Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash Discussion of no-limit hold’em live cash games of all stakes.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-06-2013, 06:35 PM   #3401
SeaUlater
banned
 
SeaUlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,797
Ya you got bigger issues.
SeaUlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 08:57 PM   #3402
acescracked84
old hand
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Beautiful Southern California
Posts: 1,420
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Then you have some leaks. No great player should make more playing 100bb than deep stacked.
acescracked84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 09:11 PM   #3403
Tom Dwans Son
banned
 
Tom Dwans Son's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,004
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by acescracked84 View Post
Then you have some leaks. No great player should make more playing 100bb than deep stacked.
No great player should be playing 5/10 or less.

Actually, I meant I make more with starting stack of 60bbs than 100bbs. Theoretically you may be correct but based on the winrates I have seen posted on this board I do not believe that I could achieve a much higher winrate. I would have assumed that one of the math guys would have already valuated the theoretical loss of playing shorter stacked vs deep stacked but I have still not seen such a model. Obv, the deeper you play the greater the risk, and so the question is whether I want to take on that additional risk without knowing with reasonable certainty how much my earnings should increase, and the answer to that is absolutely no, especially because I am a proven winner playing short and given that I gain other advantages, given my style, by playing short which are not easily valuated.

10/25 here requires a minimum 80bbs so obviously I will need to make adjustments but I have no plans to play that level in the near future.

Last edited by Tom Dwans Son; 01-06-2013 at 09:22 PM.
Tom Dwans Son is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 09:11 PM   #3404
RobFarha
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
RobFarha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: @robbyrobbb
Posts: 9,469
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Can you please explain why you would buy in short to a 2/5 game and how that outweighs the obvious advantage of playing deeper with players we are better than?
RobFarha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 09:12 PM   #3405
RobFarha
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
RobFarha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: @robbyrobbb
Posts: 9,469
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I'd consider you "great" if you made 100k a year buying into 2/5 for $300
RobFarha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 09:43 PM   #3406
Tom Dwans Son
banned
 
Tom Dwans Son's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,004
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Ok, please don't consider me great because I play 2/5 and 5/10. That being said, a player doesn't have to be great to make that kind of coin at 2/5. It's impressive certainly, and I wouldn't say otherwise, but if a player truly plays full time (40hrs a week) making 10 bbs an hour then he will make $100k (with a 2 week vacation). Some hardcore grinders put in much longer hours than that.

I'm not saying the advantages of playing short necessarily outweigh the advantages of playing deep but some of the advantages of playing short include: 1) good players not having implied odds to play pots with you 2) aggro players not having the ability to make plays/bluffs against you 3) Willingness of bad players to play for stacks against you 4) The ability to make squeeze plays and put players in difficult spots while risking less yourself.

All that being said, in general I believe playing with a short stack makes it much easier to play a super aggressive style. At this point in my poker career I am NOT good enough to play that style deep. The number of 2/5 players that are that good are few and far between IMO and have far more experience than I do.
Tom Dwans Son is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 09:47 PM   #3407
Brad Childress
adept
 
Brad Childress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Shaker Heights, OH
Posts: 1,129
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

A lot of it depends on the game and how the game plays, but it is absolutely conceivable that buying in for 60bb could be more profitable than a larger amount. I don't think it will be standard, and I agree with you guys who are saying someone who kills 60bb would likely do better buying in more, but it's also possible that the 60bb player has perfected 60bb strategy in a game where nobody else has, and most people continue to play as if everyone has larger stacks. In this situation, it *may* be possible that buying in for 60bb is correct.

I found myself in such a game a few weeks ago though I am not as good as many pros so I expect that it will be rare to find this situation and think it likely that Tom Dwans Son would also do better with more bb.
Brad Childress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 10:28 PM   #3408
bob_124
veteran
 
bob_124's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: @beeteesax
Posts: 2,105
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Dwans Son View Post

All that being said, in general I believe playing with a short stack makes it much easier to play a super aggressive style.
So what happens when you double up? There seem to be two related issues here. One is whether to buy in short, which has its benefits, as TDS has pointed out. The other is whether to continue playing or to leave once you get deeper.
bob_124 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 10:31 PM   #3409
WhoThat808
stranger
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by LolPony View Post
Where the hell is this 100% or $300 buy in 1/2. Home Game?
I want so bad.
God if this was the structure at my casino I really think my winrate would double (okay at least increase by 50%)
Haha It's pretty great, isn't it? And I'd tell you but then I'd have to kill you. Sorry.
WhoThat808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 10:32 PM   #3410
WhoThat808
stranger
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by yurk View Post
My casino (Columbus) is set up this way. #win
Shut up!
WhoThat808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 11:33 PM   #3411
LotGrinder
Pooh-Bah
 
LotGrinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 4,393
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Dwans Son View Post
Ok, please don't consider me great because I play 2/5 and 5/10. That being said, a player doesn't have to be great to make that kind of coin at 2/5. It's impressive certainly, and I wouldn't say otherwise, but if a player truly plays full time (40hrs a week) making 10 bbs an hour then he will make $100k (with a 2 week vacation). Some hardcore grinders put in much longer hours than that.

