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 01-07-2013, 08:10 AM   #3426
Otompsett
old hand
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England
Posts: 1,658
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaUlater View Post
Have you entered a session?

Does it matter if it starts at $560?
Yes I've played 5 sessions and logged them all. Over the 5 sessions I'm up £832, and that's where the line finishes at on my graph, but instead of it growing up from 0 it starts from 560~ and drops down to 200-300 then rises back up to the peak of 832. So instead of rising up from 0 in a diagonal, it's drops and curves back up perceiving different results from what I actually have.

It's not the end of the world, I can still check all the sessions manually, but after spending £8 on an app I'd like it to work. Maybe I'm just being nitty but small things like this annoy me somewhat lol
Otompsett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 08:11 AM   #3427
SeaUlater
banned
 
SeaUlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,797
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

So your first session was entered in at +$560?

Try adding a session for 0 and 1 second on 1/1/13.
SeaUlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 08:22 AM   #3428
Otompsett
old hand
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England
Posts: 1,658
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaUlater View Post
So your first session was entered in at +$560?

Try adding a session for 0 and 1 second on 1/1/13.
Ok cheers, I've entered a "fake" break even session on 1/1/13 and it sorted the graph out, except the flat line for the first entry but obviously after I have tracked a lot more sessions it will become unnoticeable on the graph. It's going to affect my stats on the over view though.

Dropped from 80% winning sessions to 67% obv because I only had 5 sessions tracked, but meh... Will have to do I guess, cheers

Last edited by Otompsett; 01-07-2013 at 08:28 AM.
Otompsett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 08:23 AM   #3429
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otompsett View Post
Maybe I'm just being nitty but small things like this annoy me somewhat lol
It's not nitty, the damn thing should work correctly, ldo.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 08:39 AM   #3430
kb12345
banned
 
kb12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 720
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Dwans Son View Post
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.
I also play 60/70bb, and dont think my winrate would be much higher given the extra risk involved in playing 100bb.

Limon also plays 70bb from his thread.
kb12345 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 09:45 AM   #3431
bstillmatic
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 292
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
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.
Don't have the time to read thru this entire thread just wondering what's the longterm winrate for the 2-5nl games in Vegas..is it between 15-20bbs an hr? And Im guessing if you want to go pro for 2-5nl and have no other source of income you need a 25K bankroll and a yr of living expenses? tks.
bstillmatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 10:24 AM   #3432
bosoxfanatic7117
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 247
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Dwans Son View Post
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.
This is not the norm? My casino forces this rule too, but I figured all casinos forced you to transfer only the max buy-in. I would absolutely love to play at a casino that allowed me to transfer as much as I have. Would allow me to beat up a weak table, then transfer and beat up another table as I please.
bosoxfanatic7117 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 10:27 AM   #3433
shadowdodger
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Delaware Park
Posts: 984
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bosoxfanatic7117 View Post
This is not the norm? My casino forces this rule too, but I figured all casinos forced you to transfer only the max buy-in. I would absolutely love to play at a casino that allowed me to transfer as much as I have. Would allow me to beat up a weak table, then transfer and beat up another table as I please.
This is not the case in the casinos that I've played in.
The reason being, if I build up a 700$ stack (on a 1/2 300 max table) and I don't like having my whole chip stack at risk, I would just ask for a table change, chip down, (essentially going south) and then try and build my stack back up again. Rinse repeat. This would be awesome if you are not a fan of playing deep stack poker. Also would be pretty unfair IMO.
shadowdodger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 10:32 AM   #3434
bosoxfanatic7117
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 247
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowdodger View Post
This is not the case in the casinos that I've played in.
The reason being, if I build up a 700$ stack (on a 1/2 300 max table) and I don't like having my whole chip stack at risk, I would just ask for a table change, chip down, (essentially going south) and then try and build my stack back up again. Rinse repeat. This would be awesome if you are not a fan of playing deep stack poker. Also would be pretty unfair IMO.
Yeah but the argument at Foxwoods is that I should not be able to build up a 400BB stack, then move to another table and become the biggest chip stack at the table, giving me a huge advantage.

I can see both sides of the coin, but I would much rather play at a casino that did not allow players to "go south". I think playing deep is where players make major mistakes, and I would love to take advantage of that more often.
bosoxfanatic7117 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 10:45 AM   #3435
NeverScurred
veteran
 
NeverScurred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: front yard broad day with the SK
Posts: 2,495
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
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:

[lots of good analysis]

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.
While I don't disagree with anything you said and in fact think there is a lot of truth to it, there is a much simpler way to reconcile the statements that does not involve any theoretical leaks: if most players at the table have 100+BB, they are most likely playing in a way optimized for 100+BB effective stacks; the ranges they will be playing, especially preflop when there are tons of other 100+BB stacks still in the hand, will be decidedly suboptimal with 40BB effective stacks or whatever. So by shortstacking and knowing that every hand your stack size will be the effective stack size in every hand you play, you are able to play more optimally while forcing your opponents into suboptimal plays against you (because these plays are probably optimal against the rest of the table). This is why so many people shortstack on the internet, to my knowledge.

That said, I still think that if you're good enough playing deepstacked, it is to your advantage to cover everyone at the table. But it's something to think about.
NeverScurred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 11:25 AM   #3436
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Almost nobody at live low stakes playing 100bb+ stacks is optimized for playing 100bb+ stacks. But because they have them, the correct adjustment for a winner is usually to buy in deep.

The biggest leak most players have at live low stakes is that they buy in too deep. Your average live low stakes player would be tougher to play if he'd leave his ego at the door and buy in for 40bb.

I've spent the better part of 2 years playing live in Vegas, and in all that time I have seen exactly zero players whose play suggests they understand deep stack poker.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 11:28 AM   #3437
SeaUlater
banned
 
SeaUlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,797
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Most hands are still played at around 40 - 80bb range even if players are sitting on 300bb.
SeaUlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 11:37 AM   #3438
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Yep. It's why I usually think buying in deep to cover fish is an overstated concern. The type of coolers where you'll get 150bb stacks in are quite rare, and if you buy in for 100bb, you'll often have 150bb when they come up, anyway.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 11:53 AM   #3439
bosoxfanatic7117
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 247
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
Yep. It's why I usually think buying in deep to cover fish is an overstated concern. The type of coolers where you'll get 150bb stacks in are quite rare, and if you buy in for 100bb, you'll often have 150bb when they come up, anyway.
I don't buy in deep to cooler anyone, although it does help that I can get away from AA4 flop with AJ where a crappy player cannot.

I buy in deep/deeper to allow myself more options when playing against bad players. I cannot call down light against a villian who I think is likely bluffing when I buy in short. I think the most profitable play against the bad players is bluff catching. I cannot bluff catch as well or as often with 40-60BBs as I can with 100BBs.
bosoxfanatic7117 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 12:01 PM   #3440
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Well, I don't consider 100bb deep. To me, 100bb is "normal" midstack poker, and as you get to about 150bb you're getting to "deep," and 40bb is about the top of the range I'd refer to as a short stack.

Just a personal opinion on how I use those terms.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 12:03 PM   #3441
squid face
ChatThreadPrez
 
squid face's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: grabbin c-notes from the money tree
Posts: 10,256
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

mpethy: your last 3 poasts on short v deep are soooo fukn true...well put sir!

edit - u just snuck 1 in there so i guess its teh last 4 but u get my point
squid face is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 12:08 PM   #3442
bosoxfanatic7117
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 247
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
Well, I don't consider 100bb deep. To me, 100bb is "normal" midstack poker, and as you get to about 150bb you're getting to "deep," and 40bb is about the top of the range I'd refer to as a short stack.

Just a personal opinion on how I use those terms.
Yeah I meant deepER than the 40BB-60bb you were talking about earlier. I dont consider it deep either. Just making a point that bluff catching cannot be done effectively when SSing.
bosoxfanatic7117 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 12:32 PM   #3443
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bosoxfanatic7117 View Post
Yeah I meant deepER than the 40BB-60bb you were talking about earlier. I dont consider it deep either. Just making a point that bluff catching cannot be done effectively when SSing.
Obviously this depends on pot sizes, and is true for pots bigger than for whatever you have in front of you.

But one of the reasons that playing 40 to 60 bb stacks can be profitable if you're in a game with 100 bb stacks is because people will be more careless with a fraction of their stack than they are with the whole thing. So they're more likely to **** it shove with whiffed AK , for example, when HU against a 30 or 40 bb stack than they would if in against another 100bb stack.

Part of the reason this is true is because so many players bring the tournament strategy of bullying with a big stack to a cash game table, never realizing that it doesn't work at a cash table, and that at a cash table, the math favors the short stacker.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 12:45 PM   #3444
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,371
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bosoxfanatic7117 View Post
This is not the norm? My casino forces this rule too, but I figured all casinos forced you to transfer only the max buy-in. I would absolutely love to play at a casino that allowed me to transfer as much as I have. Would allow me to beat up a weak table, then transfer and beat up another table as I please.
At my room, when you table change within the same stakes you must transfer all of your chips (you can't rathole any in the move). I always thought this was the standard, but apparently not.
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 12:48 PM   #3445
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,371
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Regarding shortstacking vs 100bb stacking, count me on the side of maintaining a 100bb stack (I top up after every hand).

Letting your stack drop to 40bb and then flopping your first of two sets on the night vs a 100bb fish is a massive error, imo.

Gneverplayswith<98bbsG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 12:49 PM   #3446
NeverScurred
veteran
 
NeverScurred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: front yard broad day with the SK
Posts: 2,495
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
Obviously this depends on pot sizes, and is true for pots bigger than for whatever you have in front of you.

But one of the reasons that playing 40 to 60 bb stacks can be profitable if you're in a game with 100 bb stacks is because people will be more careless with a fraction of their stack than they are with the whole thing. So they're more likely to **** it shove with whiffed AK , for example, when HU against a 30 or 40 bb stack than they would if in against another 100bb stack.

Part of the reason this is true is because so many players bring the tournament strategy of bullying with a big stack to a cash game table, never realizing that it doesn't work at a cash table...
Totally agree...

Quote:
...and that at a cash table, the math favors the short stacker.
You lost me here. In a HU pot how does the "math" favor anyone? Effective stack sizes are the same for both players. In multiway pots I can see a shortstacker having an advantage due to what I described in my previous post, but that's more the other opponents making a choice about who to play optimally against than the math favoring anyone. I'm confused.
NeverScurred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 12:52 PM   #3447
spikeraw22
The Situation
 
spikeraw22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: SB is the new BTN
Posts: 8,731
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Did someone just say that the best way to beat fish is to bluff catch?



Where I play, it's not even close as far as deep/short. At least for me personally, I have a large edge in the game and have no problem getting up to 200BB in against dominated opponents. THose opponents however, would be well served to play short. If my edge was nto there or if they were unwilling to put chips in the middle, then the argument would be irrelevant.
spikeraw22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 01:14 PM   #3448
Johnny 99
grinder
 
Johnny 99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 610
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I like to buy in for $100 in a 1-3 game and not put more chips on the table until I know why. This gives me time to see how everyone is playing for a round or two. I feel I am a favorite playing very tight with 33bbs against almost all.
Johnny 99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 01:16 PM   #3449
bosoxfanatic7117
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 247
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by spikeraw22 View Post
Did someone just say that the best way to beat fish is to bluff catch?



Where I play, it's not even close as far as deep/short. At least for me personally, I have a large edge in the game and have no problem getting up to 200BB in against dominated opponents. THose opponents however, would be well served to play short. If my edge was nto there or if they were unwilling to put chips in the middle, then the argument would be irrelevant.
Said it was AN option. NOT the best option.

Edit: Just re-read my statement and I did say best later on.... Anyway, my point remains that it is an option, a good option for those strong at hand reading. It becomes less profitable though if we dont have the stack to do it.

Last edited by bosoxfanatic7117; 01-07-2013 at 01:18 PM. Reason: Im dumb.
bosoxfanatic7117 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 01:27 PM   #3450
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,371
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny 99 View Post
I like to buy in for $100 in a 1-3 game and not put more chips on the table until I know why. This gives me time to see how everyone is playing for a round or two. I feel I am a favorite playing very tight with 33bbs against almost all.
Do you play in the worst 1/3 games in the world? 1/3 is the lowest NL game in my casino so it's the "entry" level game in my room (maybe it isn't in yours). Admittedly, the next stake of 2/5 hardly ever goes, so you get a wide range of players.

But if you have even half a clue of how to play, sitting down with 33bbs in a typical 1/3 NL seems, you know, flat out horrible.

ETA: And the best way to beat a great 1/3 game is by playing loose (see a flop for cheap, flop a monster, stack a moron), a strategy we can't employ with 33bbs.
gobbledygeek 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 09:23 AM.


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