Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,292,000 Posts!
Poker ForumBeginners Circle

Questions from a humbled beginner?

Results 1 to 21 of 21

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Questions from a humbled beginner?

    Wow. So where do I start..Well so a month ago, I decided to give online poker a try. I put in 50 dollars to full tilt, without having read anything on this forum. So first, I didn't sign up for rakeback programs. Secondly, Where did I go? Straight to the 1/2. First hand I got dealt online was pocket AAs. So I oh so subtley went all in. Got 2 callers my first hand Pocket kings and someone with AK. tripled my money. First hand. I played some more and more after I hit a couple hundred bucks, I kept going into higher stakes. I thought I was the next Doyle Brunson. I cashed out after about a good 3500 dollars in only 2 weeks. Paid off my motorcycle loan and put the rest in a mutual fund. I went back, thinking I could take all of Daniel Negraneu's money with 2 7 offsuit and went in for 500 for some of the high stakes tables. Needless to say I lost around 2 grand, which means, I suppose, that i'm still up...but it was...awakening. I read as much as I could on the topic of poker and I found this site. Now after my extremely long post my question is this:
    Where do I start?
    I deposited another 50 dollars, but i'm now hesistant to even sit at a table. I read up on the bankroll building stuff, but i'm not familar with the jargon. My bankroll should be 25 times the buy in? Isn't that a little excessive?
  2. #2
    euphoricism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,383
    Location
    Your place or my place
    25 buyins is not at *all* excessive, and it might even be a little low for a beginner.

    Our first question to help you is, are you a USA player or a non-USA player?
    <Staxalax> Honestly, #flopturnriver is the one thing that has improved my game the most.
    Directions to join the #flopturnriver Internet Relay Chat - Come chat with us!
  3. #3
    US player. But that means I wouldn't even be able to play in lowest stakes of FTP. Would you reccomend I deposit more in? I'm just very uncertain of how to go about this...
  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    8,697
    Location
    soaking up ethanol, moving on up
    read all the stickies in the beginner forum
    read JackSawyer's post there as well.
    Have a go at the 10nl tables on FT with your $50, but chances are that variance will send you busto.
  5. #5
    Welcome to FTR, it's good to have you here! Glad that you managed to take at least some of your positive variance winnings out!

    If you can redeposit, feel free to play the smallest buyin tables on whatever site you choose but be prepared to redeposit if you go busto.

    I agree with the suggestion to read all the stickies, but particularly the Newbie Circle of Death post.
  6. #6
    Oh man. Reading the newbie circle of death makes me cringe, wow that hurts. At the very least I feel better to know i'm not the only one. I read around a bunch of other posts and looked around and saw a lot of information floating around.

    I noticed the post about live play as opposed to online and it's correct, I have an easier time hitting my local casino in the 1/2 then playing even 0.o5/0.1. I'm tempted to just go out for a night playing some 2/4 just to put some money into the account.

    Reading through Doyle Brunsun's super system was helpful to me for a very long time in live play but when it came down to internet play generally the atmosphere is so much more aggressive and I feel as though the rules change dirastically when it comes into that world. Of course, as I am a complete beginner it wouldn't suprise me if i'm wrong. It just seems crazy when you see people like Gus Hansen play and Daniel Nagraneu play and manage to win all those times, yet I feel like I wouldn't even imagine doing some of the things they do. Yet, again, I am a complete beginner and these are pros who have sucessfully accumulated millions of dollars.

    Another question I had is has anyone ever had problems with getting the money back from FTP? My friend said he had to keep calling and bugging FTP for them to send him his money.

    Lastly, is this how most people start to play wisely? By building up their bankroll from the lower buy in tables?
  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,548
    Location
    Putney, UK; Full Tilt,Mansion; $50 NL and PL; $13 and $16 SNGs at Stars
    Yes! Unless you are a genuinely good AND EXPERIENCED (i.e. you've played tens of thousands of hands) live poker player, there is no benefit in starting at a high level because you WILL lose.

    Deposit another $150 and play $0.05/$0.10NL. Play tight, solid, "correct" poker and you will win. But you have to follow bankroll guidelines, at every level, or you will go bust. It's as simple as that, there are no loopholes or shortcuts I'm afraid.
  8. #8
    OK, so this is the thing about proper bankroll management. Nobody wants to go busto in the game of life, nobody.

    The intent of good bankroll management is to avoid hitting that nasty negative variance (its coming and no that wasn't it that you hit already) and wanting to put your rent money into your account just cuz "you know it will turnaround". Your "bankroll" should be the amount of momey you can afford to lose (or are willing to lose) playing poker without it affecting your lifestyle and/or the ability to pay your bills, not necessarily the amount of money you have in yoru poker account at that time.

