And that was kind of my point. I read somewhere that the main difference you see as you move up in stakes is that your opponents tilt less severely and recover more quickly. I'm not sure I agree completely, but it's a good point.

If you want to play professionally or even as a "serious hobbyist" (500 hours a year or something) then you need to realize there is a LOT more to playing live poker than the technical aspects of making betting decisions. Where to play, how to treat fish, seat selection, keeping your mental health up, etc etc. To this list I could also add "increasing the percentage of games and times where you can play profitably enough (whatever that is for you) to stay in the game". If you follow the mantra that "if you're not playing your best quit immediately" to the letter, you will literally never post a blind. Getting out of your B game, recognizing your C game, and even frankly accepting that you're in B mode but there are 2 hours of traffic or you're meeting the girl or dinner in 2 hours or whatever so you're just gonna B it up for a bit are all important skills.

Underlying all this is the assumption that someone has played their A game enough to understand why their A game is better than their B game.

That's what most small stakes players don't have.

They sit there frustrated folding 3 orbits in a row while people around them rake 25 bet pots with J3o, then they decide they can play J7o profitably because everyone is just so, so bad, and then the worst case scenario is that they win a whole bunch and decide that J7o isn't as bad as the book says and now they think that J7o is part of an A game.

And to be honest maybe it is when there's 7 limps to you on the button. But that's how you get trapped at small stakes, by meticulously optimizing your game for conditions that only exist rarely. All those table changers and seat changers and people who know exactly whether J7o is profitable to overlimp - they're not going to do as well, lifetime speaking. They're going to win +1/h at 3/6 and +0.5/h at 30/60, rather than +0.5/h at 3/6 and +1/h at 30/60.

How about this? Put a value on going home and watching a DC video, say, $20/h or $200/h or whatever. Now if the value of all the spots in the game you're thinking of leaving exceeds that value, go ahead and stay. But if the value of the DC video is higher, leave.

10000 hours, bro.

It's longer than 10,000 hours if you're playing your B game half the time.

When we started playing live, you basically had to fold preflop slightly more than the opposition and you had a decent win rate. I haven't really sat hours in SS games to know if this is still the case, given the rake is like 40% higher. Given reported 6/12 win rates from your neck of the woods, either that game is monumentally special, losses are being skipped from win rate reporting, or Small Stakes is more beatable than some of us think.

Jesse is 100% right. If you're a serious player and you have self knowledge, everything he and JL are saying is spot on. Game selection matters. If you're really good then playing a tiny bit tired/worse can't matter as much as the fact that the 3, 4, and 5 seat are here to give away 3 racks each. Strong player on C game isn't really that bad and great game matters more.

However, callipygian is also correct -- let's say you're really a tiny bit better than the field because you fold spots they call. If you have a small edge, you can't afford to give any away. This is doubly true if you're passive and your "tilt" is to play more hands and do so by calling. Here's one example. If you play poorly post flop by folding in spots you should call or raise and you limp pots in good games (wild ones), you'll compound that by making huge folding mistakes. Suddenly you'll be the sullen people saying "you can't beat wild players, all the profit goes down the drop". In this case, the marginal tight aggressive player (A game) could be a winner while the looser version (B game that we'd call F-) almost never has a winning session.

It depends on whether your B game is still a solid winner or if your B game is hopeless.

Great advice.

If your B game is hopeless you don't have a B game. You just have an A game and an F game imo. It's a good way to think about it though.

Another point is that it's not necessarily wrong to sit in a tough spot where you're break even or perhaps losing slightly if you're willing to "pay the tuition" or actually are having fun. Captain R used to do this I'm sure.

Basically it comes down to your goals for poker.

When we sat in 4/8 and 6/12 games, what we thought of as our A game wasn't really an A game... Even sitting in 15/30 games, my very best game of poker had horrible ideas on how to play cards as totally standard plays. Playing on the internet made that stark -- thousands of hands quickly makes apparent these bad ideas. "Crud, if I do that at a table vs. anyone with any card sense, they'll just get all the monies." Positional awareness is so hard to learn at a live table.

