The Shrine

I got caught up in the scene last year about 5 months before the craze really exploded and have been making steady progress on my 'bankroll'. Last night was my biggest win so far.

I normally only play at night on nights that Kim works (nurse night shifts) and last night i came fuckingly close to making a huge pull.

I'm still happy with 5th, but man, it could of been nicer.

http://www.pokerroom.com/games/tournament/?id=5718219

How much did you start off with?

When i first opened the online account? $100 bucks. This latest tournament was $100 to enter, but obviously the payouts were huge.

I only paid $10 to enter though, by winning a 10 person $10 qualifier.

Congrats on the win.

I play on bugsys myself (TwosAreWild)...mostly because of the free money pots, contests and WPT tourneys that are easy enough to qualify for.

I don't think I'll ever do pay games online though...me and some buddies get together once and a while on vent and cheat through the small pay tourneys. It's too easy to do...I just don't trust them.

For me, if its money I'm looking for, a Hold'em room is the only way to go (luckily, the new casino near me has half a floor dedicated to Holdem and tournies). I know it's safe from cheats and so many of those players are complete tools....heh, but its addicting. Seen the sunrise far too many times from that parking lot.

So ya, check out Bugsy's. I'll give poker room a shot sometime too (which nick were you?).

I was the one in 5th, Lewis3433.

Pokerroom is nice because the larger tournies get about 150-300 entrants, and thats a number i feel i can beat. I first tried Party Poker, but with 3000 people in every tournament it was virtually impossible.

I cant say i've seen people collude online yet, but who knows. The sites say they monitor that stuff pretty closely and if you complain to support they will sometimes refund your entry or give you a ticket to enter another one (or so i've heard form other people).

In Virginia, the closest casino is hours away, so i have to do it online. You get more hands per hour and the rake is less, so i think it is not too bad.

I also play on Bodog, those are my only two accounts, i try and keep it simple and dont chase bonuses.

Like Kali said, I never play online because it's way too easy to cheat. So far I've only played poker in Vegas (outside of nickel games with friends), usually $1-$2 structured limit games. However at such small limits, the play is WAY too unpredictable and the players tend to be pretty bad on average and it's harder to win with good play. It becomes more of a crapshoot as far as winning big, though you will still come out ahead with conservative play.

I may play some higher limit games at some of the local casinos pretty soon to see how I do in those.

Yeah, it's funny how a bad player can actually screw up a good player, due to how unpredictable he is.

SineSwiper wrote:Yeah, it's funny how a bad player can actually screw up a good player, due to how unpredictable he is.

"Professionals are predictable. It's the amateurs that are dangerous."

It seems like professionals just aren't so professional if they can't counteract newbies on the table. Maybe that's why so many new guys are winning major tourneys, while the "professionals" get pushed aside. That's not to say that the new guys haven't played a lot of poker beforehand, but they are just unpredictable enough to blow away the "professionals".

You can equate it to fighting game levels. A intermediate player might get beaten by a Eddy Gordo button masher, but a pro is above all of that shit.

In a no limit tournament the game is often decided by a few key hands. When you limit the number of hands that decide the outcome, it also effectively limits what statistics can get you. If you go all in on 2 hands with 70% chance to win there's a 51% chance you'll end up with 0 and lose even though you made the best decision you could have at each hand.

Now if you play 100 hands with a 70% chance to win there's no way you're not going to come out ahead after 100 hands, but for 2, it's anyone's guess.

SineSwiper wrote:It seems like professionals just aren't so professional if they can't counteract newbies on the table. Maybe that's why so many new guys are winning major tourneys, while the "professionals" get pushed aside. That's not to say that the new guys haven't played a lot of poker beforehand, but they are just unpredictable enough to blow away the "professionals".

Luck is the great equalizer in poker. Like Don said, in a money (i.e. non-tournament) game, the better poker players are going to put themselves in winning positions more often than not, which will allow them to come out ahead over time. But, in tournament situations where so many of the key hands can result in huge swings, luck will out. Observe:

Here are the approximate preflop odds of a hand winning in a heads-up situation.

# Overpair vs. underpair (ex. AA vs. 77): Overpair ~80% favorite
# Pocket aces vs. non-pair: Aces are ~80% to ~86% favorite
# Pocket aces vs. suited connectors: Aces are ~77% favorite
# Pair vs. two overcards (ex. 66 vs. AK): Pair is ~51% to ~57% favorite, this is commonly called a "race" or "coin flip"
# Pair vs. one overcard unsuited (ex. 66 vs. A2o): Pair ~70% favorite
# Pair vs. one overcard suited (ex. 66 vs. A2s): Pair ~66% favorite
# Two overcards vs. two non-pair undercards (ex. AK vs. 94): Overcards ~57% to ~62% favorite
# One overcard vs. two non-pair undercards (ex. A2 vs. 95): One overcard hand ~50% to ~55% favorite
# Dominated hands (ex. AK vs. AQ or J5 vs. J4): Hand with better kicker is ~69% to ~75% favorite.

