In Response to Re: ABC of DYM's, by JOHNCONNOR : this is rather insulting especially as JC has spent ages writing a perfectly good DYM blog based on his experiences of crushing this sites dyms. No doubt ICM is a very useful tool at regular SNG's, but i would question its relevance here. Posted by GREGHOGG
In Response to Re: ABC of DYM's, by JOHNCONNOR : Wear gloves. HTH Posted by skolsuper
Such class.
Probably says alot about you as a person that you've said more in 2 posts on this thread, than you did throughout the whole 4 hours you were on the 865 show.
Prob why there's been so many requests to get you back on.
In Response to Re: ABC of DYM's, by JOHNCONNOR : Oh my, a very big Sky Poker welcome to Lord James Keys. Post more, Mr K! For those of us not quite that far along the road, James, would you like to enlighten us with your thoughts on how ICM helps us in DYM's, please? Posted by Tikay10
I think I'd rather mingle with the paupers if that's the levels of twattery he's going to be coming out with, Australian Open 2nd or not.
Post less, Mr K!
Excellent blog JC and can't argue with a word. Just hope not too many on here read it ;-)
In Response to Re: ABC of DYM's, by JOHNCONNOR : I think I'd rather mingle with the paupers if that's the levels of twattery he's going to be coming out with, Australian Open 2nd or not. Post less, Mr K! Excellent blog JC and can't argue with a word. Just hope not too many on here read it ;-) Posted by bandini
TBH my lifetime earnings are more than Keys (even after he binked second in the Aussie Millions this year). But I dont choose to go and patronise others in my profession........
Can we not turn this thread into the school yard please. I get enough of that at work.
Will read the blog with extra interest when I have some time John, been looking forward to it. Will post my comments then. Also looking forward to you posting your challenge updates here.
Hi John, Brilliant Blog, thanks for sharing your experience. What do you do when you accumulate a big stack, say 4000+ chips. I am often in two minds as to weather I sit back and let the others fight it out, or get involved with Cat 1 hands. Your Thoughts? Posted by JockBMW
Hi Jock, thanks mate.
Regarding the specific question I definately think (so long as it's not a really weak field) that you should still get involved with 'Cat 1' hands. If it is a weak field then you may be able to sit back more. But, usually, even an early double up is not a sure sign of cashing, particularly as players will just take it in turns to take your blind. Having said that, you can definately sit back more and, to be more specific, I wouldn't start stealing as early or as wide. Really, the game is the same, you have just bought more time before you have to start turning up the aggression if you see what I mean (and, hopefully, you never need to anyway as the other players sort each other out).
Hi John Conner. Thanks for a really great read, which i'm sure will in many ways help my DYM game. With reference to "Cooperation Play" and "people betting into dry flops" you go on to say this is a huge mistake unless you are 100% sure to win the hand. I have on many occasions been involved in the "Cooperation Play" however, on occasions some players do not cooperate (Entirely their choice) and bet into a dry pot when a player is all-in. So obviously on these occasions we can see that the other player/s are not going to cooperate. So here is a bit of a 3 barrel question i'm afraid How do we continue our strategy here? Should we just keep folding to the small all-in? (at the risk of leaking chips) or Do we try to play our hands against the uncooporating player/s? Thanks Pokertrev Posted by POKERTREV
Hi Trev, thanks for the kind words.
I'm sorry I'm not sure I 100% understand all 3 questions but I will do my best to answer them, give me a shout if I don't :-).
Basically, when someone bets into a dry side-pot you have limited options and I have to say I would fold anything that wasn't approaching the nuts (I would call, say, top 2 pair or a set or worse). That's provided the bettor can damage me (usually knock me out). I would certainly fold TPTK, to be honest. However, if I have seen the person do it before, with weaker holdings, or I can simply afford to stick around, I will with lesser holdings. I make notes on people who "doesn't understand co-op play".
Loved reading the blog and hope I have improved my dym game reading it. Only one question. Do you think it is more profitable long term to play the normal dym games or their turbo counterparts? Posted by cenachav
Thanks, Cenachav.
