on-line poker

[Pat494]

Update

I thought I might just mention what has happened so far in case anyone might want to know. I started with a $75 account at the cheapest tables I could find on the internet ( 2 cent - 4 cent ) plus a book, which has proved invaluable - yes really.
It took me weeks to inch my way up to a $100 account before moving up a grade ( 5 cent - 10 cent table ). Every time I dropped below $100 I dropped down a grade. This happened lots of times. Now thankfully I must have learned enough to survive the higher grade. Should I ever make it up to $150 I will move up another grade and so on.
This is really playing with other people's money - past the initial deposit - and a lot of fun

You will need more than luck folks.
So "Hasta la Vista" as Arnie said. ( Still not sure what it means but it sounds good ???)

 

[adrianallen99]

This might be nice, for those that don't like using their own money. Dreampoker are giving $10 free when you sign up to play at their site. Had a go on the 5/10 cent NL tables and I now have $28 I did this once with a free £10 and took it up to £260 before loosing the lot on one hand, so I will be a bit more careful this time.

It is a Prima network site and shouldn't have any problems. There is a review of the site here www.pokernews.com/dream-poker/

Thanks for the tip BB, im up to $35 at DreamPoker now

Decided to watch some of the high stakes games there and both players had $20,000 at table and one went all-in with a straight draw and lost to a pair of kings. He didn't seem to bothered and brought another $20,000 to the table, he went all-in again, but it was a split pot. When I left the table he was down over $30k.

 

[TexasHoldmInvesting]

Poker is a great learning tool for trading

There have been numerous articles (and even a book) about how poker can help one to learn about trading and investing.

The two fields have numerous areas of common ground.

However, I have used poker to help me learn how to invest effectively for one main reason above all others:

1) You can play up to 20 hands of online poker per hour and therefore learn alot about your ability to deal with winning and losing money in a risky situation.

2) Unless you are a day trader (and you are unlikely to be one of those for a long time unless you are an adrenalin junkie with a "saved money death wish") you won't get to make 20 real life trades for up to 6 months in some cases.


Therefore, I view online poker as somewhat like a flight simulator - I can do lots of investing-related "flights", crash a few times and feel what it is like, but in the end not lose a boatload of money while learning about how I deal with investing.

I'd be interested to hear thoughts on this theme.

 

[Pat494]

I think I am progressing at this game. Having learnt the book odds etc etc more or less I found I was folding hand after hand and getting pretty bored. so I experimented with marginal hands and now less than marginal hands. At the lower levels others don't keep to the betting advice. I think following the book religiously means one plays very few hands and when one does all the others fold, so a small pot anyway.
I am learning to play the other players and doing well even with pretty poor hands for starters. Great when a bluff comes off.
I can't quite see how this can be applied to trading except for the toughening up to take some losses without crawling away to a dark place to brood.

 

[TexasHoldmInvesting]

Learning to "take a beating" with Poker is more important than you think! (I think)

I agree with your perspective on the betting patterns at lower tables. Typically the money at stake on a hand by hand basis is small relative to the bankrolls of people playing.

However, I think that you understate the importance of "being able to take a beating and not crawl into a hole" (I know that I haven't quoted you exactly here).

To my mind this is one of the most important aspects of trading and investing.

However, there is a related aspect of "taking a beating" well that one can learn from poker.

In the long term playing Texas Hold'em well will result in you winning against opponents that are not good players. The corrollary to this in investing and trading is that if you develop a good system and stick to it you should prevail.

However, far to many people in both poker and investing deviate from their planned systems because they "can't take a beating". Everyone knows what Warren Buffett's system for selecting stocks is but very few people could adhere to it because they couldn't stomach their relative position during a situation like the dot-com boom.

Therefore, using poker to learn how to stick to a system in investing is an invaluable tool in my opinion. Naturally, others may disagree.....
But I know that I'm in reasonably good company. There are a number of top investors who swear by the use of poker as a way to learning some of the core fundamentals of investing and trading.

 

[gaving]

hi all,

just picking up on the poker books element of the thread, for me the best books bar none are by Dan Harrington and called Harrington on Hold'em 1 and 2. I find super system talks about concepts in games I don't play such as omaha etc, and harrington only does no limit hold'em, he focuses on tournament play but the concepts apply to cash games etc apart from the when to push element which obviously is not relevant.

But he teaches the maths of making good and bad bets, the guys are right about taking savage beatings in poker, you offer a guy 2/1 with the betting and he needs a 3-1 shot to get the card he needs and win the hand, if he takes that bet he loses, regardless of the cards and you want him to keep making that bet because in the long run he will lose to you.

When the shockers hit like a 2 outer you want to scream but you want him/her to keep making that bet against you, but they are top books and well worth a read.

cheers

 

[gaving]

just to finish ultuimately poker is a game of value and probability, yes you can bluff etc or have good reads on people but that is 20% of the game maximum, being solid first in the maths and starting hands is by far the better solution as you can play tightly and just make money off the guys chasing inside straights when they are not being given the correct odds.

