60% ego
20% truth telling
20% no longer care

Doesnt discussing strategy in general on 2+2 make players better? Why do it then? Same theory.

1) There arent very many good 5/10 players who post here.
2) There arent very many players who post here that are in S. Florida
3) There arent very many good 5/10 players who are willing to play a $300 max buy in game for ego reasons.
4) Nobody here listens to a word I say anyway so it doesnt matter.

Hold'em is dead.

Wrt mental aspect of poker, I'm pretty sure I've made more money off of good players on massive tilt than I have from massive whales in a good mood. (Whales being rarer than tilt)

I dunno it's close. I also run super bad vs whales and prolly adjust even worse.

Tilt really can make the game though.

Holdem of course isn't dead. It's just a sad depressing ghost of what it was a decade ago. Of course, its still a huge boom compared to two decades ago. So its all perspective really.

Badugi is where it's at ldo

It's not dead, but it's dead to me. /melodrmatichandwringing

I agree with what you said. Whales obv lose more money in a single hand or a session, but the EV you get from regs playing poorly adds up when there are 6+ of them on every table.

Texas Hold'em will prove to be no different than anything else.

Gitwillabsolutelydie,it'sjustamatterofwhenG

This deserves some love

Thanks for quoting that, I missed it.

I'd welcome the majority of people who are going to see these posts to my game.

Not trying to be rude or boastful. There just aren't that many crushers out there. Even on 2p2 there are multiple losers to every winner.

that 5/10 300max sounds so awesome

to clarify my statement: some dudes already figured it out. but if you're saying mental is 50% of the game, sure, and then the mental is affecting 100% of the other stuff besides luck.

I was gonna say that but Ive been trying to tone it down recently. The fact of the matter is that probably 7-12% of all players are winners and I would say that based on what I read in the strat forum, my guess is only 10-20% of 2+2ers are winners. Im honestly not too worried about attracting lots of strong players and ruining my hidden gem of a game. I dont play it often anyway because the drive is much farther than I like and I have multiple rooms closer to me.

Just a friendly reminder to keep things nice and civil in here.

Seems fine so far, but some toeing the line comments itt today.

To be clear, I was including readers/lurkers as well, not referring to any specific posters.

Bravo on the correct usage and not using "tow" like some mouth breathing cretin.

Sorry to interrupt, but played a sesion last night thought it funny and pertinent to previous discussion.

After all that hand wringing about not wanting variance, I ended up finding and playing a very action 10/25/50 PLO game that became 4 and then 3 handed, playing total around 20 hours, about 7~ of it 3-5 handed. Felt like I got all in like 50 times, and had bought in/rebought 25k~ total.

Ended up losing a little, but up significantly from the nadir. I guess when push comes to shove, a good game is a good game, and I didn't feel scared money at all, and was happy to get money in in what I thought were good spots, which I am happy about.

Before moving to live, I've played a LOT of hands online and have trained myself to not think about money when in a decision and with adrenaline pumping, and I am glad to see that comes out when necessary even though I am worried about gunshy. If it's not clear I am not personally as worried about the losses (I am rolled enough to sustain some shot taking losses), and more worried about how it'd affect my emotional status and game, but I found at one point when I was swinging up and down a lot, a lot of that went away and I was focusing on the decisions without too much consideration about the money. Of course I also had a hard stop loss, so it wasn't like I was ever going to go too overboard, but it did mean I was able to focus on my play.

Not to say I played perfectly, we were all tired from playing quite long, but I feel like that was handled quite well, and I'm quite ready to mix it up in these situations when required.

Or just have small life responsibilities. If I didn't have a wife/kids/loans I'd go grind 2-3k hours for a min of 40k and prob up to 100k/year, more if I both ran good and followed the series or moved to newest sinos



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I find 8 hours of poker a week too little and 40 hours way too much.

Unfortunately there isn't really a way to pick something in the middle and make a living.

Wish I had a job I could work 3 days a week.

Is the 2/5 NL game in your area really so tough that you can't win $50/hour in that game? And is there a possibility of playing 5/10 NL+ 1-2 days/week?

Assuming that there is a decent 2/5 NL running a lot and also assuming that you could find 5/10 NL+ running 1-2 times a week, you should be able to win 100k+/year without playing 40 hours/week (maybe 30 hours/week will be enough?)

You would need a top shelf winrate though.

Sol Reader,

How much would you need to be winning per year for you to be happy with your live poker results? You seem to have a lot of expenses because you live in London, so imagine that your "happy number" would be a lot higher than most other people's "happy numbers."

From somebody who's doing pretty well in 2/5 and 5/10nl and starting to pick up PLO -- where do I even begin learning mixed games?

There's a really soft 25/50 and 50/100 mixed game near me, and whenever I travel I always see the highest stakes game is usually a mixed/limit game playing 6 handed with all recs and no pro's, but I've never played any Stud/Razz/PLO8/BigO and not sure how to learn the strat without actually playing in them (which is very expensive)

I think the next step in my poker career is venturing beyond NLHE

2/5 is pillow soft but 100bb cap. 50/hr might be doable with the freedom to pick my schedule and more time to work on my game.

5/10 is probably above me. Runs once or twice a week and generally has a good few strong players. Maybe my winrate could be higher in that game but to me it is not worth the risk and the pain. At 2/5 I basically park my ass in a chair and wait for money. I don't stress over difficult decisions because there aren't many. I don't beat myself up over losses because I am well rolled. I am happy.

I don't really have a desire to go play poker professionally because I know how much harder it is to play full time than part time, and the best case scenario is it would pay a little bit more than a salaried job... for who knows how long... and when/if it fails I've gained no work experience or skills. I just wish I could play more than I do now.

May or may not be done playing for October, but a nice little +$1640 run over the last 20 hours certainly fixed a few things.


Swingy two months though:

Or you are in early fifties, have decent savings after working in technology all your life, all your kids are finished college and you can live in a country with national health care along with no income tax for poker winnings...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I probably would be happy-ish with 5k/month average, can survive on 4k. 8k is where I feel comfortable and happy and can take a couple of losing months and not worry.

London is really expensive rent and bills alone add up to 3k (I have to pay for my partner, might be better later), and if I eat out or spend any money at all it goes up fast.


re: Mix games

They are a lot harder to learn because unlike NLHE and PLO there aren't lots of site that run it and lots of people that talk strategy about it. People who work on those games tend to keep the information relatively close to themselves. I only learned because I played a bunch on stars and watched a lot of DC vids, and even then I'm probably only okay in a soft game.

But isn't this a *little* results oriented? In the end, you lost "a little"; I'm wondering how you would have felt afterwards about this game had you lost your stop loss (which it looks like you were probably in a position to do at one time)?

Ggoodluck!G