Baron's Oct 2+2 Mag article

10/20 live

Known 2+2er who knows who Baron is too raises after a single limper.

Baron 3-bets with A K

Limper folds and 2+2er caps. Baron puts him on AA-QQ/AK

Heads-up to the frop of:
K Q 8

2+2er bets, Baron raises, 2+2er 3-bets, Baron caps.

Turn is:
7

2+2er checks, Baron bets, 2+2er nearly folds, then calls

River is:
T

2+2er checks, Baron bets, 2+2er makes a lame face-up laydowon of AA.

I think Baron's flop play really really sucks.

In this case he made the AA think he had probably hit a set with KK or QQ therefor by the river the 2+2er is able to lay it down like that, personaly i would see showdown a lot there putting them on some sort of busted draw or AK type deal... if he has KK or QQ ohh well... i know he's not raise the flop like that with AJ or 3betting AJ PF so that rules that out... i think a call on the river is a fine play...

however i think the flop play of capping though off AA from AK a bit...

Yeah, I agree, if he puts him on AA-QQ/AK then why would you cap it if you are at best splitting the pot? Opponent i's not folding TPTK (at least he shouldn't be folding tptk) and he will only lose the most when behind and split when tied.

How could known 2+2er fold this? Large pot, smart agressive opponent, I'm calling down with just about anything.

Because he's probably "known" for being a donk :D

My thoughts:

Putting him on AA-QQ/AK is too tight. Then again Baron plays more live than I do. My experience is when two aware players lock horns they tend to over-play their hands a little exactly because of thinking like this (geee, ya think!)

Pre-flop: I put my opponent on AA-TT/AK-AQ/KQ. JJ-TT/AQ/KQ are less likely, but I think he scare caps here often enough we can't put him on a narrow range. Also, we need to fudge a bit because we don't know him.

Flop: I would just call (way ahead/behind) establish that I'm not going to budge from good hands and set-up a bluff when I want it more and am more likely to get a laydown. If I did raise I think he has to cry and fold to the 3-bet, although the math is probably interesting.

Turn: If I just called the flop, then I would be torn between a raise or call. It depends on what level I think my opponent is thinking on. The more respect I have for 2+2er, the more inclined I am to just call since he might see through a raise for a free showdown unimproved.

River: Nice bet, horrible fold. Weird shit happens at the table, don't confuse it with strategy or good play...

Finally, I think Baron answered this question: http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ic.php?t=19966

Originally Posted by iopq

Because he's probably "known" for being a donk

even the more reason i call down here a donk is more likely to be beating top pair then have a set or some shit in simaler situations... an agressive donk is a dangrous oppent because damn near imposble to read do to the fact they play back at you with as little as high cards...

Originally Posted by Fnord

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19966

is that the correct link?

Yes, perfect example of an otherwise sane player going stupid-aggro with AK. I love that he has hurbris enough to publish an article justifying it.

do you have a link to this article? I was hoping he'd discuss it on 2+2.

Also, why is he playing 10/20 live? That doesnt make any sense, if he does play 10/20 live I think i've played with him before at a casino in the chicago area, but then again, that was a long time ago.

I think Barron knows how to play the best ABC poker, obviously, if he is able to 8 table 30/60 online for 1.5 bb/100 consistently through like 300k hands or whatever. But I think someone paying a lot more attention by only 3 or 4 tabling, and with the correct position, can beat him consistently at a full ring game. That being said, I've never seen him play and I hope his sn is dciferthis or something so I know who he is when i do play against him.

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

do you have a link to this article? I was hoping he'd discuss it on 2+2.

http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/current/

I'm sure someone calls bullshit on this one. They tore him up over that last one and it wasn't nearly this bad.

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

I think Barron knows how to play the best ABC poker, obviously, if he is able to 8 table 30/60 online for 1.5 bb/100 consistently through like 300k hands or whatever. But I think someone paying a lot more attention by only 3 or 4 tabling, and with the correct position, can beat him consistently at a full ring game. That being said, I've never seen him play and I hope his sn is dciferthis or something so I know who he is when i do play against him.

