The difference between good and great players?

I have been playing for about 8 months now, and believe I have been a good player for the last 6 months. The thingis, i'm not sure how to progress from a good player to a great player. I can see what the great players see when the analyse hands on this forum, i know pretty much all the poker theory and very rarely give bad beat. I can read hands well and cut off drawing odds etc, all the things needed basically to be a good player. I'm just wondering what is needed to progress, what do great players have that merely good players lack? Personally i dont really think that i have improved much in the last 2 months, despite all the handsi have played - there just doesnt seem to be much else to learn.

I think it's always possible to read opponents better.

easy answer:

post flop play, and adaptation.

someone who plays premium hands and throws in that raggy 78o from time to time may still be able to show a profit with it because he isn't afraid of the "nuts" all the time.

Reads, manipulaion (of image and opponents), precision (knowing exactly how to play each street), experience (instinct).

When you really start to think about what others are thinking of you and what you're doing and thinking, that's when you've made it.

It's a lot of little things. It's not one concrete obvious red flag. It's small improvement in all areas. For many people a lack of balls loses them a ton of money.

I was in a $20 multi table last night at the final table. I had about 2,800 chips. I limped into the small blind to complete the 200. The BB raised me to 750 to go. I have 76 suited and a tight image (important). As a beginner I would never dream of entering this pot, but my image was tight, and I felt I could outplay him if I felt he missed. It had nothing to do with what I had, though it had promise. I called and the flop came out K8Q rainbow. I totally missed. I checked and he bet 400 into a 1500 pot. I check raised him all in for a little over 2,000. he folded, I showed, and he tilted shortly thereafter. This is a situation you may have played differently.

Here's another. later on in the same tourney I caught QJs UTG. I decided to limp it, as the aggression wasn't too overpowering at the table, so if it got raised it's an easy fold. Sure enough I saw a flop without a problem. It ended up being only the BB and myself. It came out 5 6 9. The BB bet 400 into a 900 pot (minimum bet). I called with two overs and a back door flush draw. I caught my Q on the turn. He led out for 1,100 into me. I thought about it and folded because it was a trap hand. He had 56 and had flopped two pair.

It's little things. I'd say the biggest thing that separates a good player from a great player is one word....

EMOTION

if you ever saw the 300/600 limit tables on UB, they call down 5k pots with queen high Learning to trust your instinct and going the distance with it is the key.

Originally Posted by TalentedTom

if you ever saw the 300/600 limit tables on UB, they call down 5k pots with queen high Learning to trust your instinct and going the distance with it is the key.

that's a whole different ballgame, you just simply aren't going to make $5k calls in NL with queen high.

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by jmontis

Originally Posted by TalentedTom

if you ever saw the 300/600 limit tables on UB, they call down 5k pots with queen high Learning to trust your instinct and going the distance with it is the key.

that's a whole different ballgame, you just simply aren't going to make $5k calls in NL with queen high.

Not to mention that the 300/600 game there is usually heads up... So it's all about reads and pretty much anything goes

I'll agree that balls, postflop play, and reads are all a part of it. Personally, I don't think you can rely strictly on luck and balls. You have to be able to last when the cards don't fall. Finding some way to integrate successful money management is a factor, IMO.

The difference?

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance." - Socrates

Don't pretend like you know everything, the first...and only step to becoming a great player is knowing that you always have something to learn.

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

I'll agree that balls, postflop play, and reads are all a part of it. Personally, I don't think you can rely strictly on luck and balls. You have to be able to last when the cards don't fall. Finding some way to integrate successful money management is a factor, IMO.

that doesnt make a great player, just a player that doesnt blow his money. Its like saying stu unger wasnt great because had bad bankroll management.

Originally Posted by FISHTACO

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

I'll agree that balls, postflop play, and reads are all a part of it. Personally, I don't think you can rely strictly on luck and balls. You have to be able to last when the cards don't fall. Finding some way to integrate successful money management is a factor, IMO.

that doesnt make a great player, just a player that doesnt blow his money. Its like saying stu unger wasnt great because had bad bankroll management.

I didn't say it made a great player. I said that it would also be a factor.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

...shed your fear of the value of the chips and you will be a 'great' player before you can say 'Phil Helmuth can kiss my ass'

I've got a new sig.

Rondavu, did you lose your tight image in one fell swoop when you showed that guy your bluff? Obviously it won you a good pot AND took an opponent out of the equation, but I'm curious to know how you think tyhe rest of the table viewed you from then on (and, indeed, how you played after that).

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

Ficshman, Cunningham, Matasow, all these guys have the same understanding for the game as you do....they just managed to win a few higher stakes events and their careers were launched just like that.

Never heard of one of them, the other doesn't impress me and the third likes to give away money by playing 50/100 HU NLHE with Spirit Rock when he's not otherwise tilting. Truely people to look up to over the likes of Chip Reese.

The guys truely making bank at poker play as much as they can in as many good games as they can find. They are able to tune out most of the daily noise of swings and collect as their edges come in. People that think and play like Rippy have a habbit of disappearing from the poker scene.

I'd just like to play like a wining poker player
That will do for me
As for getting great? i have no idea, but i assume knowing every play in the book, betting patterns helps as does being able to read you opps cards.
Then i guess you need a good deal of luck.

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

...shed your fear of the value of the chips and you will be a 'great' player before you can say 'Phil Helmuth can kiss my ass'

i used to struggle at .05/.10NL .. now if i sit there i pwn the fuck out of it and laugh at how incredibly low the standard is compared to the games i'm playing now.

reason: as you say ripptyde, fear. I wont hesitate at that level now to throw my chips around like its fun money if the right moment comes along.. At the higher games i cant do it quite the same way yet. But i'm getting there.

too often i see people saying that they put someone on a certain hand, and they have that hand beat.. and yet they fold. ?? Fear.

Personally i dont really think that i have improved much in the last 2 months, despite all the handsi have played - there just doesnt seem to be much else to learn.

There is always more to learn, would you be confident to regularly build up a monster stack at $10/$20NL the way Hallingol and Joker do? The week i can play 5000 hands, and honestly say i didnt make any errors/misreads, then i'll call myself a great player.

what stakes are you at toadstool?

Originally Posted by BIGandRICH

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

...shed your fear of the value of the chips and you will be a 'great' player before you can say 'Phil Helmuth can kiss my ass'

reason: as you say ripptyde, fear. I wont hesitate at that level now to throw my chips around like its fun money if the right moment comes along.. At the higher games i cant do it quite the same way yet. But i'm getting there.

too often i see people saying that they put someone on a certain hand, and they have that hand beat.. and yet they fold. ?? Fear.

I prefer the term discipline, and it's a two way street. Consider: FTR Vegas single re-buy tourney, Xianti twidles with some chips UTG and finally raises for something innocent like 3x after clearly thinking about it for 3 or 4 seconds. Folded to me and I muck AQo from the SB because I'm certain enough I'm either flipping a coin or dominated out of position. Too many players just can't lay it down when they know they're beat often enough that they can't call because of an irrational fear of laying down the better hand.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

'people that think and play like Rippy have a habit of disappearing from the poker scene' ???

wtf Fnord

Players "looking for the big score", playing too many hands too aggressivly, not keeping detailed records (perhaps even going so far as to mock those that do), letting the maddening swings of the game effect their play, playing outside their roll, fail to recognise a bad game or when to leave a game gone bad, take on all commers, etc. tend to shine for a while then disappear. Inevitably variance, tilt and regular opponents adjusting to their play probably does them in.

Originally Posted by Erik Seidel

Throughout my years of playing tournaments, I’ve been fooled many times, thinking, “Wow, this guy must be playing great, he is one of the top players,” and two years later he has disappeared.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

(spare the 'gimme my fuckin money bitch' comments to all those I owe)

For all the ugly things I said in this thread, I said them because I believe them to be true and wish you the best Marty.

I've played from $25NL to $200NL, what i play depends on how well I feel I am playing at the time, and other things such as boredom and impatience come into it, I was thinking about it today and I think thats it boils down to how disciplined you can be and how you handle the emotional swings. Many times i will call down with TPTK just because I am curious to see whether my read was right, a huge leak in my game, I know but I only do this at $25NL, sometimes i'll play 4 tables of $25 for 2 hours not pick up a single hand, get frustrated about how little money I am making think to myself "in two hours ive made what i could make in one blind steal at a $200NL game, and so just cruise up to there and play with scared money." I get impatient at the 25NL as i have discovered bluffing isnt profitable and you NEED cards at that level, and I can go card dead for ages and you get bored/frustrated. I then head up to 200NL and i won't be playing my A game as i just dont want to risk pushing over somebody for 1/4 of my bankroll on what i "think" is a bluff, im playing with scared money there. Although i have broken even at 200NL, I can't play my best there until I have the right mental state and bankroll to try it.

Originally Posted by biondino

Rondavu, did you lose your tight image in one fell swoop when you showed that guy your bluff? Obviously it won you a good pot AND took an opponent out of the equation, but I'm curious to know how you think tyhe rest of the table viewed you from then on (and, indeed, how you played after that).

It didn't ruin my image to make one move. People know better than that. A couple of them knew what I was doing and disregarded the technique. I showed my hand to tilt that one guy because the pot was large enough to give either of us sealegs to sail with. When you steal a crucial large pot late in a multi table, and then let them know it was theirs for the taking, it can psychologically damage an opponent.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

All the 'greats' are no better than the average Joe they are just playing higher stakes.

I think this may be partially true for those average players who know enough to beat the fish that wander into a big game, but there is a difference between good and great players.

Look at hallingol and mahatma for an easy example that most of us are familiary with. Something makes them better than good.

someone who can fold an overpair to top set

Originally Posted by Zidane18

someone who can fold an overpair to top set

someone who can fold an overpair to bottom set?


or you can be like me today and still call a 25xBB river bet on a straight and flush board holding nothing more than a set of jacks.

The best online players and players who run the casinos play for 10+ hours per session. They just play so many more hands than any of us. They optimize their game to a point where most of the plays they make are winning plays, and they play long enough to balance out any bad luck. I play for only maybe 2 hours a day, I do not have any more time :/ Being able to maintain composure for a very long time is very difficult and may take a VERY long time to develop. I don't think I will become a great player any time soon because I don't have the time, but I feel that eventually I may break through. I have won two $10 MTT's each with ~500 people, but I did it without making any amazing reads or anything, just playing fundamentally tight, and picking my spots. If that was a $100 MTT, I probably could not achieve the same result because the players are smart enough to catch on
My point - Good players have amazing discpline and are always constantly aware of what is going on. I think a lot of players have the potential to become good, you don't need to be a math genius or have a PHD in phcychology but you need to take what you are doing very seriously and have a desire. Someone like me who just plays two hours a day will not make that level any time soon.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

Launching a 'pro' career is only one big buy in tourney away and dont you forget it my friend....life is not a rehearsal. Never be a 'grinder'......we ALL have 'the game'.....its just a question of balls with the buy in and the luck of the cards when it counts

what you said about Michael Gracz is so true, he even admitted in an interview that he was basically "in the right place at the right time" for 3 of his big tournament wins this past year.

When James Vogl took down 1st at a $2500 WSOP main event in 2004, a 24 year old Backgammon player who had only played Hold'em maybe 2 years, he said something like "I feel like I don't even deserve this, there were so many other great players like David Chu, Phil ivey, and Howard Lederer in this tourney"

its easy to learn but hard to perfect.

It's very hard to define the line between bad/good players because I see "bad" players beat "good" players all the time.

IMO, if your consistent at winning then you are a good player.

The question isn't if this or that particular player is great. It's what differentiates a great player from someone that is simply good.

I think that what Ripptyde is saying along the right track. Reading books and essays and discussing hands are excellent ways to become a better player, but once you get to a certain level pretty much everyone has the same knowledge. Anyone with access to the internet can learn basically everything there is to know about pot odds, game theory, and every other aspect of poker.

I think that what makes great players great goes beyond the mechanics of the game. I think everyone one of us has experienced being "in the zone." Those particular tournaments we won or those ring session where we just totally killed it. We were focused. We were confident. Our reads were dead on. We knew exactly when to apply pressure and when to back off. Why can't we play like that all the time? We have shown the capability to do it, yet most of the time we play we aren't at that level. IMO the great players are the ones that play like that every time they sit down and if they aren't then they have the capabilty to recognize it and walk away until they are.

Like Ripptyde said, great players are confident. They have the "balls" to make moves when they need to. Much of this is because of experience. They have played so many hands against so many players that they readily recognize certain situations and know the best plan of attack (or retreat). As Ripptyde mentioned, part of this is also because of their bankroll. They have the ability to look past the monetary value of a poker chip. Ripptyde is right that people like Fnord are sometimes held back because we place too much emphasis on the money involved. No offense Fnord, but every time I think of you playing I think of Knish from Rounder's grinding it out. There is nothing wrong with that and I myself am often the same way. If I was deriving my entire income from poker as you once were, I know I would be exactly the same way. There is no doubt you can be highly successful at this as many people have shown, but at the same time it can hinder your progression as a poker player. Even the elite players take risks sometimes. They know it's essential to improving their play. If you're going to be a great player then you're going to have to play outside of your comfort zone from time to time. The more you do it then the better prepared you are.

What Ripptyde's approach is lacking though is discipline. We all know you're a good player Rippy, but you have a bad habit of losing your focus, taking too many chances, and then subsequently pissing away your winnings. It's not a personal attack, just an honest critique. To be a great player you have to have discipline. Great players are patient. They can wait for the best opportunities to put their money in. They can make the laydowns others can't. Their discipline goes beyond the actual playing of cards as well. It goes back to what Fnord was saying. Great players also exhbit good bankroll management. They know the importance of game selection. They play focused and relaxed and have the ability to recognize when they aren't. They know their limitations and are honest with themselves.

I'm not trying to be a moderator bewteen Fnord and Rippy. I respect them both and have learned a great deal from them. I think they both have very valid points, but individually they are lacking. There has to be an appropriate balance between the two.

When you get right down to it though, being a great player has little/nothing to do with the actual game and everything to do with experience and attitude.

I'd say a large part of the difference is better play in marginal situations. Making a tough laydown to save your stack, making a tough call to win a huge pot, making a well timed effective bluff into a large pot when most people wouldn't risk it, etc. Within these key moments, if a player is able to make the correct play significantly more often than the good players, I'd say that would be the difference that makes them great.

Also, I'd say extracting the most possible value out with winning hands, and risking the smallest amount necessary on bluffs. Good but not great players will often scare out lesser hands when they have it, and risk too much of their stack when they bluff.

Most of the things in this thread I'd say more address what makes a player a good player, and not the difference between the good players and the elite players.

But I'm also of the opinion that no one on this board is truly an elite player. There's a world of difference between us and the Phil Ivey's of the world. Anyone that truly believes that the difference is just bankroll related is delusional, in my opinion. There's a reason that the elite players were able to build and sustain those bankrolls over years and years of play.

{This post has been removed}

{This post has been removed}

I don't understand why you can't be a grinder and still shoot for the big games? Sure it takes the grinder longer to get there, but they will eventually do it if they're good. Many of the pro players you see on TV are grinders. Actually, almost all of them are. It took some of them at least a decade to get to the big games but they did.

You can't tell me that Chip Reese, Harmon, Greenstein, etc aren't grinders. They play a $4k/8k game where their edge is small if not non exsistent. I'm sure that they average way less BBs per hour than we do. If they weren't grinders, you wouldn't see them every freakin' day at the Bellagio giving $1 tips to the dealers after pulling in a $100,000 pot.

What makes a great player?

Well, my definition of a great player is experience and winning. If you've been making more than $100,000 a year for at least 5 years, I'd say you're a great player.

A great player needs not be a celebrity. There are middle aged Vietnamese women at Commerce that routinely have 20 grand in chips sitting in front of them everyday. You've never seen them and they'll probably never be on TV.

So how many great players are on this board? None probably. I don't know, maybe a few are around.

But there sure are a hell of a lot of good players at FTR that just need a little time to become great. I'm hoping to become one eventually.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

Michael I agree with you about Phil Ivey. I didn't mean to suggest that any player with a big bankroll is as good as he is. What I meant was that there is a fine line. You managed to make it deeper than he did in the WSOP and that speaks volumes for your ability.

Haha, actually, I didn't. Ivey went very deep, and finished like 15th or something. But Ivey, Matusow, Juanda, and Raymer were the only big name players that outlasted me, so I get the point.

I'm just saying that there's a lot more to it than the devaluation of money. You're correct that that is a vital attribute of any high stakes player, but there's a lot more to it than that, and that's not the only thing that seperates the best from the good players.

Originally Posted by Checkways

I don't understand why you can't be a grinder and still shoot for the big games? Sure it takes the grinder longer to get there, but they will eventually do it if they're good. Many of the pro players you see on TV are grinders. Actually, almost all of them are. It took some of them at least a decade to get to the big games but they did.

You can't tell me that Chip Reese, Harmon, Greenstein, etc aren't grinders. They play a $4k/8k game where their edge is small if not non exsistent. I'm sure that they average way less BBs per hour than we do. If they weren't grinders, you wouldn't see them every freakin' day at the Bellagio giving $1 tips to the dealers after pulling in a $100,000 pot.

That's really not accurate. Greenstein talks about in his book about how he'd regularly buy into any good game, as long as he had the money to do so, irregardless of BR management rules. As long as the game was soft and playing would be plus EV for him, he'd play in a game, even if he could only afford one buyin.

To me, a "grinder" is someone that regularly plays one level and grinds out a regular income, typically just enough to live off of. They don't have aspirations of moving up to higher limits, they're just content to grind out what they make, without taking any risks. This wouldn't describe anyone that's made it big in the world of poker, at least in terms of how they were before they really made it.

If this does accurately describe anyone in the big game, that's only because there is no other games at that buyin, and no higher stake games out there. They've already came as far as they can, for the time being. If better and higher stake games were available though, you can bet that they'd be looking to play in them.

The more I think about it, the more wrong I think you are. The fact that they're at the highest possible stakes that you can play at shows how damn motivated they were to constantly succeed at higher and higher stakes, and that they were never content to grind it out at one level for the rest of their lives. Of course they avoided going broke by limiting the chances they took, but they never just settled for making $10 an hour ... or $100 an hour ... or even $1000 an hour ... They were constantly looking to build their BR up enough to move up to higher and higher limits.

This thread started as a question: what is the difference between good and excellent players. For what I have heard the differences are making good laydowns and good reads and picking your spots. Michael already mentioned this.

The reason I wanted to respond to this thread is that I am not proud how this conversation turned. Some of our oldest and most respected contributors started to pick each other with a way they shouldnt have. I like most of the people here dont want to take sides because they both seem to think so extreme. I personally dont think that succeeding is just a question of a bankroll, it is obvious that the games get tougher when the stakes get higher, I have unfortunately seen that myself. I am a consistant winner in nl100 and even in nl200 but I dont beat the game at nl400. But I also feel that you should take some chances, not playing with half your BR all the time but eventually you might want to play stakes over the normal BR standards if you really have confidence in your game or you have found a perticularly soft game. I really boosted my poker career only after playing 3-4 months when I managed to win over $6k in a MTT. The buy-in was a bit over my BR but I had got my first FT the day before and there was some overlay and I decided to give it a shot.

Eventually, we all decide to how to live our lives or how we deal with our poker career. Some take it safe, some like to live dangerously. I personally walk the middle path. I have noticed that it suits me best. We should all just learn from our mistakes and give ourselves a change to succeed and those of us that have the skill, guts, discipline, will to work hard and luck may eventually get there.

{This post has been removed}

What seperates great poker players from average poker player? TJ. Cloutier has been asked that a million times. See what he has to say.....

TJ CardPlayer Article

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

PI: It seems simple until you start losing. People have different ways that they go about making money. I’m not the best at managing money. If I’ve got the money to play, I’m gonna play

http://www.playwinningpoker.com/poke...ers/phil-ivey/

Let's put that comment in perspective...

I believe the main reason for Phil's success is what he muttered under his breath at a table a few years later as someone told him how great a player he was. He said: "I don't think I'm that good.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

3 MTT wins and I have nothing to show for it.

Zero MTT wins and I have plenty to show for my poker play. I have cashed every month (except last month where one losing session put me down about -$100 net for the month), play better and have fun. You keep talking up "taking big shots." Well, at least 4 of your big shots came in and you still owe people money.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

#1 ranked player on pocketfives? I'm going to bust him with rags. [proceeds to push every hand pre-flop, BRSavage calls with A5o] HOW THE HELL DOES HE CALL THAT?!?!?

Clearly top level thinking...

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

It wouldn't surpise me one bit to see you playing 1/2 limit at Commerce with the senior citizens nursing your stack of $1.00 chips folding A/Q pre flop to a 2 dollar raise

I play 9/18 over there now, thank you (recently put in my 3rd biggest daily loss and felt pretty good about it.) Prior to that I mostly played 4/8 because the bigger games in Washington just aren't very good. Particularly for someone like me who doesn't have a lot of social engineering talent.

{This post has been removed}

Seems that there is a difference that isn't being distinguished between "great player" "professional player" and "famous player"

I'd put Dutch Boyd in the "famous player" category. He does well, but we know him because he was out-spoken in the 03 WSOP main event, and we followed him to his one and only apperance in the 04 Razz final table. After seeing some stuff about rakefree.com, I can say that he has a good business sense. But a gret player? No.

Anyone can be a professional. All you have to do is not have another job. Hell, my sister (housewife and mother) played a home game a couple months ago and left with a profit. Technically, she's a professional poker player with her only income from poker.

A great player is one who can spot the small edges he has. Anyone can win a hand with the nuts. How many times have you lost with TPTK? Trips against higher trips? A straight against a flush? Honestly, that is why a good player is not a great player. The players who can spot these and drop the hands, spot the SMALL advantages he has and push those are the truely profitable players. The ones who will earn a living for years to come.

I don't know you, just heard about you. But, welcome back Rippy. Nothing's changed, table's are still as nasty as ever - as well as the player's as you can see. Hope you're prepped and ready to go!

Again, welcome back... I know a few that are quite pleased.

Trace

omg trace made a post
let's celebrate

Originally Posted by Toadstool

- there just doesnt seem to be much else to learn.

doesn't seem, but there's a lot. With all your respect, how many books did you read in 8 months ? 5 ? 6 ? Do you think that's enough to know EVERYTHING ?
I m not a great player. I m not sure i 'm even a good one but i'm learning every day.
sklansky says in his book " holdem poker for advanced player " that you need a life time to master Holdem.

Sure, all the knowledge is not good enough to be crushing all the big tournaments. Some players have something that can't be teach.

Originally Posted by iopq

omg trace made a post
let's celebrate

lol! shuttup io! once in a great while im known to make an appearance and grace u lot with my lovely presence :P *psyche* and heck id post more if people responded more! (minus the 'donk' name calling responses damnit!)

Trace

Originally Posted by wolfofruby

With all your respect, how many books did you read in 8 months ? 5 ? 6 ? Do you think that's enough to know EVERYTHING ?

The number of books you have read doesn't mean shit.

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by -trACE-

Originally Posted by iopq

omg trace made a post
let's celebrate

lol! shuttup io! once in a great while im known to make an appearance and grace u lot with my lovely presence :P *psyche* and heck id post more if people responded more! (minus the 'donk' name calling responses damnit!)

Trace

Donk.


Oh, and hey Ripp, what's up.

when you expout the virtues of taking reckless shots and belittle keeping records or even knowing what your approximate edge is over a per time basis I won't let such horribly flawed logic stand unchallenged. How exactly is such behavior different than the old lady pulling the lever at the progressive jackpot slot machine? She could win big too. Could even take a big shot at the "high stakes" slot machine. Heck, if the jackpot is big enough it might even be +EV...

As I recall your bid to play full time fell flat on its face

If my monthly burn rate was lower, I'd be living it up. I considereded a lot of options, including moving to a lower cost part of the country/world. One of the best possible jobs landed in my lap and pretty much settled the issue. The day I showed up they appologised for not giving me a window office....

Originally Posted by Les_Worm

Originally Posted by wolfofruby

With all your respect, how many books did you read in 8 months ? 5 ? 6 ? Do you think that's enough to know EVERYTHING ?

The number of books you have read doesn't mean shit.

maybe, but your experience does. Is 8 months enough to know everything ?
It's just a way to say that i doubt that someone can know all about theory in few months. Maybe it's possible, but you must be stronger than me

Originally Posted by Humphrind

Anyone can be a professional. All you have to do is not have another job.

A great player is one who can spot the small edges he has. Anyone can win a hand with the nuts. How many times have you lost with TPTK? Trips against higher trips? A straight against a flush? Honestly, that is why a good player is not a great player. The players who can spot these and drop the hands, spot the SMALL advantages he has and push those are the truely profitable players. The ones who will earn a living for years to come.

Humph nailed it.

Might I also add that anyone can mindlessly pound without an edge and suck-out or induce a laydown every now and then. Great players do it when it's profitable to do so.

I think you're over-reacting a litte bit rippy, its not like Fnord stabbed you in the face with a pair of rusty children's safety scissors. I know its frustrating to hear someone criticize you, especially when its not done in the most polite manner, but it wasn't that bad either.

Fnord and rippy are simply coming from different directions. There are good things to be learned from both sides.

Originally Posted by wolfofruby

Originally Posted by Les_Worm

Originally Posted by wolfofruby

With all your respect, how many books did you read in 8 months ? 5 ? 6 ? Do you think that's enough to know EVERYTHING ?

The number of books you have read doesn't mean shit.

maybe, but your experience does. Is 8 months enough to know everything ?
It's just a way to say that i doubt that someone can know all about theory in few months. Maybe it's possible, but you must be stronger than me

I agree with your above statement. Its not possible to know everything, I just thought you were placing too much weight on books. Experience is key, and 8 months is not long enough, you are right. (I don't know where the 8 months number came from, I forgot who you were talking to). I just kinda jumped in to give me .02 cents.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

#1 ranked player on pocketfives? I'm going to bust him with rags. [proceeds to push every hand pre-flop, BRSavage calls with A5o] HOW THE HELL DOES HE CALL THAT?!?!?

(the blinds + antes were fairly small, since PokerStars hadn't gotten around to raising the blind cap to a reasonable level given how much the tourney had grown.)

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

LMFAO @ you saving my quote about BRsavage...what was that 6 months ago ? You forgot to mention that was on the FINAL TABLE of a tourney with over 1000 players in which I finished 4th if I am not mistaken. I'd make the same play again given the opportunity.

Clearly rising to the challenge and getting the most value out of your play up until that point. Not to mention objectivly looking at the situation afterwards in order to grow as a player...

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

hey wassssssssssup

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by dthorne04

Donk.


Oh, and hey Ripp, what's up.

Grrr...

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

thanks for the kind words Trace...welcome to FTR

No prob Rippy. Thanks for the welcome... a tad delayed :P but thanks either way. I'm not too active with posting in the forums. People like to rip apart and scrutinize some of the verbage that many people have put a lot of thought into writing. I've tried a few times and ended up feeling pretty abashed thereafter, so I spend most of my time on Vent. Love it there because I can always yell at you if you piss me off

Anyhow, thanks for the warm welcome! I'm sure we'll cross paths sooner or later. See ya when I see ya and please, keep your head up. I know how it is to struggle with the passtime you enjoy so much. But overall, we're all different people, therefore we all learn our lessons at our own pace. What matters most in the longrun is that you learn, period. In my opinion, what sets apart the good from the great, is the ability to accept, adapt, understand the game and its many swings in its entirety, and still persist on and remain constantly vigilant - No Matter What. And with vigilance comes the motivation, passion, and confidence to succeed. If you play like a winner, you come out a winner, despite the outcome. Regardless, the most significant part to me is the simple fact that with every hand you play, every person encountered, every scenario critiqued, there's always a lesson hidden somewhere in the woodwork to be learned, and it's up to the individual to find that ball, pick it up, and run with it.

oh woops silly me for being a stupid blonde

i seriously thought it was directed towards "King Hee-Haw' himself (donk of all donks).

not too much is up, just doin' the normal, playin' poker and making people wonder if i ever sleep lol. so far the days been a great day primarily because i eradicated the word 'variance' in my mind and am now on the up-n-up. The day's not even over and i've managed to gather another Stars FT finish and broke the 1k profit mark. right now i'm starting the madness so your best wishes of luck will be greatly appreciated. i need it considering all the luck i've ever possessed is the BAD kind

man you guys are making this complicated.

A good player makes money, a great player makes ALOT of money.

Originally Posted by Bmxicle

A good player makes money, a great player makes ALOT of money.

Quoted for truth.

I'm not too active with posting in the forums. People like to rip apart and scrutinize some of the verbage that many people have put a lot of thought into writing. I've tried a few times and ended up feeling pretty abashed thereafter, so I spend most of my time on Vent. Love it there because I can always yell at you if you piss me off

That's really a shame. I wouldn't dwell too much on the negative comments. People do make them, but there are also people who put a lot of time into providing well-thought-out criticism. From your last few posts it seems like could contribute a lot to the forums. It would be nice to see you contribute more.

Case in point...

And with vigilance comes the motivation, passion, and confidence to succeed. If you play like a winner, you come out a winner, despite the outcome. Regardless, the most significant part to me is the simple fact that with every hand you play, every person encountered, every scenario critiqued, there's always a lesson hidden somewhere in the woodwork to be learned, and it's up to the individual to find that ball, pick it up, and run with it.

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

That's really a shame. I wouldn't dwell too much on the negative comments. People do make them, but there are also people who put a lot of time into providing well-thought-out criticism. From your last few posts it seems like could contribute a lot to the forums. It would be nice to see you contribute more.

Case in point...

And with vigilance comes the motivation, passion, and confidence to succeed. If you play like a winner, you come out a winner, despite the outcome. Regardless, the most significant part to me is the simple fact that with every hand you play, every person encountered, every scenario critiqued, there's always a lesson hidden somewhere in the woodwork to be learned, and it's up to the individual to find that ball, pick it up, and run with it.

Well I guess me popping up and posting for once is a start. The fact that you reiterated the above statement that came out of my mind was the reminder I needed I guess. In all honesty, I'm not one to dwell on negativity - I shove it aside, just like you would shove your stack in rebuy madness. It was more of a 'comfortability' factor. Pardon me if what I'm about to say comes across schovanistic, but FTR is predominately male. It's hard enough being a female poker player trying to contend vs. so many skilled men. But to actually talk about poker and share any experiences, strengths, or hopes that I may have with the game and actually be taken seriously or even respected has been an extremely tough feat for me to endure/overcome. I may not have shown an abundance of activity in the forum, but I honestly feel that exposing myself to Vent and sticking around for the time that I have has really been instrumental in helping me get to the point where people know what I'm capable of, been there along my journey to that final table, or just sat there and talked poker with me. I'm now comfortable - enough to where difference in gender is insignificant. Instead of being regarded a 'female' poker player, I'm simply just a poker player, striving to succeed, just like all of you.

So yea, it's entirely your fault Mr. Nuts... I'll be around here more often and I do hope to be able to contribute and give back to this community as it has contributed and given to me. See ya around.

ya there are a lot of troll-like comments from time to time, but there's also good advice from players who know what they are talking about.

Well the answer is I just dont know what the difference between a good and great player is, the 200 NL game still seems like a joke to me but I cant move up until I get a proper bankroll for 400 NL (at least 16 full buy-ins). When I played 1000 NL it didnt seem like I ran into any 'great' players, but I just got sick of playing and wanted a car so thats why I blew my bankroll on it.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

#1 ranked player on pocketfives? I'm going to bust him with rags. [proceeds to push every hand pre-flop, BRSavage calls with A5o] HOW THE HELL DOES HE CALL THAT?!?!?

(the blinds + antes were fairly small, since PokerStars hadn't gotten around to raising the blind cap to a reasonable level given how much the tourney had grown.)

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

LMFAO @ you saving my quote about BRsavage...what was that 6 months ago ? You forgot to mention that was on the FINAL TABLE of a tourney with over 1000 players in which I finished 4th if I am not mistaken. I'd make the same play again given the opportunity.

Clearly rising to the challenge and getting the most value out of your play up until that point. Not to mention objectivly looking at the situation afterwards in order to grow as a player...

Stars hass raised the blinds in play money tournies to a cap of 200/400k, just not in real cash wich if very strange.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

To: [email protected]
Subject: Thanks
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:31:15 -0400


Ripptyde,

Just wanted to drop you a quick note to let you know that you and Rada's MTT strategy guide on FTR changed my poker life!!! No bullshit! I am 36 years old and have been playing online for 4+ years and have always been breakeven to losing at best. Playing mostly cash games and Sngs and generally flopping around without a strategy. Now, I have read all of Sklanskys books and Supersytems, etc…, but nothing I read put it as succinctly and clearly as you did. I always heard, be aggressive, be aggressive, but I never understood it. I was always aggressive WITH CARDS, but your thread taught me to be aggressive WITHOUT cards. Huge difference. I never really understood how to play the other guys cards, rather than mine. Now I know. I could always play well, if I caught cards, but if I had no cards, then I was screwed. Your advice changed that. Now I win without cards (and when I actually catch cards, it feels like a cake walk!).

I just checked and I printed off your thread on September 6th. I won my first MTT (450+ entrants) on September 9th! Since then I have had a second, three 3rds and a seventh and many other ITMs. My Sng play is still breakeven, but getting better….

Just thought I would drop you a note and let you know how much your advice helped!

Best regards,

--
Paul
_____

As I have written about before...when I first started playing holdem I stuck with the 'top 10 starting hands' and played super tight poker waiting on the beloved big slick and pocket pairs never understanding the value of position and not realizing that 'any two cards can win'. I played the flush draws like they were a licence to print money and fell in love with any pocket pair no matter what the board looked like. My bluffs reeked of desperation and in short I was a textbook fish. In 3 years I feel my game has reached a new level where I can gauge risk vs reward much more effectively. (bankroll management is another can of worms...and again...apples and oranges when it comes to discussions on table strategy)...I played a hand in the ring before I came to Vegas where I had raised hard from the button with 2/8 and was called by the bb who immediately went all in over the top after a flop of 2/10/Q....his bet was 3 times the amount of the pot and I called instantly with low pair....why ? because it was INSTINCT that he missed. He flipped A/J and my deuces held up for a $300.00 pot. These are calls which your run of mill limit player can't ever make and why they are content to play limit...waiting on cards and playing the probabilities. There is very little bluffing in limit holdem (unless you are talking about huge limits in the hundreds...even thousands of dollars) and for the most part it is a game of minimized risk. If the cards are coming your way...you make money...if they aren't ...you are losing. What I love about no limit holdem is the fact that you DONT NEED CARDS to be profitable...provided you execute your position effectively and make bets that drive out your opponents at opportune times.

One of the biggest fallacies in poker is 'You don't need cards to win! You can just out-bluff your opponent! All that matters is you have position!"

Yes position is important, but this doesnt give you the excuse to go raising with any two with position and expect to make profit from it. Even at the highest stakes theres a fair number of showdowns, and your strategy should be to only semi-bluff or bluff a busted draw. But dont stone-cold bluff right from the beginning, thats just throwing your money down the drain. You should only bluff if you could have won otherwise with your hand but got unlucky, or you have a draw and you think you can get the opp off their hand most likely.

Why do you think there are so many insanely tight players at 5/10 NL and above? Do they just not like playing hands? No! They just want to have the best hand possible when they go into battle with anyone else, and the blinds just arent big enough to force them into action early. They can wait and wait all day long and still make a profit. I have heard many say that TAG are the fish at 5/10+ NL 10-max and LAG are the sharks, and this is a major major fallacy in my opinion. TAG still wins all day long, and the LAG players throw their money down the drain bluffing too much. I know because I played TAG at 5/10 NL on Party and made a killing. Its not that I didnt bluff, but I only bluffed a busted draw (including missed overs) or semi-bluffed. I didnt just raise with 74o and bet on whatever board I saw.

You do need cards to win the game of Hold 'em. Even at 25/50 NL.

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

excellent post 1st of all Spin..however,

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you.

Tight/Aggressive play certainly suits a variety of situations' such as being in front of a hyper/aggressive player constantly raising when you are a short stack. This is a scenario where you pucker up and hold your chips tight waiting to set a trap. BUT in a cash game where you have blinds affordable enough to see plenty of hands with I strongly suggest you re-evaluate.

I dont mean that you should be calling off big chunks of your stack with garbage, nor should you attempt to make a huge raise in early position with less than a group 2 hand...what I mean is that there are moments where its possible to steal small to medium pots as well as sizable blinds (blinds primarily in tourneys...its just not worth it in high limit cash games) PRE FLOP. For example...yesterday playing 1/2 at the Aladdin I had managed to double up early with a set of 7's and decided to make a play at a pot full of limpers. I was holding 9/5os...pretty much a junk hand with not that much potential but there was a mini raise to 12 dollars from a hyper aggressive player UTG and 2 subsequent callers before it got to me in mid position. I kept my eyes down, paused and quietly said 'raise' spreading out three stacks of $20.00 and forcing 3 virtually instant folds for a $39.00 pot. I wasn't playing my cards I was playing what I read as weakness. Now assuming that nobody was holding a pocket pair I am still most likely in no worse than a 3/2 underdog situation with the flop to come if I do in fact get a caller. If I do get a caller (and in most situations with a raise that large you will thin the action to heads up) I take a stab at the pot with either a healthy check raise or push out a pot sized bet immediately following the flop. (backing off on a call and folding on a reraise)...this is NOT a move for a short stacked player to attempt for obvious reasons. Making a play like that was affordable in relation to my stack if it fails. On to the next hand

This has to do with what you feel your folding equity is pre-flop. Personally I have yet to have that favorable of folding equity that you would need to start raising 9/5o pre-flop to steal people's limps, and having played 1/2 NL at the Aladdin before, I doubt they are giving you that sort of folding equity either (most players there are liberal loose fish). If it were to get to the point where everytime I raised pre-flop everyone folded, I would start raising with any two. But I have never seen a table get that conservative pre-flop. The problem is the sort of hands that you are trying to steal with have very poor value. Their just simply way behind most hands that end up calling them down (AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/99 = way behind). The worse is when the flop comes A94 rainbow and you make a bet and the other guy raises. Now what? Does he have that ace? Theres just too many times where your 95o doesnt hit.

So instead of trying this crap with 95o, you try it with hands that actually have a better chance of hitting against your opps good hands. The order should go: Big pocket pairs (AA, KK, QQ), highest overs (AK and AQ), medium pocket pairs (JJ, TT, 99), lower overs (AJ, KQ, KJ), connected suitors, lowest overs (QJ, QT, KT, AT, JT), connectors, and finally plain old crap. So if the table is giving you enough folding equity to play the crap then go for it. But thats more folding equity than I have ever seen pre-flop, espically at a live table. Someone always wants action and calls you. A lot of the time they call with a hand that dominates yours if you are raising with crap.

Last but not least, theres the limp reraise to consider, and a smart player will realize you keep trying to steal and opt for the option when playing his AA or KK.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

Now if I am playing a cash game where I have managed to build a decent stack, I make it work for me by limping in whenever possible with a variety of hands with potential Ex: 8/10 suited, low pocket pairs, J/9os, suited connectors, and in early position or UTG...yes sometimes even pocket Aces. The strategies are completely different in cash games and tourneys.

Now the message here when I talk about position is more applicable in a tournament setting...at least when it comes to blind stealing. Rarely do I make a strong raise with trash hands just to steal blinds in a low limit cash game BUT in a tournament setting when I have a dominant chip lead, I WILL relentlessly pound the BB from as many as 2 spots off the button provided the blinds are valuble enough, or rather worth stealing. I won't try this play against a bigger stack and I wont try it against someone with a stack small enough where there is a strong likelyhood he'll defend his hand and reraise all in.

I dont play tourneyments much, but having a larger stack in tourneyments is much more important than having a larger stack in a ring game. The only advantage you have with having a big stack in a ring game is increased implied odds should you have some hard-to-see monster. This doesnt mean you should call any flop with any two cards hoping for two pair or better. That still wont make you any money, as even your two pair isnt that good (what if you ran into a set or a higher two pair?). And most of the time youll hit 1 pair and have to fold.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

example of making 'plays' with stack leverage holding rags:
http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...?p=79732#79732

Now this is a 'ring game' section of the forum so lets get back to any card can win in the proper perspective.

I am suggesting that in position (meaning no action before you)....being the aggressor with marginal cards is vital to increasing the value of the premium hands you will catch later. I have personal guidelines for what 'marginal' means : (mid to low suited connectors and gappers, A/x suited and low pocket pairs) I never and I mean never play hands like 8/3os, J/2os, 2/4os, K/5os etc in the ring unless I am seeing a flop for free or just completing the bb at a discount. BUT if I have been fortunate enough to build a strong stack I WILL raise consistently in position (even UTG on occassion) with hands like Q/9s, K/7os, 6/8s, 5/3s looking to isolate and play the flop accordingly. Playing only hands that have a chance to become a monster post flop. Not just hitting top pair with a weak kicker on a junk board. Point being that on occasion you hit a flop with unlikely cards and tend to get paid off more than say raising with A/K and leading out with a bet when you flop the Ace. Also playing a higher percentage of hands will give you a LaGG table image making it easier to get more action when you DO catch a monster in the hole.

Playing tight/aggressive in cash games to me seems like an easy way to minimize EV, by sending a message that you are a 'tight' player to everyone at the table. That serves no purpose other than to reduce the likelyhood of getting paid off (let alone called when initiating a pre flop raise) when you catch premium cards. Playing more hands and looking for more opportunities to project strength is imperative in a cash game arena and on occasion you set a golden trap that produces a small ransom.

Oh its not that I dont get paid off. I wouldnt get paid off if I only bet straight and never bluffed or semi-bluffed at all. But I do continuation bet and I do semi-bluff all the time (with those good starting hands), and that forces to opps to think about it before folding. If they were to fold everytime Id make a killing! Even good hands miss, though not as often, which allows you to bluff less and make your bluffs much more believable.

The problem with those hands is sure you can hit a monster but thats just very unlikely. Most of the time you are playing a dominated hand and will lose money to the other player as a result of that fact.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

There are most certainly situations for tight play. It depends on the texture of the table naturally, but more importantly the size of your stack in relation to the others seated next to you and their respective betting tendencies. You can execute moves against shorter stacks by simply making it hurt... raising and drive out the players with hands that would have outdrawn you if they were allowed to limp in. But I find that deeper stacks will look for that trait in a player and look to exploit it. If I have $500.00 in front of me and the quiet aggressor (suddenly awakening from folding 3 orbits) has $100.00, I am more likely to call his pre flop raise with 10/8 or 3/5 immediately putting him on a high hand like A/Q , A/K, K/J or the like and look to catch a piece of a junk flop and then fire out a bullet on the flop putting the pressure right in his face.

Thats a horrible strategy. Someone with that short of a stack (assuming this is 1/2 NL) should be camping and making most of his money off pre-flop value (his hand is better than your hand when he puts his money in pre-flop). This is an ardious and boring task, but thats generally what you should do since you dont have the wiggle room to really make some good bluffs. When you call with a crap hand you're just playing right into their strategy. Furtermore, what about everytime they have a middle or high pocket pair? You said you thought they were overs. Well it dont always work like that, pocket pairs are dealt in the deck too, and one of those would be the end to your crap hand and to 100$ of your stack.

Furthermore, their stack is too short to really bluff them out of the hand, so your really only playing for showdown value, which you dont have calling their raise with a crap hand.

Originally Posted by michael1123

Originally Posted by Checkways

I don't understand why you can't be a grinder and still shoot for the big games? Sure it takes the grinder longer to get there, but they will eventually do it if they're good. Many of the pro players you see on TV are grinders. Actually, almost all of them are. It took some of them at least a decade to get to the big games but they did.

You can't tell me that Chip Reese, Harmon, Greenstein, etc aren't grinders. They play a $4k/8k game where their edge is small if not non exsistent. I'm sure that they average way less BBs per hour than we do. If they weren't grinders, you wouldn't see them every freakin' day at the Bellagio giving $1 tips to the dealers after pulling in a $100,000 pot.

That's really not accurate. Greenstein talks about in his book about how he'd regularly buy into any good game, as long as he had the money to do so, irregardless of BR management rules. As long as the game was soft and playing would be plus EV for him, he'd play in a game, even if he could only afford one buyin.

To me, a "grinder" is someone that regularly plays one level and grinds out a regular income, typically just enough to live off of. They don't have aspirations of moving up to higher limits, they're just content to grind out what they make, without taking any risks. This wouldn't describe anyone that's made it big in the world of poker, at least in terms of how they were before they really made it.

If this does accurately describe anyone in the big game, that's only because there is no other games at that buyin, and no higher stake games out there. They've already came as far as they can, for the time being. If better and higher stake games were available though, you can bet that they'd be looking to play in them.

The more I think about it, the more wrong I think you are. The fact that they're at the highest possible stakes that you can play at shows how damn motivated they were to constantly succeed at higher and higher stakes, and that they were never content to grind it out at one level for the rest of their lives. Of course they avoided going broke by limiting the chances they took, but they never just settled for making $10 an hour ... or $100 an hour ... or even $1000 an hour ... They were constantly looking to build their BR up enough to move up to higher and higher limits.

Oh I understand now. I thought a grinder was someone that just played a lot and didn't go crazy with their bankroll. If a grinder is described as someone with no ambition to go higher than that is different.

HOWEVER, if the purpose of playing poker is to make a comfortable living doing what you love, then a grinder making $100k a year is extremely successful in life, because they don't care about becoming "great". I guess some of them would rather do more important things like raise a family and save for the future. It's just a difference of philosophy I guess.

Personally I have yet to have that favorable of folding equity that you would need to start raising 9/5o pre-flop to steal people's limps, and having played 1/2 NL at the Aladdin before, I doubt they are giving you that sort of folding equity either (most players there are liberal loose fish). If it were to get to the point where everytime I raised pre-flop everyone folded, I would start raising with any two. But I have never seen a table get that conservative pre-flop. The problem is the sort of hands that you are trying to steal with have very poor value.

Aggression, both how and when it is applied, differs greatly between MTTs and ring play. In a MTT pure aggression is often appropriate while in a ring game it rarely is. You're folding equity increases tremendously when you're right on the bubble and small stacks are just trying to survive to the money. Even before the bubble or after it burts your folding equity is larger than in a cash game because if you're a big stack people will be less inclined to get involved with you. You don't always have to have a large stack to leverage your oppoenents either. They still may face the possibilty of going bust or being crippled. That is a very powerful tool because you don't have the luxury of buying back in as you do in a ring game. In these cases, literally any two cards can be worth raising with. How often do you see the successful tournament players raising with marginal or even total trash hands? You see it all the time in certain situations. How often do you see a successful ring player doing this? Again, rarely because it is hardly ever appropriate.

I don't think you'll see Ripptyde raising hands 9,5o in a ring game very often (I hope). If he does it's either for adverstising value and you won't see him investing much money unless he flops a monster which has the added benefit of usually being well hidden or it's because he senses weakness. He feels that the money he may lose doing this is offset by the action he gets later when he has a quality hand. Or if he senses weakness, the range of hands probable hands that may call won't have him totally dominated. Any decent laggy player understands that if you're going to play a less than desirable hand that it at least needs to have more potential than 9,5o.

Going back to tournaments, you also have to remember that chip values differ in cash games and tournaments. In a cash game the value of a chip remains constant. A dollar is worth as much when you sit down as it does when you leave the table 3 hours later. In a tournament though, the value of a chip becomes progressively less. When you win a major tournament you may have all the chips at the end but they are only worth usually around 25% of their original value. This is going to make optimal strategy different.

You may disagree Ripp, but in a cash game setting I think you tend to overvalue extremely LAGGy play a bit. For one thing many players simply don't pay attention. You can fold every hand for 2 orbits then suddenly make a significant raise and still often get action. In this scenario why would you constantly be putting yourself in marginal situations when you can be tight/aggressive and still get paid? Yes, your EV might be less, but I think it's still greater than if you consider all the times you raise marginal hands only to be called by slightly less marginal, yet favored hands. When it comes to advertising plays, I think they have much more value in B&M play than they do online. In an online game when players tend to come and go frequently, you often won't be able to benefit from the advertising plays you made earlier. You are forced to make advertising plays more often which can be costly. In a B&M game though you can do it soon after you sit down and still be able to benefit from it 3,4,5 hours later because not only are you usually there longer, but you're opponents are too. They are also forced to pay more attention because that game is the only thing they are doing. Online people may be playing multiple tables, surfing the web, etc. and your advertising plays subsequently lose value.