Online Poker - Advantage Play

[aslan]

I was talking with a friend who plays online. He says he never gambles anymore. I asked him what he meant, he plays online, but he doesn't gamble. The gist of it is this. He found that he can wait patiently for a lock hand. He can do this a few times at a given table, but then the players catch on and won't give him a call. He then moves to another table. He says with thousands of tables going simultaneously, it is easy to keep switching tables so that he does not get to be known as a lock player.

This seems like a an advantage approach to online gambling. Anyone have a similar experience? Is it as easy as he says?

Also, he puts the other players on his buddy list. This enables him to see whether the players are playing multiple tables or not. If someone is, say, playing six tables at a time, he steers clear of them. they're probably laying locks as well.

 

[moo321]

I was talking with a friend who plays online. He says he never gambles anymore. I asked him what he meant, he plays online, but he doesn't gamble. The gist of it is this. He found that he can wait patiently for a lock hand. He can do this a few times at a given table, but then the players catch on and won't give him a call. He then moves to another table. He says with thousands of tables going simultaneously, it is easy to keep switching tables so that he does not get to be known as a lock player.

This seems like a an advantage approach to online gambling. Anyone have a similar experience? Is it as easy as he says?

Also, he puts the other players on his buddy list. This enables him to see whether the players are playing multiple tables or not. If someone is, say, playing six tables at a time, he steers clear of them. they're probably laying locks as well.

Online poker sucks these days. If you want to keep up, you have to install tracking software, which I think borders on cheating.

 

[Thunder]

You can do that but the problem is that most poker rooms only allow you to play 5 tables or less max. In addition, your odds of winning when doing that aren't even 50% assuming you get a few callers. Do you want to be glued to your screen waiting for hours for that hand? Also doing this will usually on result in you recuperating all the money you lost from blinds. I think it's a worthless strategy.

 

[aslan]

You can do that but the problem is that most poker rooms only allow you to play 5 tables or less max. In addition, your odds of winning when doing that aren't even 50% assuming you get a few callers. Do you want to be glued to your screen waiting for hours for that hand? Also doing this will usually on result in you recuperating all the money you lost from blinds. I think it's a worthless strategy.

That sound right. My friend says he makes a couple hundred after two or three hours. Not sure if he plays multiple hands. Probably stating his best days.

 

[callipygian]

The real advantage of online poker is the number of hands you can play simultaneously, so if your friend isn't playing 3+ tables at a time, I call BS on just about everything he says.

(1) Waiting for the nuts is asinine, and it's also nearly impossible, since there are exceedingly few nut hands after the flop that can't be beat with a turn/river combo (straight flush where you have the top end and quad 10's where the other flop card isn't part of a possible 5-high straight flush are the few examples I can think of off the top of my head). You will ALWAYS be gambling to some degree.

(2) Consistently betting for value is an EV positive play, and it's a decent way to make a small chunk of change (1-3 big bets per 100 hands, either in limit or no-limit). Any way you cut it, though (when you multiply out by the blinds - which are smaller online - and the number of hands - which is greater online), you end up with something like $5-$10/hr, or a minimum wage job. The only problem here is that you can't hold your own against players with actual skill - if you start seeing people who aren't complete idiots, you probably can't beat the table any more.

(3) If you want to get advanced, and actually spend some time into learning how to bet not only poor players, but also mediocre/decent players, you can do that as well. How much this improves your win rate is a subject of debate, but I contend it's in the ballpark of $15-$25/hr. This will probably involve some sizable investment into software/books, but depending on how long you intend to keep playing, may be worth it.

Is it easy money? HELL NO. If there's any one general life principle that people on gambling boards need to learn, it's that there is no easy money - neither in the casino nor outside of it. Even if you were to learn to play at the $20-$25/hr level (which translates into a $40,000-$50,000 full time job), you're talking about at least several dozen, if not several hundred, hours of reading, practicing, tinkering, modeling, and practicing some more.

Also, keep in mind that since the United States barred banks from transferring money to online gaming accounts, the number of people who play online has dropped drastically. Depending on how well you know your friend, I'd suspect that he's recruiting you with ulterior motives (either he gets a bonus if you join, or he wants a cut of what you win, or some other self-promotional objective).

 

[aslan]

The real advantage of online poker is the number of hands you can play simultaneously, so if your friend isn't playing 3+ tables at a time, I call BS on just about everything he says.

(1) Waiting for the nuts is asinine, and it's also nearly impossible, since there are exceedingly few nut hands after the flop that can't be beat with a turn/river combo (straight flush where you have the top end and quad 10's where the other flop card isn't part of a possible 5-high straight flush are the few examples I can think of off the top of my head). You will ALWAYS be gambling to some degree.

(2) Consistently betting for value is an EV positive play, and it's a decent way to make a small chunk of change (1-3 big bets per 100 hands, either in limit or no-limit). Any way you cut it, though (when you multiply out by the blinds - which are smaller online - and the number of hands - which is greater online), you end up with something like $5-$10/hr, or a minimum wage job. The only problem here is that you can't hold your own against players with actual skill - if you start seeing people who aren't complete idiots, you probably can't beat the table any more.

