hit the pit! it's only $.50/hand. make sure your min bet is $50 tho. what's 1%?

you'll pay for plenty of free rooms

All days and times the correct adjustment to the tight 1-2 players in that room is to play 1-3.

Hmmmmm....I want to play 1/3 but am a bit nervous because I've only logged ~24 hours of live play so far and am -390 over that session. My bankroll is plenty large for 1/3, so it's more of a psychological issue. I want to crush some 1/2 games before I move up in stakes. And I think I was crushing the 1/2 games while playing...or would have been, if luck had averaged out. I did EV calcs for all my major hands and should have come back +700 or so on average. If I sit down at 1/3 and quickly get stuck a couple buy-ins, it's going to mess with my confidence.

But I suppose I could always buy in for $200 and see how it goes. What specific adjustments should one make from Winstar 1/2 to 1/3?

Live poker table lineups vary tremendously, so specific adjustments to a stake is a concept you should take out of your toolbox as soon as possible. No matter what stake you play you should watch your opponents and exploit their mistakes.

That said, here's what I've noticed recently about the two populations.

1-3 seats faster than 1-2 because that's what the floor wants.

Players who want to play low stakes as soon as possible get on both lists and usually end up in the 1-3 because that list moves faster.

Some players are extremely nitty/frugal/broke/whatever you want to call it and will only play 1-2.

So the natural pattern is 1-2 has more nits and 1-3 has more randoms.

That means the player buying in for $100 at 1-2 is more likely trying to grind out free soup and the player buying in for $100 at 1-3 is more likely new to poker and putting down the smallest amount the dealer allows.

Since you're new to live and scared (not an insult, look at my posts from 6 years ago), the first thing you will notice in the 1-3 at Winstar is pots are a lot more than 1.5x the size of 1-2 pots. The only way to get over nervousness about that is to keep playing and get used to winning and losing more.

Wednesdays (and Thursdays) they have the senior breakfast, so they have a ton of players that come in for the breakfast and then play poker (the daily tournament fields are twice as large on Wednesdays, and they open several more tables).

Shai, I play 1-2 pretty much every time I go. I've only played 1-3 a handful of times. There are differences from what I remember.

First all, the play at 1-3 is noticeably more aggressive than 1-2; you will see larger bet sizing and plenty more 4-bets and 5-bets. There seem to be more LAGs than TAGs at 1-3; and also, there's definitely more 'expendable' money, for sure. If a guy loses $150 at a 1-2 table at Winstar, they'll likely fold for the next half hour or sit it out for a bit. If a guy loses $150 at 1-3, though, it seems like they'll not be as bothered by it and keep on playing or even rebuy to get back to table max buy-in again (which is $300).

Interesting enough, from the few times I have played 1-3, I have not necessarily noticed more regs/grinders/pros at these tables than at the 1-2 tables. I don't know why that is. It could be that I've played 1-3 so rarely or that I just don't know who the 1-3 regs are, but they were definitely not common 1-2 faces that I had seen quite a bit. In terms of proportionality, I actually believe that there Texas poker tourists probably come to Winstar to play 1-2 almost as much as 1-3; obviously there are far more 1-2 players, but I recall there seeming to be a decent size cohort of travellers to the 1-3 tables. As for the regs/grinders/pros, I do know of probably 3-4 players that frequent the 1-3 tables (and I think they also play 2-5 too), but funny thing is I have never, ever seen them play 1-2; it's like they avoid 1-2 like the plague. I don't know any of these players personally, but having been in the room so much I have noticed these core group of what appear to be 1-3 regs (and these regs are ALWAYS there).

Also, the play at 1-3 was relatively tougher than 1-2, but not so much so that it shocks you. Just my biased, subjective opinion, but that's how I remember it. Not only more aggressive, but definitely better. Better disguised hands and bluffs, more sophisticated 4-bets and 5-bets, and far less "whole-table-limping" type of hands. Generally going to see more heads-up hands at 1-3 than at 1-2, from what I remember.

You can just call the general phone number for Winstar and ask them if you have any room comps, and then give them your players card number. Their phone service is great.