    For example, I currently have just under $500 in my account right now which means I am easily rolled to play the $11 SNG's, however I could drop more money in my account if I wanted to so I could move up to the $22's or even the $33's.

    Sooooooo with that said, feel free to play at the level that your "income" will allow you to play at as long as you realize that you will need to put more money in your account when the poker Gods slap you upside the head over and over and over.
    Poker is easy, it's winning at poker that's hard.
  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,548
    Location
    Putney, UK; Full Tilt,Mansion; $50 NL and PL; $13 and $16 SNGs at Stars
    If you follow bankroll management, you can rest easy that regardless of how badly fortune is treating you, a) you're being sensible about it and b) you're not going to go broke*. If you don't, there is a good danger you WILL go broke AND it will be entirely your own fault. It's a pretty easy choice to make

    *NB there is a tiny chance you might go broke in terms of the money you are prepared to lose, but you won't go broke beyond that because frankly, if you do manage to go broke despite the necessary drops in levels as your bankroll shrinks, you're obviously not a good enough player to win at poker, variance or no variance
  10. #10
    Chopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,611
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    if i am you, i would either redeposit money at FTP, or move over to pokerstars with the next $50. with a $50 deposit, you can comfortably play the 2NL tables. i know how awful that sounds, but its the "management" part.

    if you can afford to do more, and cant stand to play that low, then work out the math to see what you need to deposit to play at the level you desire.

    and, if you play 6max, i wouldnt count on 25 buy-ins as being safe. if you lose half, will you freak out? i use 40, which is high, but i can lose 10-15 buy-ins without getting scared and feeling like i am going to have to move down a limit.

    also, the variance can be brutal at a casino, too. just because the players are worse, doesnt mean the poker gods will favor you any more. in fact, its often the other way around. be careful in using your casino to build your online bankroll. it should be the opposite.

    variance is variance. math is math. guidelines are guidelines. we didnt come up with this stuff, we just humbled ourselves enough to accept them as written by some people far more experienced than we were/are.
    LHE is a game where your skill keeps you breakeven until you hit your rush of random BS.

    Nothing beats flopping quads while dropping a duece!
  11. #11
    I'm surprised no one has suggested grinding low-level SnGs... if you don't feel comfortable depositing the extra money I suggest the following:

    1. start at $2 9-man SnGs... $50 is enough of a roll to play those... you should be able to switch over the $5 SnGs after you are up to $100. All you need to beat those is, Diamond-forming tightness, feel free to over-bet AA, KK, QQ, or AK pre-flop, fold all else, if your M is small start shoving any reasonable cards, continue shoving into tight players and avoid bigstacks who call. There are few other details in there but this will print you money (albeit at a somewhat slow pace.) up to at least $11 SnGs. I also think it's a useful practice to learn how to play wicked tight when necessary.

    2. Now switch over to cash games and learn how to set camp a bit. This will work from $10nl up through 50 and even 100NL (and beyond if you are at the right kind of tables) You can make money doing this even though you may be bored to tears. This is also the time (when moving to cash games) that you should purchase Pokertracker and PAHud and begin multi-tabling more.

    3. Move up in stakes, and when you can't stand nut camping (or feel it's not working well enough) feel free to drop WAY down to the uber-low limits and learn to LAG it up.. 3-betting a really wide-range, etc... I think this is an important step becuase while there may be many players who can successfully pass this step at their current level, it's something that has crushed my BR and my confidence 3 separate times.

    GL yo.
    So you click their picture and then you get their money?
  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Chopper

    and, if you play 6max, i wouldnt count on 25 buy-ins as being safe. if you lose half, will you freak out? i use 40, which is high, but i can lose 10-15 buy-ins without getting scared and feeling like i am going to have to move down a limit.
    Thats such a silly way of looking at it. The time you spend building up to 40 buyins for the next level costs you the same as the time you spend "dropped down" after losing some. The only difference is if you move up at 20-25 you might not have to drop down, but if you dont move up until 40 you definatly have to make those extra buyins. Id suggest taking an aggressive bankroll management style as you move up through the low stakes (once you are confident you are a winning player). This means you move up at 20-25 but you are prepared to move down again if you take a kicking. You are just as unlikely to busto this way but should move up much more quickly on average.
    gabe: Ive dropped almost 100k in the past 35 days.

    bigspenda73: But how much did you win?
  13. #13
    Chopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,611
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelion
    Quote Originally Posted by Chopper

    and, if you play 6max, i wouldnt count on 25 buy-ins as being safe. if you lose half, will you freak out? i use 40, which is high, but i can lose 10-15 buy-ins without getting scared and feeling like i am going to have to move down a limit.
    Thats such a silly way of looking at it. The time you spend building up to 40 buyins for the next level costs you the same as the time you spend "dropped down" after losing some. The only difference is if you move up at 20-25 you might not have to drop down, but if you dont move up until 40 you definatly have to make those extra buyins. Id suggest taking an aggressive bankroll management style as you move up through the low stakes (once you are confident you are a winning player). This means you move up at 20-25 but you are prepared to move down again if you take a kicking. You are just as unlikely to busto this way but should move up much more quickly on average.
    we will agree to disagree here because i think your way is silly, too. there's nothing worse than "buying high, and selling low," which is what you are advocating, imo.

