Does anyone make much money in online poker?

CoD · 01-02-2006 5:26pm

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 · 01-02-2006 5:43pm

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 · 01-02-2006 6:13pm

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 · 01-02-2006 6:28pm

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 · 01-02-2006 6:41pm

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 · 01-02-2006 6:52pm

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 · 01-02-2006 7:53pm

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 · 12-02-2006 12:37am

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 · 12-02-2006 1:42am

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 # · 12-02-2006 2:19am

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!!

ianmc38 · 12-02-2006 3:30am

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?

Scotty # · 12-02-2006 10:09am

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.

Hectorjelly · 12-02-2006 12:52pm

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.

Hectorjelly · 12-02-2006 12:59pm

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

ianmc38 · 12-02-2006 1:35pm

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.

Scotty # · 12-02-2006 2:16pm

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.

Hectorjelly wrote:

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

TacT · 12-02-2006 2:22pm

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?

ianmc38 · 12-02-2006 2:30pm

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.

Hectorjelly · 12-02-2006 2:31pm

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.

The Snapper · 12-02-2006 2:39pm

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.

Scotty # · 12-02-2006 2:53pm

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)

ianmc38 · 12-02-2006 3:15pm

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.

Hectorjelly · 12-02-2006 3:21pm

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.

ianmc38 · 12-02-2006 4:15pm

Hectorjelly wrote:

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

hotspur · 12-02-2006 4:27pm

Hectorjelly wrote:

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.

ArmaniJeanss · 12-02-2006 8:18pm

Hectorjelly wrote:

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.

bohsman · 12-02-2006 8:26pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

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

DeVore · 12-02-2006 8:28pm

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.

DeVore · 12-02-2006 8:39pm

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

bohsman · 12-02-2006 8:43pm

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...

DeVore · 12-02-2006 9:33pm

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

DeV.

ianmc38 · 12-02-2006 9:45pm

If i had a shortstack i would play with 55.

hotspur · 12-02-2006 10:58pm

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?

Hectorjelly · 12-02-2006 11:22pm

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).

Hectorjelly · 12-02-2006 11:31pm

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

Scotty # · 13-02-2006 12:04am

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.

bohsman · 13-02-2006 12:27am

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.

DeVore · 13-02-2006 7:50am

"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.

Nalced_irl · 13-02-2006 8:54am

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.

Hectorjelly · 21-02-2006 12:39am

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

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.

ArmaniJeanss · 21-02-2006 12:52am

HJ,
Thanks for the reply. At the time of my orig post I'd played very little on cash tables, sticking virtually exclusively to STTs.
I've played about 15 hours of cash tables the last few weeks and am 100% happy in my mind that the 'buy in max' people are correct.

Dave Morrison · 16-09-2020 3:42pm

I have been playing poker for almost ten years. In ten years I have changed several jobs, two institutes. A lot has changed, but I continue to play poker. It is possible to play only on weekends. In this mode, the game brings me good money!

millb · 31-10-2020 2:35am

Dave Morrison wrote: »

I have been playing poker for almost ten years. In ten years I have changed several jobs, two institutes. A lot has changed, but I continue to play poker. It is possible to play only on weekends. In this mode, the game brings me good money!

What site do you play on?
Which ones are the best and which are not?

bladespin · 09-11-2020 3:36pm

Dave Morrison wrote: »

I have been playing poker for almost ten years. In ten years I have changed several jobs, two institutes. A lot has changed, but I continue to play poker. It is possible to play only on weekends. In this mode, the game brings me good money!

Similar, opened an account with one of the big names coming up to Christmas 3 years back, I only play at weekends and holidays but have managed to keep the original $30 deposit live since then (not getting rich btw), I have yo-y'ed from 30ish to over 200 in that time - mostly 9 seat sit and go but the odd big tournament in there too (usually make the bubble).

Dave Morrison · 11-11-2020 4:16pm

millb wrote: »

What site do you play on?
Which ones are the best and which are not?

I have my own blog there I write all about the casino: davedealer. com

Dave Morrison · 11-11-2020 4:18pm

bladespin wrote: »

Similar, opened an account with one of the big names coming up to Christmas 3 years back, I only play at weekends and holidays but have managed to keep the original $30 deposit live since then (not getting rich btw), I have yo-y'ed from 30ish to over 200 in that time - mostly 9 seat sit and go but the odd big tournament in there too (usually make the bubble).

do you participate in similar tournaments? what can you tell us about this?