Even in the best case, you're only an 86% favorite. It doesn't matter how "good" a "professional" is - even if some complete idiot goes all-in against his AKs with 27o, if the flop comes down 2-2-7 the pro still loses.

Sine wrote:You can equate it to fighting game levels. A intermediate player might get beaten by a Eddy Gordo button masher, but a pro is above all of that shit.

I don't agree with that at all. Fighting games are skill games with very little luck involved (albeit real-time), and are closer in spirit to games like checkers or chess.

Most pros make their salary in cash games and not tournaments. That way, they can effectively apply long term strategy and come out ahead. All you really need is a roll big enough to handle the occassional swings for the level you play. The tournaments are usually just fun for them with the hopes of getting lucky and pulling in a moster payday.

thought I'd sneak into this thread for a first post...

*looks around, makes sure theres no-one lurking...*

I like my poker too, though I only maintain a small roll and play micro limit, I really enjoy it. Grats on the placing Flip, looks good.

My expectations are to have a lot of fun and do better than break even, which I do. I apply the longterm strategy of matching my earn rate to 1 large bet per hour of play, and when I normally play $1 tables it means I'm not going to make a living off it.

I do occasionally play $10/$20 games and up to $50 tourneys if I feel like gambling for some good money. Usually just to put a roll together or too try and win a tourney entry.

I started playing at a live casino recently and its even more fun than online. They're starting to hold some big tourneys now with the poker boom, so it should be good.

Anyway, hi from me, this place seems cool and I hope to provide good posting...

Kitch wrote:thought I'd sneak into this thread for a first post...

*looks around, makes sure theres no-one lurking...*

I like my poker too, though I only maintain a small roll and play micro limit, I really enjoy it. Grats on the placing Flip, looks good.

My expectations are to have a lot of fun and do better than break even, which I do. I apply the longterm strategy of matching my earn rate to 1 large bet per hour of play, and when I normally play $1 tables it means I'm not going to make a living off it.

I do occasionally play $10/$20 games and up to $50 tourneys if I feel like gambling for some good money. Usually just to put a roll together or too try and win a tourney entry.

I started playing at a live casino recently and its even more fun than online. They're starting to hold some big tourneys now with the poker boom, so it should be good.

Anyway, hi from me, this place seems cool and I hope to provide good posting...

*reads your sig and laughs* You were serious. *lol* its good to have you around.

I dont play much myself, though I am often invited. I dont know jus tcan never seem to get into it.

SineSwiper wrote:It seems like professionals just aren't so professional if they can't counteract newbies on the table. Maybe that's why so many new guys are winning major tourneys, while the "professionals" get pushed aside. That's not to say that the new guys haven't played a lot of poker beforehand, but they are just unpredictable enough to blow away the "professionals".

You can equate it to fighting game levels. A intermediate player might get beaten by a Eddy Gordo button masher, but a pro is above all of that shit.

The thing about Hold 'Em is that you share 5 of your 7 cards with everyone else, so it's easy to mess with everyone, even if you don't mean to. The "pros" always try and work the other players, figure them out, get their tells. If you can effectively take that away from them, they're at a great disadvantage.

I watch the tourneys on TV and everyone goes nuts when someone goes all in on a 7-6 offsuit. Makes "pros" fold and the analysts shake their heads. But they're very effective and often are on the final table. Usually it's the guys with the blind luck of getting good cards in the hole every freakin' hand that win, but it's the aggressiveness of a lot of these young guys that forces the play.

Smart aggressiveness and luck will win you almost any poker tournament. Unfortunately for me, my luck is god awful, so I can never play for real cash.

I think someone said this already, but you're not much of a pro if a random guy being aggressive in a way that defies statistics can totally mess you up. Either that or being a pro doesn't mean much, which seems to be true in tournaments.

And poker analysts are absolutely worthless. If I can see both guys' hands I can of course tell you why each move was good or bad. What they should do is each analyst can only see one person's hand and then have them talk about it. Of course I suspect you'll discover the analysts don't know jack if they actually did this.

Actually, watching poker tournament is like seeing people trying to rationalize decisions that are pretty close to random. Game theory says random beats any attempt to try figure someone out since random, by definition, can't be figured out, but you sure won't stop people pretending they can, especially the analysts who can see everything.

Hold 'Em isn't real poker, that's just it. In real (draw) poker, it's all about playing the player, not the cards. In Hold 'Em, you really can't do that nearly as well unless you have a poor player. You can ignore the other player's methods completely and purely play the odds and win. That's how you got a lot of the Internet guys doin' well and winning the World Series of Poker.

It's the old-time players that don't play the odds but the people that get screwed. That's what I've noticed watching it on TV. You get these younger guys who are all odd and have large melons by going all in on a 35-40% chance of winning (after seeing the flop they know their odds well) that throws the pros off and makes the analysts shake their heads. But they win.

