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 11-18-2016, 03:00 PM   #16876
WereBeer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,647
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rumor View Post
If you are playing poker for a living, these other players are your livelihood. Of course you have an ulterior motive and view them as tools to an end
This, I mean I'm not playing for a living but I'm trying to take their money and I'm serious about doing it.

I find this can actually mesh perfectly well with my natural approach of 'don't be an ass to people'.

So for example when a fish plays a hand terribly and stacks me, my natural inclination is to be pleasant (however unhappy I actually am), say 'nice hand' and agree with them when they explain they had to play it like that. At that same time of course I'm cynically aware that this is the optimal way to treat another player under these circumstances.
WereBeer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 02:18 AM   #16877
eldiesel
Pooh-Bah
 
eldiesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,585
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Crusher View Post
So that's where you've been. Congrats on the good fortunes! I hope your business grows even bigger in the upcoming years.
I mean as an NCAAB coach
eldiesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 06:30 AM   #16878
BigPavelski
journeyman
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 234
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I play poker in a casino ~50-60 hrs/week every single week and I rarely listen to headphones anymore.... I personally love the social environment of "my job" and have seriously met some of the most interesting people. One time I had a weed "grower" on my right, a police officer on my left, and the mayor of a small city all at the same table. Throw in a cpl old dudes and you got yourself some great convos let me tell you.

Sucks playing against mostly regs though to be honest, unless you are friends with them. Those are the games where I usually do listen to my headphones
BigPavelski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 06:53 AM   #16879
bodybuilder32
old hand
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,423
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by prairiebreeze View Post
And exclude the fish who buy in for 30-50BB try to run it up and end up buying in a bunch of times? No thanks. Those tools make up a significant portion of my player pool and my win rate.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This was in response to my remark that casinos should raise the minimum buy-in to 100BB's.

I see your point, but I think many would players would just bite the bullet and buy in for the max if that was the rule. If it is 1-2, that's only $200, which is only $100 more than the minimum. Same with 2-5. if your risk tolerance, or your bankroll, is so low that you are only going to buy in for $200 at a 2-5 game, why the f wouldn't you just play 1-2?


Additionally, I don't see any harm in creating a barrier for people that are too poor to be playing in the game. I don't know about you, but I didn't get into poker to take money from bums. I always enjoyed the strategy element of hand reading as well as gaining an edge in the risk/probability elements of the game that make it more than just pure "gambling".

Grant it, the degens are what make the games run at 1-2, but did anyone ever think that many white-collar professionals (regardless of race or gender) or the college-aged, high-testosterone males/ wannabe ballers that have cash don't like spending time in casinos that are catering to low end clientele? You rarely see young males 21-25 in the poker room, which means there is no new lifeblood of new people getting into poker. These guys probably saw poker on TV, thought it looked cool, only to show up to the casino and see a completely different demographic than what is presented on all of the televised broadcasts. These guys need to be sucked into the allure of walking away with big money, and winning monster pots. Its kind of hard to get that rush when you flop a set and get it in versus your short-stacked opponent of $37. Luckily, the games can still get very deep, but I have noticed a trend of smaller stack sizes throughout the casinos in the country. Usually, its only during the graveyard hours when the tables start breaking that the deeper stacks start to consolidate into 1-2 remaining tables and the real action begins.

If you are ever in Las Vegas during the WSOP, especially at the top poker rooms, pretty much everyone in the room is financially well off, which leads to monster stack sizes of 200-300 BB's and huge action, even at 1-3 at any time of the day. Every table is filled with players drinking booze, and there are probably 2 female players at every table (many of them being pretty damn attractive lol). The atmosphere is rowdy and the game is super fun. Not to mention your win rate noticeably skyrockets. Lots of whales willing to donate and have a good time.

Obviously, the casinos are not going to discourage the degen types from walking in the door because that means more tables for the poker room to open and more rake to be collected. But as a poker player, if it takes 5 hours of grinding down a 55 year old black lady with a $100 short stack that you have to split up 5 ways with the other abc-regs, if you think that is the high-life, then I think the future of poker is bleak. People need to put $ on the table, otherwise your edge as a poker player is pretty much nullified. Not to mention, at 25-30 hands an hour of slow live poker, your time is being severely wasted if you are willing to work only to make 8-10 bucks an hour playing a HIGH VARIANCE and emotionally draining card game, while also contributing nothing to society.

I would like to see a lot of the break-even to slightly winning nits step up to 2-5 but they will happily go along playing 50BB poker and making minimum wage rather than taking shots and playing poker the game it was meant to be played.

Last edited by bodybuilder32; 11-19-2016 at 07:21 AM.
bodybuilder32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 07:43 AM   #16880
7weeks2days
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 895
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real Luke Cage View Post
The goal of a pro should be to entertain the fish. Make sure they have an enjoyable experience even when they are losing. Talk with them. Make connections. Build rapport. most people come to a casino to "escape." So take off your hoodies. Unplug your headphones. Stop berating the "regular degens." Make sure they recs and regs have fun and keep coming back so that, us pros, can continue making a living and getting our rent/mortgage paid.
This is the biggest misconception. I think someone mentioned that if you have to intentionally try to do these things it becomes very obvious and is bad for the game. Makes me cringe every time I hear some dbag nitty reg attempt to befriend a mark. Nothing is more offensive than insincerity and people pick up on that very easily. The worst is when you hear these regs let out the worst and most obnoxious over the top fake laughs. Those are probably one of the most obnoxious things that come to mind when I encounter regs who attempt to do this. Most games would be better off if the majority of regs had head phones and stfu, because more often than not the insincere interaction is hard to watch and toxic for the game.

I also think that the recs who come to the casino to escape are few and far between. The majority of recreational players are there to win and think they are good. Patronizing them with false social interaction is just unnecessary at best.
7weeks2days is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 08:23 AM   #16881
prairiebreeze
Pooh-Bah
 
prairiebreeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Saskatchewan. Don't @ me.
Posts: 3,560
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
This was in response to my remark that casinos should raise the minimum buy-in to 100BB's.

I see your point, but I think many would players would just bite the bullet and buy in for the max if that was the rule. If it is 1-2, that's only $200, which is only $100 more than the minimum. Same with 2-5. if your risk tolerance, or your bankroll, is so low that you are only going to buy in for $200 at a 2-5 game, why the f wouldn't you just play 1-2?


Additionally, I don't see any harm in creating a barrier for people that are too poor to be playing in the game. I don't know about you, but I didn't get into poker to take money from bums. I always enjoyed the strategy element of hand reading as well as gaining an edge in the risk/probability elements of the game that make it more than just pure "gambling".

Grant it, the degens are what make the games run at 1-2, but did anyone ever think that many white-collar professionals (regardless of race or gender) or the college-aged, high-testosterone males/ wannabe ballers that have cash don't like spending time in casinos that are catering to low end clientele? You rarely see young males 21-25 in the poker room, which means there is no new lifeblood of new people getting into poker. These guys probably saw poker on TV, thought it looked cool, only to show up to the casino and see a completely different demographic than what is presented on all of the televised broadcasts. These guys need to be sucked into the allure of walking away with big money, and winning monster pots. Its kind of hard to get that rush when you flop a set and get it in versus your short-stacked opponent of $37. Luckily, the games can still get very deep, but I have noticed a trend of smaller stack sizes throughout the casinos in the country. Usually, its only during the graveyard hours when the tables start breaking that the deeper stacks start to consolidate into 1-2 remaining tables and the real action begins.

If you are ever in Las Vegas during the WSOP, especially at the top poker rooms, pretty much everyone in the room is financially well off, which leads to monster stack sizes of 200-300 BB's and huge action, even at 1-3 at any time of the day. Every table is filled with players drinking booze, and there are probably 2 female players at every table (many of them being pretty damn attractive lol). The atmosphere is rowdy and the game is super fun. Not to mention your win rate noticeably skyrockets. Lots of whales willing to donate and have a good time.

Obviously, the casinos are not going to discourage the degen types from walking in the door because that means more tables for the poker room to open and more rake to be collected. But as a poker player, if it takes 5 hours of grinding down a 55 year old black lady with a $100 short stack that you have to split up 5 ways with the other abc-regs, if you think that is the high-life, then I think the future of poker is bleak. People need to put $ on the table, otherwise your edge as a poker player is pretty much nullified. Not to mention, at 25-30 hands an hour of slow live poker, your time is being severely wasted if you are willing to work only to make 8-10 bucks an hour playing a HIGH VARIANCE and emotionally draining card game, while also contributing nothing to society.

I would like to see a lot of the break-even to slightly winning nits step up to 2-5 but they will happily go along playing 50BB poker and making minimum wage rather than taking shots and playing poker the game it was meant to be played.


As an extension to my point, these 30-50BB guys aren't "players" - they're people who bounce from slots to blackjack to baccarat to poker, etc, trying to find a "hot" seat. Raise the minimum to 100BB and they'll never sit at the poker table. Better for me to get their money than the house. Also remember that a lot of casinos have max buyins of 100BB.
prairiebreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 12:22 PM   #16882
DeathCabForTootie
Pooh-Bah
 
DeathCabForTootie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: SHR Tunaments
Posts: 5,722
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by prairiebreeze View Post
As an extension to my point, these 30-50BB guys aren't "players" - they're people who bounce from slots to blackjack to baccarat to poker, etc, trying to find a "hot" seat. Raise the minimum to 100BB and they'll never sit at the poker table. Better for me to get their money than the house. Also remember that a lot of casinos have max buyins of 100BB.
Well said.

Bodybuilder, is there a reason YOU haven't moved to $2/5 where they respect your stack size?
DeathCabForTootie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 12:49 PM   #16883
johnny_on_the_spot
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnny_on_the_spot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: S-Mart
Posts: 10,914
*** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Meh, short stackers are usually more helpful than not, so long as there are only 1 or 2 at a table

Anecdotal example:
I'm on an atypical 1/2 table. I'm the oldest person (mid 30s), we're 5 handed, and everyone is talking about light 4betting, ranges, etc. not a lot of flops being seen because people are playing correctly. basically not what you want when you're trolling for whales. Short stacker sits down who straddles every button. Donks off multiple 30bb stacks to everyone. Eventually he does things like blind shoves pre for 30bb and then the miracle triple up and then turns around and immediately donks off of that money.

Tldr; SS donks off multiple 30bb stacks to everyone, takes money from tight players and redistributes it to everyone else.
johnny_on_the_spot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 01:14 PM   #16884
friendofpokergod
stranger
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 4
my first live poker low stake poker play income.

to find out where i stand in poker, i wanted know if i had a attitude in poker, if not. yes i am ready to quit this job.
i have been playing in live casino for just 1 month.
and a lot of thought passed me.
poker is not that funny thing when it comes to a job.
stress is enourmous if you lose.

small stake. 1-2.
1st day income 900 dallors
2st day income 1174 dallors
3st day loss 200 dallors
4st day inclome 374 dallors
5st day loss 200 dallors
6st day loss 300 dallors
7st days income 174


small stake 1-3
1st day loss 900 dallors
2st day income 700 dallors
3st day loss 500 dallors
4st day income 200 dallors
5st day loss 300 dallors
6st day loss 300 dallors
7st day loss 475 dallors including tournament entry.
8st day income 13 dallors
9st day income 74 dallors
10st day income 135 dallors
11st day income 274 dallors
12st day loss 590 dallors


wow. what a tough job. i should have known earlier.
still one of the best job but not that much that i expected.
i didnt know that much of the variance of poker.

what do you think of my income and loss.
i have no idea how much small stake poker player earn a month.

and so you think i have ability to play poker?
my bank roll is 30 buy in, in 1-3


i think i lost about 2000 dallors by my mistake of not awareness of player and circumstance which is. not inevitable. and by tilt i lost 600 dallors. i have never thought about tilting to me. but yes it exsist.

i know my problem is and i have been fixing it. minimizing my mistake and maximizing my profit.
but i dont know that i am a good player or have ability. i am losing as seeing a month profit.
friendofpokergod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 01:19 PM   #16885
kekeeke
adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,191
Re: my first live poker low stake poker play income.

Ultimately you will do what you want, but the only advice I can give you is to always have a plan B

And dont burn yourself out, it's harder than it seems.

Edit : Btw you should rebuy to top up to 100bbs, it matters.
kekeeke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 01:51 PM   #16886
DK Barrel
Concept of the Week author
 
DK Barrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: no gamble, no future
Posts: 6,798
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
Additionally, I don't see any harm in creating a barrier for people that are too poor to be playing in the game. I don't know about you, but I didn't get into poker to take money from bums. I always enjoyed the strategy element of hand reading as well as gaining an edge in the risk/probability elements of the game that make it more than just pure "gambling".

I've seen a few times where someone is probably playing poker in a casino for the first time (maybe they've only ever played with friends or play chips online before) and they will inevitably get destroyed. Because they almost never bet or raise, they play super passively, and they're just always going to lose like that. If they can buy in for 40bb, it's not a terribly expensive mistake, they might win a few hands or have an all-in sweat without being too far behind. If they're buying in for 100bb+ they're just getting owned. I've seen where 100bb disappears in two hands and it's obvious that the guy has learned his lesson and is never coming back because his money goes way farther at any other game.

By the way the people "too poor to play" are basically 90% of low stakes players, including those that might be winning.
DK Barrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 01:56 PM   #16887
DK Barrel
Concept of the Week author
 
DK Barrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: no gamble, no future
Posts: 6,798
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Another thing about shortstackers... This is kinda fudgey because you can never say with 100% certainty, but suppose a player sits with X bb and the way he is playing (and it might not even be shipping every hand it might be limp/folding a lot) you believe he is certain to give it away within Y hours. So ask yourself what's your cut? Sometimes it's a decent chunk of an expected WR.
DK Barrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 03:59 PM   #16888
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Raising table minimum only benefits winning players and it significantly hurts losing players, especially the non-whales.

So what ends up happening is that many of them move down in stake or move out of the game altogether. It's the good ol' shear but don't kill analogy.

I obviously rather have more money on the table (nothing beats walking into casino in the morning and see a deep rollover game), but I fully support keeping the BI requirement low.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 04:32 PM   #16889
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

100BB min is far, *far* too high for many rec players. In some of the rooms around here it's $40 or $50 min for $1/2, so 20/25BB. These guys aren't plopping down $100 to play, and the extra $100 to buy in for the max isn't "nothing" to them. Sometimes it's the total, other times it's the single bet loss that bothers them. They'd rather buy in for $50 4-5 times and lose only that $50 each time they shove with trash, than burn through $1000 making the same plays.

Bad shortstackers are important for driving the action at a lot of LLSNL tables, just as much as the "whales" are. In fact, some of the whales are exactly these guys that re-buy like mad and ship $50 quickly. They make the same plays after shipping a pot and sitting on $200 as they do in the first orbit.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 06:07 PM   #16890
bodybuilder32
old hand
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,423
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCabForTootie View Post
Well said.

Bodybuilder, is there a reason YOU haven't moved to $2/5 where they respect your stack size?
I moved to 2/5 a long time ago, but the 1-2 game is still very important to the health of 2/5. If there are no 1-2 players that want to saddle up some money to play 2/5 then pretty soon the 2/5 game will die when all the fish regs get beaten badly enough. If 2-5 goes away, I think we can officially say that poker is dead.

You already see many casinos where a 2/5 game doesn't run, which means you are forced to play 1-2. The only way you are going to make decent money playing 1-2 is in a deepstacked game, and the games only get deep during the graveyard hours.

Obviously, it is better for the casino to have 10 tables of 1-2 running rather than 1 or 2 tables of a 100BB minimum buy in game, but I would expect there to be enough players who actually value their time and want to play for decent stakes.

By the way, 100BB is only $200. Someone buying in for $50 and shipping 4 times takes way too long to get their money. It restricts your starting hand range to the top 10% and often times you'll find yourself flipping with a hand like AK versus their 22. Plus you have to sit and wait for the degen to take up a seat while they go to the ATM, or go to the cage, or wait for the slow dealer to count their money and give them chips, etc., etc. All of this dead time affects your bottom line.

Nothing will be changed, but it appears that a lot of the winning players are content to make 10 bucks an hour and to be playing against people who are flat broke. This style of poker will not attract any new money or younger generations into the game.

I don't blame poor people for buying in for the min, or the casino catering to this clientele. But its kind of a joke when a casino can get 10 to 15 tables of 1-2 running for every one 2-5 table that runs. There are plently of slightly winning regs that could go play 2-5, but they are happy to just take money from a broke life degen then they would play at 2-5, when there are just as many exploitable players playing in the 2-5 game.

Luckily, 2-5 will be very healthy, but only in the biggest poker markets. I would hate to see the 2-5 game shrink the way the 5-10 game has, and it inevetiably will, when you have decent enough players that continue to only play 50BB 1-2 games.

I wouldn't blame you to not move up if you were making atleast $25 an hour for 40 hours a week at 1-2. But, I can assure you, that will NOT happen if you play a long enough sample. You will be lucky to make half of that hourly rate, and it comes at a significant cost to your health and career. I mean at what point will the stakes become too low for you to say to yourself "this isn't worth it?" Do they have to drop the blinds to .25 cents and .50 cents before you start looking for a bigger game?
bodybuilder32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 06:23 PM   #16891
bodybuilder32
old hand
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,423
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by DK Barrel View Post
I've seen a few times where someone is probably playing poker in a casino for the first time (maybe they've only ever played with friends or play chips online before) and they will inevitably get destroyed. Because they almost never bet or raise, they play super passively, and they're just always going to lose like that. If they can buy in for 40bb, it's not a terribly expensive mistake, they might win a few hands or have an all-in sweat without being too far behind. If they're buying in for 100bb+ they're just getting owned. I've seen where 100bb disappears in two hands and it's obvious that the guy has learned his lesson and is never coming back because his money goes way farther at any other game.

By the way the people "too poor to play" are basically 90% of low stakes players, including those that might be winning.
I agree with a lot of this, but this sort of exclusivity adds an "allure" to the game. If you were a single guy and brought your gf to an average 1-2 table and she watched you sit there and (correctly) fold almost all of your preflop hands in $3 pots, she would get bored fast and probably think you were a pretty big loser for doing this professionally. If you brought her to $2-5 and she routinely saw 3-bet flops of $75 and 4 bets to $200 she would probably get really excited and nervous and ultimately think your a boss when she sees your stack grow to over 1.5k or if you routinely shrug off a bad beat and plop out another 500 to rebuy after getting coolered.

You may not think this stuff matters, but this is what makes poker attract new players. The reality is, its possible that you may only make the same amount playing 2-5 as you do 1-2, but atleast you are contributing to a higher stakes market and getting less of your EV taken by the rake. It's a better game and something that rich whales could actually get addicted to playing. If their only option is to play 1-2 and sit with the life degens, then they will rather spend their money on baccarat or do day trading, with poker continuing to decline in its popularity.
bodybuilder32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 06:39 PM   #16892
The Real Luke Cage
stranger
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 6
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7weeks2days View Post
This is the biggest misconception. I think someone mentioned that if you have to intentionally try to do these things it becomes very obvious and is bad for the game. Makes me cringe every time I hear some dbag nitty reg attempt to befriend a mark. Nothing is more offensive than insincerity and people pick up on that very easily. The worst is when you hear these regs let out the worst and most obnoxious over the top fake laughs. Those are probably one of the most obnoxious things that come to mind when I encounter regs who attempt to do this. Most games would be better off if the majority of regs had head phones and stfu, because more often than not the insincere interaction is hard to watch and toxic for the game.

I also think that the recs who come to the casino to escape are few and far between. The majority of recreational players are there to win and think they are good. Patronizing them with false social interaction is just unnecessary at best.

You must have misinterpreted my initial post. Nothing I do at the casino is fake. I don't fake laugh at jokes, and I socialize with everyone. The regs, the recs, everyone. It's not forced social interaction, I'm a social person in general. I'm not "acting" a certain way to entertain. But by being non-stand offish (I.e not wearing headphones and hoodie up) it creates a much more positive social environment for the recs to enjoy.
The Real Luke Cage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 06:47 PM   #16893
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
I agree with a lot of this, but this sort of exclusivity adds an "allure" to the game. If you were a single guy and brought your gf to an average 1-2 table and she watched you sit there and (correctly) fold almost all of your preflop hands in $3 pots, she would get bored fast and probably think you were a pretty big loser for doing this professionally. If you brought her to $2-5 and she routinely saw 3-bet flops of $75 and 4 bets to $200 she would probably get really excited and nervous and ultimately think your a boss when she sees your stack grow to over 1.5k or if you routinely shrug off a bad beat and plop out another 500 to rebuy after getting coolered.

You may not think this stuff matters, but this is what makes poker attract new players.
This isn't pre-2010, these things just don't happen anymore. Very few "new" players would bring their GF into a poker game then attempt to run the table over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
The reality is, its possible that you may only make the same amount playing 2-5 as you do 1-2, but atleast you are contributing to a higher stakes market and getting less of your EV taken by the rake. It's a better game and something that rich whales could actually get addicted to playing. If their only option is to play 1-2 and sit with the life degens, then they will rather spend their money on baccarat or do day trading, with poker continuing to decline in its popularity.
Obviously there are varying opinions of what qualifies as whales, but I do not think whales would find 2/5 to be much more exciting than 1/2.

Essentially you are arguing creating a gap between 1/2 and 2/5 and, IMO, if your pool is not huge, eventually most people would just gravitate toward 1/2 as winning players continue to take money out of pool.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 06:49 PM   #16894
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real Luke Cage View Post
You must have misinterpreted my initial post. Nothing I do at the casino is fake. I don't fake laugh at jokes, and I socialize with everyone. The regs, the recs, everyone. It's not forced social interaction, I'm a social person in general. I'm not "acting" a certain way to entertain. But by being non-stand offish (I.e not wearing headphones and hoodie up) it creates a much more positive social environment for the recs to enjoy.
But how many people out there are naturally sociable like you?
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 07:03 PM   #16895
The Real Luke Cage
stranger
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 6
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
But how many people out there are naturally sociable like you?
Probably 3.50
The Real Luke Cage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 07:14 PM   #16896
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

FWIW, he's not talking about you, but people in general. Most people can't hold a conversation even if their lives are on the line.

So the suggestion that winning players have some sort of duty to be entertainers isn't practical.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 08:03 PM   #16897
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
You already see many casinos where a 2/5 game doesn't run, which means you are forced to play 1-2. The only way you are going to make decent money playing 1-2 is in a deepstacked game, and the games only get deep during the graveyard hours.
This depends an awful lot on the players. I see plenty of rooms with $1/2 only, not super deep ($2-300 stacks + some shorties) that are still very profitable. Also depends a lot on your definition of "decent money". But for most *recreational players*, they don't need or want a super deep game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
Obviously, it is better for the casino to have 10 tables of 1-2 running rather than 1 or 2 tables of a 100BB minimum buy in game, but I would expect there to be enough players who actually value their time and want to play for decent stakes.
I would say not. Look at how many people buy in for the min vs the max. There isn't a market for a 100BB min game. If there was it would exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
By the way, 100BB is only $200. Someone buying in for $50 and shipping 4 times takes way too long to get their money. It restricts your starting hand range to the top 10% and often times you'll find yourself flipping with a hand like AK versus their 22. Plus you have to sit and wait for the degen to take up a seat while they go to the ATM, or go to the cage, or wait for the slow dealer to count their money and give them chips, etc., etc. All of this dead time affects your bottom line.
I don't know where you're playing, but dead time is NEVER a problem. The guy blowing $2-400 in small buy ins has a wad of $20's in his pocket and is re-buying at the table. He's not going to the ATM. You also don't have to restrict you hand ranges as much as you think, because they're not playing a "correct" short stack strategy and putting too much money in with trash anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
Nothing will be changed, but it appears that a lot of the winning players are content to make 10 bucks an hour and to be playing against people who are flat broke. This style of poker will not attract any new money or younger generations into the game.
Min buy doesn't mean flat broke. Sometimes it does, but more often it's the guy that likes playing $20/hand blackjack sits and wants to play poker for $20-50 a hand.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 08:22 PM   #16898
bodybuilder32
old hand
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,423
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
This isn't pre-2010, these things just don't happen anymore. Very few "new" players would bring their GF into a poker game then attempt to run the table over.

Obviously there are varying opinions of what qualifies as whales, but I do not think whales would find 2/5 to be much more exciting than 1/2.

.
How could a whale not find 2/5 more exciting? The sheer fact there is more money on the line makes it more exciting. This is why the rich flounders play the WSOP main event 10k buy-in and not the daily turbos.

The blind structure doesn't matter to me as much as the amount of $ that is in play. I would rather sit in a 1-2 game with 500-800 stacks around the table than a 2-5 game with 7 stacks of $300 or less. That's why I argue in favor of a mandatory 100BB buy in, but I know it will never happen so its not like I expect that kind of change.

What I would expect is that other players would naturally want to play for more money. I'm asking a serious question, "Why are there so many adult poker players that are willing to play a card game for $10 an hour or less?"

I'm not talking about the delusional fish that desperately gamble hoping they go on a massive heater. I'm talking about 2+2 posters, lurkers, and other regs who have been around the game for a long time and have been through all the variance, the upswings and downswings.

You missed my point about a guy bringing his gf to watch him play. There are millions of guys who play fantasy sports, tons of guys that major in business/ econ/statistic/ finance related majors, and many young viewers who find poker on TV or over youtube. This is a huge potential market that poker SHOULD, but isn't able to capture because of the atmosphere of live casino poker. The young male demographic is not going to sit in a poker room with 55 year olds who are sitting on $100 stacks and only playing premium hands. He is simply going to be bored with all of the small pots and the lack of excitement in the room.

Once you have seen greener pastures, you can never really go down in stakes. I guess I was blessed/cursed to begin my poker career in deep stack gamboool style games played at strip mall card clubs. I was literally shocked when I travelled to other places in the country and saw how the 1-2 games appeared. It honestly didn't even feel like the same game.

If you look at what CA did, they basically made 1-2 a joke for targeted specifically for all of the slot machine players (100 MAX buyin LOL WTF). They basically make it to where anyone who was even halfway serious about making $ at poker had to play 5-5 (with a $300 mimimum buyin, rather than $200). I don't think it would be so bad to see this change adopted all over the country in order to adjust for inflation and as a rebranding effort to either get more people to put more $ on the line or to go to play slots and video poker instead.

Last edited by bodybuilder32; 11-19-2016 at 08:39 PM.
bodybuilder32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 08:31 PM   #16899
bodybuilder32
old hand
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,423
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist View Post
This depends an awful lot on the players. I see plenty of rooms with $1/2 only, not super deep ($2-300 stacks + some shorties) that are still very profitable. Also depends a lot on your definition of "decent money". But for most *recreational players*, they don't need or want a super deep game.



I would say not. Look at how many people buy in for the min vs the max. There isn't a market for a 100BB min game. If there was it would exist.

Min buy doesn't mean flat broke. Sometimes it does, but more often it's the guy that likes playing $20/hand blackjack sits and wants to play poker for $20-50 a hand

I don't know where you're playing, but dead time is NEVER a problem. The guy blowing $2-400 in small buy ins has a wad of $20's in his pocket and is re-buying at the table. He's not going to the ATM. You also don't have to restrict you hand ranges as much as you think, because they're not playing a "correct" short stack strategy and putting too much money in with trash anyway.



.
I agree with your statements wholeheartedly. I am proposing that maybe, in 2017, we need to "up the ante" so to speak? If, at the very least, to adjust for inflation?

If you look at the difference between what a WSOP main event buy-in was worth in the 1970's, to what it is worth today, the numbers are staggering.

Poker was a lot more a game of "balls" and grit then it was simply being about a game of patience and discipline and who can fold the most without tilting. I think the "high stakes" nature of poker was a significant factor in the poker boom (look at the main shows "high stakes poker, poker after dark, and all of the WSOP coverage). Live poker cash games simply isn't high stakes anymore, with pot sizes being too small, risk of losing too small (hey I cant lose my stack if I fold pre right?) All of this, plus the factors I mentioned in previous posts makes it difficult to attract new players (new fish, new money, new generation of gamblers)

Lastly, I disagree that you don't have to tighten up with short stack degens. You cant play suited connectors because they will go all in pre with A6o and small pocket pairs don't get odds to set mine. These guys are toast in a 9 handed table, but it forces you to have to make hands. So its you splitting his stack $100 7 ways between all the other players. When you factor in variance, card dead, hit and run, this just isn't a lot of EV at the end of the day.

Last edited by bodybuilder32; 11-19-2016 at 08:46 PM.
bodybuilder32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2016, 11:23 PM   #16900
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
How could a whale not find 2/5 more exciting? The sheer fact there is more money on the line makes it more exciting. This is why the rich flounders play the WSOP main event 10k buy-in and not the daily turbos.
You are comparing difference of 1/2 to 2/5 to why people buy in main event?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
The blind structure doesn't matter to me as much as the amount of $ that is in play. I would rather sit in a 1-2 game with 500-800 stacks around the table than a 2-5 game with 7 stacks of $300 or less. That's why I argue in favor of a mandatory 100BB buy in, but I know it will never happen so its not like I expect that kind of change.
Like I said, as a winning player, I would definitely prefer more money than less. However, having more money on the table means winners are taking more as well. Unless the pool is big, it will be drained quicker than when there is less money available on the table.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
What I would expect is that other players would naturally want to play for more money. I'm asking a serious question, "Why are there so many adult poker players that are willing to play a card game for $10 an hour or less?"
Because there are very few actual winners in the game. Most losers get weeded out as the game gets bigger, and eventually the pool cannot sustain the game. It's a very logical and straight forward concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
You missed my point about a guy bringing his gf to watch him play. There are millions of guys who play fantasy sports, tons of guys that major in business/ econ/statistic/ finance related majors, and many young viewers who find poker on TV or over youtube. This is a huge potential market that poker SHOULD, but isn't able to capture because of the atmosphere of live casino poker. The young male demographic is not going to sit in a poker room with 55 year olds who are sitting on $100 stacks and only playing premium hands. He is simply going to be bored with all of the small pots and the lack of excitement in the room.
That window has long past. You are delusional if you think there are still a pool of young and egoistic guys with money to burn in poker. Average players are so much better now that those guys don't stand a chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
Once you have seen greener pastures, you can never really go down in stakes. I guess I was blessed/cursed to begin my poker career in deep stack gamboool style games played at strip mall card clubs. I was literally shocked when I travelled to other places in the country and saw how the 1-2 games appeared. It honestly didn't even feel like the same game.

If you look at what CA did, they basically made 1-2 a joke for targeted specifically for all of the slot machine players (100 MAX buyin LOL WTF). They basically make it to where anyone who was even halfway serious about making $ at poker had to play 5-5 (with a $300 mimimum buyin, rather than $200). I don't think it would be so bad to see this change adopted all over the country in order to adjust for inflation and as a rebranding effort to either get more people to put more $ on the line or to go to play slots and video poker instead.

You are not thinking long term.

You have to consider that there are other sharks in these games. If game gets bigger, sharks get fatter. It's the same concept as fishing license; overfishing is bad.

IMO, optimal way of running these games is finding an equilibrium in which losing players are replenishing at the same rate as their loss rate. Making the game bigger is a very nearsighted approach.
Richard Parker 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 10:50 AM.


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