Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Does anyone make much money in online poker?

13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,754 ianmc38


    I think this is a really interesting discussion and i dont think its as black and white as buying in for the maximum.

    The interesting part comes from what Dev has said. If I'm shortstacked, i see a cheap flop and hit an open ender or a flush draw, then ill often be getting good odds to call with. If i have the max buy-in then its far more likely that I won't see the river if i miss on the turn, and just as likely i wont be given the correct odds on the flop to even see the turn.

    At the same time, I'll never have good implied odds to call with draws against a shortstack, therefore, that negates that whole factor if I'm hu ina pot vs a shortstack.

    From my point of view, I dont want to hit the nuts and double up for 1/10th or 1/5th of the max buy-in. I want to doule my stack or make more than just a small double through. Thats why i always buy-in for the max. I do think that there are many advantages of playing with 1. But in the case where someone doubles through or triples through, whats the move then? Change table and play shortstacked again or to continue on the same table with a big stack?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,657 ✭✭✭ Scotty #


    ianmc38 wrote:
    But in the case where someone doubles through or triples through, whats the move then? Change table and play shortstacked again or to continue on the same table with a big stack?

    I continue at the same table

    Again, each to their own. I suppose my reasons, haven't really thought about it before now, are to minimise losses. I find in a cash game ,and I'm sure loads will disagree on this too, that you usually make your money in the first 40-60 mins and it kind of dries up after that. I could be up to $200 or could be still floating around the $20's. If I go bust, with my $20, I almost never sit down at the same table again. The exception is when I'll sit down with $20, make a couple of really really awful plays, making sure to show my hand, and buy back in for $20-$40. When you do this players think your a moron and seem to willing to call your over bet when they have nothing themselves. Can be very profitable. Try it.
    ianmc38 wrote:
    I think this is a really interesting discussion

    I totally agree. Its the exact reason forums like this should exist. One of the best threads here IMO as long as people can agree to disagree and not slate each other for having a different view.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 Hectorjelly


    ocallagh wrote:
    I don't play cash games, and i have no idea if buying in for short has benefits.. but Barry Greenstein buys in for the minimum

    AFAIK he plays almost entirely limit, or no limit with a very short cap so what he buys in for is pretty much immaterial.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 Hectorjelly


    Scotty # wrote:
    mmm....lots of interesting and different opinions here then!! But that's all they are OPINIONS!! There's no hard rules on this. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

    Err no. Unfortunately for the hippy in all of us, Poker isnt some magical wonderland where there are no incontrovertable truths.
    Scotty # wrote:
    I suppose my reasons, haven't really thought about it before now, are to minimise losses.

    no comment


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,754 ianmc38


    Scotty # wrote:
    I suppose my reasons, haven't really thought about it before now, are to minimise losses.

    Scotty please tell me that was intended as a joke.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,657 ✭✭✭ Scotty #


    ianmc38 wrote:
    Scotty please tell me that was intended as a joke.


    Sorry guys I'm obviously not as proficient as you two "experts". Whats wrong with minimising losses? Or do you win at every table you sit at and there for sitting down with the max would be the obvious thing to do.

    There are pros and cons to both arguments and its down to individual preference in the end.
    Poker isn't some magical wonderland where there are no incontrovertable truths.

    Hector if your going to try and impress me with big words then spell them correctly.:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,400 TacT


    Point is that you shouldn't need to minimise losses when you sit down to play. You do need to maximise winnings though. The only way to achieve that is playing with a proper stack. Or am I missing something?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,754 ianmc38


    Scotty # wrote:
    Sorry guys I'm obviously not as proficient as you two "experts". Whats wrong with minimising losses?

    I like most other players, play to maximize winnings. To say you play to minimize losses is stating that you have no confidence in your play and you buy in at the lowest amount everytime so that you dont lose too much money. There's absolutely no need to be rude and patronise me by calling me an expert, something i never claimed to be.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 Hectorjelly


    Scotty # wrote:
    Sorry guys I'm obviously not as proficient as you two "experts". Whats wrong with minimising losses? Or do you win at every table you sit at and there for sitting down with the max would be the obvious thing to do.