Also, Hold 'Em is a much simpler game to understand. Odds, that's really about it. Well, luck as well, as in any card game, but you play your cards based on odds. You can alter your play on what you think the others are doing (ie. being overly aggressive or bluffing), but you don't have to. In draw poker, it's all about playing the other players, that's why makes it so complicated. Hold 'Em all but eliminates that complication and makes it very easy to understand. That's why it's so popular.

Don Wang wrote:And poker analysts are absolutely worthless. If I can see both guys' hands I can of course tell you why each move was good or bad. What they should do is each analyst can only see one person's hand and then have them talk about it. Of course I suspect you'll discover the analysts don't know jack if they actually did this.

Most of the analyst were former poker players, and they can still hold their own today. They also give the people betting a benefit of a doubt when they judge their ability. For example, they know the cards, and they know that the guy is going to lose, but they still call it a good play, because given what the actual player sees, it was a good call.

It doesn't really matter if the analysts actually know anything about Poker since being able to see all the cards and the % of winning means you can't possibly come up with the wrong analysis.

If A has a higher winning % and wins, it's because A is an expert and played the odds and read his opponent correctly.

If A has a higher winning % and B folds, it's because B was able to read the opponent and fold early.

If A has a higher winning % and A folds, then it's because B was an expert and able to bluff the other guy into folding with a superior hand.

No matter how you look at it, you can't analyze it wrong if you already know the outcome. Of course every play is a good play when you're always on the winning side.

I think my post and your post collide. So you're basically saying the opposite of what I'm saying. At this point, there would be no reason to continue a "yes I am, no you aren't" argument.

Sine, it's *Don*...there's ALWAYS a reason to continue that sort of argument, when you're Don.

Don Wang wrote:Of course every play is a good play when you're always on the winning side.

That is absolutely not true. You can make a terrible read, call an AI bet, be the huge underdog, suck out and win the hand, but you will not see people telling you it was a good play.

Again, a pro isnt a pro because he wins all the time. Yes, the amateurs will win occassionally, and that doesnt mean he is as good as a pro. The pro makes his living out of poker because of long-term theory.

It is possible to be good and not win all the time. It is also possible to suck yet win one big tourny. Thats poker.

What I mean by a good play is like this:

Guy A has a better hand and will win if they keep on playing. Guy A makes a random medium sized bet.

If B calls then it'll be like: "A uses his skill to keep the other guy playing in a losing hand! What skills!"

If B folds it'll be like: "B uses his skills and realize he's behind and folds!"

And, in very rare cases, sometimes B raises the bet. If B ends up losing use the first quote and add that A sees through B's plan to bluff. If B ends up scaring A away, you can easily find some way to justify it was actually a good move.

No matter what the analysts can never be wrong. Someone always had a good move and they're always right.

Still not ture. You obviously never watch Celebrity Poker Showdown where all they do is make fun of the celebrities odd ass betting.

There is defenitely thought required in the amount of which to bet and i've seen the announcers jump all over an odd bet from a pro.

If a pro, who knows the odds of somone drawing out to a flush when 2 of a suit come on the flop, doesnt bet the correct amount to push somone who is flush chasing out of the pot, the analysts will grill him big time.

I have to agree with the announcers = asses theory.

Basically, they're leeches and although some have a great deal of poker knowledge, its like commentating on anything else. Like racing commentators who say inspired things like: "Oh he needs to overtake now to be in with a chance of winning..." Duh!

Or football commentators who are basically employed to mention the sponsor at every opportunity and provide background noise.

Poker commentators generally know what the usual play for a given hand is. The good ones know the players and how aggressive, tight or tricky they are. They also know what the other guy's holding, but fundamentally anything they say is pure conjecture and speculation and is only another part of the entertainment of watching poker live.

As for pros not being good if they lose to amateurs, this theory doesnt hold out. In Texas Hold Em the ONLY strategy that wins is the seriously long term view. Natural swing, a slight downturn in your mood or decision making or just plain old luck can see people lose games... but it's no coincidence that there are the same players who show up at the the world poker tour final table over and over. A true pro who plays poker professionally might expect to win 51% of the time and lose 49% of the time. Its within that 2% that your living and winnings are made. A standard formula of solid play is an expectation to win one large bet per hour, so if you play $10/$20 cash games, you should be up $20 after an hour. A 10 hour session should see you up by around $200. Doesnt always work that cleanly, but over a year, it'll balance out.

The reason that a few internet players are doing well (and I haven't seen all that many who make the transition form net to live really well) is that they didnt know they could be good players until the internet introduced them. Many times I've seen internet players get eaten alive by pros because the live game is a different kettle of fish, though in a few cases a really good player will come from an internet introduction to the game and will stand out. I think the focus on these players at the moment is slightly skewing the perception of pros vs. internet. The internet boom has produced a lot of new very good players and they might have a great game or get lucky, but there are very few elite players that have come solely from the internet.