Hey guys,

Now... if you know how poker world looks. What would be best thing to do from the beginning. I got a few scenarios (assuming you have usual begginer bankroll 100$)

1. Play NL SNG 1-table till your BR is enought for NL50 (or NL100) and then switch to NLHE.
- you have 30-50 BI for 2.20 SNG

2. Play SNG 1-table, multitable and tournaments all the time.
- you have BR for 20 BI of 5NL

3. Play PLO cash games
- you have BR for 2NL/5NL

4. LHE cash games?
- you have 300bb to play .10/.25

What would you choose and why?

5. 0.01/0.02 NL cash games.

Games still soft, probably more so than PLO.
Less variance than PLO, SNGs, or LHE.
You'll learn more about poker than from tournaments.

I would have done exactly what I did... the first time, except with a bigger deposit.

I started with 15$, this time I would start with 50$.

Then 0.01/0.02 NL cash games, you just learn a lot more playing these than the shove-fest we call Turbo SNGs.

I would of course add SNGs every now and then to help me build my BR.

eh yea, I'd just grind 2nl...like I did.

So we have two things.
1. Build up BR.
2. Learn how to play.

6max is better to learn the game, is SNG better to build your BR?

None of the above. I'd play a different game from Hold'em altogether. I've already made specific recommendations many times, but they are *always* ignored, so I'm not in the mood to get specific. In any case, not hold'em.

Now, among your choices, PLO is the most "not hold'em," but I really only dabble in Omaha and don't much like the game. Still, maybe it's a soft target at the moment?

You ought to have fun with your first deposit and do your best to learn the games you play. Play different games, different formats and see what you enjoy most or interested in beating. Play low limits so your money can last a little.

I see... but what to do if I'm just leaving period of having fun and want to play more seriously (not pro - but to earn some change) ? What would you recommend?

Can you elaborate why? PLO seems to be more and popular game. Do you think other games are softer?

I would play whichever one I could beat if I was looking to make a small but steady income. I would toss off #1, 2, and 3. For choice #1 if your intent is to get to 50nl or 100nl you should start off at 2nl with $100 and learn how to beat the lower levels moving up to the next when you have 20 BIs for the next level. You will most likely not be able to beat 50 or 100nl by just jumping into the game there. For #2 and 3 you need a br of at least 100 buy-ins to survive variance. That leaves playing $.25 to $1 sngs, 2nl - 5nl, or .10/.20 fl. What game or format are you best at? Which one or ones can you beat? I would focus on one and play it, study it, learn how to beat and move up.

iirc, he suggests razz... as the players are pretty lol bad from what I've been told.

If i were to start again from scratch i would defo start at 2nl cash and start reading/contributing here on 2p2.

I lost my first few deposits playing donkaments and wasnt improving at all. Having said that if i started reading 2p2 straight away i might not have donked away my first few deposits :P

like above, start commenting on here and reading the stickies and strategy posts earlier instead of being a lurker for so long.

grind 2nl, nothing else, i wasted alot of times early when i started on DoN's, those are evil and didnt teach me much, money wise, i was down a bit, but with the deposit bonuses i received from the fpps, i was breakeven at them i guess.

but definately stick to 2nl, grind it out, ive learnt (learning) more there then i have anywhere else.

Confirmed

Most micro Razz players do not understand how to play Razz.

3,1,4,2

LOL... people do not want to play razz. First, because the game is not popular. Second, hard to multi table. Third, there is a lot more luck involved. A person can have a much bigger edge in Hold em or PLO. These are the games a new player should try to master first, then later, try to learn the rest of the games. Razz can be your 2,3, or 4, but it should never be your main game.

From 0.01/0.02 to 0.10/0.25 PLO games are tougher than the equivalent NLHE games! Overall, it seems less profitable at those levels for the following reasons:

1. The average PLO player is more skillful
2. The few major fish are more difficult to isolate due to the nature of the game.
3. Game selection if harder due to fewer tables running
4. Multi-tabling is more difficult because of the complexity of the game.
5. The rake in micro PLO is huge.

