Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Here you can talk about anything that isn't covered by the other categories.
Post Reply
User avatar
Cassius Clay
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:03 pm

Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Cassius Clay »

Eva Yojimbo wrote:After that it was mustering up the courage to learn and play poker for a living, and my eventual success helped tremendously with my self-confidence and gave me a sense of purpose and accomplishment.
Quickly, what's your favorite poker movie?
Image
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Depression

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

Cassius Clay wrote:
Eva Yojimbo wrote:After that it was mustering up the courage to learn and play poker for a living, and my eventual success helped tremendously with my self-confidence and gave me a sense of purpose and accomplishment.
Quickly, what's your favorite poker movie?
I'll say Rounders solely because it helped fuel the poker boom that got me into the game to begin with. That said, there aren't really any good poker movies because they all get the game dead wrong by making it about tells and magic rather than math and decision/game theory... though as far as the "tells and magic" variety goes, Maverick is pretty darn entertaining.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Cassius Clay
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:03 pm

Re: Depression

Post by Cassius Clay »

Rounders is correct.

I watched that movie multiple times when I was a kid, even before I knew the basic rules of poker. I only learned the rules to understand the movie better. Then I learned how to actually play poker well(because there's a huge fucking gap between knowing how to play poker, and knowing how to play poker), which made me lose a little respect for the movie. But then I learned to love it again.
Image
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Depression

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

I learned the basic rules of the game from my dad when I was really young, but it wasn't until the boom that I started really learning how to play strategically. As a kid though I was pretty much convinced I could do Maverick's magic trick of pulling cards at will if I believed hard enough. Good thing I never tried playing that way for real money!
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Cassius Clay
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:03 pm

Re: Depression

Post by Cassius Clay »

Did you study up before getting into it, or learn by pure trial-and-error like me?
Image
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Depression

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

Cassius Clay wrote:Did you study up before getting into it, or learn by pure trial-and-error like me?
I initially dove in head first and went broke really quickly (lost my initial $100 investment). After that I decided to study up for a bit before diving back in, and from then on my study and playing coincided. After that I was never a losing player again, and eventually settled in at the $1/$2 and $2/$4 levels online. At my peak I could actually play around 20 tables at once, but once the boom died down I had to decrease that to about 5-6 because I had to concentrate on maximizing value on each hand to stay profitable.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Cassius Clay
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:03 pm

Re: Depression

Post by Cassius Clay »

Lol 20 tables at once?? Christ, the strategy must be pure math at that point. There's no way you can get a good sense of an opponent's style/tendencies(not simplistic "tells") playing against that many people(unless you're playing against most of the same people all day and have an excellent memory). And my guess is that would only work in cash games. Small tournaments or "sit-n-gos" are a different kind of animal. I didn't have the mathematical discipline to take full advantage of cash games, but sit-n-gos were my thing. The psychological warfare/game theory aspect is much more relevant there...the fact that you can't keep reloading changes so much of the dynamic.

And remind me...what's the average pot size in a $2/$4 cash game?
Image
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

It's pure math plus a rock-solid grasp of fundamental strategies for what hands to play in what position and how to play them given certain variables (folded to you, limps, raises, etc.). Typically I would only have to "focus" once the hand got past the flop and pot was growing. But back when the boom happened there were so many terrible players that you could make more playing as many tables against as many of them as possible (getting in more hands per hour, lessening variance) as opposed to maximizing the value of each hand played. When it died down and the games became saturated with tough regs that was no longer a viable strategy.

After about the first year-or-so I stopped playing sit-n-goes and tourneys because I was just making much more in cash games and I found the more purely mathematical approach to cash games (always make the +EV decision without regard to stack size, tourney level, payout structure, etc.) easier to grasp and implement a more consistent strategic approach (tourney strategy is always changing based on a variety of factors).

No idea what the average pot size is in 2/4 (I never paid much attention to those stats because they changed too much), but it's definitely changed over the years with the changes in playing style where 3, 4, and 5 betting pre-flop became so common.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Cassius Clay
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:03 pm

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Cassius Clay »

Thx to this convo, and watching 'Rounders' on Netflix a few days ago (RIP Martin Landau), I've started playing poker again. I haven't played seriously in almost a decade, but it's like riding a bicycle, apparently. There's a little rust, but after calibrating a few things, I'm back in a groove. I was only 19 years old when I started getting decent at poker, but even though I didn't play all this time, I feel like my decision-making/judgement has improved.
Image
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

I've been on-and-off with it too for the last 4-5 years or so. I also got heavily into it at about the same age (think I started at 18), and it really became my full-time job at about 20. When the boom died and the games got tougher, I also took to buying and selling on Amazon/eBay to have a supplemental source of income, but another upside was that I didn't have to play as much as I was, so I didn't. Since then it's not unusual for me to take breaks for several months before I get back into the grind. But you're right that it's basically like riding a bike and I do find that time off helps your decision making. I think playing everyday all the time inevitably mucks up all the cognitive clockwork that goes into it, and no matter how rational we train ourselves to be it's difficult not to let emotions and recent events affect what we do. Time off kinda clears all the bad-play brain-litter away.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Gendo
Site Admin
Posts: 2882
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:38 pm

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Gendo »

What's your guys' take on Phil Hellmuth?

