|
Post by n00b on Aug 31, 2020 15:56:33 GMT -5
I don't think it actually means that. As I understand it, position at the table and the chip stack totals give certain hands more leverage than others. People sometimes fold when they are reasonably sure they have a better hand, but due to the circumstances they can't afford to be wrong. I know a guy who told me he used to make money playing online poker. His go-to strategy was to connect up to servers in Europe at times when he was pretty sure there would be players on-line who had been losing for a while and were starting to get desperate about making their money back for the evening. He would try to take advantage of their bad choices. I'll have to check out the actual book to see what that stat references, but it sounds fishy to me. It could be including preflop action, because I can't imagine that big of a difference on hands that actually saw a flop, let alone turn and river. We have a local guy who used to play in our home game who now has $1.4 million in live tournament winnings. The room I used to play in featured a 5/10 game with Justin Bonomo ($50 million in winnings) and . . . Michael Phelps. It’s an off-hand number without much context. I’m halfway through the book. As a poker player, the poker parts bore me (the book is written for non-poker players). But the psychology parts are very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Aug 31, 2020 16:10:49 GMT -5
Here is the quote from the book. Page 37.
Indeed, when economist Ingo Fiedler analyzed hundreds of thousands of hands played on several online poker sites over a six month period, , he found that the actual best hand won, on average 12% of the time and that less than a third of the hands went to showdown.
I misremembered some of the details, sorry, but there it is.
She got to interview Dan Harrington, kind of did a short profile on him. She said she read everything he wrote because that was what Eric Seidel told her to do.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Aug 31, 2020 16:17:49 GMT -5
I'd contact Dan Harrington and ask him what you asked us.
My best advice to everyone: Aim high.
If you have a question about foreign policy, just contact Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, any number of the living Secretary of States, leading professors. At least one of those doofs will write back.
|
|
bsw11
Sophomore
Posts: 127
|
Post by bsw11 on Aug 31, 2020 18:42:28 GMT -5
Online poker was a lot more fun during the Full Tilt heyday.
Online vs. live poker are two completely different things.
Everyone that first gets into playing online and wins their first tourney or sit-n-go, thinks they're gonna become the next Chris Moneymaker.
You aren't gonna become an elite poker player just because you read a ton of poker books.
Elite poker players are elite at every different format and every different type of poker game. Contrary to popular belief, there are way more poker games out there besides No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em. Other than playing in the WSOP Main Event, Texas Hold 'Em isn't even the favorite game of many full-time pros. Alot of them prefer other formats like PLO.
Tournament poker strategy is completely different than cash game strategy.
Winning at poker isn't about being able to statistically analyze cards or odds better than the people you are playing against.
Most amateur poker players can't handle decision making stress in critical situations. Hence the term "on tilt".
I played during the huge popularity spike of online and live poker 15-ish years ago. Live poker is a grind. 2-3 days of sitting on your ass in sheer boredom waiting on position, cards, and trying to get the read on everyone at your table. Followed by your one shining moment in 2 days when everything comes together and you're all-in on a huge pot, only to get donked on the river by some doofus you've been tracking all day who beat you with 8-3 offsuit.
I went back to hi-lo and ace-checking blackjack. Which is also a huge grind, but at least I'm grinding on it solo against the house, and not having to deal with 7 other Phil Hellmuth's all jawing at me trying to get a tell everytime we get to a showdown.
|
|
bsw11
Sophomore
Posts: 127
|
Post by bsw11 on Aug 31, 2020 18:49:04 GMT -5
Here is the quote from the book. Page 37. Indeed, when economist Ingo Fiedler analyzed hundreds of thousands of hands played on several online poker sites over a six month period, , he found that the actual best hand won, on average 12% of the time and that less than a third of the hands went to showdown.I misremembered some of the details, sorry, but there it is. She got to interview Dan Harrington, kind of did a short profile on him. She said she read everything he wrote because that was what Eric Seidel told her to do. That quote is miscontrued. Most of the time hands are won or folded without a showdown because of position and bet size, and stack size. Those aren't bluffs. In tournament play, if you're the big stack on the table you bully all the small stacks and make bets when your in position that are greater than the pot odds to win the pot. If you're the small stack and only have a few big blinds left to bet on, you're gonna go all-in on any decent hand in position or not, and hope that the big stack either folds, doesn't outflop you, or you get lucky and double up.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 31, 2020 19:28:18 GMT -5
Online poker was a lot more fun during the Full Tilt heyday. Online vs. live poker are two completely different things. Everyone that first gets into playing online and wins their first tourney or sit-n-go, thinks they're gonna become the next Chris Moneymaker. You aren't gonna become an elite poker player just because you read a ton of poker books. Elite poker players are elite at every different format and every different type of poker game. Contrary to popular belief, there are way more poker games out there besides No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em. Other than playing in the WSOP Main Event, Texas Hold 'Em isn't even the favorite game of many full-time pros. Alot of them prefer other formats like PLO. Tournament poker strategy is completely different than cash game strategy. Winning at poker isn't about being able to statistically analyze cards or odds better than the people you are playing against. Most amateur poker players can't handle decision making stress in critical situations. Hence the term "on tilt". I played during the huge popularity spike of online and live poker 15-ish years ago. Live poker is a grind. 2-3 days of sitting on your ass in sheer boredom waiting on position, cards, and trying to get the read on everyone at your table. Followed by your one shining moment in 2 days when everything comes together and you're all-in on a huge pot, only to get donked on the river by some doofus you've been tracking all day who beat you with 8-3 offsuit. I went back to hi-lo and ace-checking blackjack. Which is also a huge grind, but at least I'm grinding on it solo against the house, and not having to deal with 7 other Phil Hellmuth's all jawing at me trying to get a tell everytime we get to a showdown. This is almost exactly my thought as well. I played a lot of live No Limit HoldEm a decade ago. Now it bores me to death. I can do online NL HoldEm, but if I’m playing live, I prefer limit games. Omaha HL is my favorite, but even Limit Hold’Em is better.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 31, 2020 20:10:43 GMT -5
I'm listening. Ah, so you're a nit. In all seriousness, NLHE is a bad game for the average-to-bad poker player. Risk of ruin is too high and people go busto too often. It's why the home game I play in is backboned by retirees- they still have money. PLO is fine, PLO8 is better. Seven card stud HiLo is the best live poker game. Our game runs two tables- one of 1/3 NL and either a 10/20 Omaha HiLo or an uncapped 2/5 NL. I have no idea how we haven't busted half the player pool.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 31, 2020 20:17:22 GMT -5
I'm listening. Ah, so you're a nit. In all seriousness, NLHE is a bad game for the average-to-bad poker player. Risk of ruin is too high and people go busto too often. It's why the home game I play in is backboned by retirees- they still have money. PLO is fine, PLO8 is better. Seven card stud HiLo is the best live poker game. I was a consistently successful nit at low limit NLHE. Helped pay the bills, boring at %*$#. With the number of calling stations in that game, I still believe being a nit is the best way to consistently win. You can fold every hand for two hours and still get 3 callers when you raise to come in preflop. Low limit HoldEm is boring and a crapshoot. Once you get to like 10/20, it’s a really fun game. I agree about Stud HL. Fun game. I’m still more of an Omaha fan though.
