watching tables helping your game?

[SweetDaddyFreak 0]

In about a week and a half I'm depositing $1000-1500 on Party. I have played there in the past and find it to be...fishy.Question is I plan on playing 5-10 limit 6 max (100-150bb) and have been watching the tables over the past couple weeks trying to learn as much as possible from the players and trying to call down what they have been showing. I feel 5-10, though slighty out of my BR, is prime area for observation because players a still donks, but attempt more moves.I have become pretty good at it and I knowplaying is totally different, butIs this a good way to prepare myself, besides the usual SSHE reading?Are there any other suggestions to what I should be doing now?Thanks

[econ_tim 0]

you should also watch the world poker tour and celebrity poker showdown.no, that would be a bad idea.i don't know how helpful watching tables would be. i guess you might learn to read hands better, but other than that watching is a very poor substitute for playing.oh, and please don't start playing 5/10 with $1500. 5/10 has plenty of good players, and most of the bad players are tricky. plus, six max has wild swings, and winning players have $1500 downswings from time to time. just ask KDawg. i'd recommend at least $5000 for this game.

[Actuary 3]

I'd recommend being a winning player at .5/1 first.

[screech 0]

You are probably going to go broke unless you start off on an insane rush.$1500 dollar swings in that game are nothing.I had a $2000 dollar downswing in that game about a week ago over about 5000 hands. I've had $1000 swings in a session on a few occassions. I don't care how good you are, you can't beat variance.

[fckthis 0]

A bit short? Buddy you dont have enough to sit at 3/6 full. Id start 1/2, then move up accordingly, mixing in the 6max, as many online players recommend. But if you dont want to listen to me, or anyone else on this forum, and decide to play with a short bankroll, play in tight games.God speed.

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

i'd recommend at least $5000 for this game.

This is a little extreme. $3500 should be fine. If you lose $1500+, move down.

[screech 0]

i'd recommend at least $5000 for this game.

This is a little extreme. $3500 should be fine. If you lose $1500+, move down.

6-max is more volatile. You're pushing smaller edges against aggressive opponents. On 2+2, it's recommended that you start with at least 500BB.I've only played around 25000 hands in the game, but I've already suffered a -200BB downswing. Of course, the higher your winrate, the less variance you will experience, but it works the other way too. And no offense to the OP, but from the tone of his post it seems like he would experience worse variance than I have. He would be much better off starting at 1/2 6-max, and working his way up IMO.

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

i'd recommend at least $5000 for this game.

This is a little extreme. $3500 should be fine. If you lose $1500+, move down.

6-max is more volatile. You're pushing smaller edges against aggressive opponents. On 2+2, it's recommended that you start with at least 500BB.I've only played around 25000 hands in the game, but I've already suffered a -200BB downswing. Of course, the higher your winrate, the less variance you will experience, but it works the other way too. And no offense to the OP, but from the tone of his post it seems like he would experience worse variance than I have. He would be much better off starting at 1/2 6-max, and working his way up IMO.

Ideally, you want as much money as possible. If you are a player capable of beating 5-10 6 max, 3500 isn't unreasonable. You can catch a rush and get to 5k pretty easily. If you take a beating and go down to 2k or so, it isn't the end of the world to go back down to 3-6. I experienced a 300+ downswing in september. I know it can happen. It made me stop playing for a month.

[dimseven 0]

Yup. Start at 1-2 six max.

[Actuary 3]

Of course, the higher your winrate, the less variance you will experience, but it works the other way too.

:shock: come again?

[Canada 0]

Of course, the higher your winrate, the less variance you will experience, but it works the other way too.

:shock: come again?

I think he is suggesting you can play a low variance style, but at the cost of reducing your winrate, but got his high and lows confusedoh and tackling 5/10 shorthanded with a $1500 BR? I hope that you enjoy standing, because sitting down will not be an option

[pokerplayer24 0]

No I think hes saying if you're good enough to beat the game for 4bb/100 a large downswing is a lot less likely then if you're making 1bb/100.

[Actuary 3]

No I think hes saying if you're good enough to beat the game for 4bb/100 a large downswing is a lot less likely then if you're making 1bb/100.

so you're saying Screech isn't using the term Variance in the Mathmatical sense?

[pokerplayer24 0]

No I think hes saying if you're good enough to beat the game for 4bb/100 a large downswing is a lot less likely then if you're making 1bb/100.

so you're saying Screech isn't using the term Variance in the Mathmatical sense?

Wouldnt make sense if he was. If you're winning you're still likely to have the same variance just you'll most likely have bigger upswings and smaller/ less occuring downswings.

[Actuary 3]

I agree.I thought variance is more related to your style of play, more so, than your win rate.

[screech 0]

No I think hes saying if you're good enough to beat the game for 4bb/100 a large downswing is a lot less likely then if you're making 1bb/100.

so you're saying Screech isn't using the term Variance in the Mathmatical sense?

Thanks pp. That's what I meant. I shouldn't have used the word variance. Sorry for the confusion.