My only knowledge of serious poker comes from watching various YouTube clips of pro games, and I get the impression that his whole thing is largely an act... maybe one that stems from real personality, but it just feels like his reactions to losing hands are purposefully overblown for publicity and to keep up his image.

But whether that's true or not, I also feel that his sort of character is simply bad for the game. Like, if I were running a tournament, I would ban him from it. The whole thing just seems incredibly childish and uncalled for. I admit that it gives me some pleasure seeing him lose when he does...
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

As a player, there's no denying his tournament skills. He has pretty much every relevant WSOP record (besides money, but that's only because a few years had ridiculously large first place prizes) in terms of final tables, bracelets, and cashes; but it's also pretty well-known that while he's fantastic against bad opponents (which saturate most WSOP fields), he doesn't have the skills to hang with the best nosebleed cash game players, which is why so many of the latter love making fun of him.

As a person, I'm pretty sure his "sore loser" thing isn't an act. I actually watched an hour-long interview with him a show called Fear(less) where he talked about growing up with a successful father who put a lot of pressure on his kids to succeed, and because Phil suffered with ADD he wasn't good at academics, and he wasn't athletic, so all he had to prove himself was games, and when he'd lose it was a severe blow to his ego where he felt like he didn't have anything left to be proud about. I think his "blow-ups" are precisely a result of that inner-child coming out. But there IS an aspect of it that helps his game against bad players, and Phil is smart enough to know this; he knows it makes bad players want to "come after him," and as a result they play hands they shouldn't and make bad decisions solely because he is who he is. Further, his berating players can also manipulate some into playing predictably, which further helps his game; and he's one of the best at "reading" bad players already anyway.

Thing is, most of his blow-ups tend to come after days of playing where he probably hasn't acted out in any significant way, and the cameras are always there waiting for it. So it's often like 2-4 days worth of "Good Phil" followed by a minute or two (that the cameras catch and air) of "Bad Phil." Most tournaments have rules about what lines you can't cross, and most will allow momentary emotional outbursts, just not any kind of sustained harassment or disruption--and as far as the latter goes, Phil is far down the list of annoyances. You should've seen the antics of a player like Will Kassouf at last year's World Series. He drove everyone batty with his relentless chatter and the ridiculous amount of time-wasting he did in making decisions. As a player, I can guarantee you that the "time-wasters," even those that don't say anything, are far more annoying than the Phils out there that just have an emotional outbursts for a few minutes after the hand is over.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
CashRules
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2013
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:08 am
Location: The Barn

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by CashRules »

I loved watching Will Kassouf but if I had been at the table with him I would have seriously considered killing him.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

^ Yeah, that's a case of a player making for entertaining TV viewing (especially when his time-wasting is edited down to just his banter) but a living nightmare for everyone playing with him. I only halfway watched the live airings of this year's WSOP main event, but I kinda heard they employed some new "Will Kassouf" rule about shot clocks, but I didn't quite catch the details.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
CashRules
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2013
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:08 am
Location: The Barn

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by CashRules »

I haven't even watched any of it this year. I actually almost lost interest in the WSOP the year that idiot Jamie Gold won the Main Event. I probably shouldn't be happy that he went broke because of being a degenerate gambler but a part of me thinks he deserved it. He's another one who got away with a lot, to the point of violating the rules quite a bit. But he never got half the negative attention that Kassouf received.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

Was Gold as big of a time-waster as Kassouf? I know he talked a lot but I recall most of his chatter being after he'd made his decisions in an attempt to get others to make the wrong decisions. It was a shame Cunningham couldn't take him down; one of my favorite players and one of the genuinely good guys in the game. He was so close.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
CashRules
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2013
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:08 am
Location: The Barn

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by CashRules »

I like Cunningham but sometimes I think he doesn't know how to use his reputation as an ultra-tight player to his best advantage.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

You may be right, though most of what I saw of him was back in the "edit everything down to the big all-in hands" days of poker broadcasts so it's also hard for me to recall if there were some situations where he could've taken advantage and didn't. Would like to see him play now on a "live" table; I only caught a brief glimpse of him at this year's WSOP Main Event when the camera was randomly roaming among the crowd of tables.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Cassius Clay
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:03 pm

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Cassius Clay »

Hellmuth is a baby, but I think it's also part of his "brand". I used to watch 'Poker After Dark' where a bunch of these guys(Hellmuth, Ivey, Negreanu, etc) would play high-stakes cash-games. Though, I found it entertaining at the time...I would wonder why pros would play such high-stakes against each. Because when you have a bunch of high-caliber pros playing against each other, it reduces the game to pure chance, since they all neutralize each other. I guess the value is watching the kinds of decisions they make in certain spots, but the only thing the players could get out of it is just playing for the fun of it and/or getting exposure and building their brand.

