unless you see someone is reeeeealy passive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 22:08
|
|
|
Big Poppa posted:I see what everyone is saying, KTo is very very weak, and that shouldn't of been the spot to try to be aggressive. What is your bb/110 for nl4? Im guessing your using PT with those stat numbers. I started at nl25 so I have no experience at those low levels. I think you might want to put some more time in at nl4 or tighten up at nl10. You can always open your range as you gain experience and feel comfortable but I would say definitely tighten up if you stay at nl10.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 22:26
|
|
|
souLjah posted:What is your bb/110 for nl4? Im guessing your using PT with those stat numbers. I started at nl25 so I have no experience at those low levels. I think you might want to put some more time in at nl4 or tighten up at nl10. You can always open your range as you gain experience and feel comfortable but I would say definitely tighten up if you stay at nl10. My BB/100 for NL4 is 64.09 (1625 Hands / 1054.25 BB) * 100 (+$2.56 per 100) My BB/100 for NL10 is -25.71 (829 Hands / -213.10 BB) * 100 (-$2.57 per 100) Since I'm going with Cake, I'm using my own program I wrote to break down the preflop HH (since that much is given), and using the Session stats they give you at the table for things such as SB/BB defense. M E A T Y posted:What's the % of hands that you're raising preflop? It looks like you're playing too many hands from the SB. That's a pretty high showdown% but I'm not sure if you're calling too often, your oponents are, or if everyone's just playing really passive. Just as a general suggestion, I would advise tightening up the amount of hands you play preflop, it may be boring playing less hands, but you can multitable to make up for that. Pretty much everyone at those stakes likes to call anything, so just play really straightforward and value bet like crazy, and don't try to get too fancy unless you see someone is reeeeealy passive. I know the one hand I posted does show it, but pretty much I go by this rule: If I open the pot, I am always coming in with a raise. Out of the 244 Flops I saw that were not out of the blinds, I raised in 167 of them. I've won 264 hands, and only won 76 of these on showdown, so about 190 hands I have won with a preflop raise, or everyone folding to a bet. Not sure if that shows any sort of aggression or not. Big Poppa fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jan 21, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2008 22:44
|
|
|
Big Poppa posted:My BB/100 for NL4 is 64.09 (1625 Hands / 1054.25 BB) * 100 (+$2.56 per 100) all that shows is an insufficient sample size
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2008 01:14
|
|
|
bbc what it dew posted:all that shows is an insufficient sample size Whatever. 64BB/100 is totally sustainable. POKER'S ABOUT HEART NOT MATH
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2008 01:49
|
|
|
ultimatemike posted:Whatever. 64BB/100 is totally sustainable. POKER'S ABOUT HEART NOT MATH You tell them mike. you luckbox 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2008 01:59
|
|
|
What would be a good sample size? 5k, 10k? I really only do about 4-5k hands a month at this rate, since I usually just play 1 table + 1 sng at a time, for maybe 2-3 hours a night. So I get in maybe 100-200 full ring hands a night. Looking at the BB/100, looks like I am breaking even. I should probably take it back down to NL4 for the rest of the month and reassess. Right now I'm just trying to learn as much as I can. I know I am smart enough to grasp concepts if I get taught them, or read them, I just want to be humble and accept all advice and take my game to the next level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2008 05:38
|
|
|
BB/100 can be completely outrageous at NL10. I ran almost 100BBs/100hands for a 5K stretch of NL10, but I also ran like a god and got a massive amount of it from high stakes players who would jump in and go all in every hand to blow off steam. I think you should focus alot more on studying. If you are raising KTo in in the SB to 5 limpers, you undoubtably have other massive, basic leaks that you can figure out pretty easily. edit- I am not sure how big a sample size really has to be to be indicative, but I know 5-10K really isn't enough. There is also ALOT more luck in poker than just all-in results. Just a few massive coolers (hands where you get dealt the 2nd nuts to 1st nuts, etc) can dramatically affect your winrate. 40 OZ fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Jan 22, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2008 06:13
|
|
|
Guys, 10k hands is NOTHING as far as a decent sample size goes. I know that's a bit of a pain in the rear end for the casual player who plays 5k hands a month to hear, but it's the truth. You can play 100% optimally and make every decision correctly and lose for 10k hands. It's not just possible, it's probable. 10k hands isn't poo poo. One or two big all in pots can completely alter your winrate over that sample size. You could have a shitload of leaks and be a big dog in the games you're playing in and still win over far more than 10k hands. It's not like this is theory, it happens ALL the time. FWIW, I ran at 20bb/100 at NL 10/20 6max for over 35k hands, and 11bb/100 for 50k hands of 5/10. I have also (recently) experienced an 80k hand losing stretch. It's especially easy to encounter something like this if most of your winning has been at lower limits (for me, 5/10 and 10/20) and your losing has been at higher limits (25/50).
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2008 18:20
|
|
|
If I want to end up playing 6-max, should I switch over right away or keep working on my game/bankroll at .02/.05 FR? I've probably played about 30-40k hands in my life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2008 20:06
|
|
|
EC10 posted:It's not just possible, it's probable. 10k hands isn't poo poo. One or two big all in pots can completely alter your winrate over that sample size. Speaking of sample size I hate pokertracker now lists AKo as being my biggest losing hand (by a longshot) because I lost a $125 pot in a .25/.50 heads up game when I flopped a gutshot flush/straight/royal draw and didn't get there. dontpanic posted:If I want to end up playing 6-max, should I switch over right away or keep working on my game/bankroll at .02/.05 FR? I've probably played about 30-40k hands in my life. If you are wanting to "end up" at 6max you should switch over to it as soon as you're bankrolled for the level you're grinding FR at. Full ring is boring as poo poo imo and multitabling 6max really isn't that much harder than FR once you have some practice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2008 21:40
|
|
|
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1982004 The only time I see a check on that flop after a PFR is from a set of queens. Can I fold to the minraise? I don't see people playing aces or kings and slow playing them like that to get me to be on the turn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2008 09:11
|
|
|
souLjah posted:http://www.pokerhand.org/?1982004 Got any stats on him? His line does look exactly like a set, if he is a FR nit. I think you can fold here. Baluga theorem lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2008 10:17
|
|
|
souLjah posted:http://www.pokerhand.org/?1982004 plz to be folding preflop. call turn / fold river unimproved?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2008 11:20
|
|
|
40 OZ posted:Got any stats on him? No stats, this is cake You put him on a set, what set would you say? 7's? or did he flop it? he raised PF over 2 limpers Ive seen him around before, i know he is not a complete idiot but thats all i know about it, seemed to be a TAG to me at least
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2008 11:58
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:plz to be folding preflop. call turn / fold river unimproved? So you fold this preflop, what about AQs? call? So you would call the minraise and fold to a river be unimproved?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2008 12:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
AQs should be a fold here as well. Your hand doesn't play well multiway and it is a 6x open and you are dominated a lot. e: yes as played i can't fold turn getting those odds. e2: I think that the open size does make a big difference. I'd probably call a 4x open but a 6x open seems really strong and it's not even like it's (exactly) a potsized open either, so he purposely made it 6x instead of mashing the 'bet pot' button. blah_blah fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Jan 23, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2008 12:10
|
|