There is an excellent post by Ed I believe somewhere in the archives titled something like "taking the training wheels off" which discusses the exact topic of playing a wider range if your post flop skills are significantly better than the rest of the table. The main thrust of the article is that on a bad table you should be finding reasons to play hands, not finding reasons to fold them. If you are at a loose passive table with >5 to an average flop with generally very little raising then your post flop "mistake" is quite small and your implied odds are quite large if you hit hard and get 3 or 4 callers to the river with your >= 2-pair. The answer to the question "what would Ed do?" I think you (not specifically you Doug, the original question askerer) will find is surprisingly different to what you think it is.

I'm reading GSIHE by Miller and on page 76 he gives the break down of odds that you'll draw one of your out cards on the turn. Fair enough. That means that you know about 5 cards, (your 2 hole cards and the three flop cards). This leaves 47 unknowns.

If you have only 1 out, I would say that the odds of making it on the turn would be 1 in 47 or 46:1. Yet the book says that the odds are 45:1. It sets the other odds for varying numbers of outs in the table based on this figure as well.

Am I mssing something or should it be 46:1 to draw 1 specific card on the turn, based on the information you have available to you post flop?

Thanks ahead for input.

Are you sure that the book (I don't have a copy) is not calculating the odds of making something on the river - in which case the probability of drawing 1 specific card is 1/46, or 45:1?

Most of the time, after the flop, you care about whether you'll make something on the turn OR the river [1/47+(1-1/47)*1/46], not whether you'll specifically make it on the turn.

Thanks for reply. It's on the turn.

I think you are correct. Are they just being a little sloppy and rounding 46 to 45?

You're definitely correct in that case.

This is my first post on 2+2. Basically I've been playing limit holdem for one year total. I've played on full tilt, and titan poker, I did quite well on both sites, e.g., on full tilt, I did a 250$ sign up bonus, (should have done more), but I cashed out around 1500$. On titan, I signed up for 300$ and left with 900$. I started out at poker stars, not knowing how to play at all and lost my 200$ deposit. I didn't know what I was doing on pokerstars, it was an experiment. My friend gave me books to read on limit holdem, he told me about this site, and also about stox poker. So I have accumulated a lot of knowledge about limit holdem in a year. I consider myself a good player, with a lot of potential. I play tight aggressive, around 30 VPIP, 20 PFR, and 1.8 AGF, when I play 1/2$ (6 max).

Now on to absolute poker, basically I'm playing the same as I was previously on full tilt and titan, and running like total crap. I play 1/2$ limit 6 max, which is what I played on all the other sites. I have a lot of losing sessions. I keep saying next session I'll come back and it will be good, I can't keep losing, while playing good, right. However, tonight, I played almost perfect poker (e.g., great table selection, with the loosest players ever, 70VPIP, 10PFR, 60VPIP, 0PFR, 40VPIP, 11PFR, etc. are a couple examples of the stats of the players I was playing against. I know preflop isn't everything, but judging by these numbers preflop, these guys are weak players in my eyes. Basically I keep losing with big cards, like AK, AQ, AJ, high pairs 88-JJ, etc. The players on this site seem very loose, very dumb, and like they have no respect for money. Honestly tonight I got rivered and turned out of over 100-125 dollars of pots. This is not somthing that is uncommon, as I could honestly make a ****ing highlight real of all the suckouts that have happened over a two month period. And not only am I losing, but I'm losing to players that are not that good. When you constantly loose for two months straight to bad players it becomes very, very frustrating. Like last weekend, this guy was playing 91VPiP, 30PFR, and he won like 79 dollars in 50/1$. Like how do these players win playing like such crap?????


Basically, if you made it this far, I just had to let off some steam, I apolagize for the lenghty intro. But my questions are:

When you run really bad, how do you handle it? Do you take a break? Do you keep playing? Do you go to another site? Am I just running bad, or am I playing bad?

