Hi all, I'm starting $2/5 and am currently at a $1.2k downswing. I'm very certain that I'm running below EV. I lost a two pots totaling $1.3k in which, for each, I had about 80% equity.

At what point in a downswing should I quite, move down a level, and focus on working on my game?

I think it should be based on your br not how big your downswing is

Downswings happen, and 1,2 K at 2/5 is pretty much nothing- it happens all the time, even to very skilled winning players.

That being said i find it very helpful taking a step back every time you are facing a swing that make you doubt your game. Taking a step back can be to post some more hands to discuss in the forum, take a break from poker for some days or several weeks and more. You have to figure out your own path, what works for me doesent necesserly work for you.

The important thing is that you are being honest against yourself about what caused the downswing. Did you get your money in good? Did you played too many hands that put you into hard marginal decisions? Did you start to spew after loosing couple of buyins? Did you gamble with draws more than you normally do?

Those are the kind of questions i ask myself when i face a downswing that make me think twice about my game.For me personally it works to take some days off poker if i get a really bad run and people are drawing out on me time after time and the beats just keep coming. I am having a break now because i feel tilted after my last session. We had this huge whale in the game, managing to loose almost 15 buyins through the night, spewing in ways that is extremely rare to see. But i somehow managed to loose 5 buyins to this guy, because he was running like lightning against me, hitting his miracle cards time and time again. I then do other things i like to do, such as listening to music, working out and spend time with family/friends. Then when i feel that the bad negative feelings about poker is gone from my body, i then come back to play again- with a fresh mind and recharged batteries.

I don't know if I agree that a game full of fish that can't fold is necessarily the best game. If we lose our ability to bluff, we lose some of our edge. Essentially, we have to make a hand or we are toast. We are now no better than the marginally profitable regs that play their hands face up. Personally, Id rather play against a table of experienced bad players that know how to hand read and are capable of folding because they know what we are repping.

But we are much better than marginally profitable regs in these games because we get thinner value, play more profitably preflop, and don't pay off with bad relative value hands

"We have to make hands or we are toast" is faulty logic because over the course of a lifetime session, we will make the same number hands as everyone else and make more money on those than the fish and bad regs. Who cares if we go a few sessions without making any hands? We'll lose or break even but when we do make hands, we'll get it all back and a lot more

Spoiler alert: When the fishes triple up after the inveitable 3 way all in, and you triple up or chip up, you're now 100bb deep!

mindexplode.gif

240bbs is not a downswing, especially if during that period you got huge money in good twice as a big favourite (where losing can really set you back for the short term).

If you are not having fun, not confident in your decision making, close to breaking your poker bankroll, etc. then by all means move down. Otherwise, based on the information you posted alone, you can probably just stay the course.

Ggoodluck!G

Yea, as GG stated, that's not really a downswing. You could lose that much in 3 hands.

Anyways, you should move down whenever the losses start to 'get to you.' This doesn't mean you have to move down and stay down.

Here's what I used to do:
Move down to the lower stake game, then stay at that level until I show a little profit (maybe even just like 80BB). For example, if I move down and lose 2 buy ins, I must stay at that level until I've shown a profit.

This is obviously a purely psychological tool. There's no real reason to stay down at $1/2 for that long. But I felt that it would give me a good mindset / momentum to move up again. Always move up when you're winning, never when you're losing.

1 and 2 make sense.

I don't know what 3 means. You want to play Durrr HU, that's where you'll make your money?

U seem to miss everything. Where did "playing Durr HU" come from. LOL! Thats so random and so extreme...

Why is a short buyin game not beneficial to a solid player? If u know the answer to that, then its obvious why u dont want to play with 8 donkeys with 33BBs.

Great idea! Instead of playing in a $500 100bb game where i have a great WR, i should play in a 33bb game in hopes of trippling up and in hopes of the fish trippling up so i can try and beat the rake of 120bb/hour! Mindexplode.gif

I almost forgot why i never post on 2p2: too many trolls...

Maybe LA really is unique, but FL used to have, iirc, a 2/5 $100 max buyin. Players would essentially shove blind/coin flip until they had enough to actually play.

I think the point irtm was making was, a 33bb game is going to be very home-gameish until players get a little deeper. As opposed to a given player buying in for 33bb and then leaving as soon as that's gone.

However, if I'm playing against bad experienced players I can make less hands than everyone else and still make more money than them because I can pick spots and take lines that I know will make them fold. Also, the variance tends to be much lower.

You should be able to make money against any kind o bad player. The ones who shovel money into the pot are by far the most profitable. To say otherwise means you lack the mental makeup to adjust accordingly.

Obviously the edge is greater for good players when playing deep. However, there is still an edge even if playing 33BB because the players are horrible here in LA.

Charlie strikes me as the kind of player who would table change from an action table because people may be calling blind, calling raises with 72o, etc.. and he wants to play poker and not gamboool.

*Fratelli d'Italia L'Italia s'è desta, Dell'elmo di Scipio S'è cinta la testa. Dov'è la Vittoria? Le porga la chioma, Ché schiava di Roma Iddio la creò. Stringia from my HTC One_M8 usfg/ing 2+2 Forums

I'm not fully buying this. One thing is certain. The lower your edge over the entire field, the more beneficial it is for you to play villains that cant fold.

Why would you say that? Someone who has a huge edge over a station is going to profit the same way as someone with a small edge. They'll just so it more efficiently. Being "better" is kind of arbitrary. Being better in a certain game type is more accurate. A great player will have that edge vs. lots I player types.

I don't think you understand how edges work

Like is Phil Ivey going to make more against people who never fold like youll find in good 1/2 and 2/5 games or against inexperienced bad regs who do fold?

He's just going to make way too much money on his value hands, especially because he's probably good enough to vpip a ton of hands and make SOME moves for it to be more profitable form him to play against somewhat competent burlt weak players

My point is that most assuredly a normal winning player will receive more benefit (in absolute dollars) from playing a terribad player like this than a player that crushes the game will receive. Mathematically:

[EV playing vs Fish that Can't Fold] - [EV playing vs Bad Players that can Fold] = BenefitReceived

The lower your edge the higher this BenefitReceived amount will be. Sure, someone that crushes the game will have a higher [EV playing vs Fish that Can't Fold] vs other players. That can't be disputed. However I don't believe the difference in that value will be that great between a winner that crushes and one that doesn't, where as the difference in [EV playing vs Bad Players that can Fold] will be substantial between a winner that crushes and one that doesn't.

So the question is how much benefit does a crushing player receive by playing one of these bingo poker players that can't fold. I'm saying that if a crushing player is good enough, the BenefitReceived may actually be negative.

Oops, I should clarify one thing. I was thinking avg effective stack depths..ie 60bbs to 150bbs. Obviously if you are 300+ bbs deep then playing against a player that is not good enough to fold a hand is so ridiculously profitable that no amount of play can overcome that.

its true for avg eff stack depths too

Hey Guys just a typical question about which game I should play.

I used to play 5/10 online for a living but gave it up after the whole BF thing. After 2.5 years of almost no poker I found myself unemployed late last year and decided to give live poker a go.

Due to rustiness and playing live $1/$2 like I used to play online short handed I really struggled for the first few months and almost went completely busto. But since February I have been doing much better, here is my graph:



That is around 660 hours, with around 450 of those at $1/2 and the rest at $1/$3.

Now my bankroll is $10500 and I am living from that bankroll as well. My monthly expenses are around $1300.

There are 3 games I am looking at:

$300NL - soft game usually 50/50 between weak or nitty regs and clueless recreational players.

$500NL - never tried it, there is usually only 1 or 2 tables has a max buyin of $700. I often see people with 3K+ there. Does seem to have a few full time pros in it and people at 1/3 talk about how aggro it is but for most of them 3 betting AK seems aggro.

$1/$2 Omaha - Usually has a straddle of $5 and a buyin between $200-$1000. There are some good regs in that game but it seems to be fuelled by a collection of asian whales with bottomless pockets who have absolutely no idea how to play but rely on omaha variance + big bankrolls to sometimes get very lucky. Seems like a very profitable game but its omaha so huge swings are expected.

Right now I am exclusively playing the $1/$3 game and just wondering what sort of bankroll I need to play the $2/$5 and omaha games and when I should begin taking shots.

Take shots at the 2/5 when it looks good now. Avoid Omaha.

If 2/5 is the biggest game the casino has the game may not be that great. You probably have an edge but I would be fairly selective about taking shots until you know how good the game is on a daily basis. Also right now you are still a bit under rolled.