Poker could be a good "second fiddle" option

[cardcounter0]

Bluffing: one of the most highly overrated skills needed to play poker.

~~~~~~~~~

Lou Krieger Online
Does this conversation ring a bell?

Non-Player: "You're a professional poker player? Wow; you must have a real poker face."

Professional Poker Player: "Why do you say that?"

NP: "Don't you need a poker face because you have to bluff all the time?"

PPP: "Actually, bluffing is only a small part of the game, and good players don't really bluff that often."

NP: "Hmmmmmmm, It's not like that in the movies."

PPP: [shrugging his shoulders with the resigned weariness of one who's had similar conversations far too many times] "Well, few things really are…"

~~~~~~~~~~

 

[mjbballar23]

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.

Direct Quote from Small Stakes Hold'em....
"we want you to play well enough to earn $50,000 a year or more playing $3-$6 online" (page 341).

 

[cardcounter0]

Direct Quote from Small Stakes Hold'em....
"we want you to play well enough to earn $50,000 a year or more playing $3-$6 online" (page 341).

Perfectly easy.

PokerTracker3, HUD real time displays, custom simplified table layouts, datamined player stats database, super large dual monitor displays ....

Multi-table 14 tables of 3/6 for 10-15 hours per week and you will have over $50,000 in a year.

 

[Thunder]

Bluffing: one of the most highly overrated skills needed to play poker.

~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~

I respectfully disagree. While good players rarely bluff, it is those few times that when done properly can yield a significantly +EV. Obviously if you're first to act and you try bluffing when there are 3 other people in the hand, that's likely suicide. It is the reason why I was able to despite not hitting a single time on the flop, actually leave with more money than what I came with.

 

[jaredmt]

does anybody actually work as a team with holdem and split the winnings?
sounds like it could be profitable to do this if its done right

 

[callipygian]

Direct Quote from Small Stakes Hold'em....
"we want you to play well enough to earn $50,000 a year or more playing $3-$6 online" (page 341).

Playing LLHE online is very different from playing LLHE in person. $50,000 online, while not easy, is (or at least was when Americans played en masse) certainly doable, even at stakes lower than $3/$6. This was accomplished by boosting hands per hour to absurd levels. So given two equal games, even if you could only win 5 BB/100 hands at $1/$2 limit at a B&M casino (= 2 BB/hr = $4/hr), you could easily play 250 hands/hr online and make $25/hr online (=$50,000/yr).

While good players rarely bluff, it is those few times that when done properly can yield a significantly +EV.

I don't understand how you're able to win by bluffing at all. 95% of the time, I get a caller all the way through the river when I go to the river, whether I have quads or a busted flush draw. It's precisely because people insist on calling their bottom pair or ducks all the way through that people can make money at poker at all, I see No Fold'Em Hold'Em as a good thing, not a bad thing.

Now, semi-bluffing (betting straight and flush draws) is a different story. If you consider that to be bluffing, then I agree with you. But outright bluffing seems at the very least useless and possibly even counterproductive at the LLHE games I've played.

Edit:

does anybody actually work as a team with holdem and split the winnings?

The variance at poker is low enough so that EMFH teams are unnecessary, even if you manage to find two people who mutually agree they are equally skilled (which is going to be rare anyway).

You can certainly collude, but there are pretty nasty penalties if you get caught and poker is easy enough to beat without cheating that you don't need to risk it.

 

[darrislance]

Direct Quote from Small Stakes Hold'em....
"we want you to play well enough to earn $50,000 a year or more playing $3-$6 online" (page 341).

I thought Sklansky made a statement in the introduction about clearing 50k/yr playing low-limit in general, but maybe not. I sold my copy so I have no reference.

 

[meandi]

Low limits are definitely beatable. If you can't beat the low limits, then you're either not very good, or you have terrible game selection. At a typical 3/6 game, you should be able to beat it for $20-$30 per hour. This is live... I don't play much online. For whatever reason, I haven't been able make the necessary adjustments. I think a part of it has to with the psychological aspect of it. (Again, though, this comes down to game selection. I can't beat online games, so I don't play them.)

 

[cardcounter0]

At a typical 3/6 game, you should be able to beat it for $20-$30 per hour.

Wait, what? $30 an hour is 5 bb/hr!!1! That is mathematically impossible!!!one!
LOL, just joking.

$20-$30 is perfectly realistic if you have the skills, the player are really that bad.

Try looking up the SCORE on some of these bad pen 8 deck games people insist on grinding away on. $25 an hour at $3/$6 needs about 1/4 of the bankroll as a bad blackjack game.