Warning! Contains variance-Advice for poker newbies

[tezzadiver]

I have been playing online poker for approximately 2 years now, mainly 6 max and tournies.

Currently I am experiencing a 25 buy-in downswing due to variance.This is one of the larger downswings I have had. After analysing my play, suckout after suckout, followed by bad beat and coolers. This all happened over the period of 3 days and 7 sessions.

Pre flop- I have lost AA v KK 5 times, KK versus AA 3 times. I have had 4 full houses that have been beaten by bigger boats.lol.:flame: Not too mention getting rivered by 2 outers and runner runners.

Firstly this is not a sympathy post but a warning to newbies. Make sure you play properly rolled. 20-30 buy ins are not enough for NLHE. 50-60 to be sure.

Some may say this is too much but believe me if you want to play comfortably over the long term, make sure you are properly rolled!:eyepatch:

Another fallacy is that many players believe once you are on a downswing you are due for an upswing. Lol. I have a friend who lost 50 buyins at 2/4 and 1/2 before he started to recover. After dropping 2 limits he eventually started to win it back- with some damn hard grinding on his part.

About winrate- You can only truly determine your true winrate over 100000`s of hands. The short term can affect you greatly and don`t be afraid to move down a limit or two until you are back on track.

I think many people don`t realise how short term luck can affect a poker player. Poker is a game of skill - to a degree, but there is nothing you can do about donks rivering you with 2 outers etc.

Remember even if you are a 60-70% favourite on a hand- that 30-40% will come back to bite you and this can be a nasty repetitive process.

Look at Tom Dwan and Gus hansen- Both have had million dollar downsings with Dwan nearly losing 1/2 his bankroll at one point. Can you imagine the psychological impact of that.

I guess the reason I have started this thread is to warn new players about the potential hazards. Poker has been glamorised and commercialised to the general public in the false belief that is is an easy way to make money.

Let me re-iterate it is not! I have grinded out a small profit over the years, through tournies,rakeback and cash games. I`m sure there are some people out there that are making good and tidy profits- consistently though is something else.

Look at all these so called poker pro`s. Most of them get sponsored by the individual poker houses (full tilt, Stars etc,) to play tournaments etc. A LOT of them are not using their own money. Secondly most, if not all Poker pro`s have been broke once, twice or even more in their careers. Nice if you have a replenishable bankroll.lol.

Anyway these are my thoughts on poker- Please feel free to add your own.

 

[UK-21]

I'm sure everything you've written is sound.

Out of curiosity I started to play hold'em last Summer (2009). Despite many telling me that variance on the game was lower, I found the opposite to be the case - although the amount I played was very limited so it certainly couldn't be taken as a fair sample size.

Playing against a load of callers (who'll call into the flop with just about anything) may, in theory, be a nice little earner but where there are six of them the odds become that at least one will get lucky and have a cr@p hand turned into a winner. This happened regularly. Despite following the advice of some posters here to tighten up, and to avoid playing hands that may look good but in actual fact have only a small chance of turning into anything, I kept getting traunced by lucky (?, 15-1+ draws) and eventually lost interest in playing with a Sunday night group. It just seemed to have become an excuse to throw money away - eventually I was only playing one hand in twenty or so, and only witha ten or picture pair in early position, and still lost out with monotonous regularity. I came to the conclusion that as I wasn't prepared to play $#it-loads, perhaps I shouldn't play at all?

Playing online was a learning curve - there were so many players who didn't have a clue it was almost pointless trying to read anything into a betting pattern. The long odds draws put in ugly appearances there too. The fact that robbie the robot was frequently sitting at several seats at a table put me off as well, and I'm sure there are people somewhere who know more about my play, and whether it's plus or minus EV, than I do. And then there was the 5% rake . . .

Looking back on it, I think the only way to get anything out of the game, +EV wise, is to play lots - hours and hours every week and with lots of windows open when playing online. And I agree that if you do this, you'll need a pile of funds to overcome the bad beats and losses on the hands that are correctly played but just don't come off.

The media has highly commercialised and sexed-up the game and I'm sure a great many people take up playing it blinkered - start as I did playing on the pub league circuit, do OK, then push the boat out. I'm sure there are probably a few people who do very well playing poker, more who do OK and breakeven or slightly better but the majority are overall losers - although try arguing to someone they're just lucky rather than being solid players. . . I said to someone one evening "do you know what the odds were of you hitting that inside straight?" "Do you know how to work them out?" - "I don't need all that, I know it's a hand worth playing . . ." How can you argue when he's just cleaned out two opponents (who incidently were both better players) by doing it?

