troutsmart

I don't want to get into an argument about this, but this just seems insanely large. I've always believed that 1000x the Big Blind was more than enough if you are a good enough player.For a good player, 1000x BB is probably sufficient. 1500x is the rule. Your talking 20-25 buy-ins. I personally prefer a little padding, though my game could probably use some work.

When I first started playing poker, I wanted to cram my head full of every bit of information available. I searched the internet, and the name Daniel Negreanu came up frequently. Most of these were post on forums, but I was also directed to his articles in Card Player magazine. From his articles, I gained a paradigm shift in how I saw poker. My eyes were opened, and it changed my game. No players writing has had greater impact on my game than that of Daniel's.

The simple answer is no. There is not a strict betting rule that forces one to bet in increments. However, there are a few stipulations. One, you must bet the amount of the BB, and raise the amount of the BB, for the minimum. In other words, in a 2/4 NL game, you cannot bet $3 on the turn. Typically, most initial raises are made at 2-4x the BB, depending on postion, and the amount of players already in the pot. Reraises are typically double the raise at the minimum to a pot sized bet. Of course, you can always put every chip in.

I do, however, want to encourage you in your use of pot odds. There is no doubt that poker deals with a large amount of math. Limit is really more about making correct decisions than psychological warfare. There are correct decisions and incorrect decisions when it comes to pot odds, and far too many players do get careless, thinking it's alright to not take odds seriously. You find them calling two bets cold from a check raiser holding a weak straight draw. They make this call, because they remember the times it payed off and they made a huge pot. However, those times just don't occur o

Experience. Simple as that. Play enough hands and you don't really do the math, as far as an exact calculation at least. You have a sense when your drawing, ahead, and what it takes to improve. You do this all almost instantaneously, taking your outs and looking at the pot. You just know when it makes sense and when it doesn't. The things that take time are deciding whether it makes sense to make an extra bet on the river when you've been bet into. I find myself sometimes taking 10 seconds or so on those kind of decisions. Experience goes a very long way.

I'm kind of a sleep talker. I'll admit it. So, I wake up all the time after saying aloud, "I raise". I say lots of things really, but let's just say the poker doesnt' end when I turn off my computer. One time I'm camping, and unfortunately was the first one asleep. A couple more doze off, but the rest are just sitting around the camp fire talking. Out of nowhere, "You son of ....., how the hell can you fold that?" I hear myself say this and wake myself up to all my friends laughing so hard that one is literally on his knees bent over, his head about to go up in flames. The girl I had

Wow. Rather ironically, I recieved a call and left to play a home game after I first started this thread, and am surprised to find it still going. I didn't intend to ruffle feathers or create an arguement about cheating friends. I suppose my original concern was how much deception played in the game of poker. One poster mentioned that they felt deception and bluffing are overated. I agree in the extent that I believe most players bluff far too often for it to be profitable, and usually at the most inopportune times.Ego was mentioned. Ego no doubt plays a huge role in poker. One learn

These are your friends right? Why the hell do you feel the need to decieve your friends? Honestly, I have lied about hands when I am in cardrooms but as far as my home games go, I don't think I need to deceptive with my friends. This is the kind of feedback I was curious about. Sounds like I'm not alone in telling lies and getting paid. To clarify, I don't do this just with my friends, and play far more poker without my friends than with. I don't feel the need to decieve my friends, and the large reason I enjoy these games is for social reasons, rather than any kind of financial compensatio

Whenever a player mentions a single hand or even several as having a significant effect on them or their money, there is a problem. Hands should be analyzed as part of a process, where small mistakes, lead to a cumulatively large mistake. Your story sounds like many. You are not alone. In fact, you have far too many allies in your predicament. A few friends of mine come to mind when I think about your situation. I think about myself, not too long ago. It is a constant problem for players to play outside of their means. If you cannot take a month of losing, you shouldn't be playing

As a developing poker player, I quickly learned the power of deception. I first appreciated this skill, one particular night in a home game. I had made a monster hand, holding quad 7s, with a pocket 7s in my hand. When the player folded his hand after I reraised him all-in on the river, I quietly mucked my hand. At the time, and I suppose to this day, typically a player would always show any kind of a decent hand in that home game, almost to flaunt it. I had always gone against the grain though, and only showed a few, and certainly not uncalled quads. When he told me I he had top two pa

I've always tried to avoid the Moneymaker discussions that have come up on various boards in the past. Then Raymer won, and again I avoided it. To me, most of the discussions have been meaningless, with more argueing on personal feelings of like or dislike, all this with little understanding of either player. I saw the tv coverage like everybody else, and felt that it gave me no foundation on which to classify Moneymaker or Raymer a great player or poor player.All I knew is that both of these guys won the most sought after title in tournament poker against the largest fields ever assembled.

My question is this - how many other people ignore the whole "300 BB+" rule for NL and play in bigger blind games than they should? I feel that I have a better than 50% chance of doubling up whenever I sit down at one of the .25/.5 tables, but from bad beats/called bluffs I sometimes lose my buy ins.If you are playing no limit, an adjustment needs to be made in the bankroll. A good no limit bankroll is 1500x the big blind, so for .25/.50 NL, you need $750. The 300BB is applicable to limit play. Despite how much better of a NL player you may be than your opponents, you still need an adequat

A rumor is often mentioned, an urban legend really, of a former high- limit player gone bust, playing in a low-limit game and laying down 4 of a kind when he knew he was beat by both a straight flush and royal flush. I wrote the hand down as it was told to me by a player who supposedly witnessed this extraordinary laydown. None of you would believe it though, so we'll spare you the details. lol

What you've described is totally normal when multitabling. You'll have days like you described, and then days, though less frequent, when you pull a hat trick (I three table), and book three winning tables, or losing talbes. Bottom line is that it all averages out. Look at the end result, not the individual results. I do like to record my +/- for each table, simply because I vary between full tables and shorthanded, and want to be able to see how the two effect my end results.

Doubt I'll change anybodies world with this information, but for those who care:I'm currently playing at .5/$1 limit table online. I'm building an exclusive poker bankroll, which I started in November of last year with $17 won in a freeroll. NOTE: initially this was purely a contest of sorts with a friend to see who could build the most out of nothing. The side effect is that it has changed my game and made me appreciate bankroll management. I've sort of become addicted to building the bankroll.Pre-November 2004-- Let's be honest. I was a jackrabbit bouncing around between limits and var

Beautiful women do draw them in. Sweet hand btw.

Like has been said, shorthanded play calls for loosing up your hand requirements. I wouldn't ditch the 8, as that isn't bad shorthanded, and would gladly take two. Or take one or none. Lowball is a "read" game, in that you can often move players off hands that might beat yours if you sense weakness. More so than in many other forms of poker. That is essentially what these players are doing to you. Unfortunately, lowball isn't spread much anywhere, so shorthanded play is the rule. This makes it tough, considering that most lowball players are competant poker players these days. It is us

T7 offsuit.I explain why in the post below. I'm the long post about half way down.http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...4032&highlight=

Don't know if I could handle that myself. Trips me out knowing the face behind the player, online at least.

A bad beat.That's hard to define. When I think of bad beat, I think about runner-runner, like the time the original poster EDPUNK lost when his opponent was drawing to only two running 7s on the flop and hit, around a 1000-1 draw. However, in this case, it is called a "bad beat" simply because the casino offers a jackpot when Aces full or better is beat by 4 of a kind or better. The stipulation is both cards have to play, so in the case above, if a K or Q were to have hit the river, no jackpot would have been paid. The reason being that AQ hand would have lost it's kicker to a K or the cas

I'm almost giddy with how many people shot pool on this forum Poker and pool use the same type of thinking in many ways. I think if I were to try to teach a random person how to be a successful poker player, I'd like that person to be tough pool player. The best pool players are guys who see the table well, and play the opponent. Those are pretty good attributes for a poker player.

It's not rare to hear a fish run a $100 deposit up to $2000, but what is rare is them holding onto it. Their short term success is due to being paid off despite having the worst of it. Good players don't go on amazing runs like they might, due to the fact that they don't take the risks. A good player measures risk, while a poor player embraces risk. But, yeah, it can be frustrating.

Besides playing more poker than is probably healthy, I do happen to have plenty of interests.I work in Park City, UT, where I look up on the white slopes, and think about skiing, something I've enjoyed since I was 11. I live an hour away from Park City and on my way I drive through Provo Canyon, through which the Provo River runs. I don't know how many hours I've spent ankle deep casting a fly line towards wary trout, but it is significant. I'll say this, I spent more time on the river than I ever spent in class during high school, which isn't something that I'm neccessarily proud of. The

I multi table 4 tables for eight hours a day online. I look for certain requirements before I sit down. One of them is if the table breaks down to six or less I am out unless I see the seats filling. Reason being I know that my profits are higher when the table is full because I am up against 33-36 other opponents and hand values pretty much stay the same. In a short handed game, more concentration should be given to that table, and since I have to concentrate on four games evenly I feel that I cannot properly distribute 40% to one table and 20/20/20 to the other three and be profitable. I wan

Troutsmart you might remeber the hand in wendover when or freind scoot was involved the flop was 8jk i think and the three people in the hand had set8s js ks in the same order on the table i belive mona was the dealer and once again you were just watching I think thats the only time I and you have seen it. EDRemember it very well. Lol. I remember Scott's face the most as he said, "you've got to be kidding me!" I think I remember Mona saying that was the only time she had seen that, which at the time surprised me, being that she has been a dealer for many years.