How to get an edge playing poker?

[Meistro]

One edge is by folding a lot before the flop. This means you will on average have stronger hands than your opponents, which is a strong edge. Another edge is by playing hands you choose to play aggressively. Instead of calling bet or raise if you decide to play.

Another edge comes from studying your opponents. Holecarding is also sometimes possible, although frowned upon and not generally that useful.

How else can one gain an advantage playing poker?

 

[FLASH1296]

You become an advantage player after you have studied the field's experts — e.g. Sklansky, etc., spent
substantial time at TwoPusTwo.com, and have played many thousands of hands of [real] poker.

It will take you somewhere between a year and forever.

Hey ! "There's no free lunch" !

 

[aslan]

One edge is by folding a lot before the flop. This means you will on average have stronger hands than your opponents, which is a strong edge. Another edge is by playing hands you choose to play aggressively. Instead of calling bet or raise if you decide to play.

Another edge comes from studying your opponents. Holecarding is also sometimes possible, although frowned upon and not generally that useful.

How else can one gain an advantage playing poker?

If we're talking about NL hold'em, you can gain your largest advantage by playing aggressively IMO. That, in a nutshell, is why I have not yet entered the fray. I come from a very conservative school of stud and draw poker. Playing only strong hands can work in those two types of poker, but it's disastrous in hold'em, where you can easily ante yourself to death.

 

[BrianCP]

If we're talking about NL hold'em, you can gain your largest advantage by playing aggressively IMO.

WAAAAAAIIIIIT!


Do not play aggressive without strong hands at beginning stakes/micro stakes. (which I assume you are playing)

You can't represent a hand better than your opponent's when your opponent doesn't know how strong his hand is! Bluffing and other "tricky" move require you to play against at least mildly intelligent opponents.

If you start at the micros, for the love of god only play good hands. Value bet them when you hit them, don't bluff very much, and you will accumulate money from the morons who call every bet.

 

[Sucker]

How else can one gain an advantage playing poker?

Game selection.

Fact of life: If there are NO bad players at the table, you CANNOT make money. Even the best poker player in the world would not make enough money to make it worth his time.

 

[Jack_Black]

read your opponent(s). are they caller/catchers? or do they only play good hands? what did they have at showdown? are they too quick to think they have the best hand? or are they very cautious and just call.

google +EV hands for poker. many people think that 2 3 suited is a good hand or 2 2 even.

 

[1357111317]

read your opponent(s). are they caller/catchers? or do they only play good hands? what did they have at showdown? are they too quick to think they have the best hand? or are they very cautious and just call.

google +EV hands for poker. many people think that 2 3 suited is a good hand or 2 2 even.

Depends, vs some opponents and with bigger stack sizes, I would love to have 22, because I know when I hit a set, I'm going to get paid a lot.

 

[BrianCP]

Game selection.

Fact of life: If there are NO bad players at the table, you CANNOT make money. Even the best poker player in the world would not make enough money to make it worth his time.

Well, good being used as an objective term this is not necessarily true. Using good as a relative term with your individual skill level, this is most certainly true. Check out seasons 5 and 6 of high stakes poker on youtube. Almost all really good/great players. However, Tom Dwan is consistently taking their money as the relative skill level comparing him to the other players, the other players are "bad" enough for him to profit. Using it as an objective term, all the players are at least good, so he shouldn't that game.

Lesson, use good as a relative term. You can beat an objectively good TAG out of a decent amount of money depending on relative metagame skill level.

 

[BrianCP]

read your opponent(s). are they caller/catchers? or do they only play good hands? what did they have at showdown? are they too quick to think they have the best hand? or are they very cautious and just call.

google +EV hands for poker. many people think that 2 3 suited is a good hand or 2 2 even.

Those hands CAN be good speculative hands in a looser game where you stand a good chance of getting paid off with a monster. It require the structure to be Pot Limit at the very least, preferably no limit. If the stacks are deep in comparison to the blinds, pot odds matter little when compared to implied odds.

Sizing up implied odds has to be done with great caution though. You should be pretty sure that when you do hit, it will make up for the pre flop cost of playing a speculative hand. Having position so you can pick up pots against non callers when you miss also offsets the pre flop cost if you can do it occasionally.

 

[apex]

Game selection. QUOTE]

2nd this, game selection is huge. Try to play people who are new, drunk, or very consistent with how they play their hands. Find a game/player type that your game beats. I am not a great poker player overall, but I do well in my niche. I play full tables, have an ultra tight immage, sit right in front of a player who raises too frequently, and check-raise a lot.

 

[MangoJ]

Even if you would know perfect poker strategy (whatever that is), because of rake, you would need to find players who are a lot weaker than you for profit.

 

[Sucker]

You can beat an objectively good TAG out of a decent amount of money depending on relative metagame skill level.

