Uh-oh...

[11 to 1 0]

I wrote this a few days after I moved up on PStars from micro to low.

I like most of this article, but I am going to disagree strongly here: image is everything and it's not too early to start learning that. First thing I do at a table is see if I have made a note, I make notes on everyone I play. Then, I start establishing that image. It takes one or two pots. TAG poker, very big on the T, and show the win hands once or twice. I never play anything but very top hands until I win a couple of pots. At a good table of serious players, (tight/passive) I bluff, and it works. Mostly I semi-bluff. That works, too. Anyone who calls me or raises, I know has a hand. If I start losing, I get out before my image is wrecked. I really think the point of playing at low limits is to start developing the skills we need to play well at the higher limits.

Now, this doesn't work. My micro experience was that there were actually a lot of serious players, people who had obviously read books, they played a very tight, but passive game. They might wait for a big pocket pair to bet but they were easy to raise off hands. Aggressive really worked there. Bluffing worked there. They were predictable and I almost always knew what they had. Then I moved up and must have just hit some good tables because I made a bunch of money and then..... It hasn't been pretty. WTF? These players are worse than the micro ones in some ways. They are maniacs, play ATC, raise and call with nothing, and I haven't a clue what they are holding when they call, raise, reraise. (This is .50/$1, and $1/2. I can't even figure out who they are? Rich people who can lose 40-100 bucks a night just to have fun? Anyway, I am defenseless except to get super-tight with preflop, I guess and then be very cautious post-flop, which means I'm not getting paid on my wins unless i have the nuts. Then you get real money because these players never fold. But, if I don't get cards, I just get killed.So, I have a question - and will take advice from anyone - when do you quit? If I buy in for the standard, like $20 at the .50/1, do people use some rule of thumb for when to change tables or just quit for the day? Lose it all? Half?

[Moneyball16 0]

I quit for a number of reasons-Table is playing pretty good and I could find a better spot-Im playing bad because I may be steaming-Im getting bored causing me to play bad-I have something else to doI think its a mistake to get yourself low enough on chips that yuou can go broke on any hand. I would suggest just trying to be objective and if you lose a few pots decide if your still playing good or not and use that information to make a decisison to quit or not. If you normally steam after you lose a buy in then its a good idea to take a cooling off period. You just have to try to be honest with yourself.

[RISEorFall 0]

over how many hands is this? I've almost always experienced a loss the first time I move up in limits for a while. it could be a small sample and negative variance.i'd buy in for 50-60 on .50/1post a bunch of handslearn to value bet a ton

[Actuary 3]

time for as paradigm shift.When you don't know why you are losing and you say the players are worse at the higher limit; you need to be honest with youeself. "Worse opponents" is defined as "easier for you to be profitable". You can allow a bit for short term variance; but if you don't know WHY you are unable to beat "worse players", you are probably not defining them correctly.You appear to want players to fit a mold, be predictable, and weak tight.Adjust to the looser/more aggressive games you are seeing now. In poker THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS."Huh? did Actuary just say, 'It's all about results' "Yep. I did. Over the long run. That's all it's about. Wanna fight about it?

[finztotheleft 0]

Recently at Fulltilt, I've seen looser games at 2/4 than at .5/1 or 1/2. Remember to look at the numbers to compare average players to flop and amounts of the pot between the levels.A point to consider is that you might be seeing a group of micro players who really want to learn/have read a lot/etc (as you described your read on the situation) As we all know, deposit bonuses are impossible to clear at micros. You could be seeing a group of bonus whores at higher levels, eager to see more hands to clear those bonuses.

[11 to 1 0]

I quit for a number of reasons-Table is playing pretty good and I could find a better spot-Im playing bad because I may be steaming-Im getting bored causing me to play bad-I have something else to doI think its a mistake to get yourself low enough on chips that yuou can go broke on any hand. I would suggest just trying to be objective and if you lose a few pots decide if your still playing good or not and use that information to make a decisison to quit or not. If you normally steam after you lose a buy in then its a good idea to take a cooling off period. You just have to try to be honest with yourself.

Yeah. I went over a bunch of my hands tonight using pokertracker. Wow, who was that idiot, anyway? Steaming. You won't believe this, but I never did that before. The money was immaterial online at very low limits, I just thought of it as school tuition. But - the money gets a lot bigger a lot faster. Yeah, I did everything you said: alll of it, stayed when I was steaming from losing a big pot, played tired, being bored, tried to "get even" I did every stupid thing anyone ever did but toss my keyboard or punch a wall. Thing is, I didn't know at the time I was doing it - "never underestimate the power of denial" is right.

Actuary said: When you don't know why you are losing and you say the players are worse at the higher limit; you need to be honest with youeself. "Worse opponents" is defined as "easier for you to be profitable". You can allow a bit for short term variance; but if you don't know WHY you are unable to beat "worse players", you are probably not defining them correctly.You appear to want players to fit a mold, be predictable, and weak tight.Adjust to the looser/more aggressive games you are seeing now.In poker THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS."Huh? did Actuary just say, 'It's all about results' "Yep. I did. Over the long run. That's all it's about.Wanna fight about it?

Why would I want to fight about it? I already said all of this, anyway - I had these tight passive players and now I have these different players and I am having trouble adjusting. And a lot of them are truly terrible, others aren't, but I'm not having trouble with good players who make lots of $$, I just only play them with very top hands. It's the maniacs who are taking my money. That's what I said when I came in here so I agree completely. I don't want them to be anything, I want me to be something - better at dealing with them. And of course it's all about results over the long haul, the lifelong poker game. Who ever would argue with that? Listen, being right is highly over rated. I don't care about being "right" I just want lots of info and feedback, I'll take it all and use it as well as I can as long as people keep giving it to me. I won't use it all, but we each develop our unique style of anything.

[11 to 1 0]

Recently at Fulltilt, I've seen looser games at 2/4 than at .5/1 or 1/2. Remember to look at the numbers to compare average players to flop and amounts of the pot between the levels.A point to consider is that you might be seeing a group of micro players who really want to learn/have read a lot/etc (as you described your read on the situation) As we all know, deposit bonuses are impossible to clear at micros. You could be seeing a group of bonus whores at higher levels, eager to see more hands to clear those bonuses.

I saw your $4 average pot , 40% to the flop ratio and copied it down. Can you explain why this is optimum, I always wondered why they put it up there and hwo to use the info? And I never thought of the clearing bonus thing - that's interesting. RISEorFall said: over how many hands is this? I've almost always experienced a loss the first time I move up in limits for a while.it could be a small sample and negative variance.Yeah, I was thinking today about the guy who is going to quit poker because he's inaslump and me telling him to go bowling or something and just give it a rest for a while. Of course I expected something, but it sure hits hard when it's the first time and - when the AK loses over and over, and I get sucked out on every single big hand I hold - it's not me, it's just poker. It happened suddenly and I just never had the experience before.....I think I've figured me out, now, on to figuring out everything else.....

[RISEorFall 0]

Yeah, I was thinking today about the guy who is going to quit poker because he's inaslump and me telling him to go bowling or something and just give it a rest for a while. Of course I expected something, but it sure hits hard when it's the first time and - when the AK loses over and over, and I get sucked out on every single big hand I hold - it's not me, it's just poker. It happened suddenly and I just never had the experience before.

or you could do what i do when i feel that way.be extremely stubborn and hardheaded and play until 6 or 7 am every night until you either you play so much your variance swings back upward quickly oryou decide you cant play anymore because you bent the chair you were sitting in when you threw it against the wall, punched the wall, then realized that walls dont usually move. oh and when i said 50-60 for .50/1 i meant that for 1/2 (long few days at work and class)25-30 should be sufficient for .50/1, although more never hurts

[Actuary 3]

Why would I want to fight about it?

jokesit's jokesone time for you: I'm not going to be mean to someone who is honestly trying to learn. I have a weird sense of humour. And I steal from Shimmering WangI did expect someone to come in and say "Results don't matter. You should focus on playing each hand correctly"That person and I will fight!

[11 to 1 0]

I did expect someone to come in and say "Results don't matter. You should focus on playing each hand correctly"That person and I will fight!

Well, but....if you play each hand correctly, (assuming there really is such a thing) don't you get the results - in the long run? It seems to me from reading (haven't played enough to have an opinion based on play) that the statistics give a framework, like, this hand is goig to win a greater percentage of the time so bet it aggressively .... but, you take that info into a real life situation and if the one who never raises is all of a sudden reraising, then, maybe this is one of the 26% of times when the hand doesn't win. I mean, don't you use the long view coupled with the immediate situation to arrive at the optimal play? (Well, not me, but most successful players?) You can't make decisions only on numbers.

[Actuary 3]

ooooh..I wanted a fight!lolYou hit on it, sorta.You'll see people insisting that they play well. Well enough to win in the long run. But they don't win. So what does that mean? Variance? Bad Luck? Yeah, maybe part of it. But what about after 50,000 hands? Maybe in fact, they are not playing optimally. One needs to constantly evaluate their play in light of the long term profits they are making. Plays that apear to be optimal, that lead to losing money in the long run; are by definition sub-optimal. So yeah, it's not that I'm saying "playing correct is less important than winning an individual hand". I'm simply saying one should not fool himself into thinking he knows the best plays and be blind to the long term losses those plays are causing. It's the difference between "true optimal" and "player thinking he's playing optimal".I hope I explained that, it seems confusing as I type; but I gotta get to bed..so tired.