The real winners, of course, are the places that stage the tournamounts or take the rake - 5% on £20K a night going across the table, more than pays for the dealers and to re-cover the table occasionally.

I'm sure I will play again, but it isn't something that's on my list of things to tackle in the near future - there are far more interesting things up for grabs at the moment.

 

[tezzadiver]

Sorry to hear about your bad luck on the tables UK21.

Yes as cash game player I have been multi-playing a maximum of 4 tables at short-handed poker. I find If I do any more than this, the win rate becomes substantially lower, not to mention reads are more difficult.

To be honest, I prefer playing tighter tables than loose ones. Probably goes contrary to all thinking but here are my motives.

Tighter players are easier to read online. A TAG looks for a reason to fold while a LAG looks for a reason to call.... And don`t lets forget the calling stations and maniacs.

I`ve realised over a period time, that luck plays quite a significant role in play. Yes we have all heard the blah blah long run, TAGs will eventually profit in the end etc.. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The reality is the cards don`t care if you have lost your last 10 buy-ins and believe me, they are not recording your losses to put you on a future upswing.

The truth is, Someone can be a long term loser even if they are playing mathematically correct. Even over 100`s of sessions. and perfect play. THE CARDS DO NOT CARE. There is no such thing as a due time.

We have to remember that being a favorite is just that. It does not guarantee a win.

I am just thankful that I get rakeback and have done ok from some rake races I have been in.

I will still play poker, but only for the fun of it.

Rake as you have pointed out UK21 is the biggest killer of all profits and will continue to be so. The true winners are the online poker sites etc. that are charging extortionate amounts of rake. And to do what really- To have a automatic shuffler deal the cards? lol.

 

[fubster]

Sorry to hear about your bad luck on the tables UK21.

Yes as cash game player I have been multi-playing a maximum of 4 tables at short-handed poker. I find If I do any more than this, the win rate becomes substantially lower, not to mention reads are more difficult.

To be honest, I prefer playing tighter tables than loose ones. Probably goes contrary to all thinking but here are my motives.

Tighter players are easier to read online. A TAG looks for a reason to fold while a LAG looks for a reason to call.... And don`t lets forget the calling stations and maniacs.

I`ve realised over a period time, that luck plays quite a significant role in play. Yes we have all heard the blah blah long run, TAGs will eventually profit in the end etc.. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The reality is the cards don`t care if you have lost your last 10 buy-ins and believe me, they are not recording your losses to put you on a future upswing.

The truth is, Someone can be a long term loser even if they are playing mathematically correct. Even over 100`s of sessions. and perfect play. THE CARDS DO NOT CARE. There is no such thing as a due time.

We have to remember that being a favorite is just that. It does not guarantee a win.

I am just thankful that I get rakeback and have done ok from some rake races I have been in.

I will still play poker, but only for the fun of it.

Rake as you have pointed out UK21 is the biggest killer of all profits and will continue to be so. The true winners are the online poker sites etc. that are charging extortionate amounts of rake. And to do what really- To have a automatic shuffler deal the cards? lol.

Well, no. Nobody's recording anything, there is no pattern, and there is such a thing as a long term regression. Sure, variance can be brutal, but there is such a thing as "the long term."

Most people who first start out playing poker fail because they over-complicate simple decisions based on some wacky "read" they have.

People who are "good" at poker rarely ever are, because if someone's actually good at the game, they'll have enough understanding and respect for the complex nature of the game to know that they aren't nearly as good as they once thought they were.

 

[moo321]

I think this is a good post. I particularly agree with your advice about being properly bankrolled. Many people play online and don't realize how big the swings can be when you play tens of thousands of hands with only a 1-2 bb/100 edge.

Also, let's be honest, sometimes we all play badly. If you make small mistakes that all turn against you, you could be down a significant amount of money.

 

[tezzadiver]

Well, no. Nobody's recording anything, there is no pattern, and there is such a thing as a long term regression. Sure, variance can be brutal, but there is such a thing as "the long term."

Most people who first start out playing poker fail because they over-complicate simple decisions based on some wacky "read" they have.

People who are "good" at poker rarely ever are, because if someone's actually good at the game, they'll have enough understanding and respect for the complex nature of the game to know that they aren't nearly as good as they once thought they were.