I think dciferthis is someone else, nor do have I seen him reference 8 tabling 30/60. If he can beat 30/60 online, then playing 10/20 live would be kinda silly.

Originally Posted by Fnord

I think dciferthis is someone else, nor do have I seen him reference 8 tabling 30/60. If he can beat 30/60 online, then playing 10/20 live would be kinda silly.

I saw him reference it when I searched for good winrates at 30/60....

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...=&sb=5&o=&vc=1

One reason I'm not looking forward to 30/60

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

One reason I'm not looking forward to 30/60

At some point one needs to consider what you want out of poker. Even if you could beat 30/60 for 1BB/100, do you have enough patience/roll to deal with the swings (as you inevitably wonder if you really are a winner in that game) or would you be happier (perhaps even more profitable) somewhere else?

Well, if the best I could do was 1.5 BB/100 and that would be by 8 tabling 30 60, getting roughly 550 hands per hour, that would be about 8 BB/hour, or around $480 and withrakeback that would be close to $500/hour.

Yeah, I think I could deal with that , But that number is assuming 8 tabling. Over 30k hands at 15/30 I averaged over 3 BB/100, thats not to say I can't do it at 30/60 either if I keep my table and seat selection good. I also don't plan on playing 2k hands a day, I'm going to play some at 20/40 until I have a BR comfortable with 30/60, around 500 BB or so is fine.

You really have to remember that the game is just a game, everybody gets those same cards. Its how you play those cards and where you are at that makes the most money. You also have to be able to adjust to table texture, etc. I have always said you need to move up limits, its not that the cards are any different, or the players for that matter as long as you find the right seats at the right tables. You could become a fulltime 15/30 player online and kill the game, which is why so many players move up too fast at 15/30 and go right to 30/60.

One by one the online tables are going to get fishier and fishier at the higher limits, moreso than the lower limits. This trend has been seen in the 5/10 full ring games as well as the 3/6 games. The game is not going to get poorer but richer by comparison and it might be important to get as high as possible as quickly as possible. There is relatively no reason not to move up, now especially that you aren't afraid of losing your entire BR anymore because you have a job. The players aren't any smarter... They just have more money.

Heads up I am pretty much always taking AA to a showdown, even if I have to check-call the turn and river. Same with KK if there's no ace on the board and I don't figure my opponent for AA (even then...).

game selection is probably sick at $15-30+. Whatever you do, just avoid becoming victim to the Peter Principle, and going from a winning middle limit player, to a struggling higher stakes player

This is from jeff's link. If I saw more like this on 2+2 I would read it more. Great post

Originally Posted by 2+2mod

Eh, I'm getting questions now about this so I figured I'd specify. I ran 100 samples of 100k hands each for a 1.80 wr, 16.90 sd player (or 100 different players with the exact same true winrate and sd under the circumstances). Note this test would assume winrate is constant per 100 hands, i.e. no changing game conditions, no tilting, etc. Out of the 100, the highest wr was 3.47 and the lowest was 0.42, with the total wr over the 10 million hands being 1.95, meaning the player(s) was/were running hot for these 10M hands, and not just by a little, yet still one of these samples was as low as 0.42 bb/100.

On the subject of sample size, obviously 100 trials is far too few to come to any reliable conclusions. But these results made me think of variance and the long run in LHE quite differently. If two people playing the same game were to present to me their last 100k hands and one was earning 0.5 bb/100 and the other was earning 3.5 bb/100, who would I think was the better player? Obv, the 3.5 guy. But how much doubt would there be in my mind as to whether he was better or not? Apparently there should be room for some. Winrates just do not converge NECESSARILY until millions and millions of hands. For some they will, sure. Some of us will run close to our true earn for our lifetimes and will rarely or never venture to the upper amplitude of our SD. Others will run hotter than our true earn lifetime; some a little and some A LOT. Same goes with running cold. Some of us will find the very outer bounds of what our SD is capable of, and others won't even get close.

