Does anyone make much money in online poker?

digiman

I am pretty new to online poker, I started playing on VC BET and on Betfair in the last 2 months. I have probably lost around E30-E40 so far, at the start I would just join a table and then leave it after I doubled my money, we are only talking a euro or so, but enivetively I always seem to go down money so I stopped these playing in these type of games.
I then started playing the tournaments when I joined betfair, the first 1 I ever playerd in I came 5th out of 180 and was in 2nd for quite a bit on the final table, but eventually bowed out in 5th. I won about E30 with a E3 buy in at the start. I then played a few of the 10 player tournaments and usually done pretty well, I came 2nd & 3rd a lot of times and won it once, but then I moved up to the bigger money and started to lose, maybe it was the fact that it was bigger money but I just could not play as well.
What I am wondering is do you lads have a system that you do when you are playing online poker, say like once you have made or lost a certain amount for a day you call it quits and bank that amount, I was trying to come up with something like this but my displine at following these things can sometimes be bad, I just see the pound signs and keep going!
I think I can definitely be good enough to make a few quid every week doing this but I just need some sort of system that I could bank the money when I am doing well.

Marq

I wouldn't worry about it. Nobody's winning. It's rigged so that everyone loses except Betfair's Bots.

djkeogh

well i stick to the one level in STT and play very small stakes all in. On the all in tables i usually bank my money once i have tripled it and then go back in at the starting level again. usually $5. I play the $2 stt on All IN and will stick at them until i have reached at least 100 times the buy-in for the $5 Stt's. I've constantly made 20-50 per night since sticking to this system so my balance is rising nicely so it works well for me.

You need to come up with a system of your own and stick to it. it's all about discipline and not seeing the dollar signs too early as moving up too fast will break your balance.

The Snapper

Check out this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054879926

The Snapper

djkeogh wrote:

I play the $2 stt on All IN. I've constantly made 20-50 per night .

Do you multi table and how many hours a night.

ArmaniJeanss

digiman wrote:

IWhat I am wondering is do you lads have a system that you do when you are playing online poker, say like once you have made or lost a certain amount for a day you call it quits and bank that amount, I was trying to come up with something like this but my displine at following these things can sometimes be bad, I just see the pound signs and keep going!

digiman, I think its a bad idea to use these targets of 'win X' or 'lose X', and leave. You should be more concerned with game selection and the quality of the opposition.
For example if you are the best player at a table, you are confident that the opposition are a load of drunken monkeys, then this is a good table to be at. Suddenly you are wickedly outdrawn 3 hands running and lose your 'X'. Do you leave?. No, it is still a good table for you, reload and keep playing.

(Exceptions to this would be if you are liable to go 'on tilt' due to the bad beats, or reloading would effect your play cause you would be playing outside the comfort level of your bankroll).

And obviously if you are winning X at this poor table, there is really no good reason to leave until the poor players leave, or you start getting tired.

fuzzbox

A system for banking wins, or limiting losses wont help you one tiny bit, if you cant beat the game in the first place.

Hectorjelly

You are taking completly the wrong approach. In order not to go broke you should limit the amount of your bankroll that is exposed at any one time. 5% is good starting point. That means if you have $100 the most you should be able to lose at any one time is $5.

digiman

fuzzbox wrote:

if you cant beat the game in the first place.

This is probably a stupid question but was just wondering what you meant by this?
I am not to in the know when it comes to all the poker sayings that I have seen used on this forum!

Hectorjelly

digiman wrote:

This is probably a stupid question but was just wondering what you meant by this?
I am not to in the know when it comes to all the poker sayings that I have seen used on this forum!

It doesnt matter what system/bankroll guidelines etc a losing player utilises, they will eventually go broke.

wayfarer

digiman wrote:

What I am wondering is do you lads have a system that you do when you are playing online poker, say like once you have made or lost a certain amount for a day you call it quits and bank that amount, I was trying to come up with something like this but my displine at following these things can sometimes be bad, I just see the pound signs and keep going!
I think I can definitely be good enough to make a few quid every week doing this but I just need some sort of system that I could bank the money when I am doing well.

