Poker could be a good "second fiddle" option

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

Lately I've gotten tired of searching out beatable blackjack games in the Bay Area. There are none in fact. Even Cache Creek's shoe games are tough though it's always been worth my while going there. And that is a good distance to drive.

So lately I've sought local 3/6 limited wager poker games. If only to get in out of the rain.

Things this novice has noticed last Saturday.

1. My first mistake was in thinking that I was the only "fish" at the Texas Hold 'Em table. Sure I can make a few bone headed plays from time to time (small losses really) but nothing that compares to what some maniacs at the game will do. One guy kept RAISING my three aces over Kings. A full house that should have made everyone fold. Of course i Had a pocket ace (and a suited King). I mean if there are TWO ACES in the flop who but an idiot keeps raising?

In fact it did make everyone fold by the turn. Except for this nut. He thought I was bluffing from a play I made earlier. A small loss to test the waters.

2. Playing the role of "I'm really kind of new at this game" is a strong facade.

3. Blackjack players in search of the perfect 21 game with good rules or the best counting system? Well they may be advised to take up poker. The house has a firm grip on the blackjack system but could care less which fools lose their money in a poker game.

Think about it: There are about 20 serious concepts thirty other helpful tips to learn to survive well in poker. And some fish may still insist upon throwing money in your pockets even before you have these down by rote. Not so with blackjack.

4. Anyone who has taken the time to become proficient at counting (I can count a deck down in about 28 seconds) and learned/memorized the many indices could easily take apart a book on poker and start scaling the fish by next Sunday. Less work.

5. The camouflage you learned at card counting blackjack (to throw off the pit boss and other heat) helps make you a stronger actor at poker. Really helped me pull off my "Aw shucks boys I really don't know how to play this game" image.

So it could be worth a try.

For me? Well poker will become a good second fiddle. Something to "double on". My personal inclination is that I prefer to take the house's money not some poor dumb redneck's hard earned paycheck.

But if I ever play against compulsive gamblers like Bill Bennett and John McCain I will take much pride in cleaning their pockets empty.

You didn't know Bennett and McCain were compulsive gamblers? Well that's because you only watch the coporate media.

 

[cardcounter0]

Awesome Idea

Awesome Idea, I'm surprised no one has thought of it before!

Things that made me leave blackjack and take up poker:

1. After watching idiots lose large amounts of money playing blackjack I realized the same class of idiot is in the poker room, basically doing the poker equivelent of standing on soft 16, and giving their money directly to me.

2. There is no heat in the poker room. No matter how good you get the casino will not bar you.

3. It is easier to take money from a player at poker who saw the game last week on T.V., then it is to take money from the casino, outwit the eye in the sky, pit boss, dealer, and bad pen and rules at blackjack.

4. The luxury of folding of bad hands without throwing any money in the pot, for hours on end, finally raising, and getting 4 callers. The thought of making "waiting bets" in blackjack now makes me cringe. I want to see my cards BEFORE I bet.


Here is what I consider the "bible" of low stakes limit poker:

Small Stakes Hold 'em: Winning Big With Expert Play
by Ed Miller, David Sklansky, and Mason Malmuth

 

[21forme]

I've had similar thoughts. Never played poker, but I've seen what many of the poker players do at the BJ tables between their games.

Besides the book mentioned above, does anyone have any other book recommendations on Hold'em strategy?

 

[Canceler]

Awesome Idea, I'm surprised no one has thought of it before!

Ha ha! Yes, this idea has been mentioned before. That’s why, for all the reasons that were mentioned, I started studying Hold’em about a month and a half ago. I’ve not yet played in an actual live game, but that day will come soon.

I have gone to watch a few times. Last night I watched a 2/4 Limit table with nine players. Routinely, 5 or 6 or 7 of them would see the flop. Well, I know from reading, and from dealing hands onto my kitchen counter, that only 2 or 3 of those hands will actually be playable. This could be a really fun game!

Here is what I consider the "bible" of low stakes limit poker:

Small Stakes Hold 'em: Winning Big With Expert Play
by Ed Miller, David Sklansky, and Mason Malmuth

I bought that book, largely (well, totally) because of your previous recommendations of it. They say right in it that it’s not a book for beginners, and that’s true. But every time I read through it, I understand it a little better. And I expect I’ll be rereading it many more times in the future.

 

[cardcounter0]

Beginner Books

Small Stakes Hold 'em: Winning Big With Expert Play
by Ed Miller, David Sklansky, and Mason Malmuth

is the book that allows you to "crush" low stakes game (ie: win regularly at rates that "experts" claim is impossible).

