Again, this sounds great but doesn't work in practice.

Tell me how I can add 2-3bb to my wr just by deciding I'm going to add 2-3bb to my win rate and I'll pay you a lot of money.

Simply cutting back your sessions doesn't make you a better player. I probably play better the longer the session goes because I have more time to get reads on unknowns and more time to understand the table dynamics.

Bad players are the ones who MOST need to work on their B and C games, because their biggest problems are typically avoiding obvious, consistent, or big mistakes and not adding little twists to eke out tiny value from their A-game. They're also probably more prone to tilt and get off their game, and when you tilt you're not playing your good game by definition.

In other words, you're saying that at any given time, we're only able to function at A level 33% of times, even if it's only the first minute of each session?

Maybe you're not understanding me, because you have some sort of prenotion about our inability to maintain A game.

I am not sure what a hypothetical break-even player's session time tendency is, but I was using the assumption that he plays at a consistent time frame and that he isn't losing because there's a huge drop-off from A game.

To make sure we're on the same page, my concept of A -> B -> C game has a direct correlation with time spent at a table, the longer you play, the more likely you will decline down to the next level. Correct me before we move forward if this is indeed the concept under discussion.

I dont get why people say you cant play your A game for an 8 hour session, i can, maybe im blessed who knows.

Jared is ok but he is way off base when it comes to A, B and C games.

You have to break down the A game to: A+, A and A-. Without that description you won't be able to decipher your A game at the table. Or you will set yourself up for failure.

So if we had to judge an athlete who is a great player, A+ game would be a great night, A game is his average great numbers and A- he had a great game but he lost and B game he made a lot of mistakes and lost. A C game for an athlete is he played hurt or something. So developing a C game is pointless. We as poker players should never play if we are on our C game unless we had to play in a tournament.

My point is you need to develop an A game that can fluctuate otherwise you won't have confidence and you need a lot of that to succeed.

You are way off base and completely missing the point again...

You might as well implement the scoring system for A game. 90 - 100 and perhaps even add decimals to break it down even further.

Jared offered a simple system and it is plenty sufficient.

All ILCD has done is redefined terms that people were already using for their ABC games

Simple systems from non poker professionals ill pass. Never mind my post mods can delete it.

WTF are you talking about again? Tell me in your view as a professional the point of breaking down A game to A+, A, and A-.

A, B & C game are relative terms according to Tendler. So you can never play A game 100%.

Poker Is Frustrating is saying that we should focus on improving our C games, because our C game has most impact on our win-rate. Also, C game leaks are usually easier to fix.

It sounds like a lot of people on this thread haven't read Tendler.

Did you even read the book? You can't be on top form every time. That's the whole damn point of the book. You don't TRY to play your C game, you can't help it some of the time. If you want to call it A- game fine. You can't play your A+ game all of the time so try to improve your A or A- game.

That's like saying Michael Jordan never in his entire career had a bad game. You're telling me in his entire career he never had a single bad game where he wasn't hurt?

You missed the entire point of the book IMO.

In your case, why even try to improve on your game or eliminate mistakes? Just decide to never play a C game and viola, you never play bad or make a mistake ever.

Thanks. I guess that's what I'm trying to say.

My larger point was that some people don't like to or don't want to do 8 hour sessions. That's fine - everyone should play the way that makes them feel comfortable. But there's nothing implicit in longer sessions that makes you play terrible so long as you're rested and it's not something crazy like 24 hours that mentally and physically you can't just do.

If you WANT to play 8 hour sessions but find that you CAN'T because your play suffers, you work on that. You can try to identify signs of tilt/fatigue and push through them for 10 or 15 minutes if possible to build up your mental game, etc.

I got a friend who I've been coaching a bit and trying to help him get better at poker. We usually mess around at .25/.50 local games at our university, but he's been wanting to step up to 1/2 like myself and I've been trying to help him along.