It just seems like everytime I play it is one horrible session after another. I feel stunned after, because I feel that I played well, just like on the other sites. The competition is not that good, I don't understand!!

My friend told me to keep playing, and that I will clean up eventually, when he comes over and watches me play. He says, wow, these guys suck, compared to full tilt, he's been playing for a couple years there. He has taught me a lot about the game. So he knows how to play limit well.

Anyways, if you have any comments or suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks

Jason

hi jason, welcome to the forum. i'm going to move your post into kind of a general thread where some folks will be sure to respond.

hang in there,
BBB

Welcome, jason1983.

I don't play online, but live, I just take a break. I go to the bathroom, get a drink, and quote some Jack Handy to myself.

This is a question only you can answer for yourself. The basic answer is that you have to do a mathematical calculation based on your (honest) expectation, and rely on a measure of how many hands equals the "long run". The number is called N0 (N-zero) and is calculated from your standard deviation (SD) and expected value (EV). A typical SD for limit is 2-3 BB/hand, and winrates can range from 0-0.03 BB/hand. You'll need to make your own estimations to be more precise. N0 = (SD/EV)^2, or somewhere between 3,000 and infinity hands. After you've played N0 hands, it's 98% likely that you'll be ahead, but before you've played N0 hands, it's increasingly likely that short term variance has negated long term expectation.

If you've played N0 hands and are negative, chances are you're playing bad. If you haven't played N0 hands and are negative, there's a good chance you're just running bad.

What helps me the most is working on my game. Watching training videos, posting hands I'm unsure about, reading books...

This should do a few things:

- improve your winrate, which is the best way to reduce the frequency and severity of your downswings
- identify any new leaks that may have developed
- build your confidence since there will be fewer situations you're unsure of

I find that getting better at poker is the best cure for my poker woes.

[quote=jason1983;10945957]
When you run really bad, how do you handle it? Do you take a break? Do you keep playing? Do you go to another site? [quote]

I go on monkey tilt and lose even more than I should, just like everyone else. I suffer from the version of tilt that says, "that idiot can't have it this time, for sure" as I call down. I'm working on trying to shorten the interval between going on tilt and stopping play.

Taking a break is good. Changing limits is good. A session review or a sweat session from someone you really trust can be a big help. Being extra careful in seat selection and protecting yourself mentally might be a good step; runbad = even more picky about who is sitting on your right.

There are good threads you can find by searching "downswing". One guy has a great bit where he examines the frequency and winning % of strong hands. Also, your won$@SD stat can show a bit. Look at BigBadBabar's 5K post + well; he'll give you an idea of what the long run is really like.

The closest card room to me is California Grand. The blind structure at $3/$6 is:

$3 Big Blind
$2 Small Blind
$2 Button (Yes, $2 blind on the button)

That's $7 an orbit, but it's more likely to be $8 or $9 an orbit given that most hands can justify a single chip.

The Oaks is further away but the $3/$6 blind structure is:

$3 Big Blind
$1 Small Blind
$0 Button

That's just $4 an orbit. That's less than half the typical orbit at the Grand.

The rake is the same, $4, but the Oaks blind structure seems much more profitable. I'm thinking of doing most of my playing at the Oaks from now on. Any thoughts?

california grand structure seems like it would encourage tons more limped and multiway pots which is generally a plus. i'd be surprised if either 3/6 game were not good though, as games at that level are generally great. i'd suggest you focus more on which games seem looser and more beatable and full of bad players, as i think the rake is probably not as important a factor.

It's hard to tell which place has the worse players. Last night at the Oaks a third diamond comes on turn, betting is capped three-way on the turn and river. Only one player had a flush.

The point is, if both sets of players are equally bad, wouldn't I want to pay half the blinds per orbit? Would I at least get a lower variance game at the Oaks? I am looking to protect what's left of my bankroll, and I was able to last much longer at the Oaks on a single buy-in until I got a winning hand.

