Jump to content


The State Of Limit Poker


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Flushgarden

Flushgarden

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,963 posts
  • Location:Arizona Bay

Posted 27 January 2007 - 09:44 AM

So I finally got SSHE and I'm reading it right now...but from what I see (at least online), the games are nowhere as loose as what is talked about in this book unless you go all the way down to micro stakes. When I look at the 3-6 through 10-20 games I rarely see full tables that have an average % of players to the flop higher than 20-25...sometimes I dont even see one over 20%.Is it still possible to make $50,000 a year playing 3-6 limit online as Sklansky says in this book?I just looked on stars and there isn't even a single 10-20 game going right now.
-Danny


#2 omahahilo

omahahilo

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Validating
  • 330 posts
  • Location:Denver - Colorado
  • Interests:Poker - Football Pro/College

Posted 27 January 2007 - 09:47 AM

The games are definately slowing down due to the current "issue" with online poker.But I suspect if you were to play in Vegas everyday with some tourists it would still be quite profitable.And I imagine it still would be online, you just have to get better, less fishes means you have to become a shark.
its always something

#3 DonkSlayer

DonkSlayer

    very, very standard

  • Members
  • 5,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond, VA
  • Favorite Poker Game:PL Omaha

Posted 27 January 2007 - 10:24 AM

View Postomahahilo, on Saturday, January 27th, 2007, 12:47 PM, said:

The games are definately slowing down due to the current "issue" with online poker.But I suspect if you were to play in Vegas everyday with some tourists it would still be quite profitable.And I imagine it still would be online, you just have to get better, less fishes means you have to become a shark.
I disagree. I think "newer" American online Limit players are better on average than Eurodonks that have played the game as a gambling mechanism for decades. I think you will find the games to be perhaps fewer but also softer. I think being able to destroy NL and NL/PL O8B/Omaha has more potential to be a serious $$ maker. Most of the guys on here that make money playing limit, do so by multitabling, playing at a consistent win rate of 1-2bb/100 hands, and really taking advantage of rakeback opportunities.I was concentrating on Limit for a while, but the swings got to me much more badly than the swings in NL, and missed the creativity I could have in NL and PL.
Fortune favors the brave.

#4 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 27 January 2007 - 10:35 AM

Let me just say that since the Neteller crap, AP 3/6 short has gotten significantly more donktastic.Stars games suck, but there are definitely tables with more than 20% average pretty well everywhere.The biggest thing is games are gravitating towards shorthanded, as opposed to full. Learn SH and you will find much better games.
QUOTE (serge @ Tuesday, May 12th, 2009, 7:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
LETS GO PITTSBURGH
QUOTE (Acid_Knight @ Monday, March 10th, 2008, 4:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Zach is right about pretty much everything.

#5 Moneyball16

Moneyball16

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,747 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Poker, Baseball, Movies
  • Favorite Poker Game:2-7TD or Holdem

Posted 27 January 2007 - 11:20 AM

Full ring LHE may be a dieing game, but like Zach said the shorthanded games are still good and they are more fun. Some of SSHE doesnt apply online but in general the book pays for itself very easily in any LHE game. I sometimes wish I didnt specialize first in limit when I hear about how juicy the no limit games are, but then whenever I play no limt I get bored out of my mind.

#6 TheCinciKid

TheCinciKid

    Micro Limit Superstar

  • Members
  • 3,452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the home of world famous fried chicken
  • Interests:Poker, Baseball, Poker, The Bengals, Poker, Golf, Poker, Movies, Poker, Fantasy Sports, and a little Politics and Current Events.
  • Favorite Poker Game:Limit Hold'em

