|
I was a kind of serious live recreational player before COVID, now I don’t play at all and likely won’t until I am vaccinated. I played NLHE 2/5 and 5/10, and would occasionally play higher buy in MTTs when they came into town, typically in the $500 to $2000 range. I never really got into online poker and I actually enjoy the social aspect of live poker even if you get far fewer hands. The competition is also far, far weaker. I’m looking forward to getting back to poker once I can.
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2021 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 29, 2024 08:03 |
|
|
It’s really up to the dynamics of the group you’re playing with with regards to allowing unlimited rebuys. There’s no monetary benefit to the person who buys in a bunch, and it’s probably good for action and increases the prize pool. If the blinds go up quick enough the increased number of chips really shouldn’t extend play too long, if that’s a concern. On average people who only buy in once aren’t going to cash as often so again for a friendly game if that’s a concern then I’d speak up about it. But when you do cash (compared to a guy who buys in a bunch) your return on investment will be higher. With regards to the second guy buying in real close to making the money I’d probably speak up about it. If your tournament usually is in the money by a certain blind level I’d ask to cut off rebuys at least a few levels before that, mainly because having a money bubble is fun and makes for cool game dynamics. Having rebuys close to the money kind of takes away from that. But yeah as jase said for small friendly games be prepared for your group to disagree with you and if so I wouldn’t make I big deal out of it. Mind_Taker fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
I’d also add that ICM factors are usually largest at the final table of an MTT, usually MUCH larger than the money bubble. It leads to really cool dynamics. On the money bubble you could potentially lose out on a min cash which is what, usually like 1.5-3 buy ins? Meanwhile at the final table if you have a large field the difference between say like 3rd and 5th place can sometimes be dozens to hundreds of buy ins. The same logic still holds: medium stacks are usually incentivized to play tight but also short stacks are as well, especially if there are other short stacks. Pay jumps are so large that it’s often the better EV play to try to ladder up rather than trying to win the tournament.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
COVID, dog racing ending, and the Tampa Hard Rock really killed Derby Lane. They used to have much more business and a better variety of tournaments.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2021 14:10
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:The Weds $100 $3K guarantees in Feb did okay, getting 40+ players which isn't bad for a mid-week. Very curious to see what these Sunday $55s look like. They used to get 100+ players for their Tuesday night $200+7 tournaments. It was the best value in town even if the structure wasn’t the greatest. They used to also host bigger events on the other side of the room which isn’t used any more. I get it though, all of the big tournaments belong to the Hard Rock now as they’ve pretty much taken over all of Tampa. But even smaller rooms like the Silks and Sarasota Kennel Club used to have pretty decent tournament series but are now pretty dead.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:Silks has great ribs if they still do food, and luckys in tampa was a goldmine if you want to play against degens. Granted that's 5ish year old info, but I doubt locations changes a ton The Silks was my go-to spot and yeah, they had good food and good promotions (I think like $2 an hour for the 2/5 game, I never had to pay for food). They had by far the juiciest 2/5 NLHE games in town like 6-7 years ago but they haven't run for a few years now. They recently (like 1-2 years ago) had 1/3/6 running but it wasn't a good game. I didn't want to get robbed in the parking lot so I never played at Lucky's, though I did hear they used to have a pretty good PLO game that ran. The Hard Rock's 2/5 and 5/10 games were garbage too the last time I played them and I imagine they are even worse now during Covid. Once things are safer I'll probably give it another shot and see if the games are better but I kinda doubt it, I feel like the degens just don't have money any more or are playing table games instead of poker. I hear the action is better in South Florida but also trending toward not being nearly as good as it used to be.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2021 04:27
|
|
|
I’m a little confused. Are the players you’re playing nitty, as in tight and passive old men types who only play the nuts? Or are they the type that won’t fold preflop and won’t fold when they have even a marginal hand? It seemed like you said it was both. Depending on which it is you’ll have a vastly different strategy to win.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 01:29
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It sounded like the horrendous rake really pulls back from the +EV environment of those bad players, though? If you can grind out $20 an hour above the rake at 1/2, by playing one hand in ten and otherwise just loving around on your phone for hours on end, that's... a living, sure, and better money than a lot of Americans make, but if your job already pays better, why would you want to do that? Rake at 1/2 is usually like $3-$5 a hand, at least in Florida. Assuming 40 hands per hour and 5 handed tables, that's like $24 an hour per player you're paying into rake on the low end. So to beat 1/2 for $20 an hour net you'd need to make $44 an hour before rake, which is 55 BBs/100 hands. Even for 1/2 that's an insanely good win-rate, and maybe impossible except in the most ideal conditions? 5-handed 1/2 could be fun as a learning experience but 9-handed is definitely easier to make a little bit up money since you'll get bigger pots on average and the rake won't be as much relative to the pots that are won. But in order to make any sort of livable income you really need to play 2/5 and above. Mind_Taker fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Mar 17, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
Thom Yorke raps posted:This doesn't take into account that rake is not paid equally around the table. The people playing 40% of their hands and winning 40% of them are paying much more of the $120-200 coming off the table every hour, then the person who is playing 10% of hands and winning 60% of them No good player is going to have a 10% VPIP playing 5-handed. Probably at least 20% and probably closer to 25-30%, though I'm certainly not a 5-handed live expert so these numbers might be a bit off. But it's certainly much higher than 10%. And no winning player is only going to win 6% of hands playing 5-handed. That seems insanely low.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
Thom Yorke raps posted:sure, but you get my overall point, don't you? That I exaggerated for effect? Yes but you still need to achieve a pretty incredible and perhaps unrealistic win-rate in order to net $20 an hour in live 5-handed $1/$2 NLHE is my overall point. Edit: contrast that with 2/5. Assuming $5 rake per hand and 40 hands an hour, that's $200 an hour off the table. Assuming you're paying 20% of the rake in a 5-handed game, that means $40 of rake per hour (in reality this might be less for the reasons you mentioned, but for the sake of argument let's go with 20%). So if we want to net $20 an hour we need to make $60 an hour before rake, which is a much more reasonable and achievable 30 BB/100 winrate at 2/5. And as you mentioned maybe even a slightly lower winrate would be necessary if we're paying less rake than an average player. Mind_Taker fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jun 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 29, 2024 08:03 |
|
|
That sounds a lot better than the Florida rooms. People I know in Tampa say that action is pretty dead these days. Used to be great several years ago, but now it's a lot of grinders playing $2/$5 and up and the lower stakes games aren't uncapped/match the biggest stack like you mention they are in Texas.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 20:01
|
|