Can`t agree more. As a matter of interest,depending from person to person, 40-70% of your actual winnings come from pre-flop all ins. Example AA versus KK etc. And if you are having a downswing here- hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I have to somewhat disagree on your view on `wacky` tells.

Online reads and tells can be extremely important, especially in the middle to higher limits because of the frequency of bluffing.
Generally it`s better to stick to ABC poker on the micro limits.

In this day and age a lot of players are using poker edge or pokertracker to get general stats on their opponents anyway. Kind of kills the game in my opinion

 

[tezzadiver]

I think this is a good post. I particularly agree with your advice about being properly bankrolled. Many people play online and don't realize how big the swings can be when you play tens of thousands of hands with only a 1-2 bb/100 edge.

Also, let's be honest, sometimes we all play badly. If you make small mistakes that all turn against you, you could be down a significant amount of money.

True. Tilt can be a nasty addition to a downswing. I have a general rule that if I lose up to 5 buy ins, I stop the session. Take a breather, do sport whatever and then start up another one.

I think a change of game scenery can help too. If I`m downswing on cash games, I might fire up a tournie etc.

 

[fubster]

Can`t agree more. As a matter of interest,depending from person to person, 40-70% of your actual winnings come from pre-flop all ins. Example AA versus KK etc. And if you are having a downswing here- hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I have to somewhat disagree on your view on `wacky` tells.

Online reads and tells can be extremely important, especially in the middle to higher limits because of the frequency of bluffing.
Generally it`s better to stick to ABC poker on the micro limits.

In this day and age a lot of players are using poker edge or pokertracker to get general stats on their opponents anyway. Kind of kills the game in my opinion

I would certainly question the 40%-70% figure, I don't think that's even remotely accurate.

Handreading isn't just about picking off bluffs. It's more important to be able to correctly valuebet than it is to pick off a bluff from time to time.

Pokertracker and Holdem Manager aren't magical tools that turn a -EV player into a +EV player, they're just utilities that help sort information.

 

[tezzadiver]

I would certainly question the 40%-70% figure, I don't think that's even remotely accurate.

Handreading isn't just about picking off bluffs. It's more important to be able to correctly valuebet than it is to pick off a bluff from time to time.

Pokertracker and Holdem Manager aren't magical tools that turn a -EV player into a +EV player, they're just utilities that help sort information.

I agree they are not magical tools but they certainly do give an advantage. Poker edge is banned off many sites for this particular reason.

The advantages are obviously great too- you can analyse hand histories and see where you have made mistakes etc.

About valuebetting- you are completely correct IMO. Probably one of my biggest historical leaks. Being able to define who is a donk, calling station, maniac etc is completely important( If u want to make correct strategy plays etc.):eyepatch:

 

[UK-21]

Apologies for digging an old one up (if, in fact, they're needed).

Well . . . . I have started playing online poker again - had a few hours on my hands and thought I'd get back into it. I signed up with a UK provider, offering some reasonably generous freebies, and found that there's a facility on the site to call up details of all of the hands played within the last 3 days. A godsend really, as it's meant I've been able to throw all of my results into a spreadsheet and analyse them.

Some interesting things fall out of the exercise (4 sessions totally c500 hands):

The losses incurred on folding pre-flop, after the flop and after the river equated to around 50% of the total incurred.

My pre-flop folds have been eerily consistent over 4 sessions - 43%. BB calls only are also pretty consistent at around 26% of hands played.

The rake, when measured as a %age of the profit on winning hands (as against the pot value) averages out at just under 17% (staggering really and no wonder it's a tough game to make a profit from?).

Over these sessions I've got to a point where I win more than I lose on hands I contest to the river, but the profit here is nowhere near enough to cover all of the waiting bets made on folded hands.

Anyone any ideas on what overall %age advantage is required to overcome the losses on the folded bets and 17% rake being applied?

Thanks.

 

[zengrifter]

The rake, when measured as a %age of the profit on winning hands (as against the pot value) averages out at just under 17% (staggering really and no wonder it's a tough game to make a profit from?)

Tough?? As a non-poker player (well small tourneys only)
I would imagine its near unbeatable!?!? zg

 

[1357111317]

Tezza, what sites, limits do you play at? And did i understand correctly that you dont use a HUD?

 

[tezzadiver]

Apologies for digging an old one up (if, in fact, they're needed).

Well . . . . I have started playing online poker again - had a few hours on my hands and thought I'd get back into it. I signed up with a UK provider, offering some reasonably generous freebies, and found that there's a facility on the site to call up details of all of the hands played within the last 3 days. A godsend really, as it's meant I've been able to throw all of my results into a spreadsheet and analyse them.