Posted 28 January 2007 - 06:30 AM

I spent some time thinking about this while I was at work tonight and I have a couple of points I want to make. LHE is not nearly as donkified as it was when SSHE first came out, either online OR live, however the games are still very beatable. About a year and a half ago when I first started playing LHE online, even the .5/1 game at Party wasn't as good as the loosest games described in the book. I used the "tight game" guidelines when choosing hands to play pre-flop. At the lowest levels live, then "loose game" guidelines were more effective, but not online. Online poker has always been and will always be harder to beat than live poker and the games online are tougher now than they were in the glory days, but there are still donkeys. The best way to illustrate this point I think is to use an analogy. At the Argosy casino in Cincinnati there are 3 regular LHE games spread, 3/6, 6/12, & 10/20. The 3/6 game is most like SSHE, most of the players don't really have a clue. Every now and then there are one or two players that know what folding is, but in general this game is by far the easiest to beat. The 6/12 game is a bit harder than 3/6, there are still gamblers (who just have a little more money), but you're likely to also find a couple of competent players. I've played with a few regulars who seem to have a clue. However, they still have flaws. Overall, the tendency among the more competent players is to play less hands than your average donkey, but still a few too many (probably something like 25% VP$IP (which is too high in a ring game), and too play a bit too passively both pre and postflop. One guy in particular sat directly to my left on Friday night when I played. He knew what he was doing, to an extent, but he still cold-called raises of mine twice. That's terrible and I beat him both pots. Especially against a player like me, he needs to be raising or folding there. In general, I would equate most online games today, up through about 2/4 or 3/6, to this 6/12 game. You do have some competent players at the table, you may even run into a player or two who's a consistent winner. The game plays tighter than even the "tight" games in SSHE, but it's still beatable. Then there's the 10/20 game at the Argosy. There are at least 3 guys who play this game on a consistent basis and I'm certain are winning good money long-term. In fact, I have no problem saying that all three of them are probably better players than me right now. I'm also pretty sure that these three are not the only good players who play 10/20. I played a couple of times and determined that my edge just was big enough (if I even had one with those three sharks at the table) to make it worth my while right now. That said, these guys wouldn't be playing this game if there wasn't money in it and good money at that, because at least 2 of them that I can think of are always wearing online poker apparel which means they play online too and probably make pretty good money at it. The key is that there is money to be made in that game because there are still donators who play in it. The fish to shark ratio may be as low as 1:1 where it's like 9:1 at the 3/6 table, but there's enough fish around to where money can still be made. I don't know where this level is online, because I haven't played that high yet, but my guess would be somewhere around 5/10 or maybe 3/6 (I haven't played a lot of that, but it does seem to have a lot of decent players). So, what's my point in all this? Limit Hold'em is by no means dead or even dying. Yeah, it may be a little harder to beat than it was a few years ago and SSHE may not be quite as applicable as it once was, but it's still worth reading and LHE is still worth playing. Many of the "tight" players in these games, online and live, still have exploitable flaws. It's just a matter of making adjustments and learning the best way to beat them.*edit* OP, where in SSHE does Sklansky say that you can make $50k a year playing 3/6 online? I don't recall seeing this, but I actually do think it's probably possible. Absolute Poker has 30% rakeback. If you play 30k hands a month (which is actually somewhat low for a pro) you earn $18k a year in rakeback alone. If you can win 1.5 BB/100 over the course of those hands (still doable for a good player IMO) you earn another $32,400. That's $50,400 in a year. Furthermore, that calculation assumes that you don't build your bankroll at all and move up or anything and it assumes that you only play 30k hands a month, which as I said is probably somewhat low for a pro. I know Abbadabba plays something like 50k a month.
"If you're too careful, your whole life can become a ****in' grind." - Mike McDermott, Rounders

my (resurrected) poker blog:
http://cincikid.blogspot.com

#7 TheCinciKid

TheCinciKid

    Micro Limit Superstar

  • Members
  • 3,452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the home of world famous fried chicken
  • Interests:Poker, Baseball, Poker, The Bengals, Poker, Golf, Poker, Movies, Poker, Fantasy Sports, and a little Politics and Current Events.
  • Favorite Poker Game:Limit Hold'em