Yes, I would definately say it's more profitable in the long run to play normal speed, rather than turbos. Higher ROIs are attainable in the normal speeds as they give a better players' edge more chance to prevail. The more a game is 'turbo'd', the more the playing field is levelled.
In Response to Re: ABC of DYM's, by JOHNCONNOR : + 1 Well said that man. A great read JC, very nice job you've done there! P.S where you been for last few weeks? Posted by splashies
Thanks, Splashies. I've been having real problems with my internet connection for some months now and have had to reduce my volume dramatically :-(. I am starting a new challenge, though, to turn a £17 bankroll into a £1000 so hopefully I'll be putting a few more hours in again.
Sigh. Can we not turn this thread into the school yard please. I get enough of that at work. Will read the blog with extra interest when I have some time John, been looking forward to it. Will post my comments then. Also looking forward to you posting your challenge updates here. Posted by TommyD
Much as I respect you Tommy that was beyond School Yard. A seasoned pro posting his 1st posts on the forum belittling the effort an accomplished player on here posting a blog that he didn't need to post, that will only help players he's playing against. That's so classless it's beyond belief and he deserves everything the forum hit him with. I'm sure he could hit us with a few geeky abreviations he's learnt of 2+2 or something. Sorry, but what a
Apologies for hi-jacking thread JC because it was an excellent blog. I play them similarly but possibly even tighter early doors but open shove almost anything when I get down to 4, which I invariably do. Going to re-think my strategy though because you make some excellent points. A re-reading or two will be the order of the day. Good stuff.
What kind of ROI can a good player expect from these (what do you get or what do you aim for if you don't mind me asking)
If I played 100 £5.50 DYMs for an investment of £550 (obviously), I'd need to win 55 to break even, but how many would you expect to be winning per hundred?
Excellent bloggage sir, i remember encountering you on many £5 tables and it doesnt seem to be that long ago. Will deffo be rereading the guide and spending more time on these in the future.
Ctrl+F, "ICM", not found, close page. Posted by skolsuper
Hi James (thanks Tikay), thanks for your input.
The reason why ICM is not mentioned in the blog (I actually took out a couple of references) is because it is primarily intended to be more of a basic strategy guide and I did not want to complicate it too much. Also, I doubt that too many of the players who will use the blog will be routinely running ICM calculations when they're not playing. In any case, I have to admit that ICM is not my forte and I would bow to your superior knowledge on the subject.
Turning to the question kindly translated by Tikay, I will offer my thoughts on the merits of using ICM in DYMs. From your posts, I would guess that you are an "ICM rules all" kind of player and that's fine (obviously), you are infinitely more successful than I am. My thoughts, anyway, FWIW and for those who are interested:
1) ICM calculates shove/calling ranges in STTs. I accept that it gives more accurate results (subject to some of the points below) but I do not really see that it teaches us that much that can not be learned from experience. I have in the past tested my own shove/calling ranges (adopted though experience) using SnGWiz and have been happy with the results.
2) ICM calculations rely on the shove/calling you input for your opponents. For this reason they're never going to be 100% accurate. This point is, I think, exaggerated in the DYMs on Sky because of the number of recreational players as opposed to solid regs. It is even harder to adjust to their calling ranges accurately.
3) ICM does not take into account player skill or relative position at the table. Clearly relative position will be very important on the bubble of a 6 max DYM since each player is in the blinds 50% of the time.
4) ICM is less effective when the stacks get small in relation to the blinds, as often happens on the bubble of DYMs. Admittedly this is when the short-stacks get to 2-3 BBs generally, but this is not that uncommon in the very late stages of DYMs.
5) ICM does not take into account positions in relation to the blinds (eg if a short-stack is in next then ICM overvalues their position) or the timing of the blinds (I mentioned in the blog my thoughts about playing sometimes as though you are already in the next blind level).
So, as is fairly apparent, while I believe ICM is very important (paramount to the hardcore 9 man turbos on Stars etc), I actually don't think it plays that big a part in DYMs on Sky which are what my blog is aimed at. That being said, I would never discourage anyone from having a play around with an ICM calculator in an attempt to improve their shove/calling ranges.