I have trouble reconciling the correct things you're saying and jon_locke always says, "build these bad habits now and pay 10x-20x to fix them at mid-stakes" with the fact that anyone who should be playing 4/8 probably doesn't have a lot of space between winning a little and losing a bunch. Maybe you've hit it with the tuition concept? Even if you're a slight loser not playing your best, don't quit good games. The bad habit is more costly than the $ you can drop in a game played with $1 chips.

I mean. Nobody should play 4/8 unless he/she truly enjoys the game or is planning to rise to at least 20/40.

To be clear, I not only agree with this but advocate it ... for lessons you cannot learn for free. I played 80/160 for that reason; I was probably breakeven or a small winner at best, but it's one of the biggest regular games in the world and there are people there who are very good and very nice and some even both. And when I played, I picked days where I was alert and excited to play, and learned as much as I could.

What does one learn by playing tilted at a 3/6 game?

A little bit of #1, a little bit of #3, and a little bit of "it was probably more beatable 5 years ago when I generated most of my data.

I just noticed I am 12 posts behind Cali. I'll never catch him.

You're absolutely correct, Cali. You learn/gain nothing from tilting your balls off in a 3/6 game. I've certainly done it.

At this point I'm not really sure what my goals are for poker. Between it and sports I generate plenty of money for the time being. I don't really WANT a software job, but I feel like I kind of need something more in my life. So I guess I kind of want "freedom"? Like...the fact that I can make $40/hour playing poker means I can basically take the position of **** you in everything else I do, to some extent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJjKP8vYjpQ

This book won a 30,000 British Pound prize:



I'm 66 and don't care much anymore, tbh, but for you young guys that are planning on playing for life the point is is that if disposable income dries up so does poker. I really wouldn't want to be a poker pro when that happens.

What exactly are y'all arguing about here?

If you're a pro, then obviously you have to be able to either play when you're not on your A-game, or you have to be able to play your A-game more often. Else you're just not going to get enough hours in/be able to eat.

If you're not, then do whatever you like. It doesn't matter, because quite frankly, playing doesn't matter. (Because the money doesn't matter).

In a weird coincidence of art imitating life (or 2+2 imitating life), my job is quickly devolving into suckiness, and it's tilting my balls off and I'm not sure I can be on top of my A-game. Since I am a professional, it matters. So the choice is either play my C/D-game on tilt (still marginally profitable), or quit the game, or try go stay longer on my A-game and control tilt.

Find a better game bro

If you're a recreational player at the 15/30+ level the money does matter. It's big enough to do something with, like at least pay for a really nice vacation or even put a second story on your house.

And it's different because you can't go buy a 10-year-old book and have it be relevant and helpful enough to crush, the way you can with smaller stakes games.

As someone who has this as their objective, I'm curious as to how a forward looking 4/8 player is supposed to develop an A or even a B game for 20/40+ while playing 4/8. As DougL said, an "A" game at 4/8 playing with 6 loose-passives is worth nothing at a 20/40 table filled with 3 maniacs and 3 good players.

I certainly buy into to your "tuition" theory as being something that is almost required, especially in my market where the jump is from 4/8 straight to 20/40. But it would require a serious roll (for someone trying to build at 4/8) unless you ran like crazy early on in your "tuition phase".

Some of the poker skills from 4/8 translate fine to 20/40. Don't go on screaming monkey tilt. Don't play 83o UTG. Don't play with money you need to make rent. Do tend to have your first thought be "how can I make value" rather than "how can I spew the max to make this impossible bluff". Since any big mistake is 5x more expensive in the 20 game, sanding off the terrible parts of your game has to be cheaper at the 4 game.