|
|
bsw11
Sophomore
Posts: 127
|
Post by bsw11 on Sept 1, 2020 1:15:58 GMT -5
So noob and mervin, what were your best cashouts online? Did you play during the real money days?
My best was, I think, $1750? I got in a 3000 seat tournament with unlimited rebuys until the blinds got to a certain level (I forget what you call that). Anyway, everyone was going all-in on any 2 cards for like the first 15-20 minutes, doubling up or busting out, and then immediately coming back on the rebuy. Everything just lined up for me, I got like 3 monster hands when I was in the big blind and had 2-3 of these all-in donks each time. I accumulated a huge stack and then just played super-tight. Barely made the final table as one of the short stacks, got blinded out in 6th.
Lost all of it within a couple days when I got too big for my britches and entered some bigger money entry events.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 1, 2020 2:54:01 GMT -5
So noob and mervin, what were your best cashouts online? Did you play during the real money days? My best was, I think, $1750? I got in a 3000 seat tournament with unlimited rebuys until the blinds got to a certain level (I forget what you call that). Anyway, everyone was going all-in on any 2 cards for like the first 15-20 minutes, doubling up or busting out, and then immediately coming back on the rebuy. Everything just lined up for me, I got like 3 monster hands when I was in the big blind and had 2-3 of these all-in donks each time. I accumulated a huge stack and then just played super-tight. Barely made the final table as one of the short stacks, got blinded out in 6th. Lost all of it within a couple days when I got too big for my britches and entered some bigger money entry events. I played before Black Friday but only at low stakes. I didn’t have much in the way of disposable income until after online poker died. Couldn’t tell you what my biggest score was. My biggest money maker was grinding SNGs. Very boring and formulaic, but if you have the discipline to stick to the formula, super easy to win.
|
|
bsw11
Sophomore
Posts: 127
|
Post by bsw11 on Sept 1, 2020 9:56:57 GMT -5
So noob and mervin, what were your best cashouts online? Did you play during the real money days? My best was, I think, $1750? I got in a 3000 seat tournament with unlimited rebuys until the blinds got to a certain level (I forget what you call that). Anyway, everyone was going all-in on any 2 cards for like the first 15-20 minutes, doubling up or busting out, and then immediately coming back on the rebuy. Everything just lined up for me, I got like 3 monster hands when I was in the big blind and had 2-3 of these all-in donks each time. I accumulated a huge stack and then just played super-tight. Barely made the final table as one of the short stacks, got blinded out in 6th. Lost all of it within a couple days when I got too big for my britches and entered some bigger money entry events. I played before Black Friday but only at low stakes. I didn’t have much in the way of disposable income until after online poker died. Couldn’t tell you what my biggest score was. My biggest money maker was grinding SNGs. Very boring and formulaic, but if you have the discipline to stick to the formula, super easy to win. Yeah, I used to always test the algorithm on the SnG's. I know that Full Tilt did those with a distinct time limit in mind. So you'd play and when the game decided it was time to end it would deal out hands that forced the issue and force the bets.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 1, 2020 10:40:43 GMT -5
I'm almost strictly a cash game player. Though our home game has moved to weekly online tournaments since covid. Two $60 NLHE, one $60 OE, and one $150 NLHE per week.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Sept 8, 2020 21:03:35 GMT -5
I just followed my own advice. I had some questions about a book I'm reading. So, now, I'm trying to find the author. No luck yet, but I managed to contact his publisher and his last known employer. They're now trying to find him for me.
See. Easy as 1-2-3.
Just go straight to the source.
Now, I have a question about Iran. Time to contact Ollie North.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Sept 9, 2020 11:51:12 GMT -5
Now matter how good you think that you are, the casinos will humble you. Those guys are sharks.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 9, 2020 13:57:52 GMT -5
Now matter how good you think that you are, the casinos will humble you. Those guys are sharks. Until you get to 5/10, you're not really playing with professionals, and even then it's only a couple of people. Everyone you see below 5/10 is a recreational player (with rare exceptions). Some are pretty good, but most everyone you will ever play with in a card room is somewhere bad and awful. My home game is significantly tougher than the average 1/3 or 2/5 game at a casino.
|
|