On a related note, one of the many reasons I quit poker was that, as soon as I started making money and realizing that I could actually play professionally, it dawned on me that the only way to make a living is to play against bad players...and that bothered me because it took the fun out of it and I didn't want my livelihood to depend on a potentially unstable poker economy of bad players. There were many other reasons too...like not wanting the IRS coming after me(how do you handle taxes, Eva), losing faith in 'Absolute Poker' after a few suspicious beats where it seemed like an opponent could see my cards or something(plus those fuckers shut down while I had 200 bucks sitting in my account), and getting a job offer that made me feel more comfortable. I do regret quitting though. As I've started playing again, I've noticed I'm more disciplined because I'm actually doing pretty well in cash games(had a couple bad beats last night where some dude had the better boat on me twice, but I'm still in the positive), though I'm playing very low stakes to make sure I can still play. I'm having to retrain my brain to pick my bluffing spots better and to not be too reckless nor too tentative. Some of the folks last night were wondering if I was a hacker, so I guess that's a good sign [laugh].

I didn't realize how muched I missed people raging at me because I've owned them with worse starting hands(like they want their opponents to play the game straight and predictably). They can't think long-run, and don't realize that if was as bad as they really think, that's a good sign for them. They think it's dumb luck, but don't get it's not when I call/raise in late position with suited-connectors I have so many potential ways of winning the pot(I'm looking to potentially bluff since betting big in early position with nothing is something most people are rightfull too scared to do, especially when I know your tendencies, or I'm looking to hit some outs if a bluff doesn't work). But, like I've said, I've had to retrain myself to pick better bluff spots, 'cause I can get a little carried away. Sometimes I can sense when someone isn't very confident in their hand and is uncomfortable with how much they need to risk for it...so I think it's a good place to bluff. Wrong...I've had to remind myself that some people just can't fold because of pride or because they just want to see what you have...and though folding may be the "rational" thing to do, I can't rest my bluffs on people being rational...plus taking advantage of the irrationality of your opponents is kinda the whole point anyway.
Image
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

Cassius Clay wrote:I would wonder why pros would play such high-stakes against each. Because when you have a bunch of high-caliber pros playing against each other, it reduces the game to pure chance, since they all neutralize each other.
There's a couple of reasons:

1. Most all of the top-level pros also happen to be "degenerate gamblers" in the purest sense. That's why you see them making all kinds of prop bets on all kinds of silly things (listening to them tell prop-bet stories is often as fun as watching them play poker.)

2. They're competitive, and it's obviously more competition playing against other top-level pros.

3. They get paid to be on TV. If they figure that they're =EV playing against other players, then the money they get by being on TV makes the decision +EV overall.

Did you ever watch the show High Stakes Poker on GSN? That was probably the best cash game poker show that was ever on TV. Negreanu had an all-time bad run on one of them, losing like $3/4 million overall, with probably the most epic hand being when he lost with a full house to Gus Hansen's quads. He seriously looked ill at the end of that session. It should've stood as consolation to every player who's ever been through a bad run! Here's the hand:

Cassius Clay wrote:On a related note, one of the many reasons I quit poker was that, as soon as I started making money and realizing that I could actually play professionally, it dawned on me that the only way to make a living is to play against bad players...and that bothered me because it took the fun out of it and I didn't want my livelihood to depend on a potentially unstable poker economy of bad players. There were many other reasons too...like not wanting the IRS coming after me(how do you handle taxes, Eva), losing faith in 'Absolute Poker' after a few suspicious beats where it seemed like an opponent could see my cards or something(plus those fuckers shut down while I had 200 bucks sitting in my account), and getting a job offer that made me feel more comfortable. I do regret quitting though. As I've started playing again, I've noticed I'm more disciplined because I'm actually doing pretty well in cash games(had a couple bad beats last night where some dude had the better boat on me twice, but I'm still in the positive), though I'm playing very low stakes to make sure I can still play. I'm having to retrain my brain to pick my bluffing spots better and to not be too reckless nor too tentative. Some of the folks last night were wondering if I was a hacker, so I guess that's a good sign [laugh].
Making money against bad players didn't bother me because even back during the boom I could usually count on at least one or two tough regs at the tables, and I didn't mind mixing it up with them because it helped to sharpen my game. Plus, playing against bad players can pose its own challenge (different bad players make different kinds of mistakes, so figuring them out and knowing the best way to capitalize is a challenge in itself: Sklansky 101). But you were right about the "unstable economy of bad players." By the time the the cavalcade of fish left, I was good enough where I could still make money playing against the mediocre and even better-than-average player, so the only adjustment I had to make was avoiding the real sharks more and paying more attention to the type of mistakes that even mediocre players were making, really focusing on maximizing EV on each hand and not leaving anything out there. But I could certainly understand wanting to take a more stable job than putting up with that, as my winrate definitely dropped (it was like 6BB100 at its height, was cut in about half that eventually), and the supplemental income from selling online definitely helped keep me sane and secure.