Some interesting things fall out of the exercise (4 sessions totally c500 hands):

The losses incurred on folding pre-flop, after the flop and after the river equated to around 50% of the total incurred.


My pre-flop folds have been eerily consistent over 4 sessions - 43%. BB calls only are also pretty consistent at around 26% of hands played.

The rake, when measured as a %age of the profit on winning hands (as against the pot value) averages out at just under 17% (staggering really and no wonder it's a tough game to make a profit from?).

Over these sessions I've got to a point where I win more than I lose on hands I contest to the river, but the profit here is nowhere near enough to cover all of the waiting bets made on folded hands.

Anyone any ideas on what overall %age advantage is required to overcome the losses on the folded bets and 17% rake being applied?

Thanks.

What stakes were you playing UK? If it was micro`s it is very difficult to beat the rake.
I think I remember reading somewhere that to overcome the rake at micro limits you would need to average about 8BB/100 (thats big bets not big blinds) Correct me if I`m wrong somebody.

I ran extremely negative on all in EV. But 1 reason for that was preflop I would go all in with AA and KK. Favourites yes. But KK kept on running into AA and AA is not good in a multiway pot( most of the time). I found that by not going all in preflop, the variance significantly drops. Makes sense.
There are still profitable instances going all in preflop depending on reads, stack sizes etc.

In my opinion you would also need to play minimum 25/50 cent stakes as a winning player to beat the rake. Or alternatively you would need to be crushing the micros to beat the rake at 5/10 cent etc.

Another must in this day and age is to get a a good rakeback deal. Dealt rake contribution if possible even though that is becoming extinct. Most sites de
al contributed rake now which is the percentage you contribute to a pot. Good for loose players but less so for TAGS. Most sites offer between 25-40% rakeback.

Hope this answers some of those questions.

 

[tezzadiver]

Tezza, what sites, limits do you play at? And did i understand correctly that you dont use a HUD?

I have played mostly on cake and the merge networks. A HUD is definetely a positive addition to your arsenal if multitabling. And obviously to sort out leaks.
As I only 3 table 6 max, I find I can get sufficent reads to beat the games. This was my biggest fault at the beginning. I would multitable 6-8 tables with no HUD and play on autopilot. And miss a lot of reads.

I play 1/2 no limit mostly. And my game has improved a lot due to 3 reasons.
1. Play less tables- get more reads.
2. Stopped flipping preflop generally with AA and KK( except with certain reads and dependant stack sizes.
3. Play straightforward ABC poker

 

[UK-21]

The games I've played have been the bottom of the micro-pile - £0.02/£0.04 with max of 6 players. Despite this it is surprising how many pretty solid players sit in. Possibly they enjoy the game but want to keep it to pennies to reduce their exposure to variance and losses?

Interesting your point on going all-in pre-flop with AA or KK. Can't see too much point in doing this unless you're sitting late position and everyone before you has called or raised the pot - then there's something worth stealing. But with doing this there's always the risk of someone with an underpair fancying their chances at getting lucky - which means risking your entire stack on only a 70% chance of pulling it off. I've seen people pull the 30% draw too often to be comfortable doing this. True, when playing through you do run the risk of people with inferior hands turning them into winners as the board develops, but then no hand comes with a guarantee. Frustrating as it sounds, I have thrown a pair of aces on the river before now - two much lower pairs were on the board and I'm pretty sure someone had hit a FH.

Re measuring the rake loss as a proportion of profits on winning hands, obviously there's a relationship between this figure and the value of the pots on the winning play throughs. I'm still thinking about it, but I'm not sure that at c17% it can ever be overcome - unless playing on a 10 player table (blinds come up less often) and there's the possibility that more players will be contesting the pot, so your proportion of it is less and profits from winning more. Perhaps as an indication one should look at the average pot value on a table - ie if it's at least "x" times the BB, there's a possibility that there's enough on offer to cover losses from folding? Haven't played enough yet to get anywhere near drawing any conclusions. Perhaps that's why the standard table on this particular site has only 6 seats - providing more will see the rake takings go down the tube?

 

[tezzadiver]

The games I've played have been the bottom of the micro-pile - £0.02/£0.04 with max of 6 players. Despite this it is surprising how many pretty solid players sit in. Possibly they enjoy the game but want to keep it to pennies to reduce their exposure to variance and losses?

