Online NL - Can you make $ over long run?
Looking over my stats for 10000 hands since moving to the 1-2NL tables (200 max buy in) my stats are outrageous.
I have doing been well at $20-100 SitNGoes but UB is very limited in the amount of players at this level, up to a 2 hour wait for higher SitNgoes.
So here are some outrageous stats - playing 6 handed
I have lost holding KK to AA, 6 times won 4 times - thats 10x in 10283 hands
I have lost to quads 11 times, won with quads 3 times - 14 times in 10283 hands
I have lost 492% more then have gained by catching a card within odds
- I think this by taking away odds to draw - by betting pots bigger yet getting drawn out on, yet I am not winning the same size of pots when given the correct odds to draw,
Is this just an anomoly or is there something with UB that I am missing? I remember CanadaKev saying he would not play there anymoire and am wondering if I am missing something?
I have lost alot with river flushes or straights (typically calling value bets in the 4-1 area, where the person has called againsts odds to win) is it smarter just to fold when the river makes a drawing hand? Even at the 4-1 call level?
I have noticed that most of the players I know that are profitable online have done it in limit,
- obviously a different game ( limit being more mathmatical) do you lose that edge in NL?
- due to wild variance? Limit would limit exposure to over pairs, quads, etc...
- due to lack of externial stimuli for reads
- is online NLL just too close to raw gambling? Taking away the edges you have as a good live NL player?
Any additonal input would be welcome.
Thanks
I have doing been well at $20-100 SitNGoes but UB is very limited in the amount of players at this level, up to a 2 hour wait for higher SitNgoes.
So here are some outrageous stats - playing 6 handed
I have lost holding KK to AA, 6 times won 4 times - thats 10x in 10283 hands
I have lost to quads 11 times, won with quads 3 times - 14 times in 10283 hands
I have lost 492% more then have gained by catching a card within odds
- I think this by taking away odds to draw - by betting pots bigger yet getting drawn out on, yet I am not winning the same size of pots when given the correct odds to draw,
Is this just an anomoly or is there something with UB that I am missing? I remember CanadaKev saying he would not play there anymoire and am wondering if I am missing something?
I have lost alot with river flushes or straights (typically calling value bets in the 4-1 area, where the person has called againsts odds to win) is it smarter just to fold when the river makes a drawing hand? Even at the 4-1 call level?
I have noticed that most of the players I know that are profitable online have done it in limit,
- obviously a different game ( limit being more mathmatical) do you lose that edge in NL?
- due to wild variance? Limit would limit exposure to over pairs, quads, etc...
- due to lack of externial stimuli for reads
- is online NLL just too close to raw gambling? Taking away the edges you have as a good live NL player?
Any additonal input would be welcome.
Thanks
Comments
2) As you said, variance in NL will be much higher then limit. Even 10,000 hands, while decent, is not really that huge a sample size for long term results.
3) Ultimatebet is not rigged
4) Streaks happen, but while they stand out in your memory they really happen fairly infrequently in the long run. I recently had a streak of 5 KKs in a row losing to AA (was limit though), and I have to admit looking at that streak in pokertracker is funny, albeit not profitable. Then again I have had KK 2,347 times since using pokertrackerso something like that was bound to happen.
5) Ultimatebet is not rigged.
6) Seriously, explain how with a sample size of over 10,000 hands of no limit you can determine that you "lost 492% more then have gained by catching a card within odds. I would love to see a methodology behind this figure that would not take about 2 years to complete.
7) Ultimatebet is not rigged
8) "I have lost to quads 11 times, won with quads 3 times - 14 times in 10283 hands" is not that strange. You are going against 4-9 opponents. I would expect to lose more to quads then win with quads just because you have many other players who can get quads vs just you (when you win).
I would say though that mentioning this might be part of your problem in creating data from the raw data that really does not say anything of value and instead goes for a different angle of the "xxx is rigged" line of pointmaking.
I am hardly claiming to be the best online NL player in the world though I do have a 2.80 BB win rate in about 120,000 hands. I am not really sure what to advise to you as most of your points are just different ways of questioning whether Ultimatebet is legitimate, because you have not fared well there. Instead of these general stats why not post a 50 hand sample to show your type of play, not specific bad beat hands but a random 50 hand mix.
Then I started playing live 4-5 sessions a week and saw all the same things as online. I'd say that playing more live poker, 30-40h weeks, did one major thing -- made me trust online poker.
I have had 20+ straight winiing sessions at 1 2NL live and then in the same games gone dry for 6 sessions straight.