    I limit my losses to a certain extent by playing at a limit at which I am properly bankrolled. However if my main concern when sitting down was limiting losses I would probably find a more profitable job.
    Scotty # wrote:
    There are pros and cons to both arguments and its down to individual preference in the end.

    No its not, buying in as a shortstack under the conditions I spelled out is a mistake.
    Scotty # wrote:
    Hector if your going to try and impress me with big words then spell them correctly.:D

    Im too busy to spell check everything I write.


  • Registered Users Posts: 683 The Snapper


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

    Seen it done on Vegas Baby. Not very nice.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,657 ✭✭✭ Scotty #


    OK. I apologise if I offended anyone.

    Maybe my "minimising losses" comment was not quiet accurate. I normally like to wager $10-$30 at a time whether it be an STT, MTT or cash game. My online losses are generally caused by bad bankroll management from moving up the stakes when I shouldn't. Its a lack of discipline which I would appreciate any advice on by the way!!

    If I am going to play with $20 in a cash game I find it far more profitable to sit in to a .50/$1 game with $20(twice the min) than a .5/.10 game with the max ($20)


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,754 ianmc38


    Scotty # wrote:
    OK. I apologise if I offended anyone.

    Maybe my "minimising losses" comment was not quiet accurate. I normally like to wager $10-$30 at a time whether it be an STT, MTT or cash game. My online losses are generally caused by bad bankroll management from moving up the stakes when I shouldn't. Its a lack of discipline which I would appreciate any advice on by the way!!

    If I am going to play with $20 in a cash game I find it far more profitable to sit in to a .50/$1 game with $20(twice the min) than a .5/.10 game with the max ($20)

    No problem. They way you worded it was as if you expect to lose everytime you play poker. I've watched John Juanda playing $25/$50 on Full Tilt and he often buys-in with a shortstack, so i think its really whatever you're comfortable playing with.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 Hectorjelly


    ianmc38 wrote:
    I've watched John Juanda playing $25/$50 on Full Tilt and he often buys-in with a shortstack, so i think its really whatever you're comfortable playing with.

    This type of argument debases the whole thread. We are talking about normal stakes games in which you are the best player at the table. What tournament superstars do at ultra high stakes games at which they are probably the fish is imaterial.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,754 ianmc38


    at which they are probably the fish is imaterial.

    LOL.

    As an aside, many people dont like playing with a full stack often as a result of bankroll issues. At the same time, at the micro-limits, there are many people who are intimidated by a large stack and wont pay off his good hands. Someone buying in for half the max at 0.05/0.10 will often make far more from similar sized stacks as there seems to be a belief that full stack = good player at the micro-limits. I used to find this all the time when i played at that level and at 0.10/0.20 and even at 0.25/0.50


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,327 ✭✭✭ hotspur


    We are talking about normal stakes games in which you are the best player at the table.

    I think the point of the short buy in is the players aren't the best players at the table, they don't want to engage in the subtlety of big stack flop, turn, and river play but they feel that they can compete at a lstake evel above their skill by negating the nuances of this play with their all in strategy. So I think you are the only one talking about the optimal strategy if you are the best player at the table, maybe that's what's causing the discrepency in opinions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,086 ✭✭✭✭ ArmaniJeanss


    Err no. Unfortunately for the hippy in all of us, Poker isnt some magical wonderland where there are no incontrovertable truths.
    Hector
    When I first started watching/playing snooker in the 80s it was accepted that you picked off all the loose reds before attacking the pack. All the pros and commentators said this. Today 95% of pros will attack the pack at the earliest opportunity.
    In football in the 1960s some of the top teams and coaches played 4-2-4 and 3-2-5 formations. This would be laughed at today.
    In darts, the way certain 3-dart finishes are attempted is hugely different to the way Bristow&Wilson etc would have attempted them.
    Why should poker be any different? Can you accept that its possible that what all 'right-thinking' people believe to be correct may be looked back on in 10 years as being incorrect.
    The thing is, I think you are correct on this issue, but the history and development of other sports/games suggests that a time will come when the accepted wisdom may be different.
    AJs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭ bohsman


    Hector
    When I first started watching/playing snooker in the 80s it was accepted that you picked off all the loose reds before attacking the pack. All the pros and commentators said this. Today 95% of pros will attack the pack at the earliest opportunity.
    In football in the 1960s some of the top teams and coaches played 4-2-4 and 3-2-5 formations. This would be laughed at today.
    In darts, the way certain 3-dart finishes are attempted is hugely different to the way Bristow&Wilson etc would have attempted them.
    Why should poker be any different? Can you accept that its possible that what all 'right-thinking' people believe to be correct may be looked back on in 10 years as being incorrect.
    The thing is, I think you are correct on this issue, but the history and development of other sports/games suggests that a time will come when the accepted wisdom may be different.
    AJs.

    Its not wisdom its maths. If you can accept that one day 2+2 will equal 5 then yea sure. Thing is its much more likely that the game will change rather than the thinking, It used to ba all 5card draw, then when the casinos started it was nearly only 7card stud


  • Administrators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,414 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ DeVore


    The thing is, I think you are correct on this issue, but the history and development of other sports/games suggests that a time will come when the accepted wisdom may be different.

    It very much has already with the adoption of the super aggressive approach. However Poker is a relative game and so a time will come when all those UTG raising scandies will get nailed by people only waiting for big hands to pick them off with. For each action an equal and opposite reaction. The system could come to equilibrium since the rules of the game don't change but I very much doubt it.

    However as HJ says, somethings are just always wrong or right. There are things that you just shouldnt do in poker. Is this one of them? I dunno. I'm still refusing to get fundamentalist about this as I think there's a huge benefit to teasing out *why* one strategy is better then the other.

    DeV.


  • Administrators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,414 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ DeVore


    bohsman wrote:
    Its not wisdom its maths. If you can accept that one day 2+2 will equal 5 then yea sure. Thing is its much more likely that the game will change rather than the thinking, It used to ba all 5card draw, then when the casinos started it was nearly only 7card stud
    I havent seen anyone put forward any hard maths about this. As I've said, I play with a big stack in cash games now but noone here has put forward anything close to a hard maths proposal as to why thats right.

    I've seen a lot of personality-pressure and some "this is a FACT" (oooh capitals it must be true) argument, some decent logic but very little maths actually. I doubt it could be applied to it for the soft psychological issues I've highlighted. I don't doubt HJ is right, and I put my money where my mouth is but I see little in the way of formal proof or calculations in this thread.

    DeVils AdVocate :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭ bohsman


    DeVore wrote:
    I havent seen anyone put forward any hard maths about this. As I've said, I play with a big stack in cash games now but noone here has put forward anything close to a hard maths proposal as to why thats right.

    I've seen a lot of personality-pressure and some "this is a FACT" (oooh capitals it must be true) argument, some decent logic but very little maths actually. I doubt it could be applied to it for the soft psychological issues I've highlighted. I don't doubt HJ is right, and I put my money where my mouth is but I see little in the way of formal proof or calculations in this thread.

    DeVils AdVocate :)

    The 55 where the shortstack has to fold but a big stack can win a monster pot if he hits...


  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,414 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ DeVore


    one (probably) true (but unproven) statement does not constitute a proof of any sort.

    DeV.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,754 ianmc38


    If i had a shortstack i would play with 55.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,327 ✭✭✭ hotspur


    ianmc38 wrote:
    If i had a shortstack i would play with 55.

    Like HJ I play exclusively 6 handed cash and come across shortstack buy inners all the time and I think a lot of them jam it with 55 in the (bizarrely in another thread) example. Also as to the reverse situation if it's the shortstack who raises UTG and the full stack on the button without intermediate callers then they will likely drop the 55, the shortstack play if done properly gives the full stack good player less options and restricts the hands they can / should play versus them, that's good isn't it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 Hectorjelly


    DeVore wrote:
    one (probably) true (but unproven) statement does not constitute a proof of any sort.

    DeV.