(3) If you want to get advanced, and actually spend some time into learning how to bet not only poor players, but also mediocre/decent players, you can do that as well. How much this improves your win rate is a subject of debate, but I contend it's in the ballpark of $15-$25/hr. This will probably involve some sizable investment into software/books, but depending on how long you intend to keep playing, may be worth it.

Is it easy money? HELL NO. If there's any one general life principle that people on gambling boards need to learn, it's that there is no easy money - neither in the casino nor outside of it. Even if you were to learn to play at the $20-$25/hr level (which translates into a $40,000-$50,000 full time job), you're talking about at least several dozen, if not several hundred, hours of reading, practicing, tinkering, modeling, and practicing some more.

Also, keep in mind that since the United States barred banks from transferring money to online gaming accounts, the number of people who play online has dropped drastically. Depending on how well you know your friend, I'd suspect that he's recruiting you with ulterior motives (either he gets a bonus if you join, or he wants a cut of what you win, or some other self-promotional objective).

By playing the nuts I did not mean to imply taking no risk at all, but you will win the vast majority of hands. So I take it you don't subscribe to the Herbert O. Yardley school of poker. lol He may not have been a big winner, but he was seldom ever a loser. He was a lock player if there ever was one. I used his system for draw and stud back in the day (circa 1960) and won small, but won nearly every time I played.

At the Bellagio, the manager of the poker room confided in me that all the locals limit their play to pat hands. We were talking about no limit hold'em with low blinds. I guess there are enough tourists in the games that they can get away with playing near locks, that is, no one gets to know them well enough to stop calling.

That is essentially what my friend was doing, maybe not pat hands, but very tight, probably playing multiple tables as you suggest, and skipping to new tables after a couple of winners.

He told me that when he first began playing online he played a normal game, but after some time he found that he didn't have to gamble that much to book winners. I suppose by nut hand, you're referring to hands that can't lose. Normally you have to mix it up and not get pegged as a lock player in order to get calls when you do have a winning hand. If you play too noticeably tight, you can hang it up--you won't get any calls. But online, I think what he is saying is that you can play as tight as you want and just skip around to one of the other tens of thousands of tables with your three handles to further disguise your play.

Since I have never played online, I can't relate to it except from my live play. I do know that I played lock poker with the same guys for a couple of years and was able to mix it up enough to still get calls. I didn't make any killings, but never losing is its own reward, and never losing big is an absolute godsend. I've since learned to play "according to the experts" and I'm telling you, you can lose a small fortune if you're not extremely careful. For one thing, everyone is reading all the same books, and some of them are a whole lot smarter than I am in gauging what the other players are doing in terms of playing styles. lol

 

[callipygian]

By playing the nuts I did not mean to imply taking no risk at all, but you will win the vast majority of hands.

You're probably playing too tight if you're winning the vast majority of hands, at least in low limit games. The hallmark of low limit games is that most players are too loose - which means that your good hands will often get beaten by inferior hands, but that you draw pretty large pots when you win. Winning a 4-way pot 1/3 of the time carries a huge (+33%) EV.

If your friend is a semi-decent player, that's basically scenario (2) that I outlined above. You're betting for value, which means TPTK vs. 5 inside straight draws may not even win the majority of pots, but you'll win a monster pot in those 45-50% of the time that you do win.

 

[aslan]

You're probably playing too tight if you're winning the vast majority of hands, at least in low limit games.

That's a point of view. Yardley would say, no. He deliberately played tight. I suppose he'd rather win a little most of the time, than win a lot some of the time and lose a lot at times as well. He had a few tricks as well that could reap a large pot, but basically his game was lock poker, quite similar to the Vegas locals who sit around the tables waiting for tourists. I'm not advocating his style of play, but it has its place in the annals of poker and is worth knowing. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b_0_17?url=search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=education+of+a+poker+player&sprefix=Education+of+a+po

 

[ragroller]

i try to avoid online poker it way to easy to cheat these days , get different ip addresses and play on the same table .

 

[johndoe]

i try to avoid online poker it way to easy to cheat these days , get different ip addresses and play on the same table .

Exactly right. All too often AP at poker is cheating via collusion. It's ridiculously easy to do.

 

[ragroller]

if your good at poker , u could make 3-4 accounts and play small stakes table make sure not to play to often incase users get suspiciouse you could seriousely make some big dollars.

 

[standard toaster]

You can do that but the problem is that most poker rooms only allow you to play 5 tables or less max. In addition, your odds of winning when doing that aren't even 50% assuming you get a few callers. Do you want to be glued to your screen waiting for hours for that hand? Also doing this will usually on result in you recuperating all the money you lost from blinds. I think it's a worthless strategy.

This is exaclty right. You simply can not wait for the perfect starting hand had just play it. You need to play hands but just pick them out in the right situations. On the button you can be more agressive utg much tigher. You need to bluff to make money you simply can not make it with only the nuts. Half the time your great starting hand will turn to **** anyway. I play a lot of poker and trust me waiting like that is a bad idea.