Jump to content


The State Of Limit Poker


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#21 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,075 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 29 January 2007 - 11:53 PM

Can someone tell me if these long *** posts are worth reading?
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.

#22 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 30 January 2007 - 12:09 AM

View PostZach6668, on Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 2:53 AM, said:

Can someone tell me if these long *** posts are worth reading?
If you like to watch me win arguments they are. :club:
"If you're too careful, your whole life can become a ****in' grind." - Mike McDermott, Rounders

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

#23 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,075 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 30 January 2007 - 12:10 AM

Ok, I read it all.I certainly sympathize, and the US players, with their views on online poker, at the moment. For me, it's not nearly the end of the world. There are more than enough players here, Europe, Asia, and degen Americans who will play, to keep the games profitable, IMO. I'm also confident that in the future, we see the US gov't backtrack a bit on poker, probably just to regulate it and take their cut, but although I have a minor in Poli Sci, I am by no means an expert.With respect to live play, I do play a ton. I kinda go in spurts. If I tend to be running poorly online, or in one of my funks (you'll see if you read the goals threads, or the one Abba put up tracking the last 7 goals threads), I tend to play a ton at the B&M. As Cinci mentioned, it's simply not as profitable. And that's not to say that I can't beat it, but just that I live in a medium sized town (~100k), and the demand for live poker really isn't huge. The poker room is open from 7pm to 4am Saturday through Thursday, and Friday 7pm to 6am. Sometimes the games die down before the closing time, even. As you see, if they were filled the max hours, I only have 9 hours of play available to me on each day (11 on Friday). Furthermore, the only regularly spread limit is 3/6, and very rarely a 5/10 game. It simply isn't as profitable to play live poker. That's not to say I haven't logged a ton of hours doing it. It's a great change of pace from the online grind, and is a ton of fun.I'm pretty sure Cinci covered the rest. Rakeback, bonuses, hands per hour, and multitabling make online poker about 50 times more profitable than live, considering I can't play any higher limits here. Like, I already play 3/6 and 5/10 online, why would I play 3/6 live?Having said all that, the games aren't different. The comparaison about dome games to open-air games is ridiculous. If both of those aren't football, then I don't know what is.Maybe we are just having some sort of definition discrepancy or something here.I don't know. I don't really know how to explain it any further. It's still poker. It's still Limit Hold'Em. As Iggy posted, you can find games online that play exactly like live games, and you can find live games that play exactly like online games. Some people's obsession to try to seperate the two is usually just a meager attempt to justify why they can't beat one or the other. I mean, that's what poker players do. They try to justify why they lose, and most players do lose. "Oh, he should have folded the turn to my bluff, I can't beat these calling stations", and so on. They all try to justify why they are losing, and to me, this is just another incarnation of that. When you break it down, the live and online are just two different venues for the same game. It's really simple.Cheers.- Zach
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.

#24 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 30 January 2007 - 12:18 AM

View PostZach6668, on Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 3:10 AM, said:

Ok, I read it all.I certainly sympathize, and the US players, with their views on online poker, at the moment. For me, it's not nearly the end of the world. There are more than enough players here, Europe, Asia, and degen Americans who will play, to keep the games profitable, IMO. I'm also confident that in the future, we see the US gov't backtrack a bit on poker, probably just to regulate it and take their cut, but although I have a minor in Poli Sci, I am by no means an expert.With respect to live play, I do play a ton. I kinda go in spurts. If I tend to be running poorly online, or in one of my funks (you'll see if you read the goals threads, or the one Abba put up tracking the last 7 goals threads), I tend to play a ton at the B&M. As Cinci mentioned, it's simply not as profitable. And that's not to say that I can't beat it, but just that I live in a medium sized town (~100k), and the demand for live poker really isn't huge. The poker room is open from 7pm to 4am Saturday through Thursday, and Friday 7pm to 6am. Sometimes the games die down before the closing time, even. As you see, if they were filled the max hours, I only have 9 hours of play available to me on each day (11 on Friday). Furthermore, the only regularly spread limit is 3/6, and very rarely a 5/10 game. It simply isn't as profitable to play live poker. That's not to say I haven't logged a ton of hours doing it. It's a great change of pace from the online grind, and is a ton of fun.I'm pretty sure Cinci covered the rest. Rakeback, bonuses, hands per hour, and multitabling make online poker about 50 times more profitable than live, considering I can't play any higher limits here. Like, I already play 3/6 and 5/10 online, why would I play 3/6 live?Having said all that, the games aren't different. The comparaison about dome games to open-air games is ridiculous. If both of those aren't football, then I don't know what is.Maybe we are just having some sort of definition discrepancy or something here.I don't know. I don't really know how to explain it any further. It's still poker. It's still Limit Hold'Em. As Iggy posted, you can find games online that play exactly like live games, and you can find live games that play exactly like online games. Some people's obsession to try to seperate the two is usually just a meager attempt to justify why they can't beat one or the other. I mean, that's what poker players do. They try to justify why they lose, and most players do lose. "Oh, he should have folded the turn to my bluff, I can't beat these calling stations", and so on. They all try to justify why they are losing, and to me, this is just another incarnation of that. When you break it down, the live and online are just two different venues for the same game. It's really simple.Cheers.- Zach
Good post. Only one point. They're the same game, BUT live games are much easier to beat than online simply because there are more fish in live games. You can beat a good live game for more BB/100 than you can beat an online game. There may still be a few online games that play a bit like live, Bodog for instance, but live still has worse players overall than online. I think this is part of the reason many "winning" live players get crushed online. That and the fact that they probably don't keep good records and may not even be beating that live game, they just think they are.
"If you're too careful, your whole life can become a ****in' grind." - Mike McDermott, Rounders

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

#25 antistuff

antistuff

    monotonously monotonous

  • Members
  • 5,466 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:new york city

Posted 30 January 2007 - 12:25 AM

View PostTheCinciKid, on Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 12:18 AM, said:

Good post. Only one point. They're the same game, BUT live games are much easier to beat than online simply because there are more fish in live games. You can beat a good live game for more BB/100 than you can beat an online game. There may still be a few online games that play a bit like live, Bodog for instance, but live still has worse players overall than online. I think this is part of the reason many "winning" live players get crushed online. That and the fact that they probably don't keep good records and may not even be beating that live game, they just think they are.
they also could have been playing for what seems like a long time and not played enough hands to have ran bad yet. it could take a live only players a year to figure out that he is definitely not beating a game if he relied only on math. then they jump online and bust out 10,000 hands in a month and get their asses handed to them.
QUOTE ( Barry Greenstein)
Successful gamblers are compulsive winners.

#26 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,075 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 30 January 2007 - 12:31 AM

View PostTheCinciKid, on Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 3:18 AM, said:

Good post. Only one point. They're the same game, BUT live games are much easier to beat than online simply because there are more fish in live games. You can beat a good live game for more BB/100 than you can beat an online game. There may still be a few online games that play a bit like live, Bodog for instance, but live still has worse players overall than online. I think this is part of the reason many "winning" live players get crushed online. That and the fact that they probably don't keep good records and may not even be beating that live game, they just think they are.
Yeah, I thought I touched on the softness of the live games, but I guess not.Again, my point with respect to the games not being any different, was that the difficulty of the table has no impact. There are tough live games, and super soft online games.But in general, online is filled with better players, yeah. Again though, that doesn't change my point that its still the same game that you go to the casino to play.
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.

#27 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,075 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 30 January 2007 - 12:32 AM

View Postantistuff, on Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 3:25 AM, said:

they also could have been playing for what seems like a long time and not played enough hands to have ran bad yet. it could take a live only players a year to figure out that he is definitely not beating a game if he relied only on math. then they jump online and bust out 10,000 hands in a month and get their asses handed to them.
Another good point.In defending my live play, I didn't mention, I don't keep records, and I probably haven't logged enough hands to have a solid sample size, since we see like 20 hands/hour, but I have no doubt in my mind that I can crush those games over the long run.
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.

#28 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 30 January 2007 - 12:44 AM

View Postantistuff, on Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 3:25 AM, said:

they also could have been playing for what seems like a long time and not played enough hands to have ran bad yet. it could take a live only players a year to figure out that he is definitely not beating a game if he relied only on math. then they jump online and bust out 10,000 hands in a month and get their asses handed to them.
Excellent point. Since I started keeping better records, I've logged something like 42 hours playing my local casino's 6/12 game. I'm winning something like $30 an hour at that game. I've probably logged something like another 30-40 hours playing various other levels of limit hold'em (mostly 3/6) before I kept good records and while I know that I've won money (I started with a certain sum of money, which I've never replenished, but taken out a good bit to spend and to cover a $550 tourney buy-in), I really don't know how much. So, I can only speak to the 42 hours I have on record at 6/12. Even if we assume 25 hands/hour, that's still only like 1k hands, which is a total drop in the bucket. While I'm pretty sure that this game can be beaten for a minimum of 1-1.5 BB/hr (which is like 4-6 BB/100), I can't say that with any great degree of certainty. The long run takes a hell of a lot longer in live poker and that's something that is too often ignored.
"If you're too careful, your whole life can become a ****in' grind." - Mike McDermott, Rounders