So what determines who among us will get rich and who stays stagnant or drops down? Better players will have a better chance at success of course, and success on a greater scale. But even a WCP could very conceivably end up having to drop down to lower limits while a mediocre player may rise to the big games, maybe never even realizing they're as good as they truly are. It might not even be a stretch to say this HAS happened.

So poker skills being equal, what determines who becomes and millionaire and who keeps playing 15/30? I don't know. QM? Sure. Maybe God DOES play dice with poker, I don't know. What I do know is that this (along with continuing to learn and appreciate Zen philosophies) has helped me come to realize that results, even on an extremely broad or lengthy scale, should be meaningless to me. And I don't mean meaningless in the sense of how I view the game now. I mean in the sense of how I feel I should STRIVE to view the game. We as a group have trained ourselves to not care about 200 bet swings, about 20k hand down periods. None of that comes naturally of course, but as we learned more and more about the nature of LHE we came to accept those things as just part of the package and we learned to deal with it. In the same way, I'm attempting to continually make myself immune to results, period. Not just short-term, but long-term as well. I want to approach this game theoretically and conceptually, without the hint of any wins or losses clouding my judgement. Ridding my conscious from any and all results, period; that is the goal. I'm not there yet by a long shot, but given what I think I know about this game and the philosophy and approach I feel is best for me, my goal is to be constantly progressing toward that state.

GoT

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

or around $480 and withrakeback that would be close to $500/hour.

are you saying they only make $20/hr extra in rakeback? i think you WAY underestimated that figure.

Originally Posted by |~|ypermegachi

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

or around $480 and withrakeback that would be close to $500/hour.

are you saying they only make $20/hr extra in rakeback? i think you WAY underestimated that figure.

I make almost $10/hr in rakeback at 5/10 6 max per table. on Interpoker. (This is not useful info... I just realized)

My estimate for 30/60: all hands with a flop have a max rake.
The game should run near 80 hands/hr
approximately 60 of those would be raked?
so... 60x3= $180/10 = $18 * 0.25 = $4.50/hr per table.

As for Barron Vangor Toth's article,
The AA was played horribly.

I would cap the flop, bet the turn, and call down to a raise.
check calling the turn and river is not a bad option either.
Regardless, you want to show down your hand. Trying to save 1BB in this hand is not even playing by 2+2 standards. It is catastrophically wrong.
I have folded AA post flop many times. This is not one of those times.

I can't wait to see the horrible discussion of this article, once 2+2 tears it to pieces.
"I put an agressive player on AA and wanted to see if I could make him fold it" Does not a strategy make.
"I figured I was drawing dead or at best to 2 outs, so I raised a lot" Is not a viable option in limit.

Originally Posted by Demiparadigm

I make almost $10/hr in rakeback at 5/10 6 max per table
My estimate for 30/60: ... $4.50/hr per table.

hmmmm....$25 an hour to play at a 5/10 6max table
$18 an hour to play at a 30/60 table.

that sounds sooooooooooooooo screwed up it's not funny.

The raked hands would be similar to that of 15/30, which through 31k hands I've paid $8k in rake, leading to roughly $2500 in rakeback over that time period, or, $.081 per hand played. At 550 hands per hour you're getting roughly $45/hour. I did underestimate that number but does not take away from the point I made as a whole. The difference between $500/hour and $525/hour isn't that big.

Originally Posted by jmontis

This is from jeff's link. If I saw more like this on 2+2 I would read it more. Great post

I'm a little confused by what hes saying there...to me it sounds like hes basically saying that in the end its basically luck that determins who makes the big bucks and who is stuck grinding it out at 'low' limits because its possible to never play at your 'true' winrate?

Ok, maybe im more than a little confused...i think i really have no idea whats being said here...

The point is it is more important to make the correct play than to focus on results.

While any good poker player knows this is true for the short term, It is also important not to fixate on long term results either.

So yes. Since you can never know your "true winrate" it is pointless to fixate on it as a measure of your poker ability.