Taxes is pretty easy: I mostly let my dad do it. :D He used to briefly work as an accountant so he's pretty good at that stuff. I just had to keep track of my deposits and withdrawals. and he handled the rest.

Yeah, if people are wondering if you're a hacker you're DEFINITELY doing well!
Cassius Clay wrote:I didn't realize how muched I missed people raging at me because I've owned them with worse starting hands(like they want their opponents to play the game straight and predictably). They can't think long-run, and don't realize that if was as bad as they really think, that's a good sign for them. They think it's dumb luck, but don't get it's not when I call/raise in late position with suited-connectors I have so many potential ways of winning the pot(I'm looking to potentially bluff since betting big in early position with nothing is something most people are rightfull too scared to do, especially when I know your tendencies, or I'm looking to hit some outs if a bluff doesn't work). But, like I've said, I've had to retrain myself to pick better bluff spots, 'cause I can get a little carried away. Sometimes I can sense when someone isn't very confident in their hand and is uncomfortable with how much they need to risk for it...so I think it's a good place to bluff. Wrong...I've had to remind myself that some people just can't fold because of pride or because they just want to see what you have...and though folding may be the "rational" thing to do, I can't rest my bluffs on people being rational...plus taking advantage of the irrationality of your opponents is kinda the whole point anyway.
I can't help but nod to all of this. Noting the people that rage is often a good clue as to whether or not they're a bad player, because you're absolutely right that the good/smart players tend to congratulate bad players when they make bad plays and win, because it keeps them playing, and it keeps them playing badly. You'd have to be either a pretty bad or pretty stupid player to rage at someone playing a hand badly and winning.

As far as picking bluff spots, one of the most important things to keep track of are how your opponents react to big bets, even when you're not in the hand. If you ever see a big call with a single pair then I always make a mental note that those players are tough to bluff and I tend to not try. OTOH, if you see a player fold to several big bets, then I make a note that their bluffable. The only thing is that you need more info to note a player as "bluffable" compared to "not bluffable," because when it comes to the latter you can actually see what they call with, while as with the former it's entirely possible they had hands that anyone would've folded (missed draws, eg) rather than close-call hands. About 4:1 is a good ratio I've found. I tend to not like running "cold bluffs," or bluffs against players that I haven't already seen fold. I might do this if I'm new at the table and it seems like a good spot to me where the board favors my range over my opponents (ie, they raise early, I call late, board is low, straightening/flushing, etc.), but I will definitely note how it works out.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

BTW, this is the best song ever to get yourself psyched up for a day of poker:
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Cassius Clay
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:03 pm

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Cassius Clay »

Eva Yojimbo wrote:BTW, this is the best song ever to get yourself psyched up for a day of poker:
Ha! That's HHH's theme song.
Image
User avatar
Cassius Clay
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:03 pm

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Cassius Clay »

So, I've been practicing grinding for the past week(really low stakes...$1 sitngos, $2 buy-in cash games) and I've slowly turned $20 into $60. I know I said it was like riding a bike, but it took me a few days to correct a lot of mistakes I was making. I've gone from winning half the sitngos to winning(or coming 2nd) most of them consistently. Though, I did hit a rough patch where I couldn't win shit, caused by a combination of bad luck and bad play. It was so bad that I began to question whether poker is actually a game of pure luck [laugh]...and I'd just been really lucky in the past. I'm doing ok in cash games as well. I'm seriously considering just saying 'fuck it' and commit to playing poker for a living. Now that I've truly found my groove I'm consistently averaging about $2-$8 an hour in these low stakes games...playing 3 to 4 tables at a time. If I move on to the $5 sitngos and I'm able to be as successful, it could potentially be $10-$40 an hour. Back in the day, I was able to find success playing $20 sitngos. Only unknown is whether the players at that level are too good to beat consistently. *Fingers crossed*

Oh, and I do remember seeing those string of bad beats Negreanu experienced. Brutal. As a poker player, I know the pain...but I don't feel too bad because he's a millionaire.
Image
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

Cassius Clay wrote:Ha! That's HHH's theme song.
I know. That's where I first heard it. :)
Cassius Clay wrote:So, I've been practicing grinding for the past week(really low stakes...$1 sitngos, $2 buy-in cash games) and I've slowly turned $20 into $60. I know I said it was like riding a bike, but it took me a few days to correct a lot of mistakes I was making. I've gone from winning half the sitngos to winning(or coming 2nd) most of them consistently. Though, I did hit a rough patch where I couldn't win shit, caused by a combination of bad luck and bad play. It was so bad that I began to question whether poker is actually a game of pure luck [laugh]...and I'd just been really lucky in the past. I'm doing ok in cash games as well. I'm seriously considering just saying 'fuck it' and commit to playing poker for a living. Now that I've truly found my groove I'm consistently averaging about $2-$8 an hour in these low stakes games...playing 3 to 4 tables at a time. If I move on to the $5 sitngos and I'm able to be as successful, it could potentially be $10-$40 an hour. Back in the day, I was able to find success playing $20 sitngos. Only unknown is whether the players at that level are too good to beat consistently. *Fingers crossed*

Oh, and I do remember seeing those string of bad beats Negreanu experienced. Brutal. As a poker player, I know the pain...but I don't feel too bad because he's a millionaire.
Problem with your hourly earnings math is that leveling up is always logarithmic rather than exponential because the players get better; this is especially true online, and especially true at the lowest levels these days (where the worst players almost exclusively congregate online, and moving up even a level or two means leaving most of them behind). Again, I lament the days of the boom when there was an influx of bad live players who spread out all over the online levels. Now it's fairly rare to see genuinely bad players past $.25/$.50 in the cash games (I don't know about SnG's).

I haven't been playing online much lately but this thread did inspire me to call my dad and some of our friends to try to get the home game back together (we used to do this at least weekly when I was younger). We managed to get 6 people and had a lot of fun over the weekend. Pretty cheap at just $.25/$.50 blinds and $.10 antes. I'd say I played pretty much perfectly, but I had about half-a-dozen coolers over those two days. Ran sets up against backdoor flushes twice, 4/6 against 6/9 on a 578 board, king-high flush against ace-high flush, trips top-kicker against house... and I think a few more I was forgetting. So I ended up a bit better than break even, despite only having one of those coolers (set-over-set) go my way. About the only decision I kicked myself over was folding to a big river bet bluff when I had TPTK on a pretty dry board. His line didn't make much sense but I also know that sometimes you can't figure amateurs out with the logic you use to play hands.

Besides Hol'Em we also played a fun variant I invented called Oklahold'em: each player gets two hole cards, one up card; flop/turn/river; hand must be a combination of two player-cards and three board-cards. It's a fun game; a kind of middle-ground between Hold'Em, Omaha, and Stud.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Cassius Clay
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:03 pm

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Cassius Clay »

Yeah, I figured it unlikely to be that exponential if the players are better at the next level...but it worked in the past. I was surprised that I was able to consistently win 10 and 20 dollar games when I got to that level in the past. Because there really are terrible/average players at all levels...people who just have money to burn and love to gamble. However, the "poker boom" might have been what made playing at those levels profitable.

And I tend not to feel too bad about folding to bluffs if I feel like it's a "good" decision...one I would make over and over again in that situation. In fact, I've actually started to feel proud when I lay down a really good hand...knowing I'm likely beat. In the past, it would have haunted me. I feel the same way about bluffs I attempt that get called. The game you created sounds interesting btw.

Lately, I've been running into really loose "calling stations" that play every hand...and I've been burned a few times. I didn't notice at first, but it made me really tentative/conservative...waiting for really good hands. Partly because I've been trying to trap these fuckers by limping in with a monster hand...which has worked gloriously a couple times. I surprised one loose aggressive, calling station idiot with a monster on the river. From that point on he became really tentative whenever I played a hand...to the point where I was able to bluff him out of a few large pots. It was awesome. But, the problem with waiting for good hands in poker is that you're basically waiting to get lucky...which is a losing game. Then I remembered a clip of Annette Obrestad talking about how she won a tournament playing blind...making decisions simply on position and bet-sizes. There was even a point where she unknowingly folded pocket kings, preflop, under the gun....knowing that an early raise with a re-raise indicates something like AA(or at the very least, no one is letting go of that pot). Realistically if I saw the kings in that position, I probably wouldn't fold(plus what if you were folding Aces preflop?)...but it inspired me to stop being so precious about my cards and play the game with that philosophy. Then I started taking down decent sized pots with nothing, and the game feels fun again.