This is the sort of naive gambling strategy employed by someone playing blackjack or roulette and it doesn't make one iota of difference when their game is viewed in the long term. I find it best to view playing poker as consisting of just one long single game - where one session ends and the next is completely arbitrary, and therefore so is your balance after each session. (what does it matter if you play an stt now or next week?)

The only way you will make money from gambling is if you give up forever once you get ahead (I still see a throw of the dice 50 years down the line as being part of the one game) or if you are consistently getting the best of it, which for poker means being better than the other players at the table and nothing else.

eirebhoy

digiman wrote:

but then I moved up to the bigger money and started to lose

If you move up a level you are playing against better players, that's the reason you're losing. Even if you're the richest man in the world, you should start at the bottom of the ladder and work your way up.

Doc Farrell

Hectorjelly wrote:

You are taking completly the wrong approach. In order not to go broke you should limit the amount of your bankroll that is exposed at any one time. 5% is good starting point. That means if you have $100 the most you should be able to lose at any one time is $5.

this is pretty much the best advice anybody can get. where u go from there is whole world of choice.

RoundTower

fuzzbox wrote:

A system for banking wins, or limiting losses wont help you one tiny bit, if you cant beat the game in the first place.

I would say completely the opposite. These systems are only good if you can't beat the game in the first place.

Ronan

Marq wrote:

I wouldn't worry about it. Nobody's winning. It's rigged so that everyone loses except Betfair's Bots.

I average about €100 - €125 a week on Betfair playing the £3 and £5 STT. I find the players on there a lot weaker than on Paddy Power.
I'm going to give VegasBaby a go (when I get the hassle that is Neteller working so I can transfer money accross!) as word on here is some of the players on there aren't to hot.

Drakar

If anyone is giving figures of how much they earn, they need to say how many hours and if they multitable how many tables, or otherwise this can be very misleading for new people thinking that a couple of hours a night and this time next year they could be millionaires! (rodney)

Ronan

8.91 an hour according to Pokercharts... Not trying to mislead anybody!

Norwich Fan Rob

marginally above minimum wage then

i have a cash game system, which I have adopted for the last say 2 years consistently. It has only started to pay off however in the last 5-6 months. A combination of Sklansky, right frame of mind, and improving as a player have made it work. but since it is working now I would reccomend it as a road you should consider taking.

I play 80% of the time 2/4 6 player no limit holdem. I sit down with a maximum of $50 which is usually way below the table norm. the other 20% is 3/6 which i sit down with $60 at.

The idea is that the max you can loose is only a fraction of the max you can win. On average I turn $50 into $300+ 1 out of 4 times. This is over a 2 months period. I will usually leave the table if I turn it into over $500

A couple of key things have helped me turn profitable in the last 6 months
1. cashing out at a certain figure, immediately - whenever I leave the cash there I tend to put on my gambling shoes
2. Only ever depositing the maximum of what it costs me to sit down at two tables
3. Stick rigidly to the game ie. 2/4 or 3/6 holdem - dont change to different stakes and whatever you do dont dabble in high stakes omaha 'the odd time' when you have won some nice cash. dont mix heads up with cash games.
4. Never get too confident when you win some big pots or have a good day.
5. always be aware of tilt

Of course these stakes may be too high for you, maybe not. There is always 50/1 and 1/2 games. BUT, for what you put in i feel the return potential of 2/4 and 3/6 is very high and better.
i always sit down at the tables with the most money at them, this is important because while there are usually some good tight players around, a table with big pots tends to mean there a few loose players about who will pay you off if you play well.

Norwich Fan Rob

totally disagree with the above post............buying in for way under the table average is a recipe for disaster........

1, u dont maximise the return on your good hands.
2, u have limited folding equity
3, as most of the table has u covered, one bad beat can wipe u out, and this can lead to tilt if u just spent an hour or 2 building up your short stack to near the table average.

usually u can spot the fish by looking at the guys who continually buy in short on cash tables.

if a table is good, and still full of fish, why cash out, this is when u have an edge. by cashing out at a certain target, u are only limiting winnings when u are running well.

poker is one big long game, and must be viewed in this way.

Ronan

Norwich Fan Rob wrote:

marginally above minimum wage then

Anything above breaking even is good for me

totally disagree with the above post............buying in for way under the table average is a recipe for disaster........