Let's say that you can't crush the 4/8 due to rake. If you can beat it at, you'll have stretches where you win a few buyins to the 20 game. You might be able to parlay the odd 20 buyin to a spot where you run hot enough to win a bit and stick in the 20 game. You can make the odds better by checking out the 20 when you're flush and taking seats when (and only when) the game is great. This assumes you can afford 4/8 buyins, that you won't be mentally crushed by losing 20 buyins, and that you can actually get a seat when the 20 is good.

The suggestion above has some bad banroll management but is sort of OK for life-roll management for people without gambling issues. If you have secret degenerate tendencies and issues with life finances, it is pretty likely to wind up with you doing serious damage to your real life. If you're going to got on raving tilt and chase 4/8 losses at 20/40, the advice above can lead to horrible places.

I think callipygian told somebody to just keep their low stakes wins in a shoebox. Keep buying in to the low stakes games out of "fun money budget". Then once you have a few mid-stakes buyins, do so if the game is great. I'm basically echoing that advice.

This is what I've been doing. I think my 4/8 game is quite beatable (maybe I'm just on a heater; I've only got 110 hrs in the game). I just don't know if I'm mentally ready to drop two racks of reds, even though I know my shoebox would be ok.

I did start working on a plan to maybe get some experience against the 20 regs last week, though. On a Friday night when the 20 doesn't usually go, I started a 10/20 list and got some of the 4/8 pool to sign up, and some of the 20 regs that were playing NL signed up as well. It didn't go but we got very close.

fold 55 UTG so its second nature...don't cold call first in ever.... don't open limp ever....don't free card flop with flush draws ever.... and other similar spots that you can profitably do at 4-8

When I played 4-8 I don't think i cold called a single raise ever. This was probably not the best approach to maximize my 4-8 earn but I knew that was how higher limit game were played from sweating bigger games on poker stars. I knew that I could cold call 88 or JTs and watch everyone come in behind me and probably make some money doing it, but I also knew that if I was fortunate to move up I would never be in that spot so I needed to focus on getting as much practice in as possible in spots I would likely be in.

FWIW, I absolutely crushed 4-8 but it was very favorable with a 1/2 kill and $4 rake with no bbj. I took shots in 10-20 once a week and was able to move up to 30-60 in about 6 months.

As far as shot taking I was super agressive and don't necessarily advise this approach. I had a small 4-8 roll (roll is wrong word because I wasn't trying to play seriously and if I bused it I would just quit poker) and anytime I booked a 1200 win at 4-8 I took a 1200 shot at 30-60. If i busted the 1200 I was right back where I was but I knew I would run good eventually and hopefully stick at 30-60. Its hard to drop 1200 in a super good game and get up and leave but its what I had to do, then I was lucky to eventually post a huge win and never looked back.

I'll also add that the 30 game I was in as exceptional and I was likely the best player in it, despite being a 4-8 reg but I'm sure similarly soft 20-40 games exist all over the country. Good luck

All good advice for sure, I appreciate it. I'm reading Newall's book and it's certainly got me thinking more along these lines. I assume the 20 game is good, just so drastically different.

The dealers tell me, "it's full of doctors and lawyers who don't care about the money." I said "that sounds great!" It's just a matter of adjusting to an aggressive game, where I known the variance will be high.

Out of curiousity, where do you play? (Answering is optional.)

Your old stomping grounds in Tunica, Doc. You've actually mentioned a few of the good players to me in a PM.

My memory isn't as bad as I usually think it is- and I remember the PM.

That said, I think you'll find the difficulty jump in 4/8 to 20/40 much more significant in that game since the 20 is the biggest LHE game that runs at the Shoe and there aren't any poker pit stops along the way when moving up. Not saying that you couldn't beat the game; it's just really important to game select when you sit.

And practice your "I'm not scared money" face.

Avoiding people taking shots at the new face is actually a huge concern of mine. And I have no intention of sitting during prime hours.