Edit: Plus, one of the great things about the "playing blind" philosophy is that it forces you to pay really close attention to your opponents tendencies and betting patterns...because that's all you have to go on...rather than sitting back, lazily waiting for cards to hit. And I've been experimenting with different ways of conveying strength post-flop. The typical preflop raise with a continuation bet doesn't convey strength against a lot of players(especially calling station players)...but check-raising...or just calling a bet on flop, and betting first on the turn really fucks with your opponents head. However, it can also be a sign of weakness(like, you have a good hand, but aren't too sure it's a winning hand)...so you have to be careful. These are things I used to get that are coming back to me.
Image
User avatar
Cassius Clay
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:03 pm

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Cassius Clay »

So, I'm doing pretty well at $5 tables so far. But, they seem to be overrun by bots. I played 3 games in a row with players that seemed almost mechanical and predictable in rhythm...making decision very quickly. They are very sophisticated bots that adapt to your style, but since they have predetermined actions, they are easy to figure out after a while. It's so weird...playing bots that are very very good at pokers, but since they aren't human, they can't improvise and adapt as well. It's like a fucking sci-fi movie cliche about AI.

Anyway, I just got done at a sit&go table with what seemed like all bots. I'm in the final 3(top 2 get paid), short-stacked, hanging by a thread...trying to figure out how I'm gonna beat these pretty aggressive bots and their large stacks. I slowly build up my stack(stealing blinds, taking advantage of position, getting a little lucky, etc) until I even up with them. Then I notice that these two fuckers never seem to challenge each other...it dawns on me that their working together. I decided not to say anything and just keep grinding away, stealing blinds and winning pots until I'm the major chip leader. Then I make a stupid mistake and call an all-in bet I shouldn't have...then I'm the short stack again. Now I'm furious and let them know that I'm not fucking dumb and can see what they're doing. I'm ranting for a good minute before one of them finally calls me a sore loser and claims he doesn't know the other guy. I said "yeah right, fuck you. how dumb do you think people are?" I keep ranting at them, telling them that the game will be reported, meanwhile I'm building my stack again and have become chip leader once more. Then I taunt that I'm still gonna win, even with their cheating...and that I'm gonna report either way. Then they finally go up against each other for the first time in about 20-30 minutes and one puts the other out. They either did that to throw people off the scent, or, more likely, because they realize they couldn't accomplish what they wanted(and what they wanted to do is win both 1st and 2nd place, so they could run off with all the money)...and decided to make one of them the major chip leader and have enough chips to bully me, giving them a real shot at 1st. It worked unfortunately, but I almost had em'. They knew by then that if I was the chip leader with only one of them left, they wouldn't have a chance. Fuckers.
Image
User avatar
Cassius Clay
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:03 pm

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Cassius Clay »

Update: Lol absolute poker has decided to give me my $200 back almost a decade later. Quick shout out to this thread because I wouldn't have even thought to file for it if not for this convo.

Also, any guesses as to why I seem to find more consistent, steady success in NL cash games when I don't buy in for the full amount(usually a little less than half), while only playing a hit-n-run style of 30 min sessions at most(as opposed to many hours at a time)? I have my own theories, but I'd be curious to hear from the other poker guys(cash and eva, as far as I can tell). And what the hell happened to Eva? This is why I should read poker books instead of learning everything on my own.
Image
User avatar
CashRules
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2013
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:08 am
Location: The Barn

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by CashRules »

Cassius Clay wrote:Update: Lol absolute poker has decided to give me my $200 back almost a decade later. Quick shout out to this thread because I wouldn't have even thought to file for it if not for this convo.

Also, any guesses as to why I seem to find more consistent, steady success in NL cash games when I don't buy in for the full amount(usually a little less than half), while only playing a hit-n-run style of 30 min sessions at most(as opposed to many hours at a time)? I have my own theories, but I'd be curious to hear from the other poker guys(cash and eva, as far as I can tell). And what the hell happened to Eva? This is why I should read poker books instead of learning everything on my own.

One possibility - Starting with less than 100BB, say 40BB, has a psychological effect that makes you react as though you have less money overall and causes you to play a more cautious, conservative style except with big hands. Tight, aggressive is the best for being a consistent winner for most players (as long as you're not a complete nit who only plays AA, KK, QQ and AKs - yes I've actually known players who come damn close to only playing those four hands unless they're on the button when they might add JJ, TT, AKo and AQs with an occasional 99 and AQo just to appear "loose"). If starting with 40BB does have a subconscious effect that causes you to play better then I say continue going with it even though many, probably most, of the self-appointed experts will say you should never start with less than the full buy-in, usually 100BB, because it costs you money when you have the winning hand in a pre-flop all-in. It also saves you money when that pre-flop all-in is your KK against the other guy's AA and you're a 4 - 1 underdog.

Just as a personal note - I'm a big fan of tight, aggressive play which is why Alan Cunningham is one of my favorites. You have the rare players such as Tom Dwan who "seem" to be good playing a loose aggressive style but there are some serious questions about whether Dwan is really that good or whether he had a wonderful run of luck online against many of the biggest fish in the world (at a time when fish outnumbered skilled players online by a huge margin) and then took advantage of sponsorships to pay his way into tournaments to convince the poker world he's a great player. With a sponsorship you can't lose since you didn't pay your own way in the first place. It's similar to Phil Hellmuth who has a deserved reputation as a great tournament player, and now relies on sponsorships, but you won't find many cash game players who wouldn't practically beg for the chance to be at the same table as Hellmuth. In my own humble opinion, only three of the household names in poker have really earned their reputation (excluding old-timers like Doyle Brunson) and those three are Negreanu, Ivey and Harman. However, Harman has had only limited success in tournaments (she's a cash game expert) and Negreanu has been hit-and-miss for the last several years while Ivey's legal battles have been a huge distraction for him.

Another comment about Dwan - there's some controversy surrounding him that I really haven't paid much attention to but it seems he may have gone broke and wimped out on a bet he made with Dan "Jungleman" Cates concerning a heads-up challenge. But, again, I haven't paid a lot of attention so i may not have the correct version of the story. I will say that if making a side-bet on such a challenge, I'm betting on Jungleman. I don't rate Dwan as low as I rate that cancerous little joke, Jamie Gold, but he's not someone I'd ever care to associate with. Meanwhile I'd like to punch Gold in the face for impersonating a poker player.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

Cassius Clay wrote:Update: Lol absolute poker has decided to give me my $200 back almost a decade later. Quick shout out to this thread because I wouldn't have even thought to file for it if not for this convo.

Also, any guesses as to why I seem to find more consistent, steady success in NL cash games when I don't buy in for the full amount(usually a little less than half), while only playing a hit-n-run style of 30 min sessions at most(as opposed to many hours at a time)? I have my own theories, but I'd be curious to hear from the other poker guys(cash and eva, as far as I can tell). And what the hell happened to Eva? This is why I should read poker books instead of learning everything on my own.
Sorry for the delay, just haven't been online much in the past ~5 months for a variety of reasons (most of them good, thankfully).

Anyway, playing with a short stack changes the dynamic because strategies vary according to stack sizes. In fact, stack sizes are just as important in determining your strategy as knowing how your opponent plays since they represent the most you can win/lose in a hand. As stack sizes shrink, big pairs go up in value and drawing hands go down in value; as stack sizes increase, the reverse is true. With short stacks, you become pot committed much earlier in the hand (pot committed = point of no-return/can't fold), and earlier streets matter more than the turn and river. If you're a tight/aggressive player then playing with a short-stack may be naturally to your advantage, and many players don't adjust correctly. Personally, I prefer playing with as large as stacks as possible because I'm usually confident that I'm either the best player at the table or as good as anyone else, so I want to have everyone covered so that if I hit a big hand against a player with a deep stack I can bust them; or conversely if I'm up against a tight-playing deep-stack I can run a big bluff. I also prefer playing a lot of hands in a loose-aggressive style, mostly firing lots of small-ish bluffs pre-flop/flop in hopes of getting someone to overplay a weak-ish hand if I hit big. That style doesn't work so well with short-stacks, which require more patience.

Also, another reason it's hard to play full buy-ins online is because 100BB is arguably the hardest stack size to play. It's in between small and large, and pairs become the hardest hand to play, despite they're the most common made hand you'll have. One reason is because pairs have triskaidekaphobia (fear of the number 13): when you raise or call a 3-3.5xBB raise the pot is 6-8BB with 97BB stacks remaining, which creates a stack-to-pot size ratio of 13-15. That's too deep to get all in comfortably, but you also can't just fold pairs every time to raises/big bets against competent players or you'll constantly be getting bluffed. The ways around this is to either raise more or raise less pre-flop, but neither is ideal; raising less lets more hands in, which may mean you end up with the same SPR, and it's hard to raise more to get the SPR ratio right for a big pair (you'd ideally want it around 5-7). You can conceivably try to play QQ and under for sets, but that typically leads to too-tight play and you'll lose a lot of value on those big pairs when they're good (which will be most of the time).

Of course, these same hands are ideal for short-stack players: a 6-8BB pot pre-flop with 47BB behind is about 6.5. This doesn't allow any drawing hands (except big unpaired hands) to profitably call to try to bust you. If you face a re-raise it then becomes much easier to 4-bet shove.
Last edited by Eva Yojimbo on Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