    nothing worse than building to 20-25 BI's, taking your shot, getting whacked (due to variance), dropping down, and, THEN, going on your heater at your previous level.

    build it right the first time, at 6max where the variance is higher, and STAY PUT once you move up. that way when the variance downswings hit, you can stay at the higher level for longer...giving your chance to hit the heater at the higher level. and thats what we want, isnt it?

    any high-end pro i've read says 20-25 BI's, or 300 bb's for limit, isnt nearly enough of a cushion for anyone other than the "hobbyist" because the risk of ruin is still just too high.

    please find another way of criticizing my opinions rather than calling them "silly," as if i havent put any thought into them. i think i have always asked you a question for clarification before simply calling you stupid, or whatever.
    LHE is a game where your skill keeps you breakeven until you hit your rush of random BS.

    Nothing beats flopping quads while dropping a duece!
  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Chopper
    there's nothing worse than "buying high, and selling low," which is what you are advocating, imo.
    This makes no sense at all since the chips don't change value.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chopper
    nothing worse than building to 20-25 BI's, taking your shot, getting whacked (due to variance), dropping down, and, THEN, going on your heater at your previous level.
    Again this isn't relevant unless you have some way to predict when you are going on a heater. You could equally stay at your lower level and go on your heater (instead of moving up and taking it at the higher level), and then finally move up at 40 buyins to take a cooler and send you back down.

    Since you have no way to predict variance then basing a plan/argument on when it is going to strike is a bit pointless.

    I'm sorry if I offended you in my last reply. I certainly didn't call you stupid so I don't know where you got that from. I didn't ask for clarification because it's perfectly obvious what you meant. I did give reasons for why it doesn't make sense to look at it that way. Your second reply makes it seem like you are basing bankroll management on timing your jump to higher stakes to coincide with positive varience. If that is the case then you need to improve your understanding of what variance actually is.

    Last of all you say high end pros say to have big bankrolls. High end pros need proportionally bigger bankrolls for a couple of reasons, neither of which are the same as yours.

    1) They are pros. They play for their food and rent. Therefore if they go bust, they REALLY go bust and basically end up homeless/die. Their tolerance for risk is lowered so they need a bigger cushion to lower their "risk of ruin".

    2) They play much higher stakes. This in itself doesn't mean you need a proportionally bigger bankroll but it will usually be the case that their winrates are much lower than at lower stakes due to much tougher competition. As you will know, if your winrate is much lower then your risk of ruin is much higher and you need a bigger bankroll.

    On average if you move up at 20 buyins (and move down when you lose) then you will move up twice as fast as if you move up with 40 buyins (and move down when you lose). Your risk of ruin doesn't particularly change since you still drop down in stakes when you lose. As you move up in stakes and your winrate drops you can increase your bankroll to a more conservative size as you see fit. Provided you are prepared to drop down in stakes when it all goes tits up it really comes down to personal preference. If you're the sort of person who tilts if they have to drop down in stakes or if their bankroll dips below 25 buyins then obviously an aggressive strategy isn't for you. If you can handle dropping down without feeling embarrassed/ashamed w/e and you don't mind losing proportionally more of your roll on one hand then maybe you don't have to wait until 40 to move up.
    gabe: Ive dropped almost 100k in the past 35 days.

    bigspenda73: But how much did you win?
  15. #15
    Chopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,611
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelion
    Quote Originally Posted by Chopper
    there's nothing worse than "buying high, and selling low," which is what you are advocating, imo.
    This makes no sense at all since the chips don't change value.
    you are misunderstanding what i meant by this. i mean, if you drop down, and go on your rush, at the lower level, you miss out on positive variance you "deserved" at the higher level, had you been deep enough to stick around at the higher level. meaning, you pay all of your dues up higher, and reap the benefits at lower stakes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pelion
    Quote Originally Posted by Chopper
    nothing worse than building to 20-25 BI's, taking your shot, getting whacked (due to variance), dropping down, and, THEN, going on your heater at your previous level.
    Again this isn't relevant unless you have some way to predict when you are going on a heater. You could equally stay at your lower level and go on your heater (instead of moving up and taking it at the higher level), and then finally move up at 40 buyins to take a cooler and send you back down.

