The problem I see with trying to multitable too many turbo sng's is you will have tables getting down to 2,3,4 people and they will require too much attention and the pages will be popping up so fast that you will not be able to make great decisions. But I guess it is possible but your ROI might be crushed. Can you imagine if you were HU on 10 tables at the same time?

Ah, but aren't turbo SnGs (9 mans) almost devoid of HU, as in you'll have like 11 big blinds or something by the time you get to headsup?

Granted most have less than about 10 hands HU, good point.

Start with PLO, then when you get comfortable with that try PLO8.

Just play FR if you like it better.

Here's a really dumb question. Playing online, once a hand starts are the cards that are to come set or will they come at random still.

I think it depends on the particular site. My understanding is that at PS it's similar to a live game in that the cards are set, however at FT the cards are continuously shuffled prior to each street being dealt. If you search the specific site, I'm sure you could get the info. you're looking for.

I play live alot and have done very well. I have an 84% win rate in live games. I play 500NL and 2000NL. I played about 10k hands in 50NL and 100NL online and have had mixed results. I do well for awhile and then run into and few bad beats and bust out. I feel like I play a solid game of poker and play. Any ideas why online is so different for me. I used poker tracker and rate as a semi loose aggressive/aggressive player. Also, is there any easy way to find the forum post that I have made in the past to see the answers.


Thanks

This is a meaningless statistic.

It's different for everyone.

Online players are much, much better than live players at the same stakes. There are a number of reasons why:

1 - Live, the lowest stakes are $1/$2 NL. Online, the lowest stakes are $.01/$.02 NL. So online the worst players are playing $.01/$.02 NL. Live they're playing $1/$2 NL. Online, $.01/$.02 NL is SIX levels below $1/$2 NL.
2 - Getting into a live game is far more casual than an online game. Live games often have inexperienced players stumble into the game on their way from the blackjack tables to the slots. Online you need to download and install the software, register an account and figure out a way to deposit. Online takes a far greater level of dedication JUST TO GET STARTED.
3 - When a player wants to make more money live, he moves up in stakes. Online, he multi-tables. In this way online players are able to put much more money in play while limiting their exposure in any one hand and avoid playing with better players. Online $.5/$1 NL players can make a nice living out of multi-tabling. There aren't very many live $1/$2 NL pros.
4 - No HUDs or Pokertracker live.
5 - Online players see many more hands per hour, particularly if they multi-table. More hands per hour equals more experience equals better play.
6 - Free alcohol in many casinos.

Click on your name. This will bring up a small drop-down menu. Select "Find more posts by...".

[/QUOTE]

I like. Great post CMAR.

(Not sure if someone answered this yet cuz it's a couple weeks old - but if I am repeating - my apols)

I have worked in AND played in Casino poker rooms for a decade and have seen the same rule in dozens of rooms, it is:

'The last person to show aggression (bet or raise) is the person required to show first... If there was no aggression on that round this rule applies to the previous round(s) as well' So in the case of your question - Button would have to show first...

Also as an aside - most people are unaware that in nearly every B&M Poker Room, you can request to see the cards of any player who calls you down... ie - you bet the riv. villain calls, you show your hand and he folds face-down... as long as villains cards aren't in 'the muck' you are entitled to seeing what he was calling you down with... it is considered bad form to do this frequently but it is totally within your rights....

ps - correction - I see that the orig. post is actually more like 7 months old, lol... I'm a little slo, eh.... i thought the date was Dec. 6 but was June 12..... duh

ps - how come when I quote from someone's post it doesn't go all neat and blue like everyone else.....

forgive my noobness....

When you deleted some of the orginal quote, you deleted part of the thing that makes it a quote.

It should look like this

[/QUOTE]

... if you suspect collusion.

Asking to see a hand at showdown is accusing someone of cheating. A lot of places handle this very poorly, but if you make a habit of this eventually you will run into problems.

quick question on rules - when someone raises all in for an amount less than the minimum raise, how much does the raise have to be before original raiser has option of reraising?

Here's what Robert's Rules states, which is what I've experienced in NLHE. As noted, there is a half-size rule for limit poker.

All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. Example: Player A bets 100 and player B raises to 200. Player C wishing to raise must raise at least 100 more, making the total bet at least 300. A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.)

Yo. Fiiiiiiiinally made it through the entire thread to make sure I weren't just repeating questions. Kudos to people who have answered the same questions 10+ times without grumble!

Anywho...

I play tons in live tournaments, usually 2-3 tournaments a week and have done for years. I've always got on ok with these, but I seem to just float about doing nothing with my "bankroll" online. I might have $100 in my account and playing every day or so, it'll probably still be at $100 in a few months time. I might get a big win to shove it up a bit, but then not much.