 

[roguetrader]

I found tournaments were profitable right from the start but I have struggled with cash games.

Hi Bigbusiness, do you have a theory as to why this is? What seems to be the biggest difference in your experience?
I'd have actually thought it might be the other way round so would be interested in your experience.

 

[PKFFW]

I have found low level tourneys to be populated by people who mostly do not understand the game or do not have the discipline to apply that understanding if they do. This in itself can make tourneys a profitable proposition.

In cash games if you are disciplined, patient and have a solid understanding of the basics of the game then you can and should succeed. At least at the lower buy ins. To succeed in cash games has alot more to do with the psychology of poker than with luck. This is where most new players fall down. They play too many hands, they bluff too often, in short they do not have the patience or discipline to succeed. There is more luck involved in tourneys. However, with more luck also comes people who do not understand the right time and strategies to make that luck work in their own favour. They feel the presure to make a move and usually end up doing so at the wrong time or use the wrong strategy towards the wrong person. If you are disciplined and patient but also aggressive when you need to be, you can take advantage of these situations to win. Again, this is mostly about the lower level buy in tourneys.

I think tourneys are the perfect way to learn. You know what you maximum risk is before you sit down. Usually you will get to play alot more hands than you would at a cash game for the same buy in. Generally the people who don't know what they are doing are more likely to be reckless because they know they will only loose a certain amount if they bomb out. All these factors can make tourneys profitable right from the word go if you have even a basic understanding of the game.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[Bigbusiness]

Hi Bigbusiness, do you have a theory as to why this is? What seems to be the biggest difference in your experience?
I'd have actually thought it might be the other way round so would be interested in your experience.

If you lose a tournament, it probably wont take too much time and all you lose is the tournament fee. I remember one cash game when I spent 4 hours playing and was at break-even, when I hit a hand, put my money in as 95% favourite and lost. That was a lot harder to take than an exit from a tournament. I find the blind structure and constantly reducing numbers of players make tournaments more interesting to play than cash games.

At the moment, I have given up playing, as it is just too much time sat at a computer screen. Too many other things to do in the summer.

 

[roguetrader]

Thanyou both for your replies, I have developed an interest in poker lately (as a hobby) and have become quite fascinated with it.
Haven't played any real money, tournament or otherwise as I haven't finished studying the structure of the game yet. Still playing in the play money "paddling pool" but that offers nothing beyond the very basic learning of hands.
My line of thinking was that the increasing blinds would force you to play hands that you would not otherwise play and thus make it more difficult, but I understand the points you both make,

 

[Pat494]

I think I am progressing at this game. Having learnt the book odds etc etc more or less I found I was folding hand after hand and getting pretty bored. so I experimented with marginal hands and now less than marginal hands. At the lower levels others don't keep to the betting advice. I think following the book religiously means one plays very few hands and when one does all the others fold, so a small pot anyway.
I am learning to play the other players and doing well even with pretty poor hands for starters. Great when a bluff comes off.
I can't quite see how this can be applied to trading except for the toughening up to take some losses without crawling away to a dark place to brood.

UM that was then. My luck seemed to change after that last post or was my strategy up the creek ? Probably the latter. I have gone back to the book a bit wiser than i was hopefully !!!

 

[Pat494]

Once the slide starts it is hard to stop it. My roll went from $125 to $104 much quicker than it went up. A sort of gung-ho can't go wrong attitutude sooned turned disastrous, although it made for a much more exciting play.
Back to self discipline and patience guided by the book and I am on the way up again.

 

[roguetrader]

Back to self discipline and patience guided by the book and I am on the way up again.

That pretty much seems to be the only way to make any head way in poker, the drive to give the game crediblity and mainstream recognition has led to "playing up" the skill factor whilst at the same time "playing down" the luck factor. The former I have no real problem with, as the more I learn and experience of the game the more skill I have to cresit it with. But the fact remains that luck will always play a more significant part than it does in other disciplines of skill.

 

[PKFFW]

That pretty much seems to be the only way to make any head way in poker, the drive to give the game crediblity and mainstream recognition has led to "playing up" the skill factor whilst at the same time "playing down" the luck factor. The former I have no real problem with, as the more I learn and experience of the game the more skill I have to cresit it with. But the fact remains that luck will always play a more significant part than it does in other disciplines of skill.

I agree that luck will always play a bigger role in poker than other games of skill that involve less luck.

It's like trading though, it is a game of probabilities. I liken the luck aspect to the fact that no matter how good your analysis is in the markets, you will always get it wrong sometimes. I've seen a guy win needing runner runner 7's(probability about 274:1 if memory serves but it could be even higher) on the turn and river. I will bet big against him in that situation every time and most times I will win. Luck can be a biatch though and sometimes I'm going to loose. That's part of what makes poker so much fun.

The skill lies in 1: knowing the probabilites and 2: watching, learning and remembering other players betting/playing habits and 3: putting those together at the right time to win. Learn to do that and you will consistantly beat the lucky player and make money over time.