Posted 28 January 2007 - 06:34 AM

View PostDonkSlayer, on Saturday, January 27th, 2007, 1:24 PM, said:

I disagree. I think "newer" American online Limit players are better on average than Eurodonks that have played the game as a gambling mechanism for decades. I think you will find the games to be perhaps fewer but also softer. I think being able to destroy NL and NL/PL O8B/Omaha has more potential to be a serious $$ maker. Most of the guys on here that make money playing limit, do so by multitabling, playing at a consistent win rate of 1-2bb/100 hands, and really taking advantage of rakeback opportunities.I was concentrating on Limit for a while, but the swings got to me much more badly than the swings in NL, and missed the creativity I could have in NL and PL.
Incidentally, I think all of this is pretty true. While I would argue that Limit is not dying, there are certainly more donks playing NL right now and it has a much higher $$ making potential than limit. Personally, I've never been good at NL cash and I think at least part of that is because I find it incredibly boring. But, someday I do plan to try to learn the game, and get good at it...that's certainly where most of the money is right now. Unfortunately, I enjoy limit much more so that'll probably always be my primary game.My advice to anyone would be that they should play what they're best at and enjoy the most.
"If you're too careful, your whole life can become a ****in' grind." - Mike McDermott, Rounders

my (resurrected) poker blog:
http://cincikid.blogspot.com

#8 bdc30

bdc30

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 9,407 posts
  • Location:Dutton, Ontario

Posted 28 January 2007 - 03:48 PM

Limit poker isn't dead, it's just dead boring. No wonder guys have to 8-12 table it, just to get some adrenaline going.And Zach, the reason AP 3/6 games were more donktastic for a while is that I was playing there, as you know.I earned about 300 in rakeback that I should get next month, but otherwise, I moved my mobney back to Stars to play tourneys for a while. I didn't find any tourney action of much interest over at AP. I'll take another shot with myrakeback money and see what happens.

#9 Abbaddabba

Abbaddabba

    breaking even like it's 1999

  • Members
  • 5,225 posts

Posted 28 January 2007 - 04:44 PM

It depends on who.Some people are just obviously not quick enough mentally. Or they dont have the self discipline. Or whatever.For someone with all the right tools, it is definitely worthwhile.

#10 iggymcfly

iggymcfly

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,654 posts
  • Location:Missoula, MT
  • Interests:Poker, football, sitting on my ass

Posted 28 January 2007 - 07:23 PM

Here's a screenshot from the LHE games on Bodog sorted by players in the hand. Posted ImageYeah, a lot of them are pretty small stakes, but still. I think that 5/10 and 3/6 were what a lot of people were talking about here. Not one game with < 20% of players to the flop and only one with < 30%. There are still good games out there; it's just that you either have to get a good rakeback deal or go to a fishy site, you can't just play at a rock garden and expect to be able to beat the rake all on your own.
Lady luck's my fuck-buddy.

#11 TwoFourOffsuit

TwoFourOffsuit

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 336 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:writing, reading, visiting restaurants and of course, poker.
  • Favorite Poker Game:O8, HORSE, Crazy Pineapple

Posted 29 January 2007 - 11:36 AM

Whether or not it's dying online, Low Limit live poker is very alive and well back here in the real world. :club:
When in doubt, don't fold. See what happens.

#12 Abbaddabba

Abbaddabba

    breaking even like it's 1999

  • Members
  • 5,225 posts

Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:30 PM

Too bad you cant make jack **** at small stakes live.25 hands an hour. yhey. You basically have to move to AC, vegas or some other major gaming spot to find stakes big enough to make a decent buck.

#13 TwoFourOffsuit

TwoFourOffsuit

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 336 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:writing, reading, visiting restaurants and of course, poker.
  • Favorite Poker Game:O8, HORSE, Crazy Pineapple

Posted 29 January 2007 - 06:36 PM

View PostAbbaddabba, on Monday, January 29th, 2007, 5:30 PM, said:

Too bad you cant make jack **** at small stakes live.25 hands an hour. yhey. You basically have to move to AC, vegas or some other major gaming spot to find stakes big enough to make a decent buck.
Well, if making a decent buck is the reason you play, a ) great, b ) tough ****, and c ) it's a shame if the money is the only/primary reason you play.Online poker's days are numbered, whether or not anyone here wants to admit it.
When in doubt, don't fold. See what happens.

#14 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 29 January 2007 - 07:02 PM

View PostTwoFourOffsuit, on Monday, January 29th, 2007, 9:36 PM, said:

Well, if making a decent buck is the reason you play, a ) great, b ) tough ****, and c ) it's a shame if the money is the only/primary reason you play.Online poker's days are numbered, whether or not anyone here wants to admit it.
You're really weird.I'm actually speechless at your recent run of posts around here.They lead me to believe a) you are 15, B) you don't "get" poker, c) it's a shame that your only/primary reason for posting is to troll.
QUOTE (serge @ Tuesday, May 12th, 2009, 7:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
LETS GO PITTSBURGH
QUOTE (Acid_Knight @ Monday, March 10th, 2008, 4:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Zach is right about pretty much everything.

#15 TwoFourOffsuit

TwoFourOffsuit

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 336 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:writing, reading, visiting restaurants and of course, poker.
  • Favorite Poker Game:O8, HORSE, Crazy Pineapple

Posted 29 January 2007 - 09:38 PM

I figured that was the response I'd get so can't say I'm surprised.I'm not here to troll, and no, I'm not the proverbial 15 year old using his mom's computer in the basement (and that's not the first time I've seen that exact same attack thrown at someone). I'm just blunt. I'm not afraid to look foolish in doing so, or even to be wrong if that's the case (though, obviously, I wouldn't post if I didn't think I had a point). Blunt responses don't sit well with some people, and well, that's too bad. I've tried sugarcoating my points in the past during discussions, and I find people get upset anyway, so I just don't bother 'trying to be nice'.re: my Online Gambling point... it's a difficult subject to even discuss with you guys given it's such an obsessively large portion of most of your lives, and I think that colors & distorts your perspectives on what is really happening.Yes, I admit it's a domestic issue: those in other countries can probably continue to play online.The moral arguments are almost irrelevant (and you can make valid arguments in either direction, and some of the ones used are better than others). Whether or not the technicalities allow you to continue online gambling, you need to ask yourself: What does the Federal Government ultimately want? They want to ban online gambling. If the language or circumstances preclude their doing so at this time, they will eventually figure out another way to get what they want. It's only a matter of time before they realize that all Americans get their internet through the same handful of ISP's and will wield their power to coerce these providers to ban sites that facilitate illegal activity (and yes, if they want to make online gambling illegal, they will eventually change the letter of the law to make online poker illegal), and it all comes to a head.Now, while I don't fully agree with the current witch hunt or movement to ban online gambling, I also see where this is heading. I also see some merits in the movement, granted that there are some selfish agendas and poor reasoning involved as well. AFter all, most states ban or have limits on gambling, and there is no real way to regulate or tax an overseas website with which people do commercial business. Also, gambling problems are bad enough in casinos: imagine how much the problems compound when people can do it in their living room.You can disagree with me, and we can all just sit back and hope for the best... or you can find out who your Congressperson is and tell someone that can actually do something about the direction this is all heading, though to be Dr Doom the Donk again, given the legislation was nearly unanimously bipartisan, I'm not sure how much that'll help matters, but it's worth a shot if you live in the States and online play is a big part of your life.The issue of relating online play to live play is another one entirely, and one we can discuss if you seem willing. I take a lot of flack from you, Zach, so I think you can take a little bit here: I notice that you have curiously little to say about your own live playing experiences. I'm not going to openly imply anything from that, but you can fill in the blanks. For one who insists that the two venues of play are not at all different, it's strange that the ratio of your online expertise is rather large compared to your stated B&M experience.While it'd be easy to fall back to the familiar alibi of 'online is convenient, B&M is not,'... one also has to realize that you don't have to go through Neteller or a 3rd party to get your money when you win in live play. Right now, there are a lot of people whose winnings are in limbo, and it's dubious whether or not they'll ever see those winnings cashed out. Stories of struggles with getting said money are all over these Forums.It's kinda fresh for someone to come and tell us that live play isn't worth it because you can't make as much money online... when we're already at a point where the money people have online is stuck in limbo, difficult to access at best and for many, inaccessible. At some point, it might as well be play-money for all you'll be able to do with it.I may not roll $50K at a 12/24 table, but if I'm up after a session, I can go to the casino cage, cash my chips out and take my money with me right then and there. Can an online player do that right now?
When in doubt, don't fold. See what happens.

