Not going to disagree with any of that, but you can easily avoid games like this if you want to (if you are playing a 10BB roll for example). At least if you play if a large room with good table selection.

Just the other day I left a table with insane action. When I asked for a table change the brush said "you want to leave table #X? Everyone is trying to get to that table". Sure it was a hugely +EV game overall but only if you can play in a game like that every day and are willing to risk massive swings. However, since a game that crazy only happens once in a blue moon (at least in the daytime when I normally play) and I know I can make much easier money with lower variance and more consistently on a different table, I moved. Im there to play poker. Not gamble large sums with one pair hands against guys who can have anything from the nuts to nothing.

My winrate went up exponentially when I realized that playing the most profitable style is better than playing "real poker" and that determining the most profitable table/seat/style are poker skills, just as much as "correct" poker plays are.

As for avoiding wild games, when I was playing that 1/1 game, it was literally the only (legal) game in town. I'm not risking my security clearance to play in a raked home-game, which are illegal in Colorado and were the only other games available.

Even if you're talking about a casino, you really can't avoid volatile games at 1/2. They pretty much all have common 6+BB opens and players who play draws very badly, at least at night when I can play. I've played all over the country, and aside from Vegas opens being a bit smaller, they've all fit this profile.

I had a PM conversation on 9/7 where I told a regular 2+2 poster that I was going to stop reading 2+2 as much as I felt I was adjusting my game too much based on things I read here and IMO a lot of advice given here that is accepted as correct is actually pretty bad. I know thats not a popular thing to say, but thats my belief. I took a long hard look at my game and decided I was going back to my style which I have been told again and again wont work. Im winning big hands again a lot of the time pushing all in in spots where Ive been told only a better hand will call. The arrow on the graph points to that exact day.

Notice how the 120hr streak smallish downswing immediately turns around on that exact day. Coincidence? I think not.

Didn't see this. That's all included. I consider tipping to be part of the game.

Things that are far more likely than the consensus advice being wrong:

1. Variance
2. You weren't describing the situations well enough.
3. You weren't applying the advice properly (this is nearly unavoidable for everyone).
4. Your player population is different than most who are giving the advice.

That's entirely possible.....not being sarcastic. Being serious

Me too. Glad you're winning more.



Side note: although kind of off topic- I think this is a good example of a situation where a live coach might be really beneficial because the coach would be able to cut through my list above really quickly and get down to the truth. Especially if it was someone with experience in your player pool. Just a thought.

120hr slow down can pretty easily be nothing but variance. But I expect 2-3 are very likely, based on other posters and what I've skimmed of your threads and replies. 4 may also be entirely the case too, which also throws 2 and 3 out of whack


Does anyone here regularly hop the border to play between USA/CAN? How do you track said results?

My tracker doesn't have a field for differing currencies. In the past when I've gone the exchange rate was pretty close to 1:1 and I just logged everything in dollars with a note. Now it's a bit farther off. Converting the BI/CO numbers is easy enough, but the stakes are different too. Probably just going to list it as $1/2 or $1/3 anyway. Thoughts?

120 hrs could be variance of course, but looking back at that time frame myself, I can put my finger on hand after hand where I wouldve made more or lost less by playing my semi unorthodox style that I had gotten away from slowly but surely.

As soon as I adjusted, I instantly started making more money in certain situations by being more passive preflop and more aggro post flop. I was raising preflop in a lot of spots that most 2+2ers would raise (where I used to limp a lot of times) that was causing me to get called when dominated and hands that I dominated had folded preflop. I also used to show up with hands that I should never have in that spot based on my aggro image, but the aggro image came from postflop, not necessarily preflop.

I'm sensing an idea for a program to be written here.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

I thought that this was the bankrolls/winrates/finances thread...not a strategy debate thread on the merits of limping versus raising preflop.

You should start a new thread in the forum to address that separate strategy debate and keep this thread uncluttered with derails.

I think you are missing the argument. It is not that buy-in amount doesn't matter with respect to volatility, but that increase in BB size correlates much more strongly with increased volatility than increase in buy-in does.