I make money in the long run online, but I realize my weaknesses online vs live. I think many players don't realize these weaknesses and have many more online leaks than live.
For example, I'm a great/focused/disciplined full-table cash player live, but can't take the boredom of full-table cash online and miss out on alot of tells I pick up live, don't watch many hands carefully in which I'm not involved, etc, etc, so I don't play full table cash online.
But I can honestly say that I have taken more bad beats and seen more extreme hands and plays than I have seen on any other site.
I have made the switch to Party and the Players are kinda wierd but you rarely see Quads go up against Quads.
First of all, I am not stating UB is rigged. BUT I do have some anomlies with 10K hands ie AA vs KK, at a 6 handed table should be less then 4% yet I have seen it closer to 20%.
Most of those times I have been all in preflop (I raise, get reraised then commit someone to the pot), where I am taking a BIG hit.
There other thing that got to me is seeing spam advertising in the chat for software that allows you to opponents hole cards preflop. I am very easy to commit to all in preflop against 1 person with KK.
I am actually -$1897 with KK (yes negative) - vs 78s where I am +$986, AA + is better at $102
Of course I minimize my losses with Suited Connectors, and am rarley commited to a pot for $200+ with this hand. The glaring leaks I see are commiting all in bets before the last card has landed.
Hands where I am 75%+ favorite and have commited an all in bet actually has a negative win rate for me. IE against a flush draw or str draw. Ofccourse there are times when I have missed an overset or quads but they are in the 5% range (my mistake not odds mistake).
The losses I am seeing are HUGE pots where I go in as a favorite, yet lose. I should be +66-75% with these hands yet I am only running positive 23% of the time hence another big loser. Almost as if I get called only when 'they' are going to win. I know a silly concept. But outside of the odds, the other way I can minimize these losses is by limiting the size of the pots I lose, by being less aggressive and not calling all ins when I have best hand but am against good draws or by limited the size of the pot via limit.
This wouldn't be a problem if every pot was $200. However, it seems that the amount oif times I get called and lose is overpowering the times I get called and win, vs the times when I get no caller.
Will the numbers even out eventually? What kind of varaince should I expect 10 buy ins? 20 buy ins?
I am sorry, but I simply do not believe this statement, partially because it is impossible in a sample size of several hundred to a thousand to lose a majority of all ins as a 75% favorite, and also partially because I do not believe you actually have this hard data, but rather are operating on an emotional level because you have had a few bad beats.
If you cannot win with KK and barely win with AA then I am not sure what to suggest as you are the only pokertracker player I have ever heard of with a decent hand sample that has had this problem. AA is by far my best money making hand and KK battles it out with AKo for second place for me.
I really do not know what the flaws in your game are since you have only posted extremely bizarre general statistics which would require an intricate program to even discover. Your posts just drip with overemotion and multiple trillion to one longshots that you manage to suffer.  Sorry, but it just does not past the common sense test.
I can easily see you vastly overplaying hands because you feel you deserve to win them and that probably generates much bigger losses. I also suspect you tilt very easily.  This really is not meant as a flame. I have zero idea of how you play as I have seen no real hand histories. However, if you are losing money as fast as you seem to be implying, I would strongly suggest that among these options
1) Corrupt poker sites
2) Billion to one statistical bad beat claims
3) Major leaks in your game
that you consider option 3 as perhaps the most likey area in need of attention, and if you agree I would strongly suggest you drop options 1 and 2 quickly from your poker life as they will only serve to distract you and create unrealistic rationalizations that will not actually improve your game.
For example, a 2 is a more likely river card than an Ace, due to the fact that more poker hands reach the river betting round when 4 Aces are out in the players' hole cards, than when 4 dueces are out in the players' hole cards.
In Texas Hold'em, any flop, turn or river card is not selected uniformly at random from the remaining unseen cards.
ScottyZ
You may believe your numbers, but to be blunt I do not in any way shape or form. What you are saying does not even make sense from the standpoint of the sites making more rake because they make the same rake whether you win or lose a hand. So basically what you are saying is that the sites are specifically programmed to screw you as a random individual to benefit other random people, which again makes zero sense.
Hey, if you want to believe that is why you lose instead of weakness in your game go for it. I actively encourage my opponents to believe it is anything but their gameplay when they lose. However there are tens of thousands of players with huge pokertracker databases and if your results were representative then we would have seen the online poker industry crash to a halt.