Or go to the players card desk (or club desk, or whatever its called) and tell them you want to sign up for the mailing list. Then they'll send you a postcard-like flyer that might contain the free room listings.

People are 5 betting in a 300max 1/3 game?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

I'm assuming there are more deep-stacked players at 1/3 vs 1/2. I don't see how they can 5-bet 100BB deep. Even with a small open raise to 3BB, you get 3-bet to say 9BB, then 4-bet to 27BB, then get 5-bet to 81BB ? They might as well go all in at that point unless deep. And most of the time there will be limpers or the opening raise is higher than 3BB. If open raise is 5BB for instance, we quickly run out of money with standard raising: 3-bet 15BB, 4-bet 45BB, 5-bet 135BB?

Maybe people do more minraising? IDK.

---------------------------------

I'm aware I can't say "all 1/2 games play like this" and "all 1/3 games play like this" but am looking for the most common differences.

For example, I suspect there are substantial differences in

1) average PF bet-sizing. Opens at 1/2 are typically 7.5BB+. I would guess they go down at 1/3, but to what I don't know. I'm used to online 3BB opens.

2) number of limpers. The 1/2 games I played there were almost always 5+ limpers.

3) number of callers in a raised pot. The 1/2 games I played you typically get 3+ callers when raising unless you make the raise huge (like 10BB+)

4) how much fold equity we have. There is very little at 1/2 except against the weak/tight players, but even those tend to peel the flop too light and preflop way too light

5) how often bluffs work. In the 1/2 games I played bluffs worked rarely and unpredictably except against very straightforward weak/tight players on dry boards

6) how often opponents are bluffing. I saw a decent number of bluffs at 1/2 but the maniacs were doing 80% of them. The weak/tights and loose/passives were never bluffing, and the LAGs bluff sometimes but rarely pure bluffs, more when they have like middle or bottom pair which maybe they think is good, in which case it's not a bluff.

7) average stack size. At a typical 1/2 table I would see 3ish short stacks (30 - 70BBs), 3ish medium stacks (70 - 150BBs), and 2ish "deep" stacks (150BB+), not counting myself.

8) 3-bet frequency. At most 1/2 tables I saw few 3-bets; opponents 3-betting typically had {KK+, AK}

9) frequency of slowplaying premium hands. I saw many 1/2 players limp {KK+, AK}, then slowplay it on the flop like it was the nuts (sometimes with AK even if it missed!)

10) hand selection; at 1/2 almost everyone was playing garbage like Q7o or 85s

11) number of "decent" regs; I would guess a typical 1/2 table had 1-2 "winning" players, besides myself (where "winning" could just mean $1/hour)

12) willingness to get it in; aside from the worst LAGs, I saw few people at 1/2 willing to get it in without three of a kind or better

Also, how do the 1/3 games differ during the day vs. night (let's call night 7PM+)? Are they more reg-infested during the day? Do they become much looser at night like 1/2 games? I will be playing mostly at night but probably 10-12 hours sessions, so some of my play will be during the day.

I realize some of these questions are hard to answer. I'm just trying to get as much information as possible to maximize my EV. I think I will play 1/3 at least one day. Either I will play 1/3 on Wednesday, and continue Thursday and Friday if doing well, or I will play 1/2 on Wednesday, then move up to 1/3 Thursday and Friday if I'm feeling confident. If I get stacked a couple times at 1/3 where I got my money in good, I don't really care, but if I get stacked more than once due to mistakes I am moving down.

I ran very bad during my last trip. Normally I wouldn't care about running bad, like when I played online, but when just starting out live, where I expect to move within 2 months and for grinding to be my career for the near future, running bad feels abnormally ****ty. My bankroll is like 37BI at 1/3 but I'm a bankroll nit. I'll feel ****ty if it drops below 33BI. It's a confidence thing. Since I'm just starting out, running good now as opposed to later would be immensely helpful in getting me to play a more optimal LAG strategy vs. scared ABC TAG play.

Wait...


What's wrong with 85s????

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Sorry, I meant 84s. Or was it 85o? Anyway, 85s is obviously the nuts.

I play at Winstar, I played 1/2 for abt 2 yrs 2-3 times a month (that's not a lot of hours compared to others). After reading quite a few poker books and studying, I began winning at 1/2 (I record my results) so moved to 1/3 when they started spreading it and have been there ever since. I think the best method is to play a level until you can beat that game, then think of moving up. From my experience at Winstar, the average 1/3 players are better than 1/2. All that being said, I only play twice a month or so.

Well, my EV over my past 24 hours of play at Winstar 1/2 was ~$30/hour. My results were much worse. The $30/hour is probably unrealistic, but I would guess my winrate to be at least $15/hour.

Would that be beating 1/2 sufficiently to beat 1/3? I'm sure the games are tougher, but if they're only a little tougher I'd be better off playing those. I have millions of hands played online as a solid winner and have read 30 - 40 books cover to cover pluz a zillion 2+2 threads, various training vids, etc. Pretty sure I can kill 1/2 and may already be doing so, but sample size is lol small. I want to just take a shortcut and skip 1/2 because while the players are bad and highly exploitable, the games can get super dull if you have a bunch of $100 stacks and weak tight players at your table. It sounds like 1/3 has a lot better action (which is good), but if the players are substantially better maybe I should stick to 1/2 for a bit. Hmm...I think I'll flip a coin. That's a good solution for a gambler.

If you have millions of hands online as a winner, from listening to folks on 2+2, you should be stomping anything at 2/5 or below. I haven't played online since black Friday, I'm strictly a live player now. Im heading to Vegas tomorrow for a week of cash, looking forward to getting out of town.

My point is that there was a lot more pre-flop action at a 1-3 table compared to 1-2. I specifically recall sitting down and seeing a 3-bet, then a 4-bet..... and thinking to myself, "Well, I guess I'm not at 1-2 anymore." LOL. Anyways, I don't know if that says more about 1-2 (and the lack of pre-flop re-raises and re-re-raises) or 1-3 (more of this type of pre-flop action), I'm just telling you what I recall about being a mostly 1-2 player and playing the 1-3 a handful of times.

From my experience at 1-2, the pre-flop opens range from $7 to $15, with most opens coming in at around $10-$12. Occassionally, you will see $16+, but this size open tends to get all folds. And vice versa, with a $7 open or so, there will be very few folds as most of the table will call. . . . . As for 1-3, I remember opens being in the $10-$20 range; and far fewer callers, regardless of the amount.

Very true. At the 1-2 game, 90% of the table will limp if given the chance; at 1-3, I don't remember a whole bunch of limping (I assume because most otherwise limpers would expect an eventual PFR).

At the 1-2 games, if someone raises pre-flop to between $7 and $10, I would normally expect 3-4 players to call; if raised to a higher amount, say $11 to $15, there are typically 1-2 and possible 3 callers. . . . . I haven't played enough 1-3, or just don't remember enough, to know what this size is. But I would say, on average, fewer callers in a pre-flop raised pot. Again, on average.

In my experience at 1-2, it really depends on the table. If you stumble upon a fishy/newbie/slow game, then bluff to you heart's content because it will work all night long. But if you get into a game with a lot of regs/grinders (more likely), then bluffing is more selective. I have seen a lot of these folks call down with top pair/middle-ish kicker, so beware. I think this is probably the reason why I say the 1-2 games are relatively tough, on average. But on the other hand, I would never claim to be a crusher and know my strengths/weaknesses.

Yes, this was my whole point. There is very, very little pre-flop 3-betting at the 1-2 game (wink, wink). It is so rare that I actually think most players will limp to a smaller sized open because they assume that no one behinds them will re-raise the pot. And this is even the case when the table is fishy versus full of regs/grinders; sure, there is more 3-betting with the latter, but not as much as one might predict.

Obviously, I have no idea in terms of dollar-per-hour terms. But in my subjective opinion, there are about 5-7 regs that are very good players who consistently play at 1-2. I could personally identify them (but won't do so here) because I've played at the tables with them quite often. These core group of folks are very experienced, very recognizable (if you've played enough there), and tend to dominate the tables they are at. Besides this group, there are another 15-20 other regs who are slightly-above-average to above-average players. They, too, are recognizable and play often; but in my guess, they don't win as much as the first group. I still put this second group of players in the above average category because I have seen them play and know they can win; but for whatever reason, do not dominate the table as much as the first group.

I'm glad you brought this up. Yes, there is a terrible, all-too-frequent tendency for 1-2 players to slow play super premium hands. I could tell you some of the craziest stories about this. From top 5 starting hands to flopped sets, there will be slow play from these tables a lot. So much so, it's kind of mind-boggling, actually. But once you spot this from any of the nits, they'll be flagged and you can watch out for them. . . . . I think this tendency is made a lot worse by the Aces cracked promo; it just encourages really stupid play, IMHO.

As for AK, I have a thing about this. Way too many players keep going with this hand like it's the unbeatable nuts, regardless of the flop and sometimes regardless of a wet board even when they've hit TPTK. It kills me to watch, over and over, the guy who raises pre-flop with it, and then continues like this hand magically deserves a fold from any nit who happens to call with, say, T9s or 33 or whatever. I always kind of laugh to myself whenever I see someone act surprised when they lose with AK, despite a questionable board. And it makes me wonder, why, if they play ace high with such aggressiveness, then why not play EVERY ace high this way????

In fact, on the issue of 3-betting PF in the 1-2 games, I can think of about two dozen times where I have ventured out in position with a sizeable 3-bet (with air), and heard the tepid folder of his cards say, "Well... he must have Aces...." This happens so often it's scary. It is truly amazing how much money can be made by doing nothing but 3-betting pre-flop pots in a small stakes game.

Thanks very much for the in-depth response. This are exactly the kinds of answers I was looking for. I'll just comment on a few of the things that don't seem to mesh with what I remember.

I don't remember anyone opening this small except for me, which seemed to bewilder the other players. At the nittier tables they'd still usually open 10+, and at the looser tables often 20+. One table I was at there were straddles every other hand so there was typically 100 in the pot by the time it got to the flop. Best table ever, but unfortunately I was utterly card dead while at it, and at a table like this all you can do is wait for relatively premium hands (even hands like KTo have good value) and value-town the people calling every raise with K2o.

If you mean bluffing weak-tight players on the flop or river when an obvious flush draw misses, that sometimes works. But you usually win tiny pots. You can't push people off an overpair or TPTK even when they really really should fold. I played a few of those regs who would call down light. I would expect straightforward regs would offer the best bluffing opportunities though, since you can check-raise the guy C-betting 100% with ATC, or float the flop and turn then shove the river if they fire again. People at this level call way too much on the flop, a bit too much on the turn, but not enough on the river (with the exception of the calling stations), particularly when playing for stacks. BUT...my sample size is lolsmall so maybe not accurate.

Yeah. Though I was consistently shocked when I 3-bet that the raiser would almost never fold. They just don't fold pre-flop. After all, any hand can make a full house, or quads!

There was an average of maybe 15 1/2 tables going while I was playing so 25 regs spread among them sounds about right.

Haha, I saw some really bizarre play during Aces Cracked on Thursday. The guy to my right, who was relatively good compared to the rest of the table, got dealt AA four times and he limped every time, then checked it down, each time hoping to get drawn out on and win $100. He ended up making like $30 with his four AA. LOL.

Kind of related is the BBJ adaptations. Some players, whenever the board paired, they would stay in the pot almost no matter what hoping somebody hits quads and gets beaten. They'd do this even on boards with no straight flush possibility. I was really puzzled by this, so I asked "why is everyone playing this hand?" and they looked at me like I was stupid. "The BBJ jackpot! Duh!"

I'm guessing they bet their missed AK for "protection against draws" or somesuch nonsense, and they slowplay when it hits so they can trap people with their sick TPTK. Then they get beat by some random two pair and start criticizing the guy with two pair. I saw a lot of the OMCs play AK like this, which is weird. I guess they play so few hands that whenever they get one of their favored hands {KK+, AK} they feel entitled to the pot and stubbornly won't let go of it. These are the same guys who complain about getting JJ (or even QQ) and they just hate AQ because it "always gets dominated."

It's kind of the same with 2-5 and even 5-10, too. Both are pretty much different universes. I don't see many of these stakes play at 1-2 at all. I would think they'd step down from time to time, but I don't think I've ever seen any. They have a more dedicated core of regs/grinders, from what I can see. Never played there, though.

Are you going to take a shot at 2-5 and 5-10 and report back? I'd be interested to hear a view on those games.

My bankroll can't handle 5/t right now. It could handle 2/5 IF I were a winning player at 2/5 which I have no idea whether that's true or not. I hope to move up to 2/5 before year's end, sooner if I run good, but until then I'm starting slow. I'll be playing 1/2 and maybe 1/3. I suppose if I run good and the 2/5 tables look particularly weak Friday I might play for a few hours. I figure Fridays and Saturdays at Winstar are a good time to move up in stakes because that's when they've got the bigger games running, and presumably some of the better 2/5 regs play 5/t on weekends.

Should be good games this weekend.

Just got back. I won't go into details but it went very bad as far as results. Many suckouts, coolers, etc.

I'm starting to agree with you about the percentage of regulars. I'd only been there once before, for three days, and on Wednesday I recognized 50% of the players, and they all knew each other. I think my table Wednesday averaged about 80% regs. Some of the regs are quite bad, but more of them range from slightly losing to slightly winning I would expect. Even on Thursday and Friday my tables were mostly regulars. I was mostly in Seat 1 so I could see which players had players' cards, for instance, and I saw only 2 or 3 people who didn't have them over the three days of play. I know having a player's card doesn't make them regulars necessarily, but most were at least play ever week type, and I'd estimate 40% were there the whole time I was there this trip and the whole time last trip.

I just played 1/2. When I got there on Wednesday there was a waitlist for 1/2 and an open seat for 1/3 so I was going to try it. As soon as I walk up to the table, it breaks, so I go back and now there's a wait for 1/3 also so I end up playing 1/2. And after that, I was stuck too much to feel comfortable playing 1/3. Oh well.

I've become emotionally numb to downswings, so that's good, I guess. I've gotten much better at following the action, tracking pot size, etc. Also have gotten much better at spotting live tells and targeting players to bluff. I made quite a bit of "profit" with targeted bluffs. Without this my losses would have been about $500 worse.

Also, the hotel was pretty nice. All in all it was good experience irrespective of the downswing.

Im sure others will disagree but in my opinion, becoming emotionally numb to downswings is a bad thing.

i in fact do disagree but it's all relative to stakes and overall risk aversion. understanding downswings for what they are and reacting appropriately is key. and i think it does take a certain level of being numb to them to have perspective. are you swinging down cuz you're playing bad, running bad, game is bad? if you're shook no matter what the reason you may walk away from a great game cuz variance has not been good to you.

I mean I don't let if affect my play one way or the other. I get coolered, I say "nice hand," rebuy and move on. My bankroll is sufficient so I'm not worried currently about busting out.

In "The Course" by Ed Miller (just finished reading it) he has a whole chapter on "emotional numbing." He considers it a crucial skill to play poker, particularly at 2/5+ as downswings are larger, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply to 1/2.

What is gained by reacting emotionally to bad beats? I may not have been clear. I didn't mean I ignore the downswing. I review hands and look for spots I've made mistakes, but the spots that are clearly negative variance, which so far is almost everything, I just ignore those and move on. What can be gained by dwelling on the fact I lost three 200+ pots in one day as a 90+% favorite when the money went in?

I can see how just assuming a downswing is negative variance can be bad, but that isn't what I meant. I'm talking more about tilt control while playing. I just move on when I get stacked from a bad beat and try to make +EV decisions.

That sounds much better. I dont like the sound of the word "numb". I like to feel all my senses. Losing sucks. Getting outdrawn sucks. Being "numb" and thinking "oh well, I lost another big hand" and thinking nothing of it is a mistake. Obviously you dont want to tilt because of it, but you want to learn from it. You may have made a mistake that you will miss if you're numb.
You may play longer than you should or when you are overmatched if you are numb. People who feel the pain try harder to improve.