IAMAMORON · 11-11-2020 4:29pm

Online poker is rigged. Before any poker site rep jumps up to say that the bad beats only happen due to the increase in the hands, please do not bother. I play live poker and make nice spends, I have never won online, it is rigged garbage. The engine is designed to entice action which hence increases the rake for the site. Anyone who bothers to argue with this is an employee or stakeholder. Anyone who doubts this further google the " Full Tilt poker scam" from a few years ago, All poker sites and gaming sites are rigged rubbish, don't bother.

I guarantee this will sound familiar to online poker players
1) You deposit money, you do well for 24 hours
2) Then you get hands that you can't possibly fold and watch them get crucified by incredible suckouts for your opponent.
3) When you've lost all your money because of 2) - the poker site wants you to go back to 1).

It is completely rigged, if you have to play do it as a recreation for peanuts.

Dublin_Fan · 05-12-2020 9:57pm

Dave Morrison wrote: »

do you participate in similar tournaments? what can you tell us about this?

Good luck with your new venture

jelem · 05-12-2020 11:00pm

Take no notice of any Positive responses.
when on-line poker started i looked in and about and around.
from the start it is to make money for the company which means You lose.
early days the response when raised complaints was
we have certified Random Number Generator.
i have one aswell but what i do with the output is my call THE exact fact
of the companies.
when day to day play shows over 14 days dealt hands on mixture of many types of tables
was dealt pocket Aces 3 times whilst another player (which i can only claim was company bot)
was dealt pocket Aces 37 times. This player always hovered in top 20 leaderboards but
never raised above 10th. (purposeful restriction for distraction if casual player looked up record.).
the same player moved tables in large tourney with the same "edge" as i watched table and saw player dealt
3 sets of pockets Aces in 8 consecutive deals between two tables.
companies responses always fudged with mixture of Random Number excuse and lucky run for player.
i recorded many sessions and the pockets dealt at times exceeded any probability of random.
one example was 17 consecutive deals with my pocket containing a 3 card (any suit) 14 times.
complaints again received a response of " you do seem to have been dealt a high number of
low card pockets" .
there is nothing you can do except get out.
the excuse of companies then became "we have software that protects you from (sharks), this showed
they had ability to manipulate any deal under guise of a Pro ws playing novices and winning.
the software is now more advanced and You are the willing victim.
from software perspective i found there was a time when watching "net connections" it could be determined
when i was about to win a hand as in advance more "established connections" showed up in my
monitoring software. Other players on other sites had also alluded to this "phenomenon".
On some sites with playing a pocket A.J. you wwere guaranteed to lose again and again by
flush on turn of last card. even if you had gained 2 pair or trips.
another site was found to favour if you played pocket 6.7. evn unsuited You would gain a straight.
comic when you see pocket Qs or above beaten by someone playing unsuited 6.7. constantly.
Luck of draw is abused as oh dear your pocket hand best dealt in last 36 hours was beaten by dipstick with
pocket 8.j. unsuited.
As stated companies software is now more advanced.
there were other issues for companies aswell such as one site being based outside usa was banned and usa citizens
commit crime if played, this because usa not paid any tax . === as soon as company complied and paid usa some tax they
became legal again lol.
your town or next town will have live games which you can enter and whilst you may find all manners of good and bad if not
downright cheating crooks whom work together to take you out. you at least can watch for signs of collusion and learn to
play which cannot be achieved on line.
it also is nice to know if you only rate yourself at a certain level when you play a tourny and another player whilst
moving tables states " i am going to ensure i am sitting on the right of you" - yes ive had that "ladbrooks killiney"
and the mental loser even went all in against my smaller stack with a Q and lower card not suited.
i had nothing but was just a target and must been about 2am morning so with 2.4. unsuited i called him.
you get many born mental losers but have to show them you call any crap they try along with shows them to the other players.
Do not expect to make money on line.
the companies go all out about gambling - now suggesting breaks and when fun runs out etc.
their excuse for your (constant poor pocket cards and constant lose).
Play live even if only manage once a month its not as easy as turn on device and allow another to
paint your ability. but rea land despite cheats gives you a better sense of your ability.

bazza76dub · 20-11-2022 9:19pm

Do people still think online poker is rigged?

O play most nights, sometimes two games a night, $10 9 seat sit and go's. I have wondered if there is cheating or colluding going on at times. Only once have I strongly felt that guy knew what was coming up, calling an all-in with garbage pre-fop, and knocking me out...

For what it is worth, ive not had to deposit money into my poker account in a long time. I am a recreational player, but still a few hundred $ to the good.

Does anyone make much money in online poker?

Comments