Problem I'm having is he has come forward about having only around $600-$800 as a starting bankroll and I know that's not enough. I told him 3-4 buy-ins is asking for trouble. Should I advise him to keep playing the lower stakes local games for a little and try to put money away over the next couple months? Personally, that's what I would do, but I wanted to get everyone's opinion on the matter.

Not sure it's the right sub forum, but yes.

I was speaking strictly under my own assumption that the biggest factor in determining A-B-C level game is fatigue, both physical and mental, and understandably longer session means more fatigue.

Are we still talking about the same thing, or are you guys speaking in terms of some sort of mixture of tilt, such as emotional status, and fatigue.

It's all of those things. Sometimes you're just off. Sometimes you lose a hand in the first 15 minutes and tilt a little. Sometimes the lineup is bad or your position is bad etc.

I'm sure you've played sports before. Have you ever gone into a match or a game and for whatever reason you just didn't have it?

That's not the part that I intend to discuss; I am not after the definition of A-B-C game.

I guess I should have been more clear. For a lot of players including myself, the longer we play, the more likely we are to be fatigue and lose focus. When we are tired, we play less optimally than when we're not, and I am calling that my B/C game.

If 4 hour is the usual time frame that I am able to maintain a high level of focus, why not simply stop instead of trying to improve B and C game?

I don't even fully understand how to go about improving my B and C game that is directly related to fatigue. If the idea is to stay focus longer, then doesn't that simply mean I am converting more of my B game into A game?

C game play is not only the result of fatigue and variance-related forms of tilt, although these can be prominent factors. You can regress to C game play simply because of deficiencies in strategic knowledge, insofar as you might find yourself folding better hands or calling with worse, due to superior play by your opponents.

I don't have the Tendler book with me right now, so I can't really provide a more detailed response, at the moment. IMO, there is a lot of misunderstanding of key terminology on this thread. It would be great to clarify matters for all concerned.

play shorter stacked. buy in 100 each time and that will double your roll

I didn't put much value in the book when I read it initially as I was more focused in strategy. I guess this discussion has prompted me to go back and study it once again.

This can be player dependent. If your friend is decent-good, I would advocate taking a shot in a local 200NL at a brick and mortar and see if he runs it up. If he's going to play on scared money and completely play out of character, advise him to stick to your university game. There's nothing worse than being the easy target in a game that's over your head.

Taking shots with small bankrolls though in live 1/2 games isn't a terrible approach. Sure, ideally we want to have a roll that can sustain variance; however it's feasible that with the weak player pool at the lower limits we could easily run well and build a bankroll faster than we could any other way.

I can't think of many easier spots than some university games. However I guess the first real question should be, does he beat the university games? I know it probably isn't for a ton of money, but he should stick to the .25/.50 game. Why is it that he even wants to move up?

Not enough IMO. My advice would be to get a good part time college job instead of playing in the university game. Some job where you can read 2+2 a lot while you work. I had a nice valet/parking lot security job that paid $10/hr + tips. Have him save 100% of his paycheck for a few weeks and he will have a real bankroll to take his shot.

At least 2k is in order IMO, I even shortstacked for $100 while building my bankroll as suggested to you, and I almost went broke due to bad beats/variance. I started with 3k as well.

Even if you kill the University game, what kind of hourly can you make? I'm guessing less than $5/hr since a good rate at a casino $1/2 game is $10/hr. Also, even if the U. game is soft, I think most $1/2 casino games are very soft since players are there for recreation and on average don't have college educations!

I was under the impression that this player was a bit of a novice to the game and would get some benefit from experience rather than going to donate at 1/2. Your advice about getting some sort of a job above is probably the best idea. I was not trying to insinuate that the player could build an adequate roll playing the university game. Hell I don't even know if he beats that game, that is why I asked. I do think your math is a bit off though about the hourly, since there is no info on stack sizes, buy-in amounts, possible straddles, and a plethora of similar instances it would be difficult to know and would be mainly speculation .

-Overall no need to gamble your entire roll when you may not be near a favorite to win any money.

-Learn the game with as little variance to your bankroll as possible.

-Get a job and get rolled for 1/2 if you want to build a bankroll?

-