Profitable Poker

[ZZuluZ]

Hi all, my first post here.

Some context: I'm a university student with a great interest in poker (and I enjoy the math behind it as well). I'd like to be a reasonably profitable player in order to make some pocket moneyplaying a few hours a day. Minimal variance (ie: 5/10$ Sit N Gos) is what I'm looking at.

Here is my question regarding Poker Variance:

When people give comments like “He’s a great player, the reason he’s lost money over the last 3000 hands is simply variance”, it’s rather disheartening for someone hoping to master hold-em poker and trying to make a profit playing.

Even the very best hand, against the very worst, doesn’t have overwhelming odds. Even though, as a good player, you will come on top in the very long term, is it viable to risk your bankroll with 60%:40% odds on most plays?

I would love to hear some thoughts on this.

Cheers guys,

Paul

[AHiltz]

You should not be risking your bankroll on 60/40 plays, since you should have the required number of buyins for the level that you are playing at.

There is some risk, otherwise everyone would win.

Learn the game, enjoy the game, learn some more and make some money.

[Pelion]

What AHiltz said.


60/40s are the reason the fish keep playing.

when we lose the 60 we say "oh well, we make that bet often enough and we will end up in the black".

when fish win the 40 they say "OMFG I KNEW THAT 7 WAS COMMING I AM A POKER FUCKING GENIOUS!!" and the next time they bust, they relode and give it to YOU!!

Having said that you have to be VERY unlucky to lose over 3k hands due to "varience".

In a cash game you should be risking every single 60/40 you get because you should be risking a %% of your bankroll that is low enough for you to just rebuy when it goes wrong. In a SnG it is more complictated and you should be more inclined to fold 60/40s against big stacks (when you have a strong chips stack) but accept them against short stacks even when you are the 40 since winning will move you up the prize ladder.


...in short read more SnG posts

Welcome to FTR

[ZZuluZ]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I guess I'm getting a little paranoid reading so many posts on forums where alledgedly good players still aren't making a profit.

[poskid_1982]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I guess I'm getting a little paranoid reading so many posts on forums where alledgedly good players still aren't making a profit.

Keyword= "alledgedly"

Good players dont care about their last 3k hands as long as they know they are making the right plays and are playing within their BR.

PK

[samsonite2100]

Keyword actually = "allegedly" (sorry, I'm a spelling nerd).

As far as whether there are great players out there just not getting the cards...I tend to think not. Over even the minor long run, good players should be slaying the field. There are so many dumb, stupid, rotten players spending their money on intertrons poker in 2006, that if you're not making money, you need to rethink your skill level/approach. My .02, anyway.

[Rondavu]

Good players always profit. $$$ is the ulimate measure of skill. If you lose $, then you're not really that good. I've made thousands of dollars playing poker, but I've also hit short patches where I lost a couple grand as well.

[potdragn]

Even the very best hand, against the very worst, doesn’t have overwhelming odds.

Id like you to rethink that statement.

[mb2447]

who needs overwhelming when you have good enough? as long as the amount risked is not a large percentage of your bankroll (i.e. 5% or less), then your risk of ruin by taking and losing 60/40 shots is incredibly small.

[biondino]

I guess I'm getting a little paranoid reading so many posts on forums where alledgedly good players still aren't making a profit.

Assuming they *are* good players, there are a number of reasons for this. They could be playing above their skill level; they could be playing drunk, or scared, or without concentration or confidence; or they could be unlucky. Bear in mind that EVERYONE who plays poker gets unlucky a lot of the time; but also bear in mind that being unlucky and losing a 60/40 shot is only unlucky in that you will win more than you'll lose BUT YOU'LL LOSE PLENTY OF TIMES TOO.

This fact means that even the best players will run cold for a while, and if they happen to lose a few all-ins in a row through this kind of bad luck, then this may harm their profits in the short term.

A genuinely "good" player will fundamentally understand the role of probability and the need to think in the long term. If Rondavu, say, moves up to $2000NL and discovers, after 30,000 hands, that he's in the red, then he will be smart enough to realise that, in all likelihood, his game isn't quite ready for that kind of level.

Finally, remember that 60%+ of all poker players LOSE. This is a fact of life - a zero sum game with the house creaming off 5% will always produce more losers than winners. A game of small edges will mean that a decent player who would maybe just about break even without the rake is losing when it's factored in. This is one thing that will never change whenever you play poker in a commercially hosted situation.

