nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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........

[Deleted User]

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?

CoD

Ardent wrote:

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

Nope, if you leave with more and go to sit down again on tribecca u must bring in that amount. I think it lasts for around 30mins or so.

fixer

Rolf Slotboom has an article series where he talks about the min buy-in/shortstack strategy for pot-limit omaha.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=14701&m_id=65561
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=14738&m_id=65562

hotspur

I have to say that I completely disagree with some of the abuse Rifle has got from some players for what he does since they are confusing a personal psychological strategy with a tactical strategy for all. I want to address the notion of "half-baked psychology". As a player the most important thing is to know yourself - your strengths and weaknesses including your irrational beliefs or feelings. Adjusting to these realisations will help to make you a better player. Now Rifle has realised and acknowledged that he plays more confidently when the stack he has is mostly money won at that table. I think that that's an irrational thought process but a natural one and one which I understand totally and have experienced myself including only yesterday when I tried it out as an experiment. Ultimately the best outcome would be to disabuse himself of that thinking and play confidently with his own money, but in the meantime he has found a workable and good solution to his problem. I applaud him for finding a solution to this issue, he has plugged a leak. Rather than merely dismissing the having of leaks in the first place maybe some of the contributors can offer advice on how he can alter the nature of himself that makes him too cautious at a cash table when risking a lot of his own money.

marius

Drakar wrote:

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?

My thouhgts exactly. People (who will remain nameless) are giving out yards about others doing this - to the point where they leave the table if they see it happen. But the same poeple are saying it is an idiotic strategy and does not work. These two things seem mutually exclusive to me....

I dont really know enough about cash games to know wtf im talking about but (having read some of the replies) I would be swayed towards the argument that buying in short stacked is probably not the best idea.....which is why I would be delighted to see someone do it at a table I was on.

RoundTower

Marius, most of the players who buy in very short are losing. So it would be better if they would buy in for the full amount, and lose it faster. Even if there are very bad players sitting down with the minimum, I would prefer to play against some moderately bad players who had full buyins.

marius

RoundTower wrote:

Marius, most of the players who buy in very short are losing. So it would be better if they would buy in for the full amount, and lose it faster. Even if there are very bad players sitting down with the minimum, I would prefer to play against some moderately bad players who had full buyins.

I'll take your word on that....but my point is still that I would like to see one of them buy in at the table - and I definitaly would not leave if they did!

ocallagh

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

DeVore

Hectorjelly wrote:

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

You took the words right out of my mouth.... *scratchs head*
I've got to work right now but I'll try and formulate my thoughts (which are not clear in themselves right now) and explain why I'm confused.
DeV.

DeVore

Ok, I'm going to say "I don't know but here's what I do", which may be a shock to many people on here as usually I state a position and defend it. I'm not nearly as certain as I often come off sounding but unless the position can be logically argued against I find it compelling.

In this case I'm very interested in an investigation of this area but without the fundamentalism and pure *voodoo* that has been put forward by some posters.

Let me detail why I'm having trouble formulating a response.

Firstly, the idea of the "long running game". This is true if you are playing roulette, people who say "i leave when I'm up X to avoid the long term odds" but continue to play roulette on subsequent days simply hurt my brain. Long term is made up of lots of little short terms. But poker is subtley different in that it is NOT the same game that you return to. It will be a mix of different players, different stakes and you will play differently. Roulette doesnt care about tilt or tiredness, poker does. This must be considered for this point.

What HJ says would be undeniably true if we were playing entirely out of the pocket. The fact that a low stack gives you the chance to see the remaining streets (for example in a flush draw situation etc) could well make a difference though.

Lets give you 200 of a bankroll for the night.
If you sit with 50 in a 1/2 game and get involved in a pot for 12 preflop with 2 others, then you can call all in with the nut flush draw and be happy. You may double up, or you may have to reload. You probably got the right odds to call so the play isnt bad in and of itself.
If you had sat down with 200 you could feel pressured not to call the pot sized bet on the flop because you may have to pay again on the turn. 1-0 to the short stack (I think).

But what about implied odds etc? If you had 200 and the flush comes on the turn you might get paid a lot more etc. I don't know if this is significant enough to counter the power of the "unpushoffability" of the short stack.

The short stack has 4 reloads. The big stack has only one. Flat line and its over. The short stack cannot have implied odds used against it, theres nothing more to win from him. This may stop people calling your all in. If the big stacks call "because they have tons of chips and can afford it" that simply makes things better, they are calling in error and giving the shortstack equity.

So far it looks like I am in favour of short stack play. Actually I now buy in for the max or at least 100-150 times the BB when I play live cash. This is for psychological reasons. Most people are neither fish nor fowl, they buy in for about 80-120. With a stack of 200-300 I can push these people off the turn and river if I think they are weak. This is a HUGE advantage. I actually avoid pushing short stacks around because they are liable to fling it in and go home. This is the reason I play big stack strategy primarily and its a big reason.

I often use "I will go home if XYZ" conditional stops to my play. If I lose two buyins I'm gone. Something is wrong, who knows what the f*ck it is but even if I've done nothing wrong, at that point the likelihood of unseen/unfelt tilt is big. If I lose a buy in I analyse how I am feeling and playing. Its not a certainty that I will leave but unless the answers from my brain come back positive I'll leave.

If I'm up a lot I will also consider how I am feeling. Loosy-Goosy cos I've got a huge stack?? Get out.
So you can't say that binding rules should be adhered to, but you can't tell me they are wrong either.

Theres been a lot of utter tosh talked here about 1 from 100 and being wiped and what have you. We have to presume that you have the same bankroll in both cases and for STRATEGIC REASONS are choosing one strategy over the other for logical reasons. Anything else is voodoo and false logic.

Oh and please de-heat this thread. Argue the points in a civil manner if you would, it.

DeV

Scotty #

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.

I love cash games and usually play .50/$1 or $1/$2 on PPP. I normally sit down with the default amount which I think is twice the minimum on PPP. Don't care whether its right or wrong but it works for me. I don't mind how big the other stacks are. With the right opponent its an advantage, as someone pointed out, because their more willing to call.

I don't sit down with the max because sitting down with $100 and paying .50 BB doesn't appeal to me. If I'm sitting down with $100 then its at a $2/$4 or whatever. It feels great when you sit down with $20 against a couple of guys who have $80 or $90 and half an hour later you have their money...and I'm not suggesting this happens every time.

Lay off people who don't play the same as you. If we all played exactly the same then it would truely be 100% LUCK!!