I remember reading about how Doyle Brunson and a few of his poker playering buddies used to get together once a week and play a game. They kept "score" of who won and how much etc. At the end of the year it was Doyle in the lead by a long shot. Over time, the luck evens out and the skill comes to the fore. The skillful player will win hands down over the long term.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[Trader333]

I agree that luck will always play a bigger role in poker than other games of skill that involve less luck.

If that is the case then why do the same names keep appearing in the open tournament finals ? In my view this cannot be just down to luck.


Paul

 

[roguetrader]

If that is the case then why do the same names keep appearing in the open tournament finals ? In my view this cannot be just down to luck

OK Paul, firstly, there's no mention of "just luck" in either my comments or the reply to it, there is however reference either directly or indirectly to a "significant amount of luck"
So let's consider your comment "the same names keep appearing in the open tournament finals"
Not sure what tournaments you are talking about, but let's isolate one, WSOP Main Event, arguably the "World Cup" of poker the "Wimbledon"
2005 WSOP Main Event winner----Joe Hachem, a former to unknown in the world of poker.
2004 WSOP Main Event winner----Greg Raymer a former to unknown in the world of poker.
2003 WSOP Main Event winner----Chris Moneymaker a former to unknown in the world of poker.
2002 WSOP Main Event winner----Robert Varkonyi a former to unknown in the world of poker.
2001 WSOP Main Event winner----Carlos Mortensen, I don't know his status then, but he is now a pro poker player, I'm guessing he was unknown then, a former Matador.
2000 WSOP Main Event winner----Chris Ferguson He of course (if you follow poker) is a well known pro.
None of these defending champions made it to the final table the next year to defend their title, and I'll lay you pretty high odds Joe Hachem won't change that next month.
Raymer, Hachem and Moneymaker have been large as life in the most recent European Poker Tour, how many final tables do you think they made? Yup you guessed it.....None! about seven events all over Europe culminating in Monte Carlo and our intrepid trio make no final tables, despite playing in all events.
One last note would be Phil Ivey, generally recognised in the world of poker to be the best player on the circuit at the moment, don't think he's ever made a final table at the WSOP Main Event.
Most pros will tell you now, winning the Main Event is a remarkable feat that can't be done without a fair amount of luck, and that's the pros talking.
The fact is on the subject of "same names" it rather depends on how big your pool of "same names" is. I have been following poker for about 3 months and I could probably name 100, in no other sport or competitive envoironment could I do that. If it were all about skill the game would be dominated by a handful of names. Is there skill involved? Absolutely, the real question is how much, and how well does it offset the larger than normal "luck factor" Imho not very well.

 

[krazyanyway]

Texas Hold'em by Phil Helmuth
Internet Texas Hold'em by Matthew Hilger

Hilger = Good
Anything Hellmuth has written up to now is mostly considered a joke,
you are WAY better off with 2+2's books such as Theory of Poker, and
the new no limit book which I must say is quite interesting even
for a seasoned NL player.

 

[roguetrader]

The skill lies in 1: knowing the probabilites and 2: watching, learning and remembering other players betting/playing habits and 3: putting those together at the right time to win. Learn to do that and you will consistantly beat the lucky player and make money over time.

I'd agree with that, even as a relatively inexperienced player. I'm inclined to think the skillset required to play is relatively small, In general terms obviously a knowledge of the hand combinations and rankings, how starting hands play from different psitions, and beyond that it is more or less a game of odds, odds to draw cards to make a hand and pot odds in comparison to call bets.

Point number 3 I'd agree with in the cash games, which is why most of the pros are cash game players, tournaments are designed to enhance the luck factor a little as ever increasing blinds often force players to play hands they would normally lay down, the acceptability of the game and the massive influx of internet players, winning free seats to tournaments now cause the pros many problems in the tournaments, as they have never played the majority of the players they come up against in early play, that coupled with the fact they have learnt to play bad poker makes them somewhat unreadable, since they will often bet any hand from any position, thus making it impossible to "put them on a hand"
Despite all that it is however a fascinating game.

 

[PKFFW]

I'd agree with that, even as a relatively inexperienced player. I'm inclined to think the skillset required to play is relatively small, In general terms obviously a knowledge of the hand combinations and rankings, how starting hands play from different psitions, and beyond that it is more or less a game of odds, odds to draw cards to make a hand and pot odds in comparison to call bets.

Point number 3 I'd agree with in the cash games, which is why most of the pros are cash game players, tournaments are designed to enhance the luck factor a little as ever increasing blinds often force players to play hands they would normally lay down, the acceptability of the game and the massive influx of internet players, winning free seats to tournaments now cause the pros many problems in the tournaments, as they have never played the majority of the players they come up against in early play, that coupled with the fact they have learnt to play bad poker makes them somewhat unreadable, since they will often bet any hand from any position, thus making it impossible to "put them on a hand"
Despite all that it is however a fascinating game.

Yes I agree, tourneys are designed to increase the luck factor. That is what makes it so exciting.

My points were more about cash or ring games. This is where the skillful player can really set himself apart from the lucky ones. At least that has been my experience and I'm only a little bit skilled! haha

Cheers,
PKFFW