[sejje]

When people give comments like “He’s a great player, the reason he’s lost money over the last 3000 hands is simply variance”, it’s rather disheartening for someone hoping to master hold-em poker and trying to make a profit playing.

This is true. It's VERY disheartening when you're on a losing streak yourself. That doesn't mean that master player loses overall, though, and if you play a lot 3K hands could be two days multi-tabling. I've had losing streaks a lot longer than 2 days...there'll be times when someone has AA every time you have KK, or if you have AA, they set you, or you flop set under set a few times in a few days...there'll be other times you go on sweet upswings and make six buyins in 20 minutes. Supposedly these swings should happen both ways. More up if you're a winning player.

Even the very best hand, against the very worst, doesn’t have overwhelming odds. Even though, as a good player, you will come on top in the very long term, is it viable to risk your bankroll with 60%:40% odds on most plays?

I'd take 60/40 all day long, but not with my entire bankroll at once. Think about this: the house takes 50.5/49.5 all day long playing blackjack, and come out squeaky clean. Variance simply means that sometimes you'll get sucked out on, and sometimes it'll happen repeatedly. Sometimes it won't happen for a while, though. Your risk isn't very great if you follow good bankroll management (check stickies), but that doesn't mean you can't lose, whether it be short or long term.


Lastly, as others have said, great players don't lose for long periods of time, except maybe MTT players.

[jameseyb]

How much of the ability to play, and play well (and therefore hopefully win) is control of fear of losing?

Should people just be so cavalier about their bankrolls that they have no fear about losing them at all, or should there still be an element of "Oh shit, this is actually money!" about a ring game, even at $25NL?

I've not been playing that long and have only just moved to $25NL and I am finding it a bit hard going from my earlier STT form. I'm down this year by about 100 dollars with a BB/Hour of -17 (give or take a few) and I have to admit that I still think of this as losing money, not losing chips/"money". Ok, it's not much (ha!) and I can cope with that over a couple of hours because I am not off to the nearest bar and spending the same amount on beer/food, but it's still a situation I'd like to reverse.

Would not caring about the money make that much difference, assuming a standard level of playing ability?

J

[siknd]

"Should people just be so cavalier about their bankrolls that they have no fear about losing them at all, or should there still be an element of "Oh shit, this is actually money!" about a ring game, even at $25NL?"


1. they say stu ungar was the great he was because of a complete lack of respect for money. but theres got to be some balance. you need to make the right plays without equating you play to the actual value of the money. ie, geez, this call is a case of beer; this raise is a mortgage payment etc.

2. cash games are far more complex than tourney play, understand that you are learning all the subtleties that never really come out in STT play.

[jameseyb]

Dear gods! I hope I never have make the decision about a raise being a mortgage payment! Mind you, if I was at that sort of level, I reckon I'd not be thinking that. Would I even care about losing that sort of cash if I could afford to gamble with it?

I do see your point though and I think I am going to have to start adjusting how I think about my bankroll whilst I am playing. Maybe just give myself an allowance at the start of the month and then play with that until it either runs out or builds up.

J

[siknd]

lol. you DO have a ways to go. but it will happen if you work at it.

words like hope, even care, gamble, runs out... show that you need to develop a solid game plan and confidence in your abilities. id suggest starting by making a commitment to keeping records and tracking your results. and read whatever you can get your hands on.

gl.

[biondino]

James, if you are sufficiently bankrolled for your level, your risk of losing the whole thing (assuming decent play) is negligible. The point of having a bankroll is to prevent the vagaires of variance having a fatal or permanent effect on your game.

You simply HAVE to be able to say to yourself "yes, I lost a buyin tonight, BUT I know I will win more than I lose in the medium to long term therefore it is worth me continuing". Losing $25 sucks, every time, regardless of the situation, but, if you are a profitbale player, you will win more than you lose, you will win more often than you lose, and you'll be able to see your BR gradually trending upwards.

[siknd]

i think it was jennifer harmon who said that the first time she lost 100k she couldnt sleep for a week. the second time she had a sleepless night. and now, if she doesnt lose 100k at least occasionally, she wonders whats wrong with her game. so there you go. follow bankroll management and onwards and upwards you go.

[jameseyb]

Tracking-wise, I use PT all the time on the three sites I play on (Crypto/Will Hill, Party, PokerRoom) and it is proving to be a very, very useful tool for the post session analysis. I've stopped smacking my head against the desk now and am now making fewer big mistakes, but learning more in the process.

I _will_ get good at this, mark my words!

J

[Fnord]

{ over-due move }