If you have a legitimate 2 million hand poker database complete with the days and times of hand histories for specific sites that proves the impossible statistical claims you make then contact news agencies and law enforcement officials and put the online poker business out of business. You could do that if you have what you claim. For now I will stick with common sense as a guide and pass on your claims that are backed by words and not real facts.
Still, if I ever sit at a table with you I will completely agree that it's the corrupt fixed sites that caused you to lose a pot to me
Great point. Â You can't know how many cumulative outs are out there to beat you. Â People have observer bias. Â They remember the runner runner beats of how someoneone with 32s caught running 2's to crack their aces. (What they forget to mention is that the person also had a flush draw on the flop as well as a gutshot straight draw, but just managed to backdoor trips instead).
"Interesting" way to put it!... but I know what you mean!
An aside to the original post.
My strategy for success online is
1) limit ring games. >> I have played from .25/.50 to $8/16. Actually just made $40 in the last 1/2 hour at .5/1 LOL
2) SNGs >> I find that playing SNGs from $5 to $20 I have the most success. It can build your roll quickly.
3) Bonus whoring> When your at a site might as well have a bonus generating in the back ground. I usually use this money for my larger MTT shots.
4) Documenting hands, time of play on each site and a win/loss total for each. You will find some trends develop in that some sites you just can't win at one month but you make a fortune at another site. Go with the trend.
Good luck man
You say this
"I have had the same experience in NL games on UB as well as another dozen poker sites. Â Are the sites fixed? Â I will stick to my original thought and say YES they are in a way to generate rake. If it is done intentionally (most likely) or it is a limitation on programming I am not sure but that is my thought. Â I have a 56% win rate in hands that I am 75% favourite or more going to the river. It was as low as 44% at one point. Â Â I have a sample size of over 2 Million online hands so I will believe my numbers."
In which you claim that sites are rigging the outcomes to generate more rake, I assume by creating some type of action hands. Â Yet at the same time you also say that you are experiencing a statistical impossibility of only winning 56% of hands when a 75%+ favorite over millions of hands.
You also say
"They are not screwing any one individual. They are not out to get me or you or Tyson. Â The hands are designed to increase the amount of the pots and in turn increases the rake the site takes."
but that goes contrary to your whole losing as a favorite line of arguement. Â If as you say that they are not out to get you then you should still be winning 75% + of the hands you are a 75% favorite in, except that they will be bigger pots with bigger rake assuming the site juices the hands somehow.
So which is it?
"LOL Well I know there is a weakness in my game when I get AA in against an under pair and lose. Â It is all so clear next time I will fold. Thanks for the heads up. Â I am sure every online player has the exact same results LOL. Â Obviously there will be variations in results as people play different hands different ways."
Once your statistics get large enough then you will find that hands like AA and KK win at around the same percentage rate for everyone. Â Meanwhile we have one person claiming that KK is a net loser in the long term which all I can say is heh.
That's the beauty of statistics. Â Once you get into large enough numbers they start to become similar. Â If we each play 1,000,000 hands we each will get AA dealt at about the same rate and will win approximately the same % of hands with it.
One last point. Â If you seriously played 2,000,000 hands and only won 56% of the time as a 75% + favorite then I would ask the following
1) How do you even have money to eat?
2) If you are so detailed about these statistics why did you continue to play in this situation?
Basically, stop making up stuff and concentrate on improving your game if you want to start winning.
"You will find some trends develop in that some sites you just can't win at one month but you make a fortune at another site. Go with the trend."
Seriously, if you believe this then your game is in deep, deep trouble. The casinos in Vegas happily show the recently won roulette numbers just so gamblers will bet based on trends which of course mean absolutely nothing other then a means to lure people into playing a -EV game. If you vary from solid poker to follow a "trend" then you are doing the exact same thing.
I know Reddington and Punky. I disagree that sites are rigged, but I don't doubt their stats. If your best argument is "you're making stuff up" than you, sir, should <chris_jericho_voice>SHUT THE HELL UP</chris_jericho_voice>
There is a professor at McGill who developed a software program to track students answers on multiple choice tests. Â What they tracked were not simply right/wrong, but rather which wrong choices were made for each question and how that compared as a pattern to someone sitting close by.
When he found two student next to each other who not only got the same answers wrong but also got them wrong in the same way (ie they each chose D for instance as the wrong answer), he would calculate the odds of two people getting the same answers wrong in the exact same way and found it to be in the billions to one range.
Nonetheless when they brought in the students to explain, they usually received variations of "anything is possible."