1, u dont maximise the return on your good hands.
2, u have limited folding equity
3, as most of the table has u covered, one bad beat can wipe u out, and this can lead to tilt if u just spent an hour or 2 building up your short stack to near the table average.

usually u can spot the fish by looking at the guys who continually buy in short on cash tables.

if a table is good, and still full of fish, why cash out, this is when u have an edge. by cashing out at a certain target, u are only limiting winnings when u are running well.

poker is one big long game, and must be viewed in this way.

OK, in reply to your post Rob

firstly, I am assuming you dont practice the method i have mentioned above, so you have no experience of it, and thus i feel your strong disagreement is unjustified.

In response to your points:
1. I dont wait for group 1 or top ten hands, I play a game which revolves around table position tactical betting, and hand groupings. Thus I dont sit down waiting for AA or KK, and so I am not worried about maximising these hands when i hit them, often KK and QQ are the hands that break me online

2. If you are practising the skills of point 1. folding equity doesnt really come into the equation. It doesnt bother me if i raise with a AK, and then get re-raised on the flop if I miss. I have turned $10 into 500 many times, and I dont panic and say ive so much cash in this pot i have to call anyway. I have always disagreed with the norm of putting all your money in if you know you are behind even if you have put more in there already. My philosophy is get out of the pot if the odds are against you.

3. Yes 1 bad beat can wipe you out, but you are missing the point. Start at the table with $300 from your CC, and get a bad beat and youve lost $300 of your cash. Turn 50 into 300 and get a bad beat and you are loosing 50 of your own cash. I know which one i would prefer. Maybe it takes and hour to make that cash or even 2 hours. but which would you rather do? loose 2 hours or loose 250 bucks?


"usually u can spot the fish by looking at the guys who continually buy in short on cash tables"

This is one of the reasons this strategy works well. People such as yourself dont like the intrusion of someone with a short stack coming onto a table where everyone has 2-300+. thus they not only call your raises more but significantly drop the level of the cards they are willing to play because they dont feel they can loose too much heads up against a short stack. They automatically become looser players. Not everyone, but many.

why cash out?
well I dont totally disagree here, the reason I do it is because even if the odds are small in getting a bad beat say for example 1 in 10, even at those odds I dont want to risk my daily profit, so better to get out. Over the last couple of years Ive had so many bad beats that I am a firm beleiver in getting out at the right time. I think you need to be mentally strong to do so, not doing so in the past has cost me a lot of money. Obviously if it is a crap table there is the chance of making much more money, but its not necessarily at a table of fish you make big money.

"Poker is one big long game......"

I am aware of this as much as anyone. Poker is my only source of income, and being that this strategy is earning me quite a decent living, poker philosophy is something i think about daily

Norwich Fan Rob

fair enough rifle, but your opinion is the complete opposite to that of most top players.

In regard to maximising winnings, when did i ever mention premium hands?
Anytime u hit a flop big, or make a nice draw on the turn or river, u want to have enough behind to get paid off properly.

If u are a good player, u should be winning the majority of big pots that arise, so u will maximise profits, by having more in front of u.

U say u dont rely on folding equity, yet u dont wait for monster hands, therefore u give yourself one way of winning a pot instead of 2, where did i mention anything about what money u had invested in a pot already, this is clearly not relevant.

I cant believe that u can make a consistent profit from what u have wrote, but if u can, fair play to u

fuzzbox

The short buy-in system can work. Ed Miller wrote about it.
It relies on the premise that the big stack guys will give too much action to the short stack guys.

However, I think I would rather peel my own eyeballs than play such a system.

Its also incredibly annoying and rude, and wouldnt work very well in a casino (if at all), as the practicioners often buy in for ... say 100 in a 400 game, work it up to 250 (maybe) and then quit, and rejoin with only 100.

I just leave the table if I find one of these guys about.

Drakar

".... annoying and rude ...."

Whatever about playing in a casino, I would not think using such a system in online play could be considered either annoying or rude. I would imagine most small time players who want to make money from poker play online rather than offline (though perhaps that may be an interesting question).

fuzzbox

Drakar wrote:

".... annoying and rude ...."

Whatever about playing in a casino, I would not think using such a system in online play could be considered either annoying or rude. I would imagine most small time players who want to make money from poker play online rather than offline (though perhaps that may be an interesting question).

Well *I* consider it annoying and rude, so I guess its more than just possible that it can be considered such.

If we are gambling, and I have 1k, and you sit down with 100. If, when you win 100, you leave and come back with 100 again, then I can never beat you for more than 100, but you can take 1k from me.

Why would I want to play with somebody like this? Fact is that I wouldnt, and so if I see this behaviour, I leave.

Many online poker sites prevent you from leaving a table, and rejoining the same table with less money than you left with for a period of time, precisely because its really annoying to play with such players.

Rob, if your interested I can PM an account history for the week, i just attempted to cut and paste it here, but it came out a mess.

I think 90% would disagree with this philosophy but then generally i do things a bit differently. I also think that poker is game developing all the time strategically wise, there is always room for new strategies despite what the top players may say.

As far as the strategy being rude etc, to be honest when it comes to online poker, i come across more dickheads then pretty much and game/sport i play, probably because they can hide behind their keyboards. It doesnt really lead me to care about what they think either way. Aside from that its a game of mercenaries online, I dont think etiquette comes into the equation. Perhaps its a different story at a card club -

Culchie

fuzzbox wrote:

If we are gambling, and I have 1k, and you sit down with 100. If, when you win 100, you leave and come back with 100 again, then I can never beat you for more than 100, but you can take 1k from me.

Where is this game, where my 100 can take 1000 from you?

I wanna play.

fuzzbox

fuzzbox wrote:

Well *I* consider it annoying and rude, so I guess its more than just possible that it can be considered such.

If we are gambling, and I have 1k, and you sit down with 100. If, when you win 100, you leave and come back with 100 again, then I can never beat you for more than 100, but you can take 1k from me.

Why would I want to play with somebody like this? Fact is that I wouldnt, and so if I see this behaviour, I leave.

Many online poker sites prevent you from leaving a table, and rejoining the same table with less money than you left with for a period of time, precisely because its really annoying to play with such players.

What you say here is something very different to what i do, I dont leave after winning one pot, mostly leave when i get to 300+ depending. I think the max you can sit down with is 300 also. I agree sitting down winning one pot and leaving is a bit ignorant, but again manners arent something online poker was made for

Culchie

Deleted User wrote:

What you say here is something very different to what i do, I dont leave after winning one pot, mostly leave when i get to 300+ depending. I think the max you can sit down with is 300 also. I agree sitting down winning one pot and leaving is a bit ignorant, but again manners arent something online poker was made for

That's why they have min and max buy-in levels.

As has has been stated, there are different strategies for deep stack and shortstack play, I think this allows both to be fairly employed, without pulling the Michael.

Norwich Fan Rob

your short stack idea makes some degree of sense if the idea is too effectively hit and run, and hope big stacks give u action, but since u stay for a long time at a table, and ultimately build up to a big or average stack, without going broke, the bottom line remains that if u had a bigger stack, u woulda won more with your winning hands, and then after all your play, as u will always be covered, one beat will wipe u out............surely someone else can see the folly in this.

fuzzbox

Norwich Fan Rob wrote:

your short stack idea makes some degree of sense if the idea is too effectively hit and run, and hope big stacks give u action, but since u stay for a long time at a table, and ultimately build up to a big or average stack, without going broke, the bottom line remains that if u had a bigger stack, u woulda won more with your winning hands, and then after all your play, as u will always be covered, one beat will wipe u out............surely someone else can see the folly in this.

Decisions tend to be simpler with a smallish stack ... this is especially true when out of position.

TPTK becomes worth your stack, and you can punish draws, and not get bluffed/semi-bluffed off your hand as much (your TP hand).

By having a shorter stack, you reduce the arsenal of weapons available for use against you - since you dont give as good implied odds, players are not profiting as much by trying to outdraw you.

That is the good part.
The bad part is that you are unable to use those same weapons against others. Your bets dont carry the same weight, so you dont profit as much by drawing, and you find it harder to push somebody else off a hand.
Also, you get paid less when you hit a set and somebody has a big 2nd best hand.