Originally Posted by JJDylan

I'm a little confused by what hes saying there...to me it sounds like hes basically saying that in the end its basically luck that determins who makes the big bucks and who is stuck grinding it out at 'low' limits because its possible to never play at your 'true' winrate?

he said that to end the dick measuring contest that was going on in that thread about winrates being relative to skill.

El Diablo puts the smack down...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...fpart=all&vc=1

Originally Posted by Fnord

El Diablo puts the smack down...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...fpart=all&vc=1

indeed he does

lots of creative responses for defending a weak ass and incorrect AA fold. trying to play limit like NL is just an all around bad idea

*bump*

Baron is geting wtfpwned, I'd love to see David, Mason or Ed jump in for the TKO...

really amazing, i read a lot of the thread. That guy should just swallow his pride and admit he's very very wrong about the whole thing.

Originally Posted by jmontis

really amazing, i read a lot of the thread. That guy should just swallow his pride and admit he's very very wrong about the whole thing.

Nearly 300 posts now.

All that's needed now is Ed/David/Mason comming in and laying down the law...

Originally Posted by El Diablo

Barron's article and posts in this thread, however, could also make for a good article. Something like "The type of misguided results-oriented reasoning and attitude that keeps people mediocre low-limit players."

Really interesting thread, it's like an endurance test to see who will blink first .

Just a quick question from reading the thread. The requests are for Baron to do a weighted odds calculation... this is using pokerstove as a tool to evaulate possible hands to EV, correct? How would you do the calculation?

I usually screw these up my first time though, but I'll take a shot. Maybe a high school math teacher can double check my homework

We'll write the small blind off as rake + tips.

On the flop the pot as 10sb in it (BB + limper + 4 x2)

(per the article) at this point we put him on AA/KK/QQ/AK

If Frank bets every street and we call down, here is the PokerStove:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 28.9549 % 07.11% 21.85% { AdKd }
Hand 2: 71.0451 % 49.20% 21.85% { QQ+, AKs, AKo }

Assume he bets every street and we call for a cost of 5sb into a final pot of 20sb with an equity of about 29% which comes ot 5.79BB.

EV +0.79sb

Before we even factor in the chance he's over-playing a worse hand, missed bets trying to get cute, getting in an extra bet when we runner-runner the flush or whatever, call/call/call has a positive expectation. The burden is on any other line to beat this.

Given our hand + board, the weighted hands he could have are:

AA(3)
KK(1)
QQ(3)
AK(6)

Case A: 6/13 times we're free rolling against his AK
Case B: 3/13 times we're drawing to bd flush + 2 Kings (~4 outs)
Case C: 4/13 times we're drawing darn near dead and he's going to kick our ass

In case A, we're rewarded for being aggressive. Both because there is a good chance we have the only live draw and getting him to fold would be a coup.

Let's say we cap the flop and he usually check/calls all the way (BTW, this costs us the chance to raise on the end when our freeroll comes.)

8sb cost into a final pot of 26sb.

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 51.5152 % 04.55% 46.97% { AdKd }
Hand 2: 48.4848 % 01.52% 46.97% { AKs, AKo }

EV +5.39sb (before we consider the chance of him folding a split pot)

BTW, if we called it down and got in an extra bet when we hit:

EV: +5.39 = 5.3sb + (.0455 * 2)

It's a wash

Case B


Cap the flop and 1 bet on every other street, we'll consider any additional action as noise.

8sb cost into a final pot of 26sb

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 13.8552 % 13.13% 00.72% { AdKd }
Hand 2: 86.1448 % 85.42% 00.72% { AA }

EV -1.40 sb

Case C:

Cap the flop and from there it gets fuzzy. He could lead, he could check/raise, etc. It's not clear what Baron would do against any of these, but I suspect he considers himself a slave to the pot size often enough that he calls down. We'll credit Frank with putting in an extra bet here somewhere in the long run. I'll give Baron an extra BB when he sucks out too.