I think, but I'm not sure, that the extra $1 on the SB costs you more than $2 on the button. Assuming it's an extra $2/orbit in blinds, it's not going to make or break your game at $3/$6.

Depending on how long your sessions are and where you live, you might pay more in terms of gas and wear & tear on your vehicle driving than you save in blinds.

And as a side note, I believe that technically the rake at Oaks is $3, plus $1 for the BBJ, but I've read that the BBJ is capped at $15,000, which means that $0.70-$0.90 of that $1 is essentially rake since the EV on the BBJ bet is ridiculously low.

(1) I recently downloaded the free 60-day trial version of Poker Tracker. For those who can't stand reading any unnecessary text.....just read 4, 5, 6, 7.

(2) I wish I was enough of a computer whiz to use some of the advanced concepts they offer.

(3) The program doesn't support the main site I play at....so I went and played a couple of thousand hands at Poker Stars.

(4) The game I was playing was $3-$6 (6-max) limit hold'em.

(5) I'm trying to get a more accurate feel for the numbers that Poker Tracker puts up by each opponent. I picked this particular one because he had a lot of hands (700) with me.

(6 ) He was listed as VP:21 PR:15 AFq:60 What does that tell you? Thanks

(7) P.S. - I know what the letters stand for such as "aggression frequency", I'm looking for - "these #'s taken together paint a picture of _____ kind of player."

6) He's a nit for a 6max player

7) http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/22...eading-v2-714/ and http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...t=1&PHPSESSID=

All of that is a good read but you might want to especially read this link on that page. Keep in mind that the game has gotten more aggressive since that was written.

California Grand sounds like it still has the old NorCal blind structure. I'm pretty sure Cal Grand is going to give a better winrate, because you are essentially forcing 3 people to play every hand. The $2 on the button plays for the button, correct? By forcing more people to play every hand, this induces more pre and postflop mistakes which will help heavily with offsetting the generally high rake at small stakes.

This is basically how I grinded my way up live from 2/4 and 3/6 with a $100 bankroll (2/4 blinds with another 3 on the button that played.). The biggest issue at small stakes is the rake, but by essentially throwing in extra money all the time, you are causing more multiway action. It's almost like free dead money if the players are bad.

When Bay101 and other local casinos got rid of the forced blind on the button, I think it made the games much worse. Even the bad players realized that paying a $4 drop when there's only $4 in blinds means you're betting $3 into a $0 pot which really doesn't make any sense...

If you're playing on Cake (/PlayersOnly/Doyle's Room) you can use the CakeHandConverter and manually import the files into PT.

~30/20/2.5 is a LAG.
~20/10/2 is a TAG.
~50/5/<1 is a LP fish.
~15/3/x is an uber-nit.

And a 90/70/9 is an ATM.

I was looking for that thread but couldn't find it for some reason

He was playin 6max.. shouldn't it be

~30/20/2.5 is a TAG.
~20/10/2 is a nit.
~50/5/<1 is a LP fish.
~15/3/x is an uber-nit.

and PS.

20/10 isn't a solid TAG at full ring ;P

Never said "solid."

And yeah obv. the stats I mentioned were full ring.

Hi, all, there is a card room near my house with a 3-6 game with a small blind that is 2 dollars instead of three. The house drop therefore is $5. Is it worth playing with such an expensive small blind that is 2/3 of the big?

What kind of hands would you generally not call with, even if you put in 2/3 of a bet?

And once again, the main question is, can this be profitable? I mean, I know of other games with a 5 dollar drop, but at least it's the winner that has to pay, meaning that as a tight player you wouldn't be involved in a lot of pots anyway.

So...play or neigh?

I'm not sure the two are related, but if the players are soft enough it's worth playing. Most 3/6 games get 4-8 per hand so an extra $1 blind every orbit isn't going to make or break you. Also $5 rakes suck, but they're becoming pretty common.

i'm not sure the blinds and the rake are correlated?