Poker ... Books, Tips etc

[Harman]

Since I'm too young to gamble legally, I have a lot of time to practice card counting without losing any money. But I've recently - since last January -learnt about the game of poker. I signed up to a pretty good site (pokerloco) and played for fake money. Whilst playing this I heard about freerolls. I've tried my hand at these tournaments, but they are 10 to a table (I usually prefer 6) and the pay is tiny ($10 for 1st place, 200 entrants top 20 paid.) I usually get into the top 20 and won $2.50. In one night I turned this to $18 playing cash tables - woo go me - but then lost it when I moved up a limit. Anywho, I guess you don't care about that.

What I'm really looking for is advice on Poker. I mostly play online, but I have games with my friends, so any books on Poker, be it live or online play I would be happy to buy. Any tips from you guys would also be welcomed warmly. Thanks

 

[moo321]

Super System by Doyle Brunson is awesome. Harrington on Hold'em is a good tourney book, but if you read that you also need to read Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder to get another perspective.

Matt Maroon has a book that's good, but I can't remember the name of it. It covers limit. Both of Gordon's books are good as well.

I hate David Sklansky, and I think his books, and most of the 2+2 books are trash. BUT, you should read them, because most of the "good" players use his strategy.

 

[callipygian]

I hate David Sklansky, and I think his books, and most of the 2+2 books are trash. BUT, you should read them, because most of the "good" players use his strategy.

I actually like Sklansky on low limit Hold'Em, but I agree there are better books for no limit games (Harrington's series is excellent, as is Brunson's).

I actually reccommend that people start of by learning about, and playing, limit rather than no-limit. The reasoning is simple: LLHE is an incredibly simple game. Pot size is easy to estimate because bets are standardized, and in low-limit games, people don't fold very often (hence the nickname, "No Fold'Em"), which means that 99% of the time you are betting for value.

Here's my take on the game: if you never learn how to bet for value properly, you'll never learn how to bluff properly. People who start off playing NLHE are more likely to suffer from FPS - Fancy Play Syndrome. They choose the fanciest play because it's on TV and is fun to brag about when it succeeds, but ends up costing them money.

 

[Harman]

Thanks for the advice guys, however I always play No limit. Started of with limits but they bore me, as we all know no limit is more exciting but also more dangerous. Thanks again, I'll buy some of the books Moo

 

[mjbballar23]

I actually like Sklansky on low limit Hold'Em, but I agree there are better books for no limit games (Harrington's series is excellent, as is Brunson's).

I actually reccommend that people start of by learning about, and playing, limit rather than no-limit. The reasoning is simple: LLHE is an incredibly simple game. Pot size is easy to estimate because bets are standardized, and in low-limit games, people don't fold very often (hence the nickname, "No Fold'Em"), which means that 99% of the time you are betting for value.

Here's my take on the game: if you never learn how to bet for value properly, you'll never learn how to bluff properly. People who start off playing NLHE are more likely to suffer from FPS - Fancy Play Syndrome. They choose the fanciest play because it's on TV and is fun to brag about when it succeeds, but ends up costing them money.

I started out learning limit but began to second guess myself whether it was the right decision or not because NL has gotten to be soo popular. Glad to see my decision supported. Thanks callipygian

 

[callipygian]

I started out learning limit but began to second guess myself whether it was the right decision or not because NL has gotten to be soo popular.

It really depends on what your purpose for learning the game is. NL has a lot more variance and more intangible qualities (such as reading an opponent) than limit. So if you're not planning on playing much, primarily playing with friends, or just looking to ride the variance wave, then going straight to NL saves time. But if you're planning to be a long-term AP, I think you really need to understand bet sizing and pot odds. You can pick it up at a NL table, but it's much easier to do at a limit table because you don't have to deal with certain wildcards.

Keep in mind, also, that many tournaments actually start off as limit games, only moving to NL at the final table (an example would be almost all of the daily tournaments in Las Vegas).

 

[RG1]

Thanks for the advice guys, however I always play No limit. Started of with limits but they bore me, as we all know no limit is more exciting but also more dangerous. Thanks again, I'll buy some of the books Moo

This is 100% fine if your goal is to play an exciting game and have fun throwing money around. On the other hand, I think most people here have the goal of maximizing their EV/variance ratio and limit hold'em is a very good game to do that.