Given the choice between 10,000,000,000 to 1 odds or 2 people cheating off each other, it was not a hard decision.
A statistical improbablity is when after a A 7 2 rainbow flop my AA got beat by 10 10 due to runner 10s last week. Â That was a 1000-1 bad beat that made me shake my head.
Claiming that a person wins 56% of hands when over a 75% favorite over 2,000,000+ hands is not 1000-1. Â Not 1,000,000 to 1. Â The odds are greater then the number of people on the planet. Â It is IMPOSSIBLE
Seriously, sometimes the simple solution is what works. Â A lot of loose, weak players blame rigging and doom switches and all sorts of other insanely statistically impossible things aside from their own play for continued losses. Â Sometimes it's just because they are weak players. Â
I have to apologize for sending your thread into some sort of Defend your opinion rant. I will delete the threads shortly.
Greed is a motivator, but don't forget that in this industry there are people with vast databases that would be able to determine if hands were being dealt in a statistically incorrect way (that would provide the actual data as well instead of just claiming it happened). The online poker rooms would risk everything by juicing up their games (which would be very easy to discover) when they do not have to to make a lot of money.
Anyways you still have not explained how this would mean you lose more, given that a site makes the rake whether you win or lose a hand.
"Wow I didn't know the previous outcome didn't have an influence on the next outcome in roulette. Give me a break. I think even Homer Simpson knows that. "
If that is the case then how can you make this statement
"Why are some craps tables hot and some not."
Statistically whether a table is hot or not will not have any impact on future outcomes and anyone that adjusts their play because a table is "hot" is making a mistake.
"Why do professional BJ players seek out 1 deck games or games with less deck."
Because they are at a better statistical advantage in that type of game. It has nothing to do with running hot or not, it's is about cold statistics. That is why I cast doubt on your trillion to 1 bad beat claims. Statistically they are impossible.
"If your done with your attacks let me know. If you knew me you would know I am far from a loose player. I am tight/agressive and if I am in a pot people know that there is something there."
Seriously, I am not trying to attack you, but you are making claims that just do not stand the test of basic logic and if you continue to believe them (much like you believe a craps table can be hot ) then it WILL continue to impact your game.
"I do not use poker tracker I use spreadsheets/access database that I have designed for my own purposes. Are they 100% statistically infallable probably not but since I am a CMA and have a degree in commerce with a minor in math I think they are reliable for my purposes. I tend to use tools that are different from the main stream."
Well, whatever different methods you are using they are generating results that are leading you to believe you are a victim of some trillion to one shots.
Seriously, consider buying pokertracker and using it. It really is an effective tool if you are playing online poker seriously, which you seem to be doing.
Excuse me, it can't officially turn into one of those threads until I tell you that.
This statement is only valid if you consider your hands from a hot/cold perspective with all of them going to showdown. They don't in poker, so its perfectly valid for terrible players to have win% completely out of wack with the good players.
The great thing about metaphors is that they never completely describe the original scenario properly.
I call bullshit. You do not have a custom designed pokertracker clone that captures every hand and provides the same stats at PT. Your 'stats' suffer from input bias.
Monteroy: Please use the quote tag .. the airquotes suck for reading your comments.
Heh, sure why not. If you can casually consider trillion to 1 shots (which frankly I suspect is a vast underestimate of the real chances of what you claim happening) to be possible then why not go with the belief that you have found a way to break a casino game that millions of people play every year without being able to do the same thing. Patent your system and you can make an infomercial that runs beside the guy who claims he has a cure for cancer through natural curing in a $19 book.
Forget pokertracker or proper statistics or any of that mumbo jumbo. Drop the .5/1 online poker games and become a professional craps player and make mint after mint by getting into the deep long term using your method to get an edge. Just think of all the money you will rake in!! I look forward to hearing how that turns out. It seems that some of the posters in this thread have a history of statistical creativity that I was not aware of when I stumbled on this thread.
All the best.
PS - I am trying to figure out how to use the quote function, I do realize it is a pain to read as I post it.  I do not post here that often and basically I am a quote newbie :P Â
I also realize that very bad players statistics will differ somewhat from better players. I still have doubts that any long term player will have KK be his or her biggest losing hand (assuming he did not lose a 1 or 2 huge hands at an artificially high limit to mess up the data).  I guess I was surprised at the sheer amount of creative statistics being tossed around here casually that fell well beyond any reasonable level of belief.
- My stats are from hand histories that I take notes on.. I dint use tracker. I could be glad to send Simone hand histories and you can see it yourself, although I don't know that was my original question.
