Dlink

Not to be facetious (okay so maybe just a little) but why not try to play poker at these tables instead of plugging away at whatever formula you may be using?These table are quite beatable and once you get a field fo them you can beat them quite easily. If you are playing NL go in, throw some money around and force the tabe to loosen up (plus lets be honest, there is something very cool about winning a pot with 8-3o and showing it to the table). 90% of these 'tight" players have no idea how to play against a good loose player.Having said that if you think you'll earn more by dropping down a

Tournament strucutures favour the mediocre. Most people are by definition mediocre. Therefor, unfortunately one logically follows the other.

Seeing 1/3 of all flops is not tight-aggressive, it's loose-aggressive.How do you draw that conclusion? It is either loose or tight, it tells us nothing about how aggressive the individual is.Also on a side note the ultimate goal of a player should be to be loose-aggressive, these are the guys you got to fear.uhmno.seeing 1/3 of your flops is not being TIGHT. tight refers to the amount of starting hands you play.and who says that loose-aggressive is the ultimate goal of a player.probably less than5% of poker players has the control, understands the math, and has the postflop playing ability f

Quite the ridiculous statement.Let me qualify it.... unless you are independently wealthy. I agree reading the statement I made is ridiculous, what I am attempting to allude to is the fact that most people who claim to be semi-professional (an oxymoron by the way) are just winning players who like the idea of doing it for a living but for whatever reasons aren't.So to sum up -- I was wrong; there is no such thing as a semi-pro; even if we give it a loose definition of our own it should be based on one who derives income as opposed to creating an asset (ie savings account) to meet the criteria

If you aren't cashing out you aren't a pro semi or otherwise. By definition to be a "pro" of any sort you need to be generating income. Having said that I'd love to be able to stop cashing out and build my roll for a while but don't see it in the near future.

Seeing 1/3 of all flops is not tight-aggressive, it's loose-aggressive.How do you draw that conclusion? It is either loose or tight, it tells us nothing about how aggressive the individual is.Also on a side note the ultimate goal of a player should be to be loose-aggressive, these are the guys you got to fear.

As with everything it depends. The primary factor effecting it are the table you are at, kind of players you are against, your style of play and your adaptability. Presuming you are talking about Low NLHE (Say up to a $500 buy in) your range of hands seen will be between 12% (ultratight I sit and wait for nuts) and 45ish (I am running over the table).Personally I find my optimal numbers, or the times when I extract the most profit from a table is when the has about 35 to 45% of people seeing the flop. I am playing between 25% and 37% of the hands I am dealt, and of these about 20% go to a sh

First patience has nothing to do with this you had a drawing hand, someone drew better, so what?2nd pls. explain :It comes down 2 spades, 2 hearts, Ace clubs.Turn is a 7 diamondsRiver is a Queen of diamonds.That is a minimum of 7 cards on the flop, or am I having comprehension problems?

www.neteller.com

Depends on the game. If you are playing weak games online you can average out to anywhere from 1/2 to 2x the buy in per hour.

I think I made a mistake, I addressed the issue of variance but not of your current game. If you believe your game is for whatever reason -- bad cards, bad day, bad mood whatever STOP. Take a week away. Stop reading the boards, the books, everything -- go away and clear your head. I went through a phase like that and instead of stopping I kept telling myself "focus concetrate take it easy, you can do this." I couldn't but once I stepped away and came back everything seemed more natural.Just like you need a break from work, or everyone needs a change of scenery, sometimes you just need to

It's subjective. The key is if you hit your flop does the person(s) you are calling have enough of a stack on the table that if he bets you'll get odds that are better than 7.5 to 1. Also you have to factor into this whether he is aggressive and will lead (better for you), position, what hands he plays so you can judge from the flop whether your trips are really ahead or not.If you are very lucky you can take down some very big pots. The best are the flops where X > Y and they come down X-X-Y and you have Y-Y in the pocket and haven't raised. If someone has X, X-Ace you should be able t

Play shorthanded. More hands, more decisions more mistakes more rewards for skilled and observant players. Also if you play short handed well and pay attention very rarely do the cards in your hand come into play.More variance per session but if you are a skilled player less variance through multiple sessions than full ring games. Just a thought, good luck.

Rage: Maybe it once hit a 6 or a 7, routinely it won't pass a 1 or 2 at the most (I guess that would make it anger not rage at that level). And recently even this has decreased, I now realize that most losses are because of my inadequate play not my opponents. Too many people look at boos and odds and numbers and blame the other player for calling -- it is very rarely their fault.Stress it may reach a 7 or 8 -- generally when a car payment is due or I need a roll for a game quickly and need to exponentially grow my bankroll.On a side note anyone who actually experiences rage playing poker re

True but because you can't pay attention to the tables your learning curve is reduced (seeing more hands only helps with maths and systemization), therefor your skills don't progress as fast as someone else. When you reach the point where multi-tabling is not an option you are at a disadvantage. That is also the time where your hourly rate should be in the 100's or 1000's and the difference in skill there will be worth a lot more than $2 / hour.

I'm bored so I'm going to create some excitement.Here is the crux of it -- weak players lose; average players multi-table; players who want to advance learn to crush single tables and move up in limits.People who play 4, 6 or 8 tables at once do not get the same benefit nor do they advance as fast as people who play 1 or at the most 2. If your goal is to be a "human bot" multi tabling is fine, if however you want to improve your game and move up and be able to compete in the high limits you are better of playing 1 table and learning how to maximize your revenue from it.Flame away!

Here is a solution. I presume from your post you know what you are doing and you are competent. You said your bankroll is roughly $900. You want to get into cash games but have limited resources to lose (I go through being under bank rolled about 3 times a month!)Choose a comfortable amount probably between $100 and $200 . For the purpose of this exercise $200 is the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM you may use. If it's less that is fine.Now take that bank roll and put it somewhere like ultimat bet. You can get NL games there with maximum buy ins of $2.00 I would skip these and go to the rooms with a $1

Yup, it took me less then 1/2 hour total, and part of that was because I put the wrong address in initially (Madison address isn't my CC's address)GOod job, but they couldn't verify my TD Canada Trust account, so it makes me think that they don't like Canadians too much :cry:They did my Royal account in no time. And their suppot is in Calgary...

Call.If you'e going to do something do it properly, besides if this is your first big event which of the following would you rather recount:i)First hand I raise, this guy errr- Phil Ivey -- he raises me all in, I call, beat his bluff and double up. I went on to win it, but it was being tournament leader for that one moment that made it worthwhile.ii)I didn't get very far, but I was tournament leader after doubling up on the 1st hadiii)My big tournament, first big prize, my first hand and I am the first out!or iv) Yeah well I played ot right and conservatively but you need luck to win those an

from http://monsterpoker.blogspot.com/"Daniel Negreneaus blog forum seems to be populated by 20 year old, $1 and $2 limit players, and oh yeah some old guy who seems to think poker should be played out of a math book and anyone who doesn't share the numbers he aims for is wrong. And Smash. Smash is a limit poker player who is apparently quite good who is either worshipped or reveiled on this site. There are multiple strings disscussing whether or not people like Smash and why. A string about tournament strategy will in the middle have someone posting that Smash just posted on another string!"O

I think you are missing the point. It's not about mathematically proving anything. It is about being able to think in a reductionist manner to explain why you believe what you do. Some people can work backwards to the point of 'God exists by virtue of my consciousness'; some have pantheistic believes, and some say 'I have faith beccause my parents told me, and why would they lie?" Okay those examples are a little extreme but the illustration is sound. Why do you believe, why do you have faith?Also you say he is much smarter than anyone on earth. Let us for a second presume he is a singl

But unlike in limit a single loss here can do a lot more damage. This is offset by the fact that it is easier to make it up, but if you are concerned in making money for next weeks rent, you have to think twice before doing something that would be great if you were risk neutral.2 + 2 had an article recently on how people willingness to take risk varies depending on amount, odds and potential pay off. Just because a bet gives me an advantage I will not always take it.Also I go all in with K-K to be called with A-A. I lose a large sum. I go all in with K-K and everyone but the "I bought the

I am quite sure it is my method he is critisizing. And he is right -- solid poker works against most people most of the time. It also has a much lower variance. But as with anything I believe a strategy must meet ones goals. I have been making a comfortable living for 4 months using my method and that is enough for me. I also go through some real heart churning sessions. However with so much in the pot, good notes and good post-flop play (even if it is only - Do I have the nut, what are the odds of me drawing the nut, do I need a nut to beat x) you can work this quit successfully. I k

Come on Smash, this is a strategy aimed at a table where every second person is a calling station, which is a suprising number of the lower limit tables. Wait till you hit a nut or have the odds to hit it and take it, what is so fundementally wrong with that?It wouldn't work in real life or even at a half decent table where people considered their starting hands, or looked at the flop. But against passive callers it works, the key offcourse then becomes game selection.

Tonight I got you all beat. $150 BR for the evening. Playing $50 and $100 buy in NL and PL for 7 hours. Currently total is about $1,400 and have cashed out (pending usual approval nonsense) $1,000. Playing the $400 here and there. I LOVE the weekends!