Routinely, 5 or 6 or 7 of them would see the flop

and even more importantly, 2 or 3 of them will call a raise on the river!
:laugh:

Books to "gear" up to the above advanced text:
Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em by Lee Jones
(Make sure to get the 2nd or 3rd edition, the 1st edition had some flaws).
A good 1st book on poker, you won't crush the game, but it gives a good introduction.

Theory of Poker by David Sklansky. Introduces the important concepts (pot odds, semi-bluff, fold equity, etc., etc.) and jargon. Read it, then when you become good, read it again. When you are really good, read it again.

 

[darrislance]

Watch Out

It is true that lower limit poker games tend to attract lower level players. However, keep in mind that many advanced players will sit down at a low limit table while they are waiting on a higher level table to open. So don't assume that everyone at a low-limit table is a fish.

In fact in Sklansky's book he does mention that now it is very common for a low limit poker player to easily clear $50,000/year.

 

[mjbballar23]

Hold'em

In fact in Sklansky's book he does mention that now it is very common for a low limit poker player to easily clear $50,000/year.

Sklansky was talking about playing 3/6 limit online and making $50,000 a year. This statement was made back in the early days of online poker where there were fish everywhere throwing their money away. This is no longer the case and i honestly dont think anyone can clear $50k a year playing 3/6 limit online anymore (unless they grind 3/6 heads up then i suppose thats might be possible).

Here are my thoughts on poker:

Live play: players are absolutely terrible at just about every limit. Read a couple books and do a little studying and you should be able to beat these games. Just look out for the rake.....2/4 limit is essentially UNBEATABLE because of the rake. 30 hands an hour can get extremely boring. I would also recommend NEVER bluffing ever in most live games because some fish will call you down with bottom pair-no kicker.

Online play: an entirely different animal. Players online are much better and just reading a couple of books wont make you a winning player. Honestly, becoming a winning player online has been the most difficult thing i think i've ever done when it comes to gambling. I've been fine tuning my game pretty hardcore for the last 3 months and only within the last month have i begun to show a solid profit. Now although winning online is much harder than winning live there are many advantages to playing online: lower rake, rakeback deals (A MUST HAVE!!), deposit bonuses, potential to play up to 1000 hands per hour, use of tracking software (pokertracker 3 or holdem manager), and no time or money wasted traveling to casinos. In the end i decided it was worth my time to work hard to become a winning online player because of these advantages.

Overall, the best advice i have for learning to play hold'em is to find/befriend people that are already solid winners at the game. Having a friend that is already beating the games and can show you the way will speed up the learning process dramatically! Also you have to treat your poker game like a business if you want to improve. Reviewing your sessions to find hands where you made mistakes is the only way to actually get better.

In the end i've never regreted the decision to start playing poker. Being able to switch things up between blackjack and poker has been a nice change of pace.

 

[callipygian]

Sklansky was talking about playing 3/6 limit online and making $50,000 a year.

Sklansky also admits in his book that he's never played low limit hold'em.

The book is a good read with a lot of good strategy, but a lot of the assumptions aren't realistic.

 

[pieinthesky]

Something else to consider

I, too, have dabbled with modest success in low-limt hold 'em, after some adverse casino actions directed toward my blackjack play and deterioration of the games remaining available to me. To the advice posted above, I would add that good sources of information for beginners are Fred Renzey's book, 77 Ways to Get the Edge at Casino Poker, and his site at http://renzey.casinocitytimes.com (which also contains good articles about blackjack) and Bill Burton's articles at (Dead link: http://casinogambling.about.com/od/poker/). I have not played on-line for real money, but I have found http://www.fulltiltpoker.net a good site for practice. Just remember that players in play money games do not necessarily play as well as even bad players in real money games.
A few things not mentioned on previous posts: first, if comps are a big part of your blackjack ev, or something you otherwise enjoy as a perk of casino patronage, forget about them. Most poker rooms will comp you $1/hr. and provide few, if any, additional offers like free room nights. Second, the pace of the game is much different. Although some hands are very exciting, with raising and re-raising to the showdown, good players will play tight, which means folding hand after hand after hand before the flop, and folding the majority of the time after the flop. It's more like panning for gold than enjoying steady action.
I fully agree that it is worthwhile to have low limit hold 'em in your arsenal of advantage play skills, especially in areas of the country, such as the northeast, where viable alternatives (playable video poker, sports books) are few. It's also nice to play anywhere without being subject to the heat applied in house-banked games. But, like everything else, it has its pros and cons, which vary depending on your individual preferences and predilictions.