And at the same time, an objectively good TAG will be picking off the LAGs for about the same amount of money. This idea is probably the most common misconception that you will find among pro poker players, including SOME of the top pros. IMO, it comes down to one word: Pride. Poker players like to think that they're the best player at the table and therefore they can beat ANY game. Especially when they can spot a weakness in their opponent, but don't realize that that same opponent notices the holes in THEIR game. The LAG will capitalize on the inherent weakness of the TAG style of play, and vice-versa! Most of the very TOP players understand this, and will avoid a tough table at all costs - unless of course they're getting paid by the television producer to play!

FWIW - On several occasions I have personally heard the late great Chip Reese state that game selection is by far the most important tool in the pros' bag of tricks. I'm merely repeating his very solid advice.

 

[BrianCP]

And at the same time, an objectively good TAG will be picking off the LAGs for about the same amount of money. The LAG will capitalize on the inherent weakness of the TAG style of play, and vice-versa! Most of the very TOP players understand this, and will avoid a tough table at all costs

On several occasions I have personally heard the late great Chip Reese state that game selection is by far the most important tool in the pros' bag of tricks.

The point wasn't saying game selection wasn't the most important point, just that game selection is relative to your play style and skill compared to the chosen opponents. I was agreeing with you, just pointing out one of the oddities of game selection subjectivity.

Also, The LAGs picking off TAGs and vice versa was the word metagame in my post. I should have elaborated honestly, but basically it has to deal with your ability to exploit the other players faster than they can exploit you. I don't think any player after developing enough confidence should be LAG or TAG. Pick a style that works at the given hand with the given players and given positions.

Chip Reese is right, he played with really good players constantly, but his relative skill level and metagame ability made that game a good choice FOR HIM. Another player that is very good might get crushed at the same game.

 

[aslan]

WAAAAAAIIIIIT!


Do not play aggressive without strong hands at beginning stakes/micro stakes. (which I assume you are playing)

You can't represent a hand better than your opponent's when your opponent doesn't know how strong his hand is! Bluffing and other "tricky" move require you to play against at least mildly intelligent opponents.

If you start at the micros, for the love of god only play good hands. Value bet them when you hit them, don't bluff very much, and you will accumulate money from the morons who call every bet.

Playing aggressively does not mean playing weak hands, although there is a time for that as well IMO.

 

[BrianCP]

Playing aggressively does not mean playing weak hands, although there is a time for that as well IMO.

That is what I said first sentence, don't play aggressively without a good hand. Tight Aggressive. Most people who are new just interpret aggressive as "bluff every chance you get." Clarifying the point helps a lot.

 

[aslan]

That is what I said first sentence, don't play aggressively without a good hand. Tight Aggressive. Most people who are new just interpret aggressive as "bluff every chance you get." Clarifying the point helps a lot.

It also depends on how you define a good hand. What would normally be called a poor hand, and I mean a really poor hand, might be considered a good hand when your position at the table is factored in. Capisce?

 

[moo321]

Game selection.

Fact of life: If there are NO bad players at the table, you CANNOT make money. Even the best poker player in the world would not make enough money to make it worth his time.

This is getting to be one of the most important, if not the most important factors.

For a little over a year I had a very juicy NL game close by. I was winning $50 an hour consistently, and I was not a very experienced NL player. Now the game has died down, and it's hard to crack $10 an hour.

I remember when every $3-6 game used to be 8+ players to the flop, and you could grind $20 an hour out of them.

 

[BrianCP]

This is getting to be one of the most important, if not the most important factors.

For a little over a year I had a very juicy NL game close by. I was winning $50 an hour consistently, and I was not a very experienced NL player. Now the game has died down, and it's hard to crack $10 an hour.

I remember when every $3-6 game used to be 8+ players to the flop, and you could grind $20 an hour out of them.

3-6 playing like .02/.05 online......amazing. 3-6 online you find far more sharks than fish apparently. Hell, even the casino 1/2 games that are (so I've heard) still weak are not at all comparable to the online 1-2 games. 1-2 online is the end of the line for most curious folks.

 

[Jack_Black]

Those hands CAN be good speculative hands in a looser game where you stand a good chance of getting paid off with a monster. It require the structure to be Pot Limit at the very least, preferably no limit. If the stacks are deep in comparison to the blinds, pot odds matter little when compared to implied odds.

Sizing up implied odds has to be done with great caution though. You should be pretty sure that when you do hit, it will make up for the pre flop cost of playing a speculative hand. Having position so you can pick up pots against non callers when you miss also offsets the pre flop cost if you can do it occasionally.

agreed. I will play any 2 suited cards IF no one raised the BB, or minimally raised. I do it in a loose cash game, or at the beginning of a "loose" tournament. say like $40 buy in, 10,000 chips, 20 min levels, average 3 hours to complete.

 

[Jack_Black]

1-2 online is the end of the line for most curious folks.

what does this mean?