"Mr Bungle 34" <michael_grov...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141356121.074722.304920@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Bryan K,
> Just wanted to get your thoughts on why you win so much more at Full
> Tilt. I know you are a better player than me and you play higher stakes
> than me so our experiences might not be comparable but at any rate I
> would like to hear your description of the play on Full Tilt and your
> method of beating it.
I think you overestimate me a little. I actually made the previous post in
an attempt to make fun of the OP. It was intended as parody, as I grow
increasingly tired of the "these sites are rigged" posts.
While playing online, I generally stick to micro limits mostly because I'm
afraid of tying up a lot of money in an offshore account whose legality is
ambiguous in nature. Online, I've played everywhere from the $0.01/$0.02
limit games to the $2/$4 limit games, and from the $0.02 NL games to the $1
NL games. I prefer to not have more than a couple hundred dollars tied up
in online accounts at any given time. The highest B&M limit I have ever
played at is a $10-$20 game (only one time), I prefer the $5-$10 game, but I
usually get stuck playing either $3-$6 or a spread limit $2-$10 game.
Primarily, though, I play $0.25/$0.50 LHE online. I rarely deviate from
that anymore these days, though I consider myself a B&M player first and
foremost.
However, I have said in the past, in this group, that I don't believe that
the limits affect the skill at any given table. The players at the table
affet the skill. The limit of the table is just a psychological roadblock
that makes one believe that the skill of one's opponenets is more
formidable.
I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can, though I feel there may
be some players on this forum who could do a better job.
> I'vve only ever played on Stars and have graduated from the 02/04 cent
> games to .25/50, hopefully some day I grow my role and skill enough to
> sit in some big games. I play a boring anf fairly predictable ABC style
> cash game and alot of other players at Stars play that way too. Theres
> always a few maniacs or weak tight players who keep feeding us ABCers
> their chips.
> In the past week I tried FullTilt and probably played 3,000 or so
> hands. Everyone seemed alot more looser and agressive. There were a ton
> of over bets. Even though I was seeing 18-20% of flops my missed flop
> continuation bets in 2 way pots would be re-raised all in by guys that
> were playing 40% of their hands. If I had tptk and faced an all in on
> Stars from a fellow that I know is a solid winning player I know the
> guy has atleast 2 pair and I will never call that. Not so on Tilt,
> watching numerous showdowns I know I was getting pushed off alot of
> hands where I was ahead but didn't want to stack off to find out .It
> just seemed like one big game of russian roulette. I like to play
> small pots with small hands (tptk) and big pots with big hands (boats
> and such).
It sounds to me like you have a very good grasp of one of the most basic
poker concepts I know, which also seems to be one of the most difficult
concepts for so many players to grasp. Small pots with small hands, big
pots with big hands. I kind of like the ring of that.
It also sounds like you're playing NL primarily, which is a game I have yet
to play on FTP.
> The majority of players seemed to have no problem playing
> bottom pair like it was tptk. To top things off I took alot of beats
> because a big pot lured players like bees to honey. A preflop example
> would be guy with Queens raises, I go all in with aces, pair of twos
> calls, KJs calls, and the queens of course call. Of course I'm not the
> 4-1 favorite im used to being in this situation and all too many times
> I would get run down.
Look at it this way.
If you are 0.25 to 1 to beat a single opponent, in the game of poker, you
would be getting a 1 to 1 return on your money against a single opponent.
If a second opponent enters the pot, you are still at 0.25 to 1 to beat each
of those opponents individually. That will actually decrease your chance of
winning the pot to about 0.5 to 1 (someone correct me if my math is slightly
off). However, you are now getting a 2 to 1 return on your money.
Yes, you will lose more often if more people chase you into the pot when you
are holding the nuts. However, when you do win, the pots will be
proportionally larger. If you consistantly get called all-in by 3-4 players
every time you hold AA, your long term winnings will actually be higher than
if you end up heads up every time you hold AA.
> I will admit that being constantly bullied (some might say outplayed)
> coupled with the suckouts would cause me to tilt which surely didn't
> help matters.