 

[WRX]

mjbballar23 gave you some excellent advice.

Low limit hold'em is a waste of your time. The stakes just aren't adequate to allow you to make what anyone would consider a living wage, unless your competing job opportunities are limited to migrant farm labor and fast food sales clerk. With inflation, the low limit games are REALLY low limit. Meanwhile, the rake has gone up, to a punishing level. Not to mention the social pressure to toke. Rarely you might find an exception, where several other players are donating to the pot so freely that the game is nicely profitable, despite the obstacles.

No limit games are another matter. There are good opportunities in live games. If your opponent makes a mistake in a no limit game, he might give you his whole stack. Also consider learning other varieties of poker like triple draw and Omaha 8. Although these games are spread less frequently, they can be excellent opportunities.

Poker is a complex game. When you're learning, people will try to teach you a million details. As with any form of gambling, focus on what's important. Once you've achieved basic competence in the game, that means, first and foremost, game selection.

 

[Thunder]

Forget limit hold'em

You're wasting your time playing that game unless you're only playing for social reasons. Unless you play high stakes limit hold'em you're going to have every clown in the world chasing their draws. Even no limit hold 'em has gotten much harder in the last few years as the shark population has greatly increased.

 

[jaredmt]

I've been thinking about poker/holdem myself. my friend, his dad, and all his friends always play but i never do because i know they'll just rob me every time lol.

does anybody know of any websites that have helpful info on when to fold/play before and after the flop?
I use http://wizardofodds.com/holdem but it is only informative for before the flop.

 

[Thunder]

The best thing you can do is go to a live game and watch the players who have been doing really well and pick up on the strategies they use. Books are for learning the proper basic plays like when to call witha flushd raw and etc but I think everyone has their own style and some styles are better in some games vs other games. Game selection in my opinion is probably the most critically overlooked aspect of playing poker.

 

[creeping panther]

Poker

Through the years I have played a lotta Poker but always found it boring in relation to a good DD BJ game. Luckily I have access to many fine DD games and I *need* the ultimate rush I can get out of "All Out" DD play.

As to folding a bad hand in Poker, LS is much the same, as is Insurance, at the correct time.

Plus I have always gotten much more satisfaction taking the casino rather than another civilian.

CP

 

[Thunder]

I agree CP that poker is far more boring than counting cards in BJ. There have been times wehre I've gone literally 3 hours without getting a single hand. That said, having been a CC and a poker player, I find that I make more playing poker. I wish more people would use the poker pro machines because they offer much higher winnings for a good poker player since the rake is lower and you don't have to tip. Frankly some of those poker dealers are greedy. Assuming you play 40 hands an hour and they get a tip almost every single time after a winning hand, they're making probably at the bare minimum $40/hr.

 

[creeping panther]

What!!

I agree CP that poker is far more boring than counting cards in BJ.

BJ can also be boring depending on the game you are playing.

CP

 

[ekimlacks]

I used to play NL Hold 'Em just about 1$/2$ blinds at friends houses or 5$/10$ blinds at any bingo hall or casino in Vegas (Mirage offers good NL Hold 'Em). As far as books go, I would recommend Super System and Super System 2, has a lot of information for beginners. I miss the game, playing against weaker players can really have perks. I think the best I've ever done is $800+ in under half an hour of play (Something my bankroll in BJ would never support). However, I've also lost a lot of money playing against skilled players. Nothing beats the feeling when someone at the table is trying to bluff you out of the pot when you have the nuts though.

 

[cardcounter0]

Unless you play high stakes limit hold'em you're going to have every clown in the world chasing their draws.

[X] Does not understand where the profit from poker comes from.

 

[darrislance]

Sklansky was talking about playing 3/6 limit online and making $50,000 a year. This statement was made back in the early days of online poker where there were fish everywhere throwing their money away. This is no longer the case and i honestly dont think anyone can clear $50k a year playing 3/6 limit online anymore (unless they grind 3/6 heads up then i suppose thats might be possible).

Sklansky was not referring to online poker exclusively. This was a paraphrase from Small Stakes Holdem. And he wasn't necessarily just talking about 3/6, but simply low limit in general 4/8, 5/10, and possibly 10/20. Holdem at these levels are beatable, including the rake. Strategy differs, but still beatable.

 

[Thunder]

I dunno, but clearing $50,000/year playing 3/6 is almost impossible. Limit poker imho eliminates one of poker's most important skills. When to bluff and when not to.