Interesting your point on going all-in pre-flop with AA or KK. Can't see too much point in doing this unless you're sitting late position and everyone before you has called or raised the pot - then there's something worth stealing. But with doing this there's always the risk of someone with an underpair fancying their chances at getting lucky - which means risking your entire stack on only a 70% chance of pulling it off. I've seen people pull the 30% draw too often to be comfortable doing this. True, when playing through you do run the risk of people with inferior hands turning them into winners as the board develops, but then no hand comes with a guarantee. Frustrating as it sounds, I have thrown a pair of aces on the river before now - two much lower pairs were on the board and I'm pretty sure someone had hit a FH.

Re measuring the rake loss as a proportion of profits on winning hands, obviously there's a relationship between this figure and the value of the pots on the winning play throughs. I'm still thinking about it, but I'm not sure that at c17% it can ever be overcome - unless playing on a 10 player table (blinds come up less often) and there's the possibility that more players will be contesting the pot, so your proportion of it is less and profits from winning more. Perhaps as an indication one should look at the average pot value on a table - ie if it's at least "x" times the BB, there's a possibility that there's enough on offer to cover losses from folding? Haven't played enough yet to get anywhere near drawing any conclusions. Perhaps that's why the standard table on this particular site has only 6 seats - providing more will see the rake takings go down the tube?

When you play 6 max you need to play more hands. The ideal ratio is approximately around 22 VPIP. Normally playing tight ABC poker without fancy plays should allow you to crush these stakes due to the level of players.

Due to so much information on the internet many players do have a better idea of what they are doing even at these stakes I agree.

When I said I used to go all in with AA or KK preflop, this would only be on the basis that someone had already raised, 3 bet or 4 bet me. At 0.2/0.4 stakes this is still very profitable as many players will go all in with middle pairs, suited connectors and even hands like kq. Hence us having the advantage having a high pair. Its still a flip though and if variance is running against you, it can work out for nasty.

Generally at these stakes there are a lot of limpers who you can punish by reraising even up to 6-10 times preflop. I have noticed at these stakes when they raise themselves preflop they normally have something and you can be comfortable folding. Bluffing at these stakes is normally not profitable due to the amount of calling stations.

Nice to hear that you can fold AA. Especially if you are in doubt in a multiway pot. AA holds up much better against only 1 other player. Thus better to isolate 1 player with this hand if you can.

If you have a 70/30 chance of winning a pot, that normally means you will win 7 times out of ten, and only lose 3 times, therefore making it a long term profitable decision. Unless they have flicked the doomswitch on you :laugh:

Variance is extremely high on 6 max and you can easily lose or win many buy ins in a session. To avoid this play fullring.

How many tables are you playing at once by the way? and are you starting to get reads on your opponents?

 

[MangoJ]

Interesting your point on going all-in pre-flop with AA or KK. Can't see too much point in doing this unless you're sitting late position and everyone before you has called or raised the pot - then there's something worth stealing.

I don't know very much of poker. But if you indeed hold the best hand (AA preflop) you want two things: Money on the table, and keep your hand best during the game

Both is archieved by when your all-in is called. The money thing is easy to see. But once you're all-in, all strategy decisions completely disappear (for you obviously) - but also for your opponents! Any decision they make will not be about your side pot, they fight in a different universe. Only a possible fold will influence your EV on the side pot (but in your favor).

So with your all-in you keep your edge till the showdown.

 

[UK-21]

If you have a 70/30 chance of winning a pot, that normally means you will win 7 times out of ten, and only lose 3 times, therefore making it a long term profitable decision. Unless they have flicked the doomswitch on you :laugh:

In theory yes. But it is a long term mathematical expectation, as you've said - and I put the emphasis on long term. 30% is still a pretty hefty window of chance on which to bomb out, and I've seen lots of instances of players catching a cold by going all in for the sake of two BBs. It's the old chestnut against risk and return.

 

[tezzadiver]

In theory yes. But it is a long term mathematical expectation, as you've said - and I put the emphasis on long term. 30% is still a pretty hefty window of chance on which to bomb out, and I've seen lots of instances of players catching a cold by going all in for the sake of two BBs. It's the old chestnut against risk and return.

True but if you compare that to the true advantage we gain with counting cards- the odds are better with holdem.
No doubt we are still gambling though :juggle:

 

[zengrifter]

Tough?? As a non-poker player (well small tourneys only)
I would imagine its near unbeatable!?!? zg

So a 17% rake IS beatable? zg