advice to newbies: fixed for ring games, NL for SnGs

i hope that this will be of use to many people, especially those just starting out. since you'll have a small bankroll, you should stay away from NL ring games.

yes...you can win big, but you can also lose bigger. since it's so cheap, crappier players with money who are just there to gamble will chew you up.

let's say you get delt AA 3 times in a row. say you go all in preflop all 3 times. you would think you would double, than quadruple, than by the 3rd time you would have 8x the original stack, pretty good right? no!

AA preflop is only about 80% to win. to win it 3 times in a row would be (0.80)(0.80)(0.80)=51%

you're basically on a coin flip. now the chances of this happening or very slim. but still, it only takes that 20% to take your entire stack and put you on tilt making you lose the rest of your bankroll trying to "win it back."

never try to win anything back. the cards don't owe you anything. the players who won your money don't owe you anything.

therefore, for ring games, stick with fixed limit. you don't get paid as much, but you can be sure you will be up in the long run. if you are a 4 to 1 favourite, you will get paid off well because you will get lots of callers. and if you get beat, it only cost you at most a couple of BB, not your entire stack.

now for SnGs, NL is the only way to go. the reason for this is, when you raise, people will actually fold. ring games they call you all to the river and suck you out. but in SnGs, they are out of the tournament, so they are more reluctant to call you. another thing, when you are down to 5-6 people, those people will be GOOD players, and maybe one very lucky fish. now you can exercise all those skills you learned in poker books with a lot less fear of someone lucking out on you.

now depending on how you play SnGs, it's easier to break even then you think. to break even you would need to get 1st 22% of the time, 2nd 37% of the time, or 3rd 55% of the time. that averages to about 38% you need to be in the money to break even.

so to make a good profit you just need to be in the money at least 50% of the time.

at first it may be hard to get to this percentage, but with practice you will be able to get this.

agree or agree to disagree?

I ran some numbers on SNGs and I have this. Someone can correct if I did it wrong, but here goes:

Strategy One: "Play to Win"
Assumes that when you place it's evenly split between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd:

5+1 ... avg prize 16.67
Place 36.0% of the time

10+1 (rake) ... avg prize when you place = 33.33
You need to place 33.3% of the time to break even

32+3 (this is the best rake ratio) ... avg prize 106.67
Place 32.8%

Strategy Two: "Play to Place"
A different way to go about it: play tight as hell and just try to outlast the others. I don't actually do this, but I think some people do

Some calculations on this:
You place 3rd every time you place, and if you place 2nd or 1st that's your profit
5+1 placing 3rd 60% of the time breaks even
10+1 " 55%
32+3 " 54.7

I'm curious about the thoughts you guys might have about a newbie trying to clear a bonus? As I get more experience with the "system" of playing raked hands, etc., on Party - I think I made a big mistake with my initial deposit.

I more enjoy playing the 6 max tables, rather than the full 10 person tables. Clearing the initial deposit and referral bonuses seemed to take a lot longer on 6 max tables.

Because you're having to blind-in more frequently, and because it seems like 99% of the hands in a full ring game get "raked", while it only seemed like about 85 - 90% of the 6-max games would count as "raked". Speaking in terms of the $1/$2 tables here.

If I had it to do over again, I would have played all my "bonus-clearing" hands on a full ring game, rather than a 6 max table. Seems like it wouldn't have taken as long, while I still could have played a higher percentage of raked hands free, without having to post the blind repeatedly.

I don't know megachi.. I've never really played limit so I can't compare, but according to Tyson there is less variance in No Limit than there is in limit..

Originally Posted by TheNatural

I don't know megachi.. I've never really played limit so I can't compare, but according to Tyson there is less variance in No Limit than there is in limit..

maybe so, i think for the good player they are both about the same. but i find it's a lot easier in no limit to put a player on tilt. after all, AA getting cracked by JJ or something all in preflop will put most people on tilt, even tho you had the best of it. in fixed, you can see the flop, turn, and river progress and you'll have a better idea if you still are ahead or not.

I strongly disagree for your reasoning for not playing NL ring game.

if there are calling stations in ring game, it should be matter of time before

you take their entire stack. After all, isn't that why the host of FTR

changed to NL? to punish the chasers? and about your AA comment, your

stack should have tripled up by the 3rd showdown, that even if you lose,

you should still have double your stack, and even if your aces get cracked

against another guy with 3x buyin, you should be happy that you had your

money in the middle while you had the 80%, not 50%.

trust me it's more frustrating to play limit with chasers because you can't

punish them for chasing their gut shots/ runner runner flushs.. you can

easily maniupulate the odds so chasing will make them go broke.

you should know by now that 200-bb swing is a common thing in limit

games and that the variance goes up to 300bb when there are 6 people

seeing the flop. I've read on 2+2 forums that limit has higher variance

than no limit for the same reason, because more chasers= more out

draws. if you are afraid to lose your stack in NL, you obviosuly have

insufficient bankroll, so I suggest you move to micro limit blinds games at

stars (1/2cent 5$ max buyin) paradise (2$ nl max) and etc.

Don't be afraid to put the money in the middle becase you are afraid of

getting chased. the odds is agasint them, not you.

there are pros and cons for each. but this is mainly for new people getting into poker on minimum bankrolls trying to build up. even on party poker, the average new player will probably deposit around 50 to 100 bucks...which is not a lot considering you need 25 to play the lowest NL tables there.

previously i've played the NL tables max bring in 5 bucks at royal vegas. i was doing good, and a lot of ups and downs. it took me about 3 weeks to get that up to 120 bucks from the free 10 bucks i started with. my variance was very high though, mainly because preflop raises would give me a crap flop and i can't bluff others out at these limits. and when i won, i would double my stack, and when i lost, lose it all of course. after some stupid omaha games i lost about 50 bucks before i realized it, then played holdem again trying to win it back. i eventually lost everything.

i've moved to empire poker now, playing the .50/1 fixed games. and i can tell you from my own experience that in 5 hours i've made what i made playing those $5 NL games in 2 weeks...with much less variance.

you may argue that blinds are 25 and 50 cents compared to 5 and 10. but the average pot sizes are about the same.

you cant talk about variance until you played at least 10k hands.

Originally Posted by AllinLife

you cant talk about variance until you played at least 10k hands.

i have about 8k hands for my NL ring games. my average win rate was -0.13/hr, average win rate std is 11.32/hr. at my peak of $120 bankroll my average win rate was about 2.5/hr but the variance was about the same (10.55).

i've only just started playing fixed. but when i get over 5000 hands i'll post some meaningful results.