    Ok let me break it down. There are many hands in which it is profitable for me to call a small raise knowing that preflop I am behind, but am able to extact money from other players post flop if I can outflop them, or push them off the best hand. This is what seperates good cash game players from average ones. A shortstack can play none of these hands because all of his profit comes from forcing others to make preflop mistakes, which I as a large stack can do as well (in fact more so because I can win more).


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 Hectorjelly


    Just to add to that,

    There are some situations that its possible to come up with that its a slight advantage to be a shortstack, but they are insignificent compared to whats written above. A shortstack can play less hands profitably, and will make less on those he does play (he will lose less of course).

    I dont feel theres any maths necessary (or even possible) beyond this:


    large stack
    Hand 1 call small raise with 22 flop set make millions
    Hand 2 get AA make millions
    etc

    small stack
    Hand 1 limp with 22 then fold because its unprofitable to call 1/4 of your stack preflop
    hand 2 get aa make bus fare


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,657 ✭✭✭ Scotty #


    small stack
    Hand 1 limp with 22 flop set go all in and get loads of callers coz your shortstack.
    Hand 2 Get AA make millions (compared to his stack)

    How much do you want/expect to make when you sit down? 4 or 5 times your buyin? I imagine its the same for a shortstack.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭ bohsman


    Scotty # wrote:
    small stack
    Hand 1 limp with 22 flop set go all in and get loads of callers coz your

    You dont want loads of callers with a set of twos.


  • Administrators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,414 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ DeVore


    "hand 2 get aa make bus fare"

    Hand 3 (big stack)
    Get AA, Go Large. Get Cracked. Lose Millions.

    Obviously, I'll take that risk but the point here is that the short stack (50euro) can take this risk 4 times compared to the large stack (200 euro). There is a risk vs reward argument to be made too...

    I agree with your position but I don't agree that its anyway NEAR as cut and dried as you and oscar are making out. I play Big Stack now because it seems to be working for me. I take all your points and accept almost all of them but if I only have 80 in my pocket, I'll often sit down with that.
    In a pot limit game, its not a big deal to me unless everyone at the table has deep stacks. Is it sub-optimal... probably but a lot of people do far worse (like drink!).

    DeV.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,715 Nalced_irl


    DeVore wrote:
    "hand 2 get aa make bus fare"

    Hand 3 (big stack)
    Get AA, Go Large. Get Cracked. Lose Millions.

    Obviously, I'll take that risk but the point here is that the short stack (50euro) can take this rik 4 times compared to the large stack (200 euro). There is a risk vs reward argument to be made too...

    I agree with your position but I don't agree that its anyway NEAR as cut and dried as you and oscar are making out. I play Big Stack now because it seems to be working for me. I take all your points and accept almost all of them but if I only have 80 in my pocket, I'll often sit down with that.
    In a pot limit game, its not a big deal to me unless everyone at the table has deep stacks. Is it sub-optimal... probably but a lot of people do far worse (like drink!).

    DeV.
    Agreed, i find these days that shortstacked (to a degree, more average stack) suits me better. I think my strategy suits it for some reason. If you are too shortstacked, of course, you may eliminate your chances of protecting your hand and leave yourself open to beats when a larger stack has a drawing hand, but i find that somewhere in the middle works. It allows me to cover the smaller stacks but also gives me enough to put larger ones to a difficult enough decision. For some reason, my game changes drastically when i have a large amount at the table. I dont know why...possibly i should try and find out and remedy it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 Hectorjelly


    Hector
    When I first started watching/playing snooker in the 80s it was accepted that you picked off all the loose reds before attacking the pack. All the pros and commentators said this. Today 95% of pros will attack the pack at the earliest opportunity.

    <snip>

    The thing is, I think you are correct on this issue, but the history and development of other sports/games suggests that a time will come when the accepted wisdom may be different.
    AJs.


    Sorry to drag this thread up again but I thought this post deserved a reply and I never got round to it. In any sport or activity it makes sense that conventional wisdom changes as more is learnt about it, and groundbreakers break the rules. However there are some things that are so fundamental though that they will never change. A premiership team could try and play without a midfield, or a darts player could try and win blindfolded. Similarly there is just no way that a shortstacked player (assuming the conditions outlined above) could be more profitable than someone who covers the table.


Advertisement