I am not stating this site has to be screwed up because my stats are different...
At 1/2NIL
But here is a typical strategy I play with K, I am raising to pot $7-9 in later position with someone in front of me, pot with me as the first person.
Due to my aggressive style - typically I get alto of action. I may have just shown a 2 gapper, flush draw that took a hand with 3rd pair, or caught lucky on the river.
People typically OVER play hands against me. I have alot of success post flop, and tend to take alot of pots away from people letting me draw for cheap or laying down mid pairs when the draw hits. I do win alot of those hands in showdown as well.
I get four players who will reraise hands against me.
A sly player - one who I have taken notes on and knows what he is doing - will reraise me with Mid pairs, Or suited connectors to give deception to the hand. Possibly with TOP hands if there are numerous callers/or a fish he can bring for the ride. But will undercall with hoping to trap me, heads up.
A maniac who is completely out of line raising everything.
A a goofball who doesn't know any better - playing with low pairs, or is overvaluing AK and doesn't want to see a flop.
A rock, AA, QQ, JJ - maybe AK. Usually just double my bet.
As above, I am in LP with one limper in EP. I would go to $9, SB folds, BB folds EP Reraises to $20.
The only hand I am afraid of is AA, if you have been playing fast and you feel that you can get the opponent to go all in preflop do you not reraise?
I reraise here to $60 then get put all in. *or called*
Then when your all in your opponenet flips aces, how many times have you seen it?
- I have not seen this happen in live games since I have become this aggressive, I have seen aces against me but rarely do I get reraised or get a chance to get all my chips in unless it is a weak player, who I think I have typically dominated, or a smart savvy player who knows that I will call an all in with AA if I have precisely KK. Usually that person will try and trap me.
So how many times do you find yourself in this situation? Getting preflop where someone is raising against your kings. My playstyle it happens ALOT. I get ALOT of action.
Yes I do get outplayed, where I have someone pegged on middle pair and they have me completely dominated and I get all my chips in. I look at those and say wow I got beat, how did I get beat, what did that opponent due to get me in that situation and how would I play them again.
That is what I am doing now, asking for some strategy that would limit my exposure with a pair of kings for the style that I play.
Is it that I am too easy to set up for a great hand if a really savvy player put me on a really hand where I reraised, and knew I had a good chance I would get my chips in with kings would he reraise all in? Is that why I see a major loss - thinking of all the times I play kings raise and people fold to me is high as well, BUT only wins me a small blind amount if no one has anything to take a stand against me. Vs a HUGE loss when someone has a real strength hand against me, catching on Ax, AA, or catches an underset? Am I too willing to pot my chips in the pot?
I do reraise alot when someone takes a stand and I have an above average hand. Especially when I think I can get a player to call me with a less then average hand, because they think I over value hands, or has seen me playing junk and riding a high. Yes I lose with TT vs QQ, but unless I make a huge mistake it is something I make back when he turns to pair and I have a flush.
There is a psychological affect that happens when I play rings games, if I lose in those situations I see it as an investment, people aren't too willing to reraise me if they know there is a good chance I will reraise. Yet when a session is compacted many hands within a lower time period and many tables, people hit and run, people use tracker so they may have seen that you will reraise all in on KK over 10000 hands that an all in bet is a good idea with AA. they don't hear me talking about a hand I creamed em on a week ago, ten minutes ago or an hour ago. Plus a monkey who is on a lucky streak will typically stay until his money is gone, so if I get unlucky I get a chance to get those chips back, or if he has a great session see him in a week etc. I lose that feel on line, hence the pure mathematics approach to limit makes sense.
On line, I think I lose alot of those tools. So perhaps a much more defensive style is in order. Looking at 2BB/100 in no limit just doesn't make sense to me, I cant play that way, maybe I am missing something but I took that to mean every hundred hands at a 1-2NL game your seeing $4? Where you have to buy in at $100, should buy in for 200 that is a very low investment rate. Would it not make more sense to play limit where with the bankroll I would need for variance would be much less, but the BB much more? So for a $2000 Br which is really needed given the swings you can take playing aggressively, your expecting an approximate return of $4 an hour?
- Perhaps it would make more sense to play limit at 2/4with that bankroll and earn 1BB/hour or $8?
I am not asking if I should switch to limit because of bad suck outs, I'm asking if your playing VERY aggressively perhaps limit limits the exposure.