Be careful how you use the term outplayed. There is a fine line. If your
opponent tries to put you all-in with a semi-bluff holding middle pair with
an overcard for a kicker (drawing to two pair), and you fold with top pair
and a weak kicker, it doesn't neccesarily mean you were outplayed. On the
same token, and I know this is hard, if you are able to get all of your
opponents' chips into the pot when you are in the lead and have the best
odds to win. you have to consider that a victory even if you lose your
chips. Pot equity is more important to me than the actual chips, and the
best illustration I can give of that is what I stated above about getting a
better return on your money when more people follow you into the pot when
you are holding the nuts. If you are able to get someone who has a 5 to 1
draw all-in while he is only getting 3 to 1 on his chips, then you have made
a winning move regardless of whether or not he catches his draw.
> I know I will need to make changes in my game as I move
> up iin ranks but I feel very confused right now. These guys were
> winning and I thought they were terrible, violating every poker creed I
> have learned. I also reralize that a couple thousand hands is not a
> sufficient sample size so maybe I gave up too soon but the swings were
> driving me crazy, winning huge one day- losing huge the next. On Stars
> I consistently book small wins, some times large wins, sometimes small
> losses.
> What say you?
Of course, your variance is going to increase when you are against
loose-aggressive players. And you are correct in saying that a couple
thousand hands is probalby not a sufficient sample size. However, one thing
that really surprised me when I actually started keeping track of my
statistics (and my opponents') was that some of the players I used to think
were winning players actually aren't. Also, a very valuable aspect of a
tool like Poker Tracker or Poker Office is that I can stay away from the
tables that are overpopulated by winning players (or, if it is your
preference, by overly aggressive players). If you don't use such a tool
already, I strongly recommend it. Some poker sites actually offer the
software for free as part of a signup bonus. If you use Poker Tracker, I
also recommend a program called Poker Ace Hud (I think it costs $20) which
will actively show your opponent's stats overlayed on your hold 'em table
window. You can tell at a glance if the person raising preflop is raising
at a 30% clip or if he hasn't raised preflop in over 300 hands. This can be
a very, very, very small edge, but one preflop fold with something like QQ
when the guy who hasn't raised in over 300 hands is raising in front of you
can seriously be the difference between a winning and a losing session.
NL is a game where it is more difficult to put opponents' correctly on hands
because, on an average hand, they have less opportunities to act, giving one
less information. My advice would be to go back to the tables where you
were doing well at Stars, and use those tables to build your bankroll. When
you feel like you need a challenge, play a couple of session at FT trying to
utilize what you've learned in the meantime. Try not to overdo it at FT
until you start getting a good feel for what these aggressive players are
doing, or unless you start getting hot. I have found that passive-tight
tables tend to be easier to beat, but the loose-aggressive tables are much,
much more profitable over the long term. However, these tables can be
extremely intimidating. I recommend easing into them, and if you take a big
loss, go back to what you are comfortable with until you are able to recover
that loss.
The question you ask is actually one that is difficult to answer because, to
me, it is the heart of poker. Learning to put opponents on hands is an
essential skill in playing long term winning poker. On the tables you are
speaking of, where the actions of your opponents seem so random, the only
real way you can combat that is to gauge how often your opponent sees a
flop, how often he raises before the flop, and make an educated guess on his
possible starting hand ranges based on those numbers. If you have a guy who
sees 70% of all flops and raises preflop 30% of the time, it just might be a
long term EV+ move to call him down with A-rag if you have him heads up.
Heck, you might even consider raising him preflop with an A-rag if you feel
there is a reasonable chance that you are ahead.
I don't feel I play orthodox poker by any means. I play situations more
than I play my cards, and I love nothing more than reraising a maniac when
I'm holding crap because I know he's holding crap as well. There is
nothing I like better than when an opponent chastises me for playing my hand
poorly when I'm stacking a big pot:) I also realize that NLHE isn't my
biggest strength when it comes to poker, so try to take my advice with a
grain of salt. I just find LHE more fun than NLHE.
Seriously, though, from what you stated in this post, it sounds to me like
your game is
...
read more »