10sb cost into a final pot of 30 (with 2sb extra when we suck out)

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 06.4394 % 06.44% 00.00% { AdKd }
Hand 2: 93.5606 % 93.56% 00.00% { KK-QQ }

EV = -7.94 = -8.07 +(2 * .0644%)

Alright, so before we throw in any fold equity here is what we got:


(+5.39 * (6/13)) +
(-1.40 * (3/13)) +
(-7.94 * (4/13) =
2.49 - 0.32 - 2.44 =
-0.27

Without folding equity, this line costs us an extra 1.06sb.

Given that we win a 22sb pot we otherwise would have lost or split when our opponent folds what % of the time would he have to fold AA/AK? Figure in the fold case, we get 16sb more than we put in post-flop (edit: I had 14 in my original numbers, such a house of cards...)

So solve this:
(((+5.39 * (1 - X)) + (16 * x)) * (6/13)) +
(((-1.40 * (1 - X)) + (16 * x)) * (3/13)) +
(-7.94 * (4/13)) > +0.79


((+5.39 - 5.39X + 16x) * (6/13)) +
((-1.40 + 1.4X + 16x) * (3/13)) +
2.44 > +0.79

((+5.39 +10.61x) * (6/13)) +
((-1.40 +17.4x) * (3/13)) +
-2.44 > +0.79

2.49 + 4.90x
-0.32 + 4.02x +
-2.44 > +0.79

-0.27 + 8.92x > 0.79
8.92x > 1.06
x > .12


Have at it...

you included AKo in your calcs
barron said he's not playing AKo because SSH says not to cap with AKo (but cap with AKs)
so in fact his line is still worse than you calculated

edit:
Revised EV of call/call/call

Hand 1: 19.0965 % 08.25% 10.85% { AdKd }
Hand 2: 80.9035 % 70.06% 10.85% { QQ+, AKs }

EV is (0.191 * 20) - 5 = -1.18. So the line to beat is folding!!! which is 0. Hello Mr. Angelo.


Now we have 2 combinations of AK left, of 9 possible holdings....

(((+5.39 * (1 - X)) + (16 * x)) * (2/9)) +
(((-1.40 * (1 - X)) + (16 * x)) * (3/9)) +
(-7.94 * (4/9) > 0


((+5.39 - 5.39X + 16x) * (2/9)) +
((-1.40 + 1.4X + 16x) * (3/9)) +
3.53 > 0

((+5.39 +10.61x) * (2/9)) +
((-1.40 +17.4x) * (3/9)) +
-3.53 > 0

1.20 + 2.36x
-0.47 + 5.8x +
-3.53 > 0

-2.8 + 8.16x > 0
8.16x > 2.8
x > .34

If my numbers hold in a somewhat close form, then I think...

...Baron's range for Frank here is silly too tight.
...If he sticks to his read, then just fold to the flop bet. Is it worth spewing 3BB+ into this spot for a line that *might* be better than folding when half the table would probably just love to spew EV in his direction?

This is complicated actually.
I’ll take a stab at another way.

First use Poker Stove to determine the percentage time AdKd wins against the specific hands AA, KK, QQ and AKs. (Giving Barron credit for Villain's range here) with that flop.
Then determine a percentage that your opponent has each of these hands.
There are 6 ways to make each of the pairs, but since you have AK, and a KQ on the flop, there are only 3 ways to make AA or QQ and 1 way to make KK. This leaves 2 ways to make AKs.
Barron stated you must weight AA/KK higher than AKs/QQ so lets say we double it.
AA = 3 * 2 * %chance AA wins v AdKd
KK = 1 * 2 * % chance to win
QQ = 3 * % chance to win
AsKs = 1 * % chance to win
AcKc = 1 * % chance to win

Now we are trying to find the EV of the play vs:
A) call-call-call (WA/WB) or
B) raising and folding to a flop 3 bet
C) folding. (In general I am completely against this option, but if Villain’s pre flop range is as narrow as Barron claims, it must be considered. Both A and B is better if we include Ako in villain’s range.)


A)call call call costs 2.5BBs and will win 11BBs __% of the time (vs opponent's range)
B) Is hard to calculate, and is a bad line if you think opponent will 3 bet you with AKs.
But let's say it costs 1BB when against AA/KK/QQ and wins 0%
It costs 2BBs when against AK and wins 10BBs __% when called down, and 100% of the time when AK folds.
C)folding costs 0 and wins 0% of the time.

Barron’s line costs 4BBs vs. AA and AK, will also win 14BBs __% vs this range when called down. It costs 4BBs vs. KK/QQ when Barron doesn’t improve, assuming a turn checkraise and a river fold. It costs 5BBs when Barron improves. Some of these times he spikes another A or K v QQ or an A v KK, improving to a still-second-best hand. (We can discount this if Barron will only call when improving to a flush after the turn check raise. In that case it costs 4BBs or 6BBs, though Barron wins 100% of the time he puts in 6BBs) It will win __% vs these hands.


So now we can determine what the –EV is vs opponent’s range in each situation.
To determine how often Villain must fold AA/AK for Barron’s play to be profitable, We take the expected value of Barron’s line when it goes to showdown, and compare it to the most profitable of the alternatives. Take this difference of EV compared to the [final pot won – (Total EV difference)]
Then divide that by the probability that Villain holds AA/AK (8 combinations of 13 total, weighted)




We could try to simplify this by looking at it as a bluff. Barron is putting in 4BBs to win 10BBs. Therefore Villain must fold 4/10 = 40% of the time. Since Villain will not fold KK or QQ, AA and AK must make up for this. AA and AK make up 8/13 of villains range (according to our wiighted odds earlier) So Villain must fold AA/AK (4/10)/ (8/13) = 65% of the time. This number is artificially high, since we don’t take Barron’s equity into consideration. We could multiply this number by Villain’s equity % vs. Villain’s range to get a more accurate number. 65% * 81% = 53%

respond in the thread

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

One by one the online tables are going to get fishier and fishier at the higher limits, moreso than the lower limits. This trend has been seen in the 5/10 full ring games as well as the 3/6 games. The game is not going to get poorer but richer by comparison and it might be important to get as high as possible as quickly as possible. There is relatively no reason not to move up, now especially that you aren't afraid of losing your entire BR anymore because you have a job. The players aren't any smarter... They just have more money.

Are you saying that the online games are getting better/softer..? I thought most players figured the online tables to get more and more tight/aggressive..?

Aren't most players a little conserned wether the online poker will dry up in a few years and all that would be left would be the professional multi table tags and the recreative gamblers only beeing a minority..?

I also have another question for you. Is there any reason why you prefer Full ring over SH games, I guess you have climbed the ladder and played both 5/10 and 10/20 sh games. Are you playing any 20/40 sh or completely skipping this ..?

I'm interested in this as well. I think it was 'rilla that wrote that limit will be the game to play in a year or so -- not sure I buy it, as the 'get rich quick' ideal isn't there like it is in NL and especially tourns. Personally, I am a bit concerned that I got into this too late to capitalize on the fish at the upper limits. But if Jeff says they're getting softer, he's probably right. He's been there moreso than most. If not, I blame him, and win either way ;]

I guess its a moot point. Time will tell. I remember worrying back when I was playing $0.05/$0.10 that by the time I got to 2/4 all the fish would be gone, as only the decent players would have survived. I was wrong. Games are still very good at 2/4 -- arguably better than the .05/.10 tables I was playing -- and the money still freely flows. Hell, I jump on Pacific Poker and fire up $5/$10 -- and see people donating worse than the fishiest party 1/2 tables.

So, the profit is still there. How long it will last is anyone guess, but I bet its for quite a while. Besides, if pokerrooms start to see a decrease in players they'll just start giving larger bonuses as incentives. This is good. :]

I say we still have a few good years at the minimum.