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

#29 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 30 January 2007 - 09:28 AM

Great posts, Zach and Cinci. I see your points. There is definitely a sample size and resource issue with measuring your live play ability, compared to online.
When in doubt, don't fold. See what happens.

#30 No_Neck

No_Neck

    this is how i roll

  • Members
  • 11,522 posts
  • Location:New Jersey OBV

Posted 31 January 2007 - 10:00 AM

View PostZach6668, on Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 3:32 AM, said:

Another good point.In defending my live play, I didn't mention, I don't keep records, and I probably haven't logged enough hands to have a solid sample size, since we see like 20 hands/hour, but I have no doubt in my mind that I can crush those games over the long run.
crushing a 3/6 game gets you what? $2.00/hour? Online play is the way to go.

#31 RISEorFall

RISEorFall

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,984 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:I'm bad, I'm nationwide
  • Favorite Poker Game:HU freezeout 4 souls

Posted 31 January 2007 - 10:47 AM

maybe this is way too optimistic, but to think that a huge company like Party Poker would just let millions of dollars of profit in the form of US players just go is ridiculous. Sure they're making more than enough on Canadian/European/etc. players, but they had to have lost millions by having to ban US playes. You have to think that they have people working pretty hard at finding loopholes or ways around the US government's ban. Not that they'll find one anytime soon or that these kinds of sites will return to the way they were, but I just dont think they would just passively let millions of dollars in profit slip through their hands.
Rise,

I like the whole hand. You should play drunk more often. :)
-Screech

#32 Actuary

Actuary

    .

  • Members
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 31 January 2007 - 09:20 PM

Can someone tell me if Zach's long post is worth reading?:PI'll put $100 that Online Poker is huger in 5 years than it is now.It's a revenue issue.

#33 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,075 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 31 January 2007 - 09:28 PM

View PostActuary, on Thursday, February 1st, 2007, 12:20 AM, said:

Can someone tell me if Zach's long post is worth reading?
Meh, it's close either way. Flip a coin.
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.

#34 Flushgarden

Flushgarden

    Poker Forum Veteran

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

Posted 02 February 2007 - 07:48 PM

I went to Pechanga (local B&M) yesterday afternoon for a couple hours and sat down at 2/4 limit for the first time. All I can say is what everybody has been saying about live limit being much softer is so very true. I've played NL there before, which is obv softer than online too, but limit is even more fishy than NL. The sad thing is I still finished my session down a bit. I sat there for 2.5 hours and barely played a hand...and two that I did play I got sucked out on. Its ok though...I played good and I know in the long run Id crush that game. But Id still rather play online.
-Danny


#35 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 03 February 2007 - 05:17 AM

View PostFlushgarden, on Friday, February 2nd, 2007, 10:48 PM, said:

I went to Pechanga (local B&M) yesterday afternoon for a couple hours yesterday and sat down at 2/4 limit for the first time. All I can say is what everybody has been saying about live limit being much softer is so very true. I've played NL there before, which is obv softer than online too, but limit is even more fishy than NL. The sad thing is I still finished my session down a bit. I sat there for 2.5 hours and barely played a hand...and two that I did play I got sucked out on. Its ok though...I played good and I know in the long run Id crush that game. But Id still rather play online.
Yeah live can be kinda boring if you're used to mulit-tabling online. Especially at a low limit like 2/4. It can definitely be crushed though if you know what you're doing and bring enough money, you can actually make a decent hourly rate (maybe $12/hr) as low as 4/8.
"If you're too careful, your whole life can become a ****in' grind." - Mike McDermott, Rounders

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

#36 finztotheleft

finztotheleft

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 5,059 posts
  • Location:margaritaville

Posted 04 February 2007 - 02:16 AM

Hi guys.........I have a few questions/commentsCan I get rakeback on a pre-existing account at Absolute ?I have recently done a deposit bonus at VegasPoker24/7, a relative of Absolute's. Is there a way to get Pokertracker to work with Vegas? What's the deal with the popularoty of short handed ? I understand for you guys that are good, you have an even bigger edge/more hands per hour, but why are the bad players so eager to play it ? I like full ring....I'm more comfortable with my odds of playing drawing hands, etc and playing my actual cards/ not dealing with reads as much. It's killing me seeing more SH tables than FR. Whyyyyyyyy ?

#37 David_Nicoson

David_Nicoson

    Official Forum Me

  • Members
  • 4,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Poker<br />Poker<br />Sex<br />Sleep<br />baseball<br />softball<br />Poker<br />Poker<br />Poker<br />Axis and Allies and other lesser board games<br />Chess<br />Poker<br />Poker<br />Poker
  • Favorite Poker Game:pot-limit Euchre

Posted 04 February 2007 - 07:20 AM

Apart from the intellectual challenge, I think it's a question of game selection. If you're playing online or in Las Vegas, it's not a big issue because you should be able to find a good no-limit game. If you're playing in smaller venues, however, then you may miss opportunities to play or to play in the best game. I know that I've passed on some potentially profitable 20/40 games because I don't trust my limit hold'em skills for those stakes.
QUOTE(bleacherbum3 @ Friday, February 29th, 2008, 3:28 AM) View Post
I'm invincible. Like Super Mario when he gets that star thingy.


#38 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 04 February 2007 - 08:51 AM

View Postfinztotheleft, on Sunday, February 4th, 2007, 5:16 AM, said:

Hi guys.........I have a few questions/commentsCan I get rakeback on a pre-existing account at Absolute ?I have recently done a deposit bonus at VegasPoker24/7, a relative of Absolute's. Is there a way to get Pokertracker to work with Vegas? What's the deal with the popularoty of short handed ? I understand for you guys that are good, you have an even bigger edge/more hands per hour, but why are the bad players so eager to play it ? I like full ring....I'm more comfortable with my odds of playing drawing hands, etc and playing my actual cards/ not dealing with reads as much. It's killing me seeing more SH tables than FR. Whyyyyyyyy ?
For your average fish, shorthanded is often more palatable because you get to see more total hands and you get to play more hands. And you're even correct to play more hands than you would in a ring game. The only real downside for the fish is that there's a ton of variance and he might lose his money quicker, of course he might also win a bunch real quick too. Personally, I'm more comfortable playing full-ring and probably always will be, however I'm trying to get more and more comfortable with shorthanded b/c the games are better and there are more of them. Besides, you can earn rakeback quicker.
"If you're too careful, your whole life can become a ****in' grind." - Mike McDermott, Rounders

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

#39 ThreeBet

ThreeBet

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 307 posts

Posted 05 February 2007 - 05:13 PM

View PostRISEorFall, on Wednesday, January 31st, 2007, 10:47 AM, said:

maybe this is way too optimistic, but to think that a huge company like Party Poker would just let millions of dollars of profit in the form of US players just go is ridiculous. Sure they're making more than enough on Canadian/European/etc. players, but they had to have lost millions by having to ban US playes. You have to think that they have people working pretty hard at finding loopholes or ways around the US government's ban. Not that they'll find one anytime soon or that these kinds of sites will return to the way they were, but I just dont think they would just passively let millions of dollars in profit slip through their hands.
I think the end-game is that it will be back and regulated and the US Gov will be able to take their 'cut' .... they had zero leverage before, now they got nothing but leverage. I think that's why we saw sites immediately cooperate, to get into the Gov's good books when they do allow it again.Good topic/thread overall .... there's no question that NL is on the way up and L is on the way down. In the old days, one was supposed to learn at Limit and move from there if they want ... now everyone goes straight to NL, thus there's more money to be made there. Limit will always survive, just not as goot as before.

#40 mjd

mjd

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 290 posts
  • Interests:blah

Posted 05 February 2007 - 05:14 PM

View PostZach6668, on Saturday, January 27th, 2007, 11:35 AM, said:

Let me just say that since the Neteller crap, AP 3/6 short has gotten significantly more donktastic.
It's not just the 3/6 short.I've been playing some extra tournaments on AP since the the Neteller thing and the Sit-n-Go players are terrible compared to before. And, the MTT players are just as bad if not worse than a year ago.I totally didn't expect this.On the flipside, the small stakes (50 and lower)NL tables I've gotten recently have been tougher than before. But I haven't put many hours in there.-M




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users