I dont mind guys who log on with less than the max buy in and stay around even when they win.
Its the guys who not only hit and run, but hit, bank, then come back to the same seat with less money that annoy me.

hotspur

I would suggest that the vast majority of money earned by Rifle is from ordinary good poker after he's doubled up early. Otherwise if it were better to always buy in for the minimum then it would be an imperative to leave the table and do the same again at a new one. But staying around and playing properly with a proper stack means that it isn't *really* a system of strategy, it's a system of psychology, he feels more comfortable playing with $500 if he's only bought in at the table for $50, thinking "sure I'm only really risking $50". If that works for him then it's a very good idea, but why that $450 won is more gambleable (new word) than another $450 is a strange one indeed, but at least he recognises and adjusts to his unusual beliefs. I too now play to cash targets rather than for X amount of hours and consider it to be a perfectly fine way to play at shorthanded rather than grinding away. As for whether the shortstacks are annoying, hell yeah, I tripple them up as soon as look at them

Imposter

Playing a shortstack works because the bigger stacks give the shortstacks less respect and pay them off quicker when they themselves hold marginal hands. The disadvantages of playing the shortstack are that you may not get as much as possible from your really good hands but on the other hand you can get more from other hands than you normally might. Once you accumulate a bigger stack you must switch strategies to a more normal game.

Most people playing a small stack are idiots but occasionally you see one who plays it well and these players usually turn a profit on their sessions. Buying in with a short stack may also reduce variance but that's not the objective of playing with the shortstack (if you use a decent strategy).

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Would anyone buy into the WSOP for $5,000 instead of $10,000, in return for half the number of chips?

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Only 5-10% of players make money out of online poker - officially (although i can't find the specific link to this, sorry). It is primarily an enjoyment thing for most people.

djkeogh

i play small stakes NH limit tables between 0.05/.10 and .50/1

Whenever I play I come to the table with 50% the max. i was playing on the 5c/10c tables last night and brought $5 to the table. usually my goal is to take down about $20 then I'll gladly bank and move to a different table or try an STT. Last night i managed to pull down $29 in a matter of 15mins. I should have left then because I know myself my play gets much looser when I have such a profit and I promptly lost $10 losing with a Full House to a higher full house.

This system is working for me very nicely at the moment and maybe 80% of times i leave the table with a profit and the other times i leave with nothing. The bigger the stack the more you feel able to bully the shortstacks so playing as a shortstack invites this bullying which is how you can exploit it and take some decent cash.

Thats the way I'm playing at the moment anyway.

gosplan

the most important thing(which I discovered after time) is playing within your bankroll limits. Set targets and rules as regards this and you really shouldn't go broke, just as long as you're also playing within your skill limits.

Off topic but as regards annoying and rude things...online slow-rolling. It probably derserves another post but playing in a tourney last night wiv big slick. Flop AK7, turn blank, river another 7. I was betting all the way and on the river I was all in, the other player took as long as he possibly could to call each time(maybe he put me on big pair), but on the river he made his quad sevens and literally was one second off the time-out when he called. Bastard deserved some kind of computer freeze and auto-fold.

hotspur

hotspur wrote:

I would suggest that the vast majority of money earned by Rifle is from ordinary good poker after he's doubled up early. Otherwise if it were better to always buy in for the minimum then it would be an imperative to leave the table and do the same again at a new one. But staying around and playing properly with a proper stack means that it isn't *really* a system of strategy, it's a system of psychology, he feels more comfortable playing with $500 if he's only bought in at the table for $50, thinking "sure I'm only really risking $50". If that works for him then it's a very good idea, but why that $450 won is more gambleable (new word) than another $450 is a strange one indeed, but at least he recognises and adjusts to his unusual beliefs. I too now play to cash targets rather than for X amount of hours and consider it to be a perfectly fine way to play at shorthanded rather than grinding away. As for whether the shortstacks are annoying, hell yeah, I tripple them up as soon as look at them

your psychology classes are doing you good it seems:v: also, I dont really see that 500 that ive one as as real a money as the 500 i would have taken from my CC. Possibly seems a bit strange since money is money, but mentally it works for me.

Hectorjelly

A lot of what has been said in this thread is bad psychology mixed with superstition masquerading as poker advice.