I play low limit HE. Position isn't very important because everybody plays loose junk so I just play tight. Pre flop I raise with TT or better, AJs, AQ, and AK. I limp or call with all pairs, A7s or better, KTs or better, suited connectors down to 98, AJo, KQo, and QJo. On the button or in the blinds I will limp with A2s-A5s for the nut flush and extra straight value.

Tight ass play like this in the low limit games has been profitable for me because when I do flop something the other players don't let their hands go. I get full value. Because of this I never bluff, unless its a semi bluff with a straight and a flush draw or something like a flush draw with two overs where I am most likely a favorite and I'm betting for value. Of course this is at a full table of 8-10 players. I play about 15% of the hands.

The best mathematical book I've read was Weighing the Odds in Hold'em Poker by King Yao. It's a limit book and you may already know most of it if you are experienced but it is worth the read just to review.

The Harrington series is good for tourneys and short stack play.

Super System 2 is good for NL cash games as an example of loose deep stack play. The Harrington cash game series seems good for tight deep stack play.

Super System 2 also has a good chapter by Jennifer Harman on Limit.

 

[Harman]

This is 100% fine if your goal is to play an exciting game and have fun throwing money around. On the other hand, I think most people here have the goal of maximizing their EV/variance ratio and limit hold'em is a very good game to do that.

I play low limit HE. Position isn't very important because everybody plays loose junk so I just play tight. Pre flop I raise with TT or better, AJs, AQ, and AK. I limp or call with all pairs, A7s or better, KTs or better, suited connectors down to 98, AJo, KQo, and QJo. On the button or in the blinds I will limp with A2s-A5s for the nut flush and extra straight value.

Tight ass play like this in the low limit games has been profitable for me because when I do flop something the other players don't let their hands go. I get full value. Because of this I never bluff, unless its a semi bluff with a straight and a flush draw or something like a flush draw with two overs where I am most likely a favorite and I'm betting for value. Of course this is at a full table of 8-10 players. I play about 15% of the hands.

The best mathematical book I've read was Weighing the Odds in Hold'em Poker by King Yao. It's a limit book and you may already know most of it if you are experienced but it is worth the read just to review.

The Harrington series is good for tourneys and short stack play.

Super System 2 is good for NL cash games as an example of loose deep stack play. The Harrington cash game series seems good for tight deep stack play.

Super System 2 also has a good chapter by Jennifer Harman on Limit.

Hmm you've got me interested in limit again. Unfortunately the freerolls are NL, but I'll play fake money Limit and then use what ever oney I make in freerolls to give Limit another go

 

[Brock Windsor]

I play low limit HE. Position isn't very important because everybody plays loose junk so I just play tight. Pre flop I raise with TT or better, AJs, AQ, and AK. I limp or call with all pairs, A7s or better, KTs or better, suited connectors down to 98, AJo, KQo, and QJo. On the button or in the blinds I will limp with A2s-A5s for the nut flush and extra straight value.

Have you calculated your edge in this game? What is the house rake you're playing against? By low limit I assume 5-10 or maybe 10-20, above that level I would think competition starts to improve but maybe not.
BW

 

[RG1]

Have you calculated your edge in this game? What is the house rake you're playing against? By low limit I assume 5-10 or maybe 10-20, above that level I would think competition starts to improve but maybe not.
BW

I should have pointed out that this is internet play, which is relative to Harman's situation. Micro/low games on Pokerstars is what I have been playing, .10/.20 to .50/1.00. I've been keeping track and since I've tightened up significantly I've won 13 out of 16 sessions, consciously trying not to manufacture wins, for a net of 217.5 BB's (big blinds not big bets). About $55 over about 10 hours and 638 hands. I'm not going to retire but I'm making $5/hour sitting in my living room while I watch TV.

I've built up about $200 from a free $5 from when I cashed out a few months ago. So I'm on a freeroll, trying to turn it into $10k like Chris Ferguson literally one dime at a time. I would like to get to the point where my replenishable BJ bankroll is being replenished by pokerstars rather than my day job.

I'm going to try this tight strategy in AC next week at the 2/4 tables when it's too crowded to backcount the BJ tables. I'm sure it won't be as profitable in bets with the rake but odds are I'll make some money against the drunks.