This is the case in my own data. This year over 200 hours of $400-max 1|2 my SD is $216/h. Over 300 hours of $200-max 1|2 my SD is only $181/h.

Guys if you aren't already aware (although most prob are, especially any long time pros lurking), just wanted to give heads up that this bankroll advice (min 50 buyins, no matter how many bb's deep you buyin) is way too conservative, it's lazy/oversimplified, and bad for almost everyone's bottom line.

You should be thinking in terms of bb's, not buy ins. 5,000bb's is a responsible BR if you are a semi pro or pro. So if you buyin for 100bb's then 50 buyins would be practicing responsible and sensible bankroll management. But to say you need triple the bankroll if you buyin for 300bb's in your game is ridiculous and based on mostly irrational fear/mental leaks. Or maybe simply just not enough nuanced intelligent thought put into it/expressed here? Sure, always buying in deep 200bb+ you will need a bigger BR, but it's not correlated like that.

HappyLuckBox, have you or anyone you know that is a solid winning player that buys in for 200bb+ ever gone on a downswing at live full ring of just HALF of your criteria? ex: 2/5 player who buys in for $1k gone on a $25k downer, or 5/10 $3k buyin go on $75K downswing.

There are many other little variables that go into how big of a bankroll one needs. But just didn't want (especially the up and comers since it would hurt them the most) seeing this general 50 buyin rule advice and blindly following it. It's not even close to the most intelligent/optimal way to go about it. I think I remember recently seeing JohnnyBuz say he wouldn't play in a 2/5 1k cap game unless he had over $50k also, which is just ridiculous and an important mental leak/hurdle to get over.

There are many, many things that go into being a good poker/gambler/advantage player that have nothing to do with poker skill whatsover.

I've gone on a 25k downswing in 2/5 and almost every good live pro I know has too. Guess I had some 5/10 in there but still have had a 2.5k bb and a 5k bb downswing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have done this before as well. Used public transportation for a bit a couple of years ago at night. I am not sure if Uber was popular yet but I definitely didn't know about it.

I just sat as close to the front as possible.

How can point A and point B both be true?

I don't talk to too many players who don't beat/crush Parx 2/5.

Because they are not mutually exclusive.

Meh, to each his own. It is the strategy that I have used for a very long time and I personally feel that being overrolled allows you to take super thin lines as well as execute big bluffs you might not normally consider.

I know lots of people who play much closer to the edge, using 10-25 buyins instead, but they often play a little more scared money, passing up small +ev edges. Also, I can't imagine the stress of living and playing off your entire bankroll if it was shorter.

Finally, it would be difficult to play your A+ game if you had over 10% of your bankroll on the table at any point, causing you to probably nit up/play less optimally. Imagine playing 10-20nl (5k cap) and you buyin for 5k but with only a "20 buyin roll" of 100k. Double up once and you have $10k on the table, which is great, but also means you have 10% of your entire bankroll/liferoll on the table.




Again my advice isn't some set locked in stone advice that everybody should follow. Sometimes conditions are such that you should play in a great game, even if you arent religously overrolled for it. Shot taking is a thing. And I will admit my br strategy is definitely on the nitty side, but really there's nothing wrong with taking your gambling career nice and slowly, IMO. My mentality has never been one of looking for the big score. For others, maybe you prefer "gambling" it up with more risk, more power to you.

Can you give one example of what advice you have ignored (or style adapted) that has helped you get back to this winrate?

Sure, but I dont think I should it here in this thread.

Wowza. I would have quit poker.

It was very frustrating, I'm amazed more people posting here haven't had runs like that. It isn't that hard to do. Just get in a couple good games, give action like you should, and run into the top of everyone's range or the bottom of yours every time. Then just never win when you have it.

I am in the middle of sun running right now so can look back without it tilting me haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like DGAF posts in his thread, a large portion of pros (and recs too) at any given point in time are going to be those that are running good, so there is a huge selection bias.

Then when they finally run even or bad they just move on to something different and you never see a post about it.

Over my past 377 hours, since July 1, I have won $322.

Yikes. Didn't you have a really good run earlier in the year though? What is your ytd win rate?