Thanks guys for spending the time to do the calculations . It was helpful to me to see the breakdown in though process so I can try to apply the process to other situations. Fnord, the one place you lost me however, and probably the easiest to answer, is how you took the pokerstove percentages and compared them to the pot odds to get your EV numbers. I am trying to duplicate the calculation, but I am getting different results.

Originally Posted by Ltrain

Fnord, the one place you lost me however, and probably the easiest to answer, is how you took the pokerstove percentages and compared them to the pot odds to get your EV numbers. I am trying to duplicate the calculation, but I am getting different results.

(Equity * final pot size) - bets put in post-flop.

We're computing the EV of Baron's options after the flop.

Originally Posted by StinkyBeaver

Are you saying that the online games are getting better/softer..? I thought most players figured the online tables to get more and more tight/aggressive..?

Think of it this way, the money funnels up eventually. When you move up a level, you either alter your style of play to win, or you become a table donater. My comment was that, not a year ago 3/6 was considered a 'rock haven' when the play is just as nonsensical as the 2/4 games were at one point, especially at their 6 max games. 5/10 full was even worse than 3/6, and I havent played that game in 6 months...although I hear it has gotten a lot better. 15/30 is really not that hard, if you can beat 6 max you should have no trouble with this game, as long as you incorporate good table selection. Also, when you go into a csino the lowest limit a lot of the times is 5/10. Those same players playing at the 5/10 at the casino (who arguablly play a much different game that could be played online successfully) they go and say "oh, look, 5/10, I play this game at the casino and do well" and then get their asses kicked by TAGs that 'foolishly' 3-bet with 66 while this guy check/calls all the way with an unimproved AK only to get angry at the guy who raises such a 'marginal hand'. You've seen them, they are usually the table coaches who have read HEPFAP or maybe ToP, can win live probably 1 BB/hour, but have no idea how to play SSH (or have read that bok).

There will always be an abundance of players who think 1) Poker is pure gambling and luck; 2)reading books are a waste of money; 3) read the books, and dont understand them 4) read the books, understand them, but dont apply them and 5) read the books, understand the books, applies the books, but lose all their money because they go on tilt.

Aren't most players a little conserned wether the online poker will dry up in a few years and all that would be left would be the professional multi table tags and the recreative gamblers only beeing a minority..?

Even if that were the case, the winrates of the good players would go down, but probably never below zero. It would just go closer and closer to that 1 bb/hour rule. Even if this were the case, theres an easy way to take advantage of multi tabling rocks....Lag it up!

I also have another question for you. Is there any reason why you prefer Full ring over SH games, I guess you have climbed the ladder and played both 5/10 and 10/20 sh games. Are you playing any 20/40 sh or completely skipping this ..?

The problem with shorthanded games is that they are much more swingier. I like shorthanded play but find no tables to my liking. In fact, if I could play 3 handed vs a calling station I would do it every day, at any level. At 15/30, there are only 3 designated 6 max tables, the others are full ring but are often shorthanded for a little bit. At 20/40, there are no 6 max tables, however, a large majority of the tables have less than 6 players. The key to table selection is finding the good shorthanded tables where the players see a lot of flops, never steal your blinds, and will never check raise you. One reason I like full ring is that you can play 'by the book' poker' a lot easier and thus you have little opportunity to make mistakes, but then again so does your opponent.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by Ltrain

Fnord, the one place you lost me however, and probably the easiest to answer, is how you took the pokerstove percentages and compared them to the pot odds to get your EV numbers. I am trying to duplicate the calculation, but I am getting different results.

(Equity * final pot size) - bets put in post-flop.

We're computing the EV of Baron's options after the flop.

Thanks. I ordered King Yao's book and am trying to better develop the math side of my game.

My two cents on the other running conversation, what about the effect of online bonuses on the poker food chain? Yes, fish eventually bust out and the money will eventually go, triangle-ponzi scheme style, to the better players. However, each new player brings so much free bonus money in per person that the poker economy should still continue to grow. Almost like the fallacy of the mercantile economic theory that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. If games really start to "dry" up, won't the poker sites start offering larger and larger bonuses to keep the fun going?