I'm not saying the advantages of playing short necessarily outweigh the advantages of playing deep but some of the advantages of playing short include: 1) good players not having implied odds to play pots with you 2) aggro players not having the ability to make plays/bluffs against you 3) Willingness of bad players to play for stacks against you 4) The ability to make squeeze plays and put players in difficult spots while risking less yourself.

All that being said, in general I believe playing with a short stack makes it much easier to play a super aggressive style. At this point in my poker career I am NOT good enough to play that style deep. The number of 2/5 players that are that good are few and far between IMO and have far more experience than I do.
This is why I always buy into 2/5 with $320.00. ($20 in white chips.)

I usually can get my buy in up to $500.00 or double easily and it's like I bought in full...(but just got a discounted rate)...

Then I transition into normal play.

Obviously, if I see three complete droolers at a table on a Friday night, I buy in full.

If I see a lot of players I really respect, I'll buy in for $240.00.

It's easy to find spots to shove and pick up $100.00 in dead money.
LotGrinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 01:00 AM   #3412
btr289
journeyman
 
btr289's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: CT
Posts: 376
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I refuse to admit there could be any long term advantages to buying into live 2/5 games with $220 or $240 instead of the max. Even if you're looking to log a quick session and book a small win.. you're really telling me that it'd be easier for you to turn $240 into $440 than $500 into $700?

I get that your argument is for using a more aggressive style, but you can just as easily accomplish this with a deeper stack if you're smart in picking your spots.
btr289 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 01:08 AM   #3413
LotGrinder
Pooh-Bah
 
LotGrinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 4,393
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by btr289 View Post
I refuse to admit there could be any long term advantages to buying into live 2/5 games with $220 or $240 instead of the max. Even if you're looking to log a quick session and book a small win.. you're really telling me that it'd be easier for you to turn $240 into $440 than $500 into $700?

I get that your argument is for using a more aggressive style, but you can just as easily accomplish this with a deeper stack if you're smart in picking your spots.
We can't be played back at......

I target tables where there's poker goobers with headphones on that I know are going to be doing a lot of raising/3 betting in position.

I'll buy in for $320...(or sometimes less)...

I will be pegged a nit/scared money by the 3rd/4th orbit when I haven't played many hands.

All I have to do is limp with a pocket pair 88+, an Ax suited, or high cards, and wait for the raise/a few callers/ and then shove over top...

Most the time I can scoop dead money or I get a call from a fish with an inferior hand just trying to felt me.

Also, like the one poster said, lots of players will never have correct odds to setmine against you/etc....

I don't hit and run though, I just like to start off my session with an easy double up or easy $200-$300 win and then shift into deepstack poker.
LotGrinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 01:23 AM   #3414
RobFarha
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
RobFarha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: @robbyrobbb
Posts: 9,469
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by LotGrinder View Post

I just like to start off my session with an easy double up or easy $200-$300 win
Poker confirmed easy. Everyone doubles up all day long.
RobFarha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 01:32 AM   #3415
LotGrinder
Pooh-Bah
 
LotGrinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 4,393
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFarha View Post
Poker confirmed easy. Everyone doubles up all day long.
It's a lot easier to get someone with an inferior hand to make an "ahh, **** it, I call with 10/J suited" when he's got to call off $200 more than him having to call $450 more.

or

If you bought in for $260.00 and you get 4 people to fold their $30.00 action when you ship all in. You're now setting with $380.00.

Buying in short cuts your losses.

Example.

MGM Grand Detroit

Everyone at the table is drinking besides one guy.

I buy in for $260.00.

I see every pot is getting raised.

Within a few orbits I get K/K UTG2, I limp in.

Gets raised to $35, 4 callers, gets back to me I ship all in for $260.00.

I get 2 callers.

10/J suited and pocket 8's.

EZ game.

The 2nd guy who called with 10/J suited said.. "I can't fold this, it's the best multiway hand in the game.

Now I have $750.00, but only $260.00 invested in, and I can transition into deepstack poker and there's less stress on my poker bankroll.

Last edited by LotGrinder; 01-07-2013 at 01:37 AM.
LotGrinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 01:40 AM   #3416
RobFarha
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
RobFarha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: @robbyrobbb
Posts: 9,469
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

It cuts losses but not winnings apparently.

The sentiment you expressed in your statement about starting off with an easy double-up leads me to believe I was right in thinking it's crazy that your buying in short could potentially be more beneficial then just max-buying.

If your getting it in so light your going to be very swingy at the onset of your sessions.

If you have people calling off all-ins with JTss for 200$ in a 2/5 game, their postflop mistakes are going to be that bad as well and your limiting yourself by not playing postflop.

Also it doesn't seem like it's that bad of a mistake for a fish to call with J10sooted if your shoving 88+, Ax suited, and "high cards" as soon as the pot gets bloated.

Your preventing fish from making mistakes post-flop where their equity is a lot more diminished and oftentimes 0 (the river).

This is the same reason so many terrible, terrible players can go deep in tournaments. A pre-flop shove fest is best case scenario for fish, there is little edge for good players to have because both ranges are wide. Not to mention incredibly swingy.
RobFarha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 02:11 AM   #3417
LotGrinder
Pooh-Bah
 
LotGrinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 4,393
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFarha View Post
It cuts losses but not winnings apparently.

The sentiment you expressed in your statement about starting off with an easy double-up leads me to believe I was right in thinking it's crazy that your buying in short could potentially be more beneficial then just max-buying.

If your getting it in so light your going to be very swingy at the onset of your sessions.

If you have people calling off all-ins with JTss for 200$ in a 2/5 game, their postflop mistakes are going to be that bad as well and your limiting yourself by not playing postflop.

Also it doesn't seem like it's that bad of a mistake for a fish to call with J10sooted if your shoving 88+, Ax suited, and "high cards" as soon as the pot gets bloated.

Your preventing fish from making mistakes post-flop where their equity is a lot more diminished and oftentimes 0 (the river).

This is the same reason so many terrible, terrible players can go deep in tournaments. A pre-flop shove fest is best case scenario for fish, there is little edge for good players to have because both ranges are wide. Not to mention incredibly swingy.
I am still going to be at the table after I double up, those same fish are still going to make the same mistakes, they're not going anywhere....

I just am less invested in the game.

If you play poker with a 5k bankroll, buying into 2/5 is an option open to you if you employ starting off with a shortstack strategy.

If you only want to play deepstacked, then you must stick to 1/2.

I can only take two feltings on any night I go to the casino.

I either lose $400-$500 at 1/2 or $500-$700 at 2/5.

Also, I DO NOT play for a living. I play for enjoyment, but am competitive and want to put myself in the most comfortable situation at all times where I feel I have an edge and can win the most $$$...
LotGrinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 02:28 AM   #3418
RobFarha
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
RobFarha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: @robbyrobbb
Posts: 9,469
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by LotGrinder View Post
I am still going to be at the table after I double up, those same fish are still going to make the same mistakes, they're not going anywhere....
2 buyins and 4 hours later....

Quote:
Originally Posted by LotGrinder View Post
If you play poker with a 5k bankroll, buying into 2/5 is an option open to you if you employ starting off with a shortstack strategy.
It also limits your winnings. If you can't afford to play 2/5, then don't play 2/5. It's simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LotGrinder View Post
Also, I DO NOT play for a living. I play for enjoyment, but am competitive and want to put myself in the most comfortable situation at all times where I feel I have an edge and can win the most $$$...
You can not win the most money by shortstacking. If your playing for fun that's fine. Coming in here and suggesting that buying in short is a better, higher hourly yielding strategy than buying in full is a mistake.

Bankroll and all other things being equal, buying in deeper is always going to be better.
RobFarha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 02:51 AM   #3419
spikeraw22
The Situation
 
spikeraw22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: SB is the new BTN
Posts: 8,731
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I just reached the $6K mark with mine. My plan is to play $1000 at $50/$100 tables. That way I can win the most money.
spikeraw22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 05:45 AM   #3420
GatorXP
old hand
 
GatorXP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Out of the Theater
Posts: 1,793
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Buyin in short is a much underestimated tactic, I have used this many times to allow me to play in a higher game that i would not be rolled for if i bought in full, to realized bigger RB online, and obv bigger winnings when i run good. If you are not rolled for $500nl but a fav in the game, buying in for less than full stack allows you to mitigate your RoR and playing in a higher game for a higher $/hr than you could if you are short rolled and unable to play in it with regular BMR. Will your win rate be smaller than if u buy in full, probably a lil, but def bigger than if you were playin 1/2.


Sorry weak 1000th post.

Last edited by GatorXP; 01-07-2013 at 05:57 AM.
GatorXP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 06:14 AM   #3421
Tom Dwans Son
banned
 
Tom Dwans Son's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,004
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob_124 View Post
So what happens when you double up?
If a game is real good and I'm playing well, then I'm obviously not leaving but I will not utilize the same strategy. A normal nitty TAG game is normally just what the doctor ordered on such a table anyways, and so I will adjust as I am playing deeper.

If a game is nothing special and/or I'd rather play short (which is normally my preference) then I simply pull a Mark Vos (who I used to watch employ a hit and run strategy against the best players in the world on Full Tilt) and do one of 4 things: 1) Change Tables 2) Change levels 3) Take the required 1 hr break or 4) Go Home.

The casino I play at is unique in that they actually require you to chip down to a starting stack if you change tables. Certainly a weird rule but it works in a short stackers favor.

Of course, anytime you leave a table after double/tripling up you risk another player being mad but the vast majority of players I play with are regulars (or semi-regulars) and even the bad players tend to recognize that it's not in their best interest for me to stay at the table. On a side note, nobody has ever accused me of losing and running after dropping 5 buy-ins in a short time frame. Those are the times players should be upset that I'm leaving the table.
Tom Dwans Son is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 06:42 AM   #3422
vegez
journeyman
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 223
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

For 3-5 grinders, in 2012, what was your hourly? how many hours played? and winnings amount?

how many hours do you need to put in before you consider your hourly to be reasonable?
vegez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 06:48 AM   #3423
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

The argument that a player can make more by buying in short is pretty interesting.

I don't think there's any question that it can be true, just as I think there's no question that buying in as deep as possible yields the highest theoretical win rate for a theoretical winning player.

Here is how I reconcile those two statements:

The reason it's theoretically more profitable to buy in as deep as possible is because it allows you to win more when opponents make really big deep stack mistakes. But every deep stack mistake that the hero makes cuts into the theoretical profit of playing as deep as possible. So if the hero makes enough deep stack mistakes, he can eliminate his theoretical advantage gained from playing deep.

An analogy: playing loose aggressive is theoretically more profitable than playing tight aggressive. But no LAg I have ever analyzed a database for has had a higher win rate than the best TAg players I have analyzed databases for. The explanation for this is that the theoretical advantages of playing LAg are being offset by mistakes the LAg players are making in real life.

This is not to say that the individual player cannot increase his WR by switching from TAg to LAg. It is only to say that I have never met a LAg whose win rate exceeds the theoretical max win rate for a TAg.

Now, I have coached some of the best players in the world. People you've seen on TV, sponsored pros, and guys you've never heard of that were crushing 5/10 and beating 10/20 online. If THOSE people were not able to exceed the theoretical max WR of playing TAg by playing LAg, then the theoretical advantage of playing LAg may as well not even exist.

Back to playing shortstacked: I can easily envision the same thing happening with stack size. The theoretical advantage of playing 200bb compared to 60bb disappears into the occasional 200bb mistake. It wouldn't even be very hard for it to happen. Say the max theoretical win rate for playing 60bb is 15bb/hr, and the max WR for playing 200bb is 20bb/hr. If you make 200bb worth of deep stack mistakes in a week, you've completely eliminated the theoretical advantage of playing a bigger stack.

So the bottom line is: I KNOW that the theoretical advantage of playing LAg doesn't overcome a player's own leaks until you reach skill levels no one in this forum is anywhere near. I could see the same thing happening with stack size.

So: is it theoretically more profitable to buy in 200bb deep than at 60bb? Yes.

Does this mean it is more profitable for any given winning 60bb player to start buying in deep? No.

Is it possible that many winners buying in at 200bb could increase their WR by buying in at 60bb? Yes.

What you have to understand is this: the reason it is more profitable for most players to play lag is not because Lag is more profitable. It is because they have leaks in their Tag game that they are compensating for by playing more hands, and that they could get the same increase in WR by plugging those leaks. The same thing could easily be true, and almost certainly is true, for most players who buy in deep. Their WR playing deep is almost certainly less than the theoretical max WR attainable with a 60bb buy in, but occasionally coolering somebody in a 400bb pot earns them a higher WR. but it's still just compensating for the leaks in their 60bb game.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 07:27 AM   #3424
Otompsett
old hand
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England
Posts: 1,658
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Sorry if this doesn't go here but searching 2+2 and google has turned up nothing for me.

Just bought poker journal as I wanted to start tracking my results from the start of the year, and I'm really pleased with the app except one thing.

In the cash game tab, the graph at the bottom randomly starts from like ~560 instead of 0 so it drops down a lot at the start of the graph. This is only when The graph is on the session option, the date option graph is fine and so is the tournament one which starts at 0. Any ideas please guys?
Otompsett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 07:31 AM   #3425
SeaUlater
banned
 
SeaUlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,797
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Have you entered a session?

Does it matter if it starts at $560?
SeaUlater is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive