I believe Limon is saying that the game is “not beatable enough to waste one’s time trying to make a living at it.”

You appear to be saying it’s “beatable”, which means “one can beat the rake.”

Are you suggesting that one can not only beat these low-stakes games, but also make a living at it? Please clarify.

its like when you double up and just leave the table in one orbit

ya, i never said the games weren't beatable for some cheeseburger money, but some simple logic and a glance at the lives of "1-3 pros" would quickly dispel the myth that playing these games is a good use of the limited time any healthy thinking human has on this planet.

I'm suggesting that it's possible to do much better in these games than what Limon is saying.

Mason

what do you think is top 5% for low level 1/3 , 2/5 hourly ?

i have played for a living for 25+ years , i am up a ridiculous amount for the stakes i have played and i agree 100% with Limon that its not worth it.

i did not move up for a myriad of reasons but to perform at 25+hourly at 1/3 ,or 2 big bets an hour is not only rare , but also not worth it .

This is an interesting post. Perhaps the $1-$3 pros that you're observing would benefit a lot from this book.

Again, we should have it out in a few weeks and then you can see exactly what it says.

Mason

This part is very correct. The authors come here to tell about a book not made for pros or aspiring pros, but for people who enjoy playing poker for lower stakes and would like to improve their results.

Then he comes in to tell them it's not worth their time to play, even though they may have been happy playing as a break even or slightly losing player.

Some here seem to be implying no one should play poker unless it's a game they can make a living doing. You'd better hope others don't take your advice, or you will no longer be able to make money at the game yourself. Where do you think your money comes from? When a rich bad player is thinking about sitting in your game, do you try to talk him out of it because he isn't likely to win money there?

Or maybe you're actually trying to get the amateurs to sit in your games, where you can beat them no matter how much they study solvers?

How about you let people write the books they want and read the books they want without insulting both of them, especially when the book isn't even out yet.

My new book is how to win playing roulette using martingale. I don’t want anyone to point out how it’s a complete waste of time and energy. People should be mad at those who don’t let others, on a strategy forum, lose at roulette in peace.

I insulted someone?

Perhaps. But to be fair there’s no doubt you’d benefit from them buying it.

Just so you know, Two Plus Two was far more successful than I ever anticipated. And how successful this book is from a sales perspective will not affect me in any way. Go insult someone else.

Mason

Facts are not insults unless you allow them to be.

Zenfish posts are gold and I strongly agree with him.

You look at expectation. It doesn't matter if you only hit the jackpot once every 100 years. If you are going broke due to the bad beat drop, then you can't afford to play 1/3 NL.


It is generally better to play 2/5 NL as a reg or comparable PLO or limit games. 1/3 regs are probably not very good if they can make more at 1/3 than 2/5. That doesn't mean you can't play it professionally or certainly not that you can't beat it.

You have no clue as to what the facts are. Go insult someone else.

MM

No, I was quoting your post in agreement about Limon and others.

Except I believe you've admitted that the new book could actually have some good strategy advice, while a martingale system would not help anyone improve their gambling results.

Also, this is not even a "strategy forum", it's NVG. But do you really think it would be a waste of time and energy for a 1/3 player to take a few hours to read a book which could significantly improve their results?

This is an irrelevant content - of course an author/publisher is likely going to benefit from someone buying his book. That doesn't mean others won't benefit from reading it.

Plus, in case you didn't notice, Mason gave away copies of his last three books in e-book form for free in this forum.

At Mason's Request I am sort of breaking my "won't reply" vow because he wanted me to relay a recent conversation with a semi retired former high stakes player who has been pretty much crushing the Wynn 1-3 holdem game for a few years. I won't say who, but undoubtedly some of you know who I mean. He told me that there is at least as much to be won at 1-3 as 2-5 and that 1-3 is worth more than $1000 a week to a good player.

Of course, he is speaking about the Wynn 1-3 which may be the most profitable always going, public 1-3 in the country. Plenty of rich amateur tourists, a $5 max rake, and several games to choose from.

And at the same time I’m also working on a rewrite and expansion of my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics. Expect it in late January or February and I’ll give some free kindles away with that book.

Mason

I think you are confusing people saying how beatable 1/2 and 1/3 games are with people saying they live a lavish lifestyle off of their low limit casino winnings.

There is absolutely no doubt that $1/$2 (1$/$3) games are easily beatable for 5-10 BB an hour. Easily. However this doesn't mean people are living large off of it. Far from it.

There are millions of "regular" people who spend lots and lots of money on their hobbies. Whether it is video gaming, bowling, hunting, fishing, quilting, gardening, whatever. People spend money doing things they "enjoy". Lots of people "enjoy" playing poker. They do it for fun. They do it as a diversion from their regular life. It is a hobby, nothing more.

Better to have a hobby that adds money to your bank account than one that drains it.

$1/$2 or $1/$3 is easily beatable even after rake. Not enough to live a baller lifestyle, but enough to be regularly profitable.

LOL terrible understanding of humanity.

What hobbies do you have?

Is every second of you life spent maximizing EV?

I would argue that even playing high stakes poker is not worth it. Anyone intelligent/talented enough to make money at it could make far more money doing something else.

Terrible take.

Completely and absolutely misses the point.

For one, learning and strategy happens at many levels. Just because a person is learning to use crutches that will help them in the only game they are ever going to play but might hinder them in other, higher level games that they will never ever play in does not mean it is useless.

For two, this is teaching people to win in the games they are actually playing in. Your losing at roulette example is the opposite.


FTR, I think this book is going in the wrong direction. I think what is a better strategy to winning at low limit poker is reading (and understanding) all of the concepts in Theory of Poker and understanding how to read/adapt to people. Reads or understanding how people who populate these games think is far more important than anything. This book may be helpful, but it is deeply flawed. There are better ways than the weak/tight play they advocate.

I’m just curious, but how do you know the book advocates weak-tight play? You haven’t seen it. Also, one of the authors is also the author of The Theory of Poker.

And by the way, in 1988 I added the term “weak-tight” to our book Hold ‘em Poker for Advanced Players and I’m very sure that was the first time it was put in print.

Mason