Pro's often talk about how PLO is softer than NLHE, but they are talking about games above the micros.

Micro donks love hold'em because that's what's on TV and because it's easier for them to believe they "know" how to play. If they have tried Omaha, they typically hate it because they're pissed that their Aces or 2 pair didn't hold up. PLO is much more brutal to newbs, and variance rarely saves them. Newbs who give it a shot are bewildered by the cards, draws, shifting board, and pot-limit restriction. It is obvious in its complexity, which turns away many fish.


In short, at micro stakes, if profit is your goal, the answer is NL NL NL NL. And if you can't beat it, you'll probably be a loser at the other games as well.



Most micro hold'em players do not understand how to play hold'em.

^^^^^^ pretty good post.

Deposit more and only play HU SnG to build my roll.

Alright, here's the thing. If I was making a recommendation to a player "starting from scratch," one advantage to a game like razz is that YOU can learn to master the game relatively easily... plus opponents are weak. Unlike NL Hold'em, you very often know *exactly* where you stand in a hand, relative to your opponents, and the question of how to proceed depends mainly on when to get away from an obvious losing proposition, or how to induce mistakes from an opponent to extract money.

NL Hold'em is a hard game, everyone dives into it thinking they can master it easily, there are a lot of people studying the game and taking it seriously, it's easy to make a mistake that costs you the whole pot or your whole stack, you rarely ever *really* know where you stand in a hand, and lot's of folks think the solution is to learn "ABC Poker," which is code for "not thinking about poker," which does not promote development or sophisticated understanding of general poker concepts. Meanwhile, there's a lot you can learn about poker in general from playing *some other game*, and you're less likely to fall into a rut with all the other players out there who seem to believe there's only one game called poker, and it's played with two cards in the hand and five on the board.

Tirade over. But you might enjoy Hi-Lo too.

No Limit Hold em is actually a simple game. People just make it harder than it actually is.

zadignose,

you seem to be making two arguments simultaneously here, about the profitability and about the instructiveness of razz.

However, neither argument is really convincing:


Doesn't that mean other people can master it easy as well? (profit)

Also, if it's so easily, perhaps it may not fully prepare you for more complicated games? (instructiveness)


as I said above, nlhe players are weak also, especially if you exploit game selection and use a HUD. (profit)


But you're missing one of the most important lesson you can learn in poker!

And that lesson is about figuring out ranges, and how to respond ranges that are polarized or wide. (instructiveness)

Not only can you learn a lot by figuring out how to play against these kind of ranges, but it presents an opportunity to do it better than your opponents. (profit)


I can't figure out if you're saying the games are soft or the games are tough, because this quote is moving in two different directions


If you're properly bankrolled for the game, then this isn't a problem.

And you should never be scared to lose your stack.



This problem is not unique to NLHE. I can imagine someone reading the original super system and trying to figure out the ABC's of razz. What's the difference? Especially since the ABC's will help you more in razz than it will in NLHE, since Razz is a simpler game...\


It's not so much the game, but rather your approach to the game, which hinder or help your development of general poker principles.


It's not a rut if you're winning and moving up. Because if you're doing that, you are learning more about poker principles.

Split pot games are not a recommended way to teach a beginner poker basics since they will effectively have to estimate two equities (for the high and for the low), and this is demanding in a somewhat tedious way.



In short, if you approach the game the right way, you can learn a lot and profit by playing NLHE micros.

Having said that, I think the best game to teach the basics of poker is A-5 lowball draw, because of the simplicity of the hand rankings.

I was a little concerned that someone would highlight this point... but I'll go with the flow and try to address your criticisms.

In theory, other people should master it, but in reality they don't. The games are easier for a studious beginner to beat than hold'em, especially NL cash games.

And yet it *can* prepare you well for more complicated games, by helping
establish a strong theoretical foundation for understanding the game of poker. Of course, it's not going to help much with the specific task of handreading in hold'em... but there's a lot more to poker than that, and razz is a good training ground.

Although the players at microstakes nlhe may be weak, the razz players are weak at somewhat higher stakes, plus the beginner will be able to rise above the crowd relatively faster in razz.


That's *an* important lesson, and it's especially important for NLHE. Razz is not the game most suited to teaching NLHE. NLHE is. Neither is NLHE the game best suited to teaching razz. Razz is.

But is putting someone on a range more important, say, than the concepts of pot odds, drawing odds, pot size manipulation, deception, setting up plays on one betting round to be exploited on later rounds, knowing the character of one's opponents, betting for value, isolating players, exploiting the player in the middle, betting *second best* hand for value, counting outs, tracking exposed cards, etcetera? Those can be learned in razz. And the elements can be looked at with more clarity at times, so an observant player can gain from experience in a relatively shorter period of time.

This I don't doubt.


I'm saying that it's difficult to excel at NLHE, and though the opponents are often quite weak, the beginner has a long road ahead to try to gain a meaningful edge.

The question isn't relevant to bankroll, and it has nothing to do with being scared to lose one's whole stack. The point is that the errors that a player makes in NLHE can be severely amplified in effect, and the non-expert player is likely to make these kinds of costly errors for a long time to come. In poker, there are errors which arise rarely, but are relatively costly. Then there are errors which arise constantly, but are relatively cheap on an individual basis. And THEN there are errors which both occur often and are very costly. The first two classes of errors are equally common in limit and no-limit structures. But the third class of errors, the common and costly kind, are mainly found in "big bet" formats like no-limit/pot-limit. And the beginner-to-intermediate player is going to be making many of these errors. You'll argue, sure, so are many of your opponents. But the fact is that the non-expert is going to have to struggle very fiercely to get a meaningful edge, or even avoid giving up that edge to more experienced players.

The thing is, "ABC" poker as commonly practiced by micro-stakes NLHE players is MILES AWAY from expert NLHE. Falling in love with it can seriously hinder the development of one's game. Meanwhile, though razz is *definitely* a simpler game, it's *not a simple game.* Poker is fundamentally deep, complex, and highly challenging. But I think near-expert play in razz is more readily accessible to a novice player.

Maybe I'll address some of the other objections in another way, or in another post. But I think you can see where I'm coming from here. Sure, NLHE is a *great* game. I also don't think a player should necessarily avoid it, or resist trying to master it. But if you want to recommend NLHE to a novice player, rather than razz, you should let them know they're facing a very long uphill battle just to rise to the point of semi-competence, and expertise is a thousand miles further in the distance. They should know that there are many lures, and delusions which can derail their development, especially if they conclude too quickly that they've got it all figured out. And they should know that the ABC approach to poker which seems to beat the weakest of the weak can run you into a ceiling rather quickly, when you rise to the point where ABC is far from cutting it.

Meanwhile, if you recommend someone *away* from razz, you should point out that you're suggesting they *not* play a game whose principles are more readily understood and mastered, where there are many lessons to learn that apply to a variety of poker games, and where the money's pretty easy to get.

As for split pot games, yeah, maybe not the best place to start, I agree, but I couldn't help putting in a plug for my personal favorite game... where the players also tend to be rather on the soft side.

Anyhoo, really I do love Hold'em. And I respect those who have learned what it takes to beat it.

at what winrate/100? And at what winrate per hour?


By why does it prepare you for them more than NLHE would?



Based on this statement, it seems that if NLHE is tougher, then by finally beating a certain level of NL, you will have learned more about poker and be more prepared to learn another game than you would if you beat a certain level of Razz... ?



BUT, if you had to choose only one game to use to teach someone about poker, after which point they went and tried to beat all the other games, which game would do the best job?

Daniel negreanu said limit hold'em was the best, and I think he made a good argument.

But in the NLHE vs. Razz department, I'd say NLHE.

Razz might do an okay job preparing someone for the other stud games, but not so much for the other games, including the draw games.




Range applies to all those things!

How would you even know whether you're value betting or bluffing if you can't put him on a range?

How can you even say the pot odds are enough if you can't figure out your equity against his range?

What is the purpose of knowing your opponents if that doesn't help you narrow their range?

Example:

Flop: 6c 7d 8h
You: 9c9h

Do you bet for value? or do you bluff? Or do you call off your stack if you're getting 1.7:1 ?

vs. Range1: TT, QQ, KK, AA (TT+) you're around 35%. So if you bet here you are bluffing. If he bets the pot all-in, giving you 2:1, you can call. If he overbets significantly, you cannot call.

vs. Range2: TT, QQ, KK, AA, AQ, AK. Now he's the kind of guy fearlessly plays AQ+ like overpairs. You are almost 55% here, so you are v-betting and would call any shove.

vs. Range3: What if we include in Range2, the he can play 66+, which puts 3 sets in his range? Nothing changes much as you are still 55%.

vs. Range4: TT+, 72 What if he's the guy who loves to bluff with 72 and play it like an overpair? Then you're 50% and can shove.


So obviously, your equity against his range depends on your read of the opponent, and once you figure out this equity, it strongly influences your play of the hand, more so than any other consideration!



What you're really saying, imo, is that in razz, you can narrow someone's range considerably, possibly even "putting him on a (single) hand."

This is not a good thing for teaching poker, since truly solid poker play means dumping the method of putting someone "on a hand", and instead, playing against a range of hands.

And, obviously, you can apply the concept of range to any poker game. Propokertools has a range calculator for stud games now.



No no no. You get an edge the instant you play a ABC weak-tight TAG game at the micros (without tilting!). And to move up, you have to begin adding more skills to your skill set.

So you can profit and you can learn.




It depends on your definition of "error." Playing against his range well is not an "error", even if he turns over the nuts and you loose your stack.

This, too, is a valuable poker lesson.

And so is the converse: Playing poorly against his range is and error, even if you win the pot!


If you concede that it's a simpler game, then you're conceding that ABC poker is more effective in it. In which case, someone can more easily fall in to the trap of ABC and not develop.


this applies to all poker, especially if you move up to tougher games, in any poker variant.


Actually, Razz is not a good game to teach the fundamentals to a beginner because they will have to track upcards, and, I would argue, is a major distraction whose cost outweighs the benefits regarding teaching fundamentals.

As I said before, lowball draw is a much better tool! Especially if played NL.

First of all, great arguments about the topic. Honestly.

There are two great things about Razz in this argument, from my perspective. Dismal's last point leads to one of them: Razz is a limit game. How does limit HE compare, in your perspectives?

The second, and I think this has been established (but I'm not sure) is that Razz is a simpler game. I'm thinking at least 40% of the "simpler" part is the limit aspect, as potential betting patterns can be mapped out much easier w/o the pot size and greater bets.

I learned on stud, way back, and it took me forever (it seems) to learn how to learn about NLHE. I'm still really bad, make no mistake, but I'm not stupid (or rich) and I read, worked, and played at it, but exclusively HE for 18 months. I wouldn't suggest anyone has to go through what I did, and I'm a bit pissed I went straight to HE w/o at least padding my BR with games that were more related to my experience, and think that the combination of the limit nature and simpler betting structure would be easier to teach as "poker." Hell, I started with stud and draw for money (not much, granted, or often) at 9.

I love razz as much as the next guy (probably more), but comparing razz to NLHE is like comparing apples to ostriches. Other than the fact that they both use the same deck and play proceeds clockwise, they are polar opposites as games and learning one is really bad training for learning the other. This is why there are so few players that are great at both (yes Gus Hansen, this includes you).