** Yes I understand that if facing two players, the odds of a better hand holding up are reduced dramatically. Frankly, I typically do not get past the flop with many people playing against me. I am talking about situations where the turn and river decisions are typically against one player. Those situations are amounting for BIG losses as I will make someone pay to draw and lose alot when they hit. Yet, they leave and go lose perhaps a lesser amount to someone else.
-- If I could walk into a casino, wait for the right time then sit down three rounds, and win huge pot and just stand up and leave, hop over to another table and wait for the perfect situation then hop back etc etc.... on UB there typically are not any waiting lists, you can hop from game to game.
I thank you guys for the discussion, as I think I have worked out that I should be playing limit. I think I can have a better rate of return, strip the game down to math, limit the varables and give it a few thousand hands.
Or also go in search of bigger Stung sites, where I have been very successful.
Or any other suggestions?
In this case, the statistics you have given are subject to observer bias.
You can't draw statistical conclusions from a subset of poker hands you have manually selected.
ScottyZ
Â
Â
All the best in you endeavours. Â
Why do I waste my time
The stats come from all showdowns that involve a hand that are 75% favoured to win. I do not see the bias. It is pretty simple. Maybe you can help explain it to me because Monteroy is useless.
POTD.
Why post if you aren't open for a discussion?
Yes discussionis fine but when he comes up with his little insults then it turns into a waste of time for me. I was in grade school a long time ago and it was fun then but it's a bit different when your in your 30s. Thanks for awarding me the POTD thou it is appreciated.
Compare that to a similar live game where about 25 hands are dealt, with no bonus/rakeback incentives, yet it also has extra costs (higher rake and tipping the dealer) and you need to generate a much, much higher BB/100 rate to earn the same amount each hour.
The online game is quite a bit different then the live NL games. I am always amazed at the insane looseness of the live NL games compared to online games. In the $5/5 NL game at Niagara with $500 buy in a raise to $30 preflop usually resulted in 5-7 callers. Online that just does not happen, and I found that it took me a while to adjust my play to the different conditions. Online is more of a grind, live is much more of an extreme variance experience for me (fortunately positive thusfar).
It sounds like you play a much more action based game then I do and maybe that does not translate as well online, I am not quite sure. Some of the tools you use live will not work online and I am not quite sure what to suggest as a replacement.
I still find it hard to believe that KK can be the biggest losing hand after 10,000 hands. That still goes against the basic statistics that KK will be a 3-1 favorite over every single hand other then AA and you will not run into AA that often (despite the occassional bad streak). Long term assuming your statistics are all from similar limits the only way to be that far behind with KK is if you fold it a LOT when ahead.
Actually, I went through hand histories, 10K hands 8 hours taking notes and adding wins/losses.
I wanted to see why I was not seeing bigger gains, I was really surprised by this - particularly the loss on kings.
Best I can tell there are a few hands where I did not play them right, letting someone catch on the turn or river (being greedy and could have taken the pot on the flop), but for the most part it is simple I either win a small pot or lose a huge one.
Glaringly, I have lost HUGE pots where someone has caught lucky, or has me beat ie AA vs KK. Yet tend to win much smaller pots when I am allowed to draw. .
- ie Raising BIG with top pair against str or flush draw. When all the chips hit the pot I am less then the 75% percent win rate. However, when I raise and someone folds (correctly) the pots I am winning are smaller.
Or I only get an extra halfpot, or pot when I make my draw on the turn/river, vs losing 3x pot.
In a Live riing game I dont mind, I will make this $$ back over a session when someone draws without the right odds.. But there are different conditions as mentioned in earlier posts.
- For example, when I win/lose a huge pot, the other player is usually not going to try to draw, or will fold more unless they have the strongest of hands.
However, the unconstant variable here is the other player, when losing those huge pots I have only recouped them on a small number of occasions from that same player. Typically, a Friday or Saturday when there are waiting lists, I have seen these 'lucky' players stay longer, hence my recoup rates go up.
I have been playing SitNGo's for a year and am a winning player with variying levels from $10-$100 buy in.
I switched to no-limit a month ago and my win rate is negative. I switched due to lack of action at SitNgoes at higher levels.
I have been approaching NL Ring in terms of max buy in. +2 MB, +3 MB, -1MB. Which I am beigining to suspect is wrong for Online.
Scottzy, I thought you were playing 30/60 limit? Most of the players I know that are online are making money (supporting themselves) on limit. Hence why I asked if people were making money in NL. I dont know anyone that does. And if you do, do you tend to have a rock, or more defensive playiing style.