whatever you were getting before x 4

thanks

in the first hand, I think your river value bet is genius. Given his turn check, I think he most most likely has a pair in his hand and is afraid of the ace but since you dont bet it either he can call on the end thinking some pair is good.

edit: seen the spoiler. I thought that it might be that in the first place but the betting made no sense. still like the river bet.

On the second hand I dont like it. On the flop Im either raising to get all in or folding. I hate calling. I dont want three way action with an overpair. his raise doesnt look very strong to me, he isnt trying to get it all in straight away. Maybe a draw? Charge him for it.
The other guy considering stacks could be v profitable for you. did you consider stack sizes at the time? you might be behind to the short guy but the guy who has you covered, does he really have you beat as well? Can you get enough value from him to make the call worthwhile?

Zoom is raked exactly the same as normal cash games, so the vpps/fpps you get will be the same.

You can expect to play more hands in a period of time at a zoom table, so this increased volume lets you rake faster.

in the first hand though, what are we doing if we get c/r? I'm expecting that to happen, like 0% of the time due to the fact if villain has a straight or 2 pair he can't expect us to be the river given the action but what's our plan if they do?

in the second hand yeah, I don't think calling was ever in my mind as even hitting a set puts us in a worse spot imo. I guess the question comes down to do we shove over the min-raise...given that board texture, the fact there's an overcaller to my flop bet and villain still min-raises to me indicates a boatload of strength but how often is that something like AKss on that board and even if we put them squarely on that how can we proceed with a person left behind us to act still?

[EDIT]

Damn no, I hadn't looked at stack sizes in that second hand, I pretty much saw the board texture, an overcall and a min-raise and decided I was done with the hand and hit fast fold. I think one of my biggest leaks in zoom atm is not paying attention to stack sizes (especially of people behind me), I need to make a note of that.

Now I'm wondering in that case if a shove over the raise to push out the overcaller would have been better or just call and hope to have dead money in there :/....Nah, I still hold with that action I'm behind nearly all of the time to at least one, and likely both, with either sets, straights or flush-draws though my opinion may change slightly if I have Ks in my hand.

Is AJs profitable enough to call a raise OOP with?

edited my previous post to ask about stack sizes..

yes if your +EV OOP like Erik Sidel

Not to start bitching - but getting raked around ~10bb/100 hurts

OK - here's my revised theory on how zoom poker is good for 2+2ers, and why it's sustainable...

1. With normal ring tables, table selection is a huge factor. Just having one or two players at your table who outclass you means you don't have a positive edge over the table. But knowing when you're being outclassed is tricky, as you don't necessarily have the skill level to see it, and variance masks it - so it can take a while to realise. To make money at normal ring games, you need to be the best player at most tables you play.

2. Most poker players do not read 2+2. Anyone who does participate in these forums is already, or will become, an above average player.

3. In zoom poker, tables are allocated randomly for each hand. So during the course of a session, you are effectively playing against the entire player pool fairly evenly. You will not get stuck with a shark for several hundred hands before you realise it, and sharks will take a lot longer to figure out your leaks. Also, the random allocation means variance "evens out" more quickly, its effects are easier for us poor humans to see hand for hand, and a lot of the cues for interpreting "lucky" players, etc, are removed.

4. In zoom poker, you only need to be better than the average of the entire player pool (by a margin to overcome the rake of course) to be a winning player. And this should benefit the majority of 2+2ers who are above average players, but are not (yet) in the creme de la creme who can dominate every table they play and fully identify and exploit other players' weaknesses while avoiding being exploited themselves.

Makes sense?

Seems like running into quads is an hourly occurence for me at zoom, anyone else experience this?

come back to me when you run quads into a straight flush

At >300 hands/hour it is very likely - especially at full ring.

done well the last two days with zoom. Looks like the idiots jumped online and used up their luck all at once tonight -3BI to runner runner beatings. :/

Do agree strongly with GothNinja though.

Tried to trap with AA, worked beautifully lol.






Not much else I feel like I could have done here; this player was calling anything.

Hand 1 - dont trap at these stakes... But what ever.

Hand 2 - min raise pre is horiffic. If he is a station, 3B massive.

Sounds plausible at first, but on second thoughts, I don't think the size of the field makes much difference.
If we go with the assumption that 33% of players can beat the rake, it doesn't matter if the player pool is 9 players or 999.
If you are playing 9-max, and are one of the 3 best players at the table, you should make money. If you are playing Zoom with 998 players, and you are one of the best 333, you should make money.
If you play on a normal table, there could be a shark at your table that reduces your profit margin, but you're just as likely to have that shark on your Zoom table as on a random 9-max table. Table selection allows you to completely avoid the sharks and focus solely on the fish. Zoom does not.
All other things being equal, Zoom would be less profitable for players that gain a significant edge from table-selecting and avoiding better players.

If - as some people argue - the fish:reg ratio on Zoom is better than picking a random table, then concerns about table selection lessen somewhat. However, since the games on Zoom seem to be nittier than normal tables, I think Zoom would offer lower profits in bb/100 (while conversely offering a higher $/hr due to the faster play). The reason is quite simple. You have a much bigger hand strength edge when you play 18/16 on a table against players with an average VPIP/PFR of 28/6 than on Zoom where the table average might be 20/9 or something like that. Others have denied it, but I think it's true that you will experience more coolers while playing Zoom, because starting hands in Zoom are typically stronger than in standard games.
For my own purposes, standard ring games offer a better winrate, because I can tailor my game to exploit the tendencies of particular villains. (I can loosen up against some, tighten against others). How exactly are you supposed to exploit a typical Zoom player that only plays TT+ and AK? Start playing JJ+ only?
I thought the whole point of Stars getting rid of dealt rake was that that system rewarded nitboxes at the expense of people that actually wanted to play poker. Now Nitzkrieg is here, nitboxes still get rewarded, but now Stars pays out fewer VPPs. They must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Put it this way, if you want to make money playing poker, the last thing you want the fish having is a bloody great FAST FOLD button.

Surly a good majority of people attracted to Zoom poker will be the fish...?

Lets take microgaming and the annon tables they have (for those unaware, its tables but the names of the other players are covered up so the only stats you have are those collected at thats session)... These are fish infested, more so than the standard tables.

Most regs swear not to touch these tables because they belive there edge is reduced by not being able to develop reads / stats on opponents - despite the fact there are more God awful fish.

Not sure as to why fish are attracted to these tables more than the standard tables... Ill speculate because they think its more fun.

Wouldnt the Zoom tables be like this...? Fish get attracted to it because A) They earn more VPP/FPP per session (more hands) B) More fun...?

As a result, I think Zoom poker, for those willing to develop a seperate stratergy for the game, is + ev...

A quick question

How many hands per hour PER TABLE do you get through on a zoom poker 6 max table...? I know the lobby says like 300, but is this per table or if you select all 4...?

Thanks.

What I like about Zoom is you don't have to waste time joining tables. You can instantly get on 4 tables, take a break whenever you want and get back in the action quickly. It is simply an easier process than stacking a bunch of tables.

is anyone having issues with the Stats I played 2K in hands tracked under PT3 but the stats tab only says about 1.7K?

Have a look at the PT3 forums - I've heard (Im not a PT3 user anymore so im unsure on the latest news on it) PT3 and HEM 1/2 have some bugs to iron out with regards to zoom poker...

I cant wait till they let you play 6 tables, $30/hr here i come

When they say 300, it's per table. So if you play 4 tables, you would be expected to play around 1200 hands/hour in average. Of course, it's a ballpark figure, since it's the average for all the players' pool. If you play tighter than the pool's average, you'll probably fast fold your way to more hands per hour than the average.

Is your ROI really that good at zoom? You must either have the worlds best luck or some amazing strategy I'm unaware of.

Nope he just ran really good over a small sample and thinks he can sustain it.

INB4 Busto.