    Since you have no way to predict variance then basing a plan/argument on when it is going to strike is a bit pointless.
    all i am getting at is the longer you stay at a given level, the longer you have to receive both the positive and negative swings. if you run on a thinner roll, you will have to drop down sooner, thereby missing any ensuing upswing that may/may not follow. but, at least you can wait awhile longer, in case said upswing DOES come.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pelion
    I'm sorry if I offended you in my last reply. I certainly didn't call you stupid so I don't know where you got that from.
    i was offended because you dismissed my idea as "silly" as opposed to "another opinion." i think that was a poor choice of words, and decided to defend my point a little because "silly," to me, is synonymous with "stupid" or "crazy." overreaction? maybe. but those werent MY words.

    like i said in the beginning, we will agree to disagree on this one, as its clear i am not going to change your mind, or you mine. not that we were trying to change each other's mind. we were simply trying to provide opinion/advice to OP's question.
    LHE is a game where your skill keeps you breakeven until you hit your rush of random BS.

    Nothing beats flopping quads while dropping a duece!
  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Chopper
    like i said in the beginning, we will agree to disagree on this one, as its clear i am not going to change your mind, or you mine. not that we were trying to change each other's mind.
    Thats fair enough but your logic is still flawed on one fairly important point .

    Quote Originally Posted by Chopper
    all i am getting at is the longer you stay at a given level, the longer you have to receive both the positive and negative swings. if you run on a thinner roll, you will have to drop down sooner, thereby missing any ensuing upswing that may/may not follow. but, at least you can wait awhile longer, in case said upswing DOES come.
    The thing is though if you have 2 guys playing the same game with the same winrate, one moving up conservatively like you, and one moving up aggresively like me, and my guy moves up early at 25 buyins and then we hit some bad varience you take your varience at the low stakes and lose a few buyins (say 5). I take my varience at the high stakes and also lose 5 buyins and then drop down. We are now playing the same stakes again. You have 20 buyins for the next level, and I have 15 buyins for the next level. You need 20 more until you move up. I need 10 more until I move up. I lost more than you and im STILL going to move up sooner than you.
    On the other hand say our varience is positive. I gain 5 buyins at my level, you gain 5 at yours. Now I am WAY ahead.

    The point you keep making
    Quote Originally Posted by Chopper
    if you run on a thinner roll, you will have to drop down sooner, thereby missing any ensuing upswing that may/may not follow. but, at least you can wait awhile longer, in case said upswing DOES come.
    Only holds if the two players are starting out with different bankrolls and that isnt really a fair comparison .
    gabe: Ive dropped almost 100k in the past 35 days.

    bigspenda73: But how much did you win?
  17. #17
    OP, this may sound harsh, but believe me, it's not meant to.


    Poker is an extremely long term game. I've played something like 200,000 hands lifetime, and I still don't feel that I have the fundamentals to playing a good lowstakes game.

    If you want to make money at poker, it's a grind. Sure, there are some who make it big after only putting a small amount of money down, but they are so so so so rare.

    Most of the good players you'll find have built their bankrolls up from very little, grinding using strict bankroll management.

    The swings/variance in poker are absolutely brutal. Have you thought about just how lucky you were to be on the good side of AA vs. KK vs. AK?

    Here is an all-time graph of 50NL, notice the downswings (including one of 15 or so buyins):

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Chopper
    and, if you play 6max, i wouldnt count on 25 buy-ins as being safe. if you lose half, will you freak out? i use 40, which is high, but i can lose 10-15 buy-ins without getting scared and feeling like i am going to have to move down a limit.

    variance is variance. math is math. guidelines are guidelines. we didnt come up with this stuff, we just humbled ourselves enough to accept them as written by some people far more experienced than we were/are.
    Agree totally here. I "took a shot" at NL25, and played well. But I got some horrendous negative variance (after some very fun positive variance), and I'm back down to NL10. It's hard to stay positive and to "be interested" in NL10 when you're having fun playing bigger stakes. But I'm a big winner at NL10, and a break-even NL25 player, so the NL10 hours are $$$ in my account.

    I am also experimenting with more tables at once (6+ appears to be - $$$$ in my account, even at NL10). So...I have work to do on my ABC poker. I'm not preaching to anyone else. I need to do this. Me. I'm terrible at Bank Roll Management. But I can get better. Winning at poker is much more fun than losing, and right now I can win a good bit more by playing lower stakes. So there. I will do it.

    Good luck to you.
  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Robb
    [Winning at poker is much more fun than losing
    quoted for awsomeness
    gabe: Ive dropped almost 100k in the past 35 days.

    bigspenda73: But how much did you win?
  20. #20
    Wrote above post early today before a 10 hour poker fest. I needed some discipline. I played NL10, and I'm up $80 for the day. Oh, ha-yell yeah. No more NL25 poison for me until the bankroll is sound again.
  21. #21
    good job
    gabe: Ive dropped almost 100k in the past 35 days.

    bigspenda73: But how much did you win?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •