Texas Hold 'Em ?

It’s been one week since I started playing for real money (July 5th). I started with $100, playing .15¢- .30¢ stakes, that’s the lowest limit I could find. The play is almost as loose as the play money games, but not quite. At first I was down about $25, but I tightened up my game and started coming back. At the moment I’m up $105. Even at .15¢ - .30¢ I’ve had sessions where I was up $25 or more, so I know my goal of $50 a day (on average) is doable at .50¢ -$1.00 or $1 - $2.00 stakes.

Of course it’s still up and down (it always will be). My sessions are an hour each. For every hour I play I study (my books) an hour, and spend an hour studying the competition (rail birding). I want to know as much about them as I can. I need to know who to go after, (the fish) and who to run from, (the sharks). I study my plays (hand histories) looking for leaks in my game, (mistakes that can cost me money). I count mistakes, not hands won or dollars. I want to play my best game possible. If I can do that then Low Limit Hold ‘Em is beat able on a consistent basis.

More important than that I should be able to teach anyone to do the same thing.....except probably Larry. ;)

sph3ric pyramid, I bought "Small Stakes Hold 'Em" and Sklansky, Malmuth and Miller have to be the three most confusing writers ever. I know there's good info there, but it takes several readings to make any sense of it. :confused:
 
Good to hear that you're running well, it definitely helps to have your fundamentals down solid before moving up in stakes, at any level. You might want to extend your sessions a bit, an hour'll get you around 60 hands at most, at the table. A lot of the time, you'll find that the game's good enough that you'll want to stick around until the table breaks (game selection is another factor that will become more and more important as you move up).

One of the major advantages of online play is that you're able to put in more hands than you would ever be able to in live play, and you're able to learn much more quickly. To put it into perspective, I was able to put in 1000 hands this morning alone. Others are able to put in almost four times as many. However, single-tabling does help improve one's game immeasurably, as you're able to take into account specific reads and take more time making decisions. The real problem I've encountered is some serious boredom which results in less than perfect play at times...

SSHE has some fairly advanced concepts in it that'll help you maximize your profit at the small stakes games, but it takes quite a while to grasp all of it; I'm still re-reading the book for the nth time. You may want to buy another more beginner-oriented text that focuses more on the fundamentals such as the book on low-limit hold 'em by Lee Jones (the one published in 2000, the second edition). I have yet to find a book that's anywhere near as good as SSHE, though.
 
sph3ric pyramid said:
I was able to put in 1000 hands this morning alone. Others are able to put in almost four times as many. However, single-tabling does help improve one's game immeasurably, as you're able to take into account specific reads and take more time making decisions. The real problem I've encountered is some serious boredom which results in less than perfect play at times...
Click to expand...

sph3ric pyramid, your help is greatly appreciated.

1000 hands is 10 times more than I see in a day, (50 hands an hour, 2 hours per day). I doubt I'll ever get up to your level and I doubt I have the foucs for multi-table play. Boredom hasn't been a problem, I use that time studying opponents and making notes. Right now I'm just a student of the game and opponents.

The level I want to get to is to make $50 a day (on average) at a reasonalble per hour rate. That's the goal anyway.
 
A solid winrate for a winning player at low-limit hold 'em is around 2.5 big-bets per hundred hands (not accounting for the rake). 3 tables of $2/$4, around 4 hours a day would put you around that goal; obviously, higher limits brings higher returns (but decreasing winrates in terms of BB/100).

Also, definitely look into clearing bonuses at various sites; bonuses will swell your bankroll quite a bit, and help you move up. (See bonu swhores.com)
Check out instantbankroll.com as well, it'll get you a significant amount for your roll.
 
sph3ric pyramid said:
A solid winrate for a winning player at low-limit hold 'em is around 2.5 big-bets per hundred hands (not accounting for the rake). 3 tables of $2/$4, around 4 hours a day would put you around that goal; obviously, higher limits brings higher returns (but decreasing winrates in terms of BB/100).
Click to expand...

This post from sph3ric really slowed down my playing, because I was sure that what he said was just about right. I didn't think I could do what needed to be done to hit my goal of making $50 a day. Not that I couldn't be a winning player, but I couldn't put in the time or play as many hands as would be required.

I didn't stop playing nor did I stop reading and studying, but I did look for other ways I could realistically hit my goal. I think I've found it. I believe the answer is not to play Ring games but to play Sit & Go single table tournaments.

I started by playing for play money to get a feel for the game, and I did well. I watched many real money games and didn't see anything that would intimidate me. So I tried some real money games with buy-ins of $5 + .50¢. These Sit & Go's pay the top three players. I was in the money 75% of the time and if I tighten up a little more I can be in the money consistantly.

Here's the plan, at the $10 + $1 level, first place pays $50, second place pays $30 and third pays $20. Games last about an hour, so I should be able to get in a couple of games a day. If I can stay in the money I should be able to hit my income goal.
 