#16 TheCinciKid

TheCinciKid

    Micro Limit Superstar

  • Members
  • 3,452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the home of world famous fried chicken
  • Interests:Poker, Baseball, Poker, The Bengals, Poker, Golf, Poker, Movies, Poker, Fantasy Sports, and a little Politics and Current Events.
  • Favorite Poker Game:Limit Hold'em

Posted 29 January 2007 - 09:58 PM

View PostTwoFourOffsuit, on Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 12:38 AM, said:

I figured that was the response I'd get so can't say I'm surprised.I'm not here to troll, and no, I'm not the proverbial 15 year old using his mom's computer in the basement (and that's not the first time I've seen that exact same attack thrown at someone). I'm just blunt. I'm not afraid to look foolish in doing so, or even to be wrong if that's the case (though, obviously, I wouldn't post if I didn't think I had a point). Blunt responses don't sit well with some people, and well, that's too bad. I've tried sugarcoating my points in the past during discussions, and I find people get upset anyway, so I just don't bother 'trying to be nice'.re: my Online Gambling point... it's a difficult subject to even discuss with you guys given it's such an obsessively large portion of most of your lives, and I think that colors & distorts your perspectives on what is really happening.Yes, I admit it's a domestic issue: those in other countries can probably continue to play online.The moral arguments are almost irrelevant (and you can make valid arguments in either direction, and some of the ones used are better than others). Whether or not the technicalities allow you to continue online gambling, you need to ask yourself: What does the Federal Government ultimately want? They want to ban online gambling. If the language or circumstances preclude their doing so at this time, they will eventually figure out another way to get what they want. It's only a matter of time before they realize that all Americans get their internet through the same handful of ISP's and will wield their power to coerce these providers to ban sites that facilitate illegal activity (and yes, if they want to make online gambling illegal, they will eventually change the letter of the law to make online poker illegal), and it all comes to a head.Now, while I don't fully agree with the current witch hunt or movement to ban online gambling, I also see where this is heading. I also see some merits in the movement, granted that there are some selfish agendas and poor reasoning involved as well. AFter all, most states ban or have limits on gambling, and there is no real way to regulate or tax an overseas website with which people do commercial business. Also, gambling problems are bad enough in casinos: imagine how much the problems compound when people can do it in their living room.You can disagree with me, and we can all just sit back and hope for the best... or you can find out who your Congressperson is and tell someone that can actually do something about the direction this is all heading, though to be Dr Doom the Donk again, given the legislation was nearly unanimously bipartisan, I'm not sure how much that'll help matters, but it's worth a shot if you live in the States and online play is a big part of your life.The issue of relating online play to live play is another one entirely, and one we can discuss if you seem willing. I take a lot of flack from you, Zach, so I think you can take a little bit here: I notice that you have curiously little to say about your own live playing experiences. I'm not going to openly imply anything from that, but you can fill in the blanks. For one who insists that the two venues of play are not at all different, it's strange that the ratio of your online expertise is rather large compared to your stated B&M experience.While it'd be easy to fall back to the familiar alibi of 'online is convenient, B&M is not,'... one also has to realize that you don't have to go through Neteller or a 3rd party to get your money when you win in live play. Right now, there are a lot of people whose winnings are in limbo, and it's dubious whether or not they'll ever see those winnings cashed out. Stories of struggles with getting said money are all over these Forums.It's kinda fresh for someone to come and tell us that live play isn't worth it because you can't make as much money online... when we're already at a point where the money people have online is stuck in limbo, difficult to access at best and for many, inaccessible. At some point, it might as well be play-money for all you'll be able to do with it.I may not roll $50K at a 12/24 table, but if I'm up after a session, I can go to the casino cage, cash my chips out and take my money with me right then and there. Can an online player do that right now?
Wow. Just wow. First of all, I'm not sure what you're trying to imply about Zach's ability to beat live games, but I can tell you that from some of the pokertracker stats he's posted, he has the capability to absolutely crush live LHE. Live games are CONSIDERABLY easier to beat than online, unfortunately, you can't get anywhere near the hands per hour in that you can online, hence you can certainly make more $$ per hour, day, month online, than you can live with the same bankroll. Furthermore, we can argue 'til we're blue in the face about where online poker is going, but it's really pretty pointless. Personally, I hold out hope that this Neteller fiasco will be over soon, other payment processors will step up and we'll be able to continue accessing our money here in the States. For Canadians like Zach and Abba though, this isn't a problem at all right now, so your claim that playing online is like play money is rendered completely invalid as far as their concerned.
"If you're too careful, your whole life can become a ****in' grind." - Mike McDermott, Rounders