CashRules wrote:even though many, probably most, of the self-appointed experts will say you should never start with less than the full buy-in, usually 100BB, because it costs you money when you have the winning hand in a pre-flop all-in...
David Sklansky is one "expert" who advocates a short-stack style, using essentially the same reasoning I used above, in NLHE: Theory & Practice. There's really no disadvantage to playing a short stack in a cash game, especially if you play better with a short stack and especially if your opponents don't correctly adjust to it. It just depends on what style you're most comfortable with and what stack sizes are best for exploiting your opponents' mistakes.
CashRules wrote:You have the rare players such as Tom Dwan who "seem" to be good playing a loose aggressive style but there are some serious questions about whether Dwan is really that good or whether he had a wonderful run of luck online against many of the biggest fish in the world (at a time when fish outnumbered skilled players online by a huge margin) and then took advantage of sponsorships to pay his way into tournaments to convince the poker world he's a great player.
Nah, Dwan's the real deal. If anything, he was one of the big reasons for the online wunderkind boom. While tons of people starting playing after the Moneymaker boom, the biggest advancements in strategy--with the really high-level stuff like REM, GTO, etc.--happened largely after Dwan burst on the scene because they were, in a more primitive form, essentially what he was doing. It included a lot of unorthodox stuff at time that seemed crazy aggressive but had solid mathematical underpinnings. Of course, the game has progressed since he started and the strategy has been refined a lot, so it wouldn't surprise me if he's been bettered by many of the even-younger players since. Hard to believe how fast the game has evolved since the original boom... I can't keep up with it myself anymore (I quit caring a long time ago because I don't play high enough levels where the more advanced stuff is absolutely necessary to win).
CashRules wrote: In my own humble opinion, only three of the household names in poker have really earned their reputation (excluding old-timers like Doyle Brunson) and those three are Negreanu, Ivey and Harman. However, Harman has had only limited success in tournaments (she's a cash game expert) and Negreanu has been hit-and-miss for the last several years while Ivey's legal battles have been a huge distraction for him.
Hmmm, I'd have to think on that one. I think it would depend on where we draw the line at "household names" and "old timers." I mean, I'm most impressed with "old timers" like Erik Seidel who still seem to hang with the youngest generations. Still, I'd probably rather play Seidel than, say, Fedor Holz. :/
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
CashRules
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2013
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:08 am
Location: The Barn

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by CashRules »

Yeah, I could just have a psychological aversion to people who have Tom Dwan's kind of face. Paul Ryan and Ben Shapiro both have "Tom Dwan Face" and I wouldn't mind punching both of them...in the face. Tucker Carlson also has a bit of a Tom Dwan Face thing going on mixed with something else I can't quite figure out.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

CashRules wrote:Yeah, I could just have a psychological aversion to people who have Tom Dwan's kind of face. Paul Ryan and Ben Shapiro both have "Tom Dwan Face" and I wouldn't mind punching both of them...in the face. Tucker Carlson also has a bit of a Tom Dwan Face thing going on mixed with something else I can't quite figure out.
[biggrin] I get what you mean as I kinda have the same feeling about Dwan, especially every time he gets that smirk. Still, this is one of the best bluffs I've ever seen, and Dwan knew EXACTLY where he was at and what he was doing on the turn (afterwards he calls it/bets that Eastgate had the best hand):



^ That hand also perfectly illustrates what I was talking about above with SPRs and pairs. When that much money starts going in the pot, it's hard to feel comfortable with an AA over-pair, or even three-of-a-kind. You're only beating a bluff.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Cassius Clay
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:03 pm

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Cassius Clay »

Image
User avatar
Cassius Clay
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:03 pm

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Cassius Clay »

Update:

Not sure if Eva still comes by but I've been studying my ass off for the past few months. Kinda pulled a Batman...unplugged myself from the internet and went into seclusion - studying the game - while searching for the poker Ra's Al Ghul. Proud to say there's definitely been some major improvements in my game the past couple months. A guy I was playing against(who I've played many games with) told me he looked up my stats on "sharkscope", and that it says I was good. But, then he questioned the legitimacy of the stats because he thinks I should actually be rated much higher. Might be the best compliment I've ever gotten [none].....since he wasn't trying to compliment me, but was legitimately confused. It helped confirm what I suspected about my recent improvement....since poker variance can make it hard to gauge how well you're playing.

In addition to reading books, watching Doug Polk play on his channel was really helpful. Even though I don't quite buy his "pure GTO" style, it still helped me tie a lot of things together....things that seemed too abstract in the books.
Image
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: Poker (Split from Depression thread)

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

I'm back at least for now. Pretty cool video, though I would like to see one that goes into more detail.

Awesome to hear that you've been dedicating so much time and thought to the game. I'm woefully behind on new poker information. There's a high probability that you've already surpassed my level. I've just gotten comfortable at my skill level and stakes because it's been a consistent winner over the years, but I've also kind of lost interest in poker so there hasn't been much impetus to improve my game. I have seen many of Doug Polk's videos and I was rather surprised by how similarly we played and thought. Makes me think that I'm still on a right track even if I often don't consciously think of a lot of the stuff he talks about while playing. What books have you read, btw? Any really great recent ones you'd recommend?
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
Post Reply