Consider that, all things being equal, you'll win a ten person SNG 10% of the time. For example, say that you have an edge of around 4% (at the low-limit SNGs, which is pretty easy). This means your 'equity' is around 14% of the total prize pool of $100 for each SNG you play.

An attainable return-on-investment (ROI) at the $10+1-$30+1 is around 30%, and you'll be in the money around 40% of the time.

Also, you have to consider variance as well. Things even out over the long term, but the short term is longer than most know (as someone once said). The $10+1s at Party Poker especially tend to be pretty formulaic in how they play, with fairly low risk, so you might want to consider adding another table once you have a good grasp on the fundamentals.

I hate to be a downer, but making money at poker over the long term particularly at the low-mid limits is pretty much a grind no matter how you cut it. But if you don't put in too many hours, it can be fun. SNGs especially.

However, look into clearing bonuses if you're just looking to make money. My hourly rate has been good, but this is pretty mindless stuff and it's nowhere near as fun or stimulating as poker. If I decided to take on more variance (and increase my risk-of-ruin), my hourly rate would be much higher, but I'm a risk averse sort of person at the moment.
 
sph3ric pyramid said:
I hate to be a downer, but making money at poker over the long term particularly at the low-mid limits is pretty much a grind no matter how you cut it. But if you don't put in too many hours, it can be fun. SNGs especially.

However, look into clearing bonuses if you're just looking to make money. My hourly rate has been good, but this is pretty mindless stuff and it's nowhere near as fun or stimulating as poker. If I decided to take on more variance (and increase my risk-of-ruin), my hourly rate would be much higher, but I'm a risk averse sort of person at the moment.
Click to expand...

Sph3ric, you haven't been a downer at all, I consider you a teacher, or a reality check. You'll notice I have gone into this relatively slowly, I'm also averse to risk.

I'm not in these games to gamble or make it into the WSOP. I would like to grind out $50 a day ($1000 a month). I'm looking for the path of least resistance to get there.

Please don't think for a second that you haven't been a huge help to me. You have.

BTW, what are Clearing Bonuses?
 
PhilL said:
More important than that I should be able to teach anyone to do the same thing.....except probably Larry. ;)

I bought "Small Stakes Hold 'Em" and Sklansky, Malmuth and Miller have to be the three most confusing writers ever. I know there's good info there, but it takes several readings to make any sense of it. :confused:
Click to expand...


This is where you'll make the real money, when you write your book which is much better and clearer than those currently available. You may wish to take notes with that in mind.
 
Hey Phill........How about you and I palying some heads up Texas Hold-em. We can play on line against each other. If you are interested I will let you know how to set it up. Of couse it won't be for monoply money,but something we can both get motivated on. Not Nickle and Dime poker. You can apply your vast book knowledge and I will apply my hands on expierence. Let me know by PM so we can do this discreetly. Look forward to your reply.
Larry B. ;)
 
Playing heads-up hold 'em, particularly limit hold 'em, never really establishes who's the better player. Simply, the variance is too high, and the sample size remains too small. Any small difference in skill in the short term is quickly diminished by the cards you catch. For example, if you expect to have a 5% edge over the opposition, you'll win 55% over the long term, but in the short term, it's basically a coinflip.

PhilL,

Bonuses refer to cash incentives sites offer for players to sign up with them. Most of the time they come in the form of matched bonuses (i.e. deposit x, and they give you y% of x). They have a wagering requirement as well before you can cashout the bonus amount, in poker it'll be a number of raked hands. Feel free to e-mail me for more detail.

LarryB,

I'd be interested in playing a heads-up match if you are. Has been a while since I've played any poker.
 
sph3ric pyramid said:
Playing heads-up hold 'em, particularly limit hold 'em, never really establishes who's the better player. Simply, the variance is too high, and the sample size remains too small. Any small difference in skill in the short term is quickly diminished by the cards you catch. For example, if you expect to have a 5% edge over the opposition, you'll win 55% over the long term, but in the short term, it's basically a coinflip.

PhilL,

Bonuses refer to cash incentives sites offer for players to sign up with them. Most of the time they come in the form of matched bonuses (i.e. deposit x, and they give you y% of x). They have a wagering requirement as well before you can cashout the bonus amount, in poker it'll be a number of raked hands. Feel free to e-mail me for more detail.

LarryB,

I'd be interested in playing a heads-up match if you are. Has been a while since I've played any poker.
Click to expand...

E-mail sent
I am not interested in establishing who is the better player. I am interested in gambling.
 
A friend of mine and his wife are very serious players, having played in big money tournaments, and he says that poker is not gambling.

My nosey question is this: are you just trying to get some extra cash, or do you plan on making this a career? Why not be a day-trader instead? No need to answer if you don't want, I'm just curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top