my (resurrected) poker blog:
http://cincikid.blogspot.com

#17 TwoFourOffsuit

TwoFourOffsuit

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 336 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:writing, reading, visiting restaurants and of course, poker.
  • Favorite Poker Game:O8, HORSE, Crazy Pineapple

Posted 29 January 2007 - 10:11 PM

Well, as with all things, we can only wait and see how litigation and legislation goes, then. The direction the Feds are going with online poker isn't showing signs of changing.To go back and add to a previous point, it's easy to make the alibi of 'online is easier, I can make more money there, so that's why I do exclusively that.' to back up the paradox of someone, who only plays online, casting live limit play as a simplistic, inferior brand of poker. He likes to say there is no difference between the two, yet he indicates he doesn't play very much live. How is he absolutely certain he can crush a live LHE table? (How are you certain, in fact?) Does he do it every single time he tries? HAS he recently tried and found that he does so? Is this why he is absolutely certain there is no difference? Because, having done both, I notice that, yes, there are differences, though your skill applies equally and you can succeed in both well. It's as silly as you think I am to say that there is absolutely none. To me, it's like saying that indoor dome football is exactly the same thing as outdoor football. Technically, it's true, but there is a reason dome teams struggle on the road.
When in doubt, don't fold. See what happens.

#18 TheCinciKid

TheCinciKid

    Micro Limit Superstar

  • Members
  • 3,452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the home of world famous fried chicken
  • Interests:Poker, Baseball, Poker, The Bengals, Poker, Golf, Poker, Movies, Poker, Fantasy Sports, and a little Politics and Current Events.
  • Favorite Poker Game:Limit Hold'em

Posted 29 January 2007 - 11:01 PM

View PostTwoFourOffsuit, on Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 1:11 AM, said:

Well, as with all things, we can only wait and see how litigation and legislation goes, then. The direction the Feds are going with online poker isn't showing signs of changing.To go back and add to a previous point, it's easy to make the alibi of 'online is easier, I can make more money there, so that's why I do exclusively that.' to back up the paradox of someone, who only plays online, casting live limit play as a simplistic, inferior brand of poker. He likes to say there is no difference between the two, yet he indicates he doesn't play very much live. How is he absolutely certain he can crush a live LHE table? (How are you certain, in fact?) Does he do it every single time he tries? HAS he recently tried and found that he does so? Is this why he is absolutely certain there is no difference? Because, having done both, I notice that, yes, there are differences, though your skill applies equally and you can succeed in both well. It's as silly as you think I am to say that there is absolutely none. To me, it's like saying that indoor dome football is exactly the same thing as outdoor football. Technically, it's true, but there is a reason dome teams struggle on the road.
I play a lot of both. I play live because I really enjoy it, it's fun for me. Online is more of a grind, but it's certainly a better money-maker. I can get in a lot more hands. Live LHE games have considerably worse players than online games do. Hence, if you can beat 2/4 and 3/6 online (which btw Zach does) then you should be able to crush a live game up to about 10/20. In fact, the only thing that would probably keep you from doing this is that you're used to seeing so many hands per hour online, that you might get bored of folding and start to play too loose and splash around too much. This is the ONLY way that I can think of that a winning online player might struggle in live poker. If you're playing for a living though, especially without a huge roll, you should be playing primarily online AINEC. Online with rakeback, you could play as low as 2/4 or 3/6 (esp if you're playing 6-max), you could do this with a roll of about $1500 to $3k depending on whether you're playing 6-max or FR. With this roll, you could play like 25-30 a week and get in 30-40k hands a month, if you're good enough to multi-table and win even 1 BB/100 you can make a killing playing very low limits. In order to make money that's even comparable live, you'd have to find a 10/20 game (at absolute minimum) that's running enough hours a week and is preferrably not the highest game spread at the casino you're playing at (usually the highest game spread is pretty tough to beat). You'd then have to play like 40 hours a week and you'd need a minimum BR of $6k to handle the swings. Even if you crush the game and win 1 BB/ hr (like 4 BB/100), you're barely making what you could make in less hours, with a smaller bankroll online. For earn potential, playing online is way better than playing live, even though the games are tougher to beat. That would be my guess as to why guys like Zach and Abba don't play much live. Oh and finally, a guy who's making a little money at the, say 6/12, game at your local B&M, would probably get crushed if he decided to dive right into 3/6 online. That said, a guy consistently beating online 3/6 would absolutely crush that 6/12 game, yet it might not be worth his while.
"If you're too careful, your whole life can become a ****in' grind." - Mike McDermott, Rounders

my (resurrected) poker blog:
http://cincikid.blogspot.com

#19 TwoFourOffsuit

TwoFourOffsuit

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 336 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:writing, reading, visiting restaurants and of course, poker.
  • Favorite Poker Game:O8, HORSE, Crazy Pineapple

Posted 29 January 2007 - 11:23 PM

And as you said, those in other countries mostly have nothing to worry about. I can concede that Zach and Abba are home free.As for those of us stateside, it goes back to my original point: with the Feds actively cracking down on online gambling, and multiple states following suit, is playing online still a worthy venture? Right now, it's technically profitable to play online. Will you even be able to legally play online in a year or two? Even if so, will you have access to your winnings? Hell, In terms of offerings and profitability, there isn't an argument: online play is more profitable and offers more variety. But does it have a future?
When in doubt, don't fold. See what happens.

#20 Eric Smith

Eric Smith

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 187 posts
  • Location:Canton, Ohio

Posted 29 January 2007 - 11:33 PM

View PostTwoFourOffsuit, on Monday, January 29th, 2007, 6:36 PM, said:

Well, if making a decent buck is the reason you play, a ) great, b ) tough ****, and c ) it's a shame if the money is the only/primary reason you play.Online poker's days are numbered, whether or not anyone here wants to admit it.
Explain to me how that makes sense to you? Do you have a problem with professional players?

Fredo needs runners to stay alive here




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users