 

[mjbballar23]

3/6 limit

Anybody have any knowledge on how beatable a loose-passive 3/6 live game is? Rake is 10% up to $4 and a $1 drop for the bad beat jackpot. Assume about 5-8 players see every flop. What is a reasonable win-rate one can expect?

thanks

 

[BlodiaInc]

Anybody have any knowledge on how beatable a loose-passive 3/6 live game is? Rake is 10% up to $4 and a $1 drop for the bad beat jackpot. Assume about 5-8 players see every flop. What is a reasonable win-rate one can expect?

thanks

Remember variance applies in poker just as much as in blackjack... and even worse... since poker decisions aren't systematic, you need large, relevant sample sizes...

In general... online players measure their win rates in limit hold-em via BB/100 hands... since online play is much faster and also you can multi-table...

This is a very rough estimate... but good players shoot for 2 BB/100 ONLINE... from my own experience... even if it's a terrible 3/6 live game... you would still be hard pressed to make more than $15/hr... if you are making that over a meaningful sample size (meaning many many hours, which is just painful live), you should be moving up in the limits...

Playing live is -EV compared to online... no matter how bad the live game is. Maybe no limit is a different story but I bred my poker skills online... I just can't stand live play... it's god awful

 

[callipygian]

Anybody have any knowledge on how beatable a loose-passive 3/6 live game is? Rake is 10% up to $4 and a $1 drop for the bad beat jackpot. Assume about 5-8 players see every flop. What is a reasonable win-rate one can expect?

Assuming you play long enough to win a BBJ, I'd say between 0-1 BB/100 hands.

 

[mjbballar23]

Assuming you play long enough to win a BBJ, I'd say between 0-1 BB/100 hands.

Wow so the rake kills the game THAT much?

 

[BlodiaInc]

Wow so the rake kills the game THAT much?

Yes... play online

 

[mjbballar23]

Yes... play online

I do play online and have done alright but after playing some live limit games i realized how much tougher the competition is online. I swear even at the lowest limits online the players are overall not that bad of players and know the value of position and hand rankings (unlike every live player i have played against).

 

[callipygian]

Wow so the rake kills the game THAT much?

Yeah, although I should point out that I'm basically excluding the bad beat jackpot. If you play long enough you'll get a piece of the bad beat jackpot, but the variance is so high on that possibility that you shouldn't count on it as part of your EV.

If you do, it's not that bad of a game. 10% up to $4 is pretty standard, and it's quite beatable if you consistently get 6-7 to the flop and 3-4 to the turn. You should be able to get at least 1 BB/100 hands off of that game.

 

[callipygian]

A little off-topic, but ...

Do you tip if you win the bad beat jackpot?

 

[BlodiaInc]

I do play online and have done alright but after playing some live limit games i realized how much tougher the competition is online. I swear even at the lowest limits online the players are overall not that bad of players and know the value of position and hand rankings (unlike every live player i have played against).

Unless you are playing meaningful limit stakes live,

1) Poker is about volume... The volume of hands you get per hour online vs. live is not even close... This is just one case where time = money... if you are a winning online player, you need to stay online... if you're not... then, you need to improve because...
2) Poker isn't a systematic game... I don't care how confident you are in your skills or how bad you think a certain live game is, because no amount of bad play in a LIMIT game is going to boost your win rate meaningfully (per hour) live. And if you're like me, I still don't have the discipline to lay down made hands when i've been 3 betting the whole way only to get flushed/boated/etc.. on the river... This is why I prefer no-limit... even against tougher online competition, it is more about making plays than calling down bets and getting rewarded for terrible play. More than that though, there is really no way to meaningfully measure what win rate to expect in any live poker game... the conditions are just way too variable. In no-limit your variance may be more than limit, but you can at least analyze your play (if you're honest with yourself), and make sure you made +EV plays... In analyzing limit hands, I have sat there and just said... wow... I hate limit poker... called down and shafted...

Maybe you could talk more about your goals etc... I have been playing poker way longer than blackjack... and am only playing blackjack to get away from the daily grind of poker... with more grinding =)

Moral of story: the most CONSISTENT poker income (for most people) is multi-tabling limit online.... kudos if you got rakeback. Also, look into turbo sng's... there is no easy money in poker just as there is no easy money in blackjack... you're right about online being WAY tougher live, but realize that this is why the WSOP is such a huge sucker bet for the pros.... ANYONE CAN WIN!

 

[BlodiaInc]

A little off-topic, but ...

Do you tip if you win the bad beat jackpot?

The dealer? I know online they take a certain % of the jackpot to seed/start the next one. If I won one live, I would tip a good amount... but nothing ridiculous...