Especially when they play like 3.50s.

PokerStars - $96.49+$3.51|10/20 Ante 2 NL Hi/Lo (6 max) - Omaha Hi/Lo - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

SeeUmadeIT (BTN): 500
Finan$i$t (SB): 500
biood1 (BB): 500
DaCus3 (UTG): 500
Juicy_J_93 (MP): 500
Bryan0707116 (CO): 500

6 players post ante of 2, Finan$i$t posts SB 10, biood1 posts BB 20

Pre Flop: (pot: 42) Juicy_J_93 has 9 5 4 7

fold, fold, Bryan0707116 raises to 498 and is all-in, fold, Finan$i$t calls 488 and is all-in, biood1 calls 478 and is all-in

Flop: (1,506, 3 players) 3 7 8

Turn: (1,506, 3 players) T

River: (1,506, 3 players) 6

Finan$i$t shows K 7 3 2 (High: Flush, King High, Low: 87632)

biood1 shows 6 K A K (High: One Pair, Kings, Low: 8763A)

Bryan0707116 shows Q 5 8 3 (High: Two Pair, Eights and Threes, Low: 87653)

Finan$i$t wins 753
biood1 wins 753

to be honest: I don't think you see something like this in the 3.50s as often as up the limits. They will limp these hands and might go broke on flops, turns and rivers, but they won't be as aggressive preflop.

ye, it was my very first 100$ and i was like:" WHAT THE HELL " when saw that hand

I ended up playing 14 100s yesterday...pretty rare these days to see that many run.

The thing about 100s is that you usually get some tough players playing but if you see a name you dont recognize playing its almost always a guy with too much money who has never even played omaha hl before. It makes for an interesting dynamic.

Yeah, you were the only one with a hand. Must have felt lonely.

hahaha i remember that hand

Just finding out I've played much like a dork. Played even worse when trying to fix it. You just have to keep the good parts and take in some good stuff too. Quite a task, will have to work on my game away from the table more.

Ideally I should try to ensure I'm even a slight winner at the $7s before moving up. I don't like pure railing, want to be the active part, to figure things out by myself. Could do the "railing" when playing!

What did you find out, and how did you "just" suddenly find it out?

It's about studying equities. And how to play them in different postitions, especially the blinds. I have had a concept of how strong hands are, but it has been very crude. Now I'm really into looking at which ace-low hands are bad and when, which hands with at least two lows are playable, which hands without two lows, single suit - no suit - double suit stuff, optimum heads-up play. ICM naturally also allures.

How you "find out" you have to do something is often a part of a process. Somebody here said I am not necessarily fit for the 7s. Most importantly, would you be satisfied with a ROI of 3-4%, I mean "finally" satisfied?

I don't think you should ever be satisfied... but realize improvement is often in stages, not linear. Maybe you are or aren't a "fit" for the 7s now, but that doesn't preclude you from becoming such at a later time.

You should be consistently winning at 3.5s before jumping to 7s consistently.

I'm not sure, but I wouldn't doubt I actually do as well or better at 7s, than at 3.5s, because I have more focus. If I'm at the end of a session and have only one or two 3.5s open, I'll often not play "optimum", as my time isn't worth it at that point.

I don't have that "problem", because I'm playing for the "glory" only, not the money. When thinking about it, it may be that my ultimate goal is to have the highest ROI at the highest stake running. "Best in the world" in other words . Not money-wise, but purely single-table-ROI-wise. There could be a niche for that, because I can spend all possible aquired skill and attention on one table only, probably there aren't other people doing that online?

That's a fine goal. We're talking SNGs right? I guess I find single tabling anything but a higher stakes MTT, or the latter stages of a lesser MTT, isn't really enough to keep my mind from wandering. Of course having more than 8 tables going for me is pure insanity. I find 4-6 tables of SNGs is usually optimum for me, but whatever works best for you.

Yay almost 6000 games b/e patch! Good job i'm a virtual robot and this doesn't bother me in the slightest



Planning on busting out of this mo fo today!

Hi all, it's a great hour for you tomorrow at 12-13 ET, expect PLO Hi regfish to go for 1.5x VPPs

Rough run there Bob...GL getting back on the run good train

Well, I've always thought of hyper regs as of the biggest gamblers among poker regs

And actually breakeven stretches are significantly winning ones due to FPPs... a future good run (we don't know if it will happen - remember, the future doesn't depend on the past - what we can do is play well) will be just a bonus but the life won't threatened in almost any case.

First of all, ICM is only a model. Even if it gives correct finishing position probabilities in the all-in shootout setting (which I'm not convinced of, except for the first place), it doesn't evaluate them precisely in the real setting because players' strategies differ.

Secondly, no modern calculator can compute true ICM equities as such (the 'true' ICM is based on imagining a 'tourney' where chips in players' stacks are removed one by one in a random order) remotely fast. Instead, different approximations are used.

And there's a dispute on which approximation works the best. E.g. there's a discussion in STTF right now about benefits of Ben Roberts' algorithm over the standard Malmuth-Harville (the one you likely use, that assumes that the conditional probab. of players B and C finishing 2nd if A wins are proportional to their stacks etc.) and the Malmuth-Weitzman (assuming that the probab. of busting out next are inverse proportional to players' stacks and distributing the busted player's stack evenly among the remaining ones).

Spot on. 'Post-mortem' Nash equilibrium calcs to learn from mistakes in session reviews are possible for NLHE, but there are so many starting hands in O8 that the brute force algorithm (accounting equities of all possible starting hands against each other) isn't feasible for the Nash equilibrium. Most likely, if an ICM Nash calc for O8 is ever written (which is one of my dreams ), there will be a small number of 'key' starting hands (like key frames in digital videos) and an actual hand will be replaced by the closest (in terms of equity distributions vs ranges) key one.

It's easy to do ICM EV calcs vs concrete hands shown down (which HM2/PT4 do) and vs user-defined ranges (which can be done by hand post-mortem because scoop and split probabilities are all computable), but it's hard to figure out 'unexploitable ranges' of all players, even HU.

All these points are valid (flipya4dinna was wrong about accounting the blinds). NLHE calculators have the 'future game simulation' feature (FGS) that sees 1-5 hands ahead, and hence somewhat accounts for posting blinds and antes and their size, but it delivers a significant improvement only in the case of extremely short stacks and rather flat payout structures (DONs). Of course FGS for O8 isn't achievable on modern PCs - even for NLHE, FGS seeing 4-5 3-max hands ahead takes ages.

Bottom line: don't worry about remotely exact ICM Nash ranges; maybe study toy examples once in a while, but not more than that.

Thanks mate - I know I will appreciate the run goot when it finally happens....

The good thing with hypers is you can get heads up so often, and you can really never be sure you will not end up there. A few double-ups and you're back, even if you just were about to bust. Keeps me alert. I'm spending time with making hand lists at the moment. Quite a task when originating from a 16k+ amount. Another is being in the last third of Theory of Poker, looks I really will finish it! Possible to pick a concept here and there. Bluffing and game theory are on the agenda.

lol ^^ so funny actually how much work you put in while this is just some hobby for you... cant believe someone isthat passionate about poker and doesnt make his living out of it

Yes, haven't found anything better. Most things out there are in fact ****.

This is like charting unknown territory.

You could place me in kind of the same category as Buzz.

Believe it.

I sure didn't make any money from my previous hobbies (golf and skiing).

We usually played golf for "skins." Sometimes I'd win a few bucks but that was dwarfed by the greens fees. And good equipment is expensive. I was passionate about it. Never was any good at it although I practiced for hours. But I still remember a few memorable shots. Feels really good to hit a solid shot. Alas, mostly for me it was whack at the ball and curse.

Lift fees for skiing are steep especially if you take your wife and kids. Ski lodges are also very expensive. And good equipment is expensive.

If making money is what is of interest to you, surely you can figure out a way to make money that is more lucrative than poker.

(Just my opinion).
Buzz

In the end you've got to do something with your life. I have everything I want professionally and in relationships. Have 100 TV-channels, difficult to find anything worth watching, and stupidness flourishes. News: are you joking?

Playing poker is crazy enough for me. You are just doing something for the sake of it.

no i dont play poker just for the money... I like the competition.

I agree about the competition being a big part of it.

It's also one of the purest applications of math and logic.

How many jobs have you had where you wake up and can't wait to start the day, yet set your own hours and make all the decisions yourself?

OTOH, there aren't many jobs where you have to prove yourself every day and can even show up for long stretches and not get paid... or even have to pay to work.

What many would agree on is do what you love.
For those of us that love playing poker, there are few things that can beat it.

This is why I play poker for a living.

True words. But to me lifestyle is waaaay more important than making money.