Where's the best place to look for holes in my game? Would Poker Tracker sort this out? Or get back on the books? My main beef is spending too much time adjusting my game to be profitable online, and wind up making my live game suffer because of it (becoming too reliant on software, playing too loose, etc.).

Also - what's people's take on checking it down as a form of collusion? Do people have the right to kick up a stink about it, say - if they're on the bubble? It is kind of cheating isn't it? Like - if the players involved openly say "check this down"? I have a mate that actually gets very angry if people don't check it down with him, but not because it's a bad mathematical play - because there's now less chance of taking someone out. Is it ok to just "assume" collusion, but if it's verbally expressed, it's wrong?

Oh yeah - and when people are talking about starting up and making a bankroll, etc. they almost always do so working the micro stakes ring games. Is this just a preference? Or are there specifics making this better over SnG and MTT? Are they "easier" to show profit? Is it the multi-tabling aspects? I thought the constant rake would eat into profit more than playing tournys?

One more! Bit more of a dumb question this one...

How do you go about telling a mate that he's terrible at poker and really should sort his game out, if his ego is a bit too big to accept it? If he was just another donk then I'd laugh and pick up his losses. But he's a mate and I don't want him throwing cash away; and even worse - I'm sick of hearing his endless bad beat stories that he creates himself through bad play!

He has the attitude that he's a better player than me (and by all means he could be), so I have no place to be telling him he's playing bad.

He hates playing online as well, so getting him into something like Poker Tracker isn't going to work unfortunately.

I say play what you enjoy and work on getting better at them, there are successful tourney players as well as ring game players who primarily play only one type

Getting involved in the strat forums specific to what you play will improve your game immensely. There are some good books available from Harrington and Moshman for tourneys, but I think you'll find the forums can plug specific leaks tailored to the level you're at.

How does he handle talking through some of the hands he's lost from bad play? Maybe let him know of some of the tools you've used to improve, without directly telling him he's doing anything wrong if his ego can't handle it. Ultimately there still may not be anything you can do if he won't listen.

During a tourney when multiple players are involved in a hand, and at least one is all-in, it is perfectly acceptable to check it down. It increases the chances of knocking out the all-in player(s), however it is not acceptable to verbalize this strategy at all.

I've got me about a million sticky threads to work through, but I'm getting over there as fast as I can (Y)

The thing is, the bloke has read books! He's going through Hellmuth's at the moment. He just cant seem to shake his loose aggressive style for appropriate times, especially as his read of the game doesn't allow for such looseness.

When I talk to him about hands, he usually says I'm wrong if we disagree. At the moment I'm trying to get him to come on here, but his internet is down and he seems to think this is exclusively for online players.

I might just give him a few dry slaps if that doesn't work.

Are there situations where checking it down, without verbally saying so, is still a bad move or illegal as such? In satellites for instance?

satellites will often lead to even clearer cases where checking it down is the right move. Like most anything else in poker, the decision is a question of EV. If you get more value by eliminating a player than you can hope to win by betting, you check.

You might figure to win more by betting if a) you have a super-strong hand and suspect that you might get called by a weaker hand, or b) eliminating the player doesn't gain you all that much or c) you have a made but vulnerable hand and would prefer to be heads-up against the all-in player, or d)...

checking it down without discussion is implicit collusion -- coordinated action that benefits a group of players at the expense of somebody outside the coalition -- but that is not against the rules. What would be illegal is to coordinate the collusion by making a verbal agreement. That would be explicit collusion. There's a fine line. I find it humorous that people get upset about this (it's an instinctive reaction, as one guy is depending on another to take an action that benefits the assumed coalition he imagines they belong to, but the other guy is oblivious and "breaks the contract"). But I like to laugh at people generally.

----

It probably isn't ever going to work to pull a friend aside and say "hey, you suck at poker". If he sees you succeed where he fails, though, and one day asks for specific advice, you might be able to help him out. Don't say "I'm glad you asked because there are 47 other things I need to teach you, too...". Just say "well, in this case, the standard logic is..." and if you make a clear case for a better strategy, he'll probably ask about another, and it will get easier.

I don't think it's out of bounds to say "no more bad beat stories, I just don't want to hear them!"

---

people like to assume that everybody wants to play NL cash games, "The Cadillac of Poker". Probably with some justification, that's what many new players are drawn to. It is perfectly reasonable to start with SNG's, as you get a lot of fairly serious play for little investment. Conversely, it seems a lot of players who start at SNGs struggle to move to cash later. If you want to play tournaments go for it. I think they're fun. If you want to play cash, just start playing cash, imo.