NickyOD

Hectorjelly wrote:

A lot of what has been said in this thread is bad psychology mixed with superstition masquerading as poker advice.

Agreed. I've been biting my tongue so hard I can taste the blood but I fear any good contribtions to this thread will fall on deaf ears.

NickyOD

NickyOD wrote:

Agreed. I've been biting my tongue so hard I can taste the blood but I fear any good contribtions to this thread will fall on deaf ears.

Ah yes the 'pro' can condescend now, your ingorance is amazing.

Hector, the reason i posted all of this on the way i play is because it is working. The end goal of playing poker for many is making money. If one could adopt this strategy and psychological approach and make money with it, it has the desired result.

The funny thing is in here, in this particular forum, a number of people seem to think they know it all, and cant seem to process other strategies and methods of approaching the game. They would just rather say 'that cant happen' because it doesnt follow their ethos. Now if you were World champs or making 10's of thousands a week, perhaps that kind of arrogance could be got away with.

Im amazed strategies can be condescended down to when the people who are doing the condescending havent adopted the strategy or attempted to put it into practice. Perhaps being a bit more humble to different approaches, and a constant willingness to learn would be a better approach. These are two of the main things that have made me profitable.

Better to just give me a lengthy ban now Dev, the future doesnt look bright for this thread

Imposter

To be fair El Rifle I think we've had this discussion on stortstack strategy before and Hector and Nicky have given their views (although they don't agree with it). It can be a profitable strategy but a player good enough to make it profitable would likely make more money with a bigger stack.

One more thing, I just read through that PP thread. It is exactly what i am talking about. The guy makes a point and suddenly people are on his back calling him a liar and an idiot. The fact is that the people that were on his back had no idea in the first place either way, they just posted uninformed opinions based on nothing. But they have no problem questioning his integrity.
I thought it was innocent until proven guilty........

Imposter.....fair enough, i havent seen that thread before. The point you make there is an intersting one, far more interesting then the condescending comments above

Hectorjelly

Deleted User wrote:

Hector, the reason i posted all of this on the way i play is because it is working. The end goal of playing poker for many is making money. If one could adopt this strategy and psychological approach and make money with it, it has the desired result.

Poker is a simple game. If you play better than your opponents and you are bankrolled properly then you should buy in to cover them. By buying in short you are implicitly stating that you either dont trust yourself to make decisions on later streets, but any good nl cash game player realises that the turn and river are by far the most important streets. It is impossible to be a big winner if you continually buy in short.

No matter how many posts you make, you cant make the above not true. From your posts it seems clear to me that you have discipline/tilt problems, which is really what you should be discussing if you make a living from poker; not trying to defend a half baked illogical betting system.

Norwich Fan Rob

finally someones come out and called rifles ideas what they are, half baked nonsense.

(rifle u may be a good player, a brilliant one for all i know, but i promise u will make more buying in full than using your approach)

Yes, we all have our strategies, but logically, yours cannot maximise value.
(if u are a winning player u should be concerned with max value, not loss minimising).

If u play for a long session as u do, and dont go broke, and cash out 5,6x your buyin, it is not possible that if u started with a max buyin, that your tank would not be considerably bigger at the end of the session.

RoundTower

fuzzbox wrote:

Many online poker sites prevent you from leaving a table, and rejoining the same table with less money than you left with for a period of time, precisely because its really annoying to play with such players.

Are there any poker sites or cardrooms that do allow you to do this? I have never heard of any.

fuzzbox

RoundTower wrote:

Are there any poker sites or cardrooms that do allow you to do this? I have never heard of any.

Party allows it. Its not fun.

Ardent

RoundTower wrote:

Are there any poker sites or cardrooms that do allow you to do this? I have never heard of any.

This happens on the Tribeca network, i.e., VCP, PPP etc.

Drakar

I wasn't aware of any networks that didn't allow you rejoin with less money, but there obviously are. Ya learn something new hehe.

I wouldn't get people's problem with this though. We've heard people weigh in with the standard theory says you'll earn less with this (not saying I agree or disagree, you would definately have to play in an unusual way I'd imagine), so why wouldn't we want these players coming back to our table unable to capitalise on what standard theory would see to be profitable opportunities?