Excellent read JC. What kind of ROI can a good player expect from these (what do you get or what do you aim for if you don't mind me asking) If I played 100 £5.50 DYMs for an investment of £550 (obviously), I'd need to win 55 to break even, but how many would you expect to be winning per hundred? Posted by Lambert180
Thanks Lambert. That's a tricky question and one I will find fairly difficult to answer I'm afraid. I don't subscribe to SS and am having trouble picking figures out from the free version. Here's what I can pick out for you:
1) My average ROI is 3% over about 12,000 games. I'm not 100% sure but I think that must be brought down by lower ROIs at higher stakes (and vice versa) but also weighted according to volume.
2) When I discussed DYMs with a fellow Sky player in the past I said that I had a 6% ROI over 1,500 games at the £5.50 level. I said then that I felt this was quite low as I was learning alot at the time and had huge leaks. I remember saying that I felt a 10% ROI would be just about possible at the £5.50 level. Perhaps some other regs can shine some further light on this for you?
Using the 10% as an example, if I can, then you would be looking to make £55 per £550 investment which equates to cashing 60.5% of the time. (I hope these are right, ROIs have never been my strong point). Looking at it this way, I would feel confident that a 10% ROI would be sustainable for a good player in the £5.50s.
In Response to Re: ABC of DYM's, by JOHNCONNOR : Much as I respect you Tommy that was beyond School Yard. A seasoned pro posting his 1st posts on the forum belittling the effort an accomplished player on here posting a blog that he didn't need to post, that will only help players he's playing against. That's so classless it's beyond belief and he deserves everything the forum hit him with. I'm sure he could hit us with a few geeky abreviations he's learnt of 2+2 or something. Sorry, but what a Apologies for hi-jacking thread JC because it was an excellent blog. I play them similarly but possibly even tighter early doors but open shove almost anything when I get down to 4, which I invariably do. Going to re-think my strategy though because you make some excellent points. A re-reading or two will be the order of the day. Good stuff. Posted by bandini
Was more concerned with JC's thread getting hijacked TBH and tried to bring it back in line. Would much rather discuss the blog than flame a bone-head post really.
Read the blog JC. Very good and interesting stuff. Will get into it here over the weekend hopefully but to start off I agree with the large bet sizing as a whole, although if is very opponent/table dependant. If you are playing people who are fairly tight and know how to play a DYM, small works fine. If they think it's like other poker, big all the way IMO.
In Response to Re: ABC of DYM's, by JOHNCONNOR : Hi James (thanks Tikay), thanks for your input. The reason why ICM is not mentioned in the blog (I actually took out a couple of references) is because it is primarily intended to be more of a basic strategy guide and I did not want to complicate it too much. Also, I doubt that too many of the players who will use the blog will be routinely running ICM calculations when they're not playing. In any case, I have to admit that ICM is not my forte and I would bow to your superior knowledge on the subject. Turning to the question kindly translated by Tikay, I will offer my thoughts on the merits of using ICM in DYMs. From your posts, I would guess that you are an "ICM rules all" kind of player and that's fine (obviously), you are infinitely more successful than I am. My thoughts, anyway, FWIW and for those who are interested:
1) ICM calculates shove/calling ranges in STTs. I accept that it gives more accurate results (subject to some of the points below) but I do not really see that it teaches us that much that can not be learned from experience. I have in the past tested my own shove/calling ranges (adopted though experience) using SnGWiz and have been happy with the results. Posted by JohnConnor
Hi Matt,
Thanks for being nice.
I'm gonna have to correct you on point 1, which will also, I hope, address the remainder of your points. ICM doesn't calculate ranges, it merely converts a chipstack into its approximate dollar value. This is why it doesn't take into account things like position and time remaining in the level, any more than your stack of chips reflects these things. The human error variable comes in working out your average future ICM stack. This takes experience and judgement as much as anything in poker, and you need to be the one to assign ranges and take into account the movement of the blinds and the clock etc. You use ICM to calculate shoving/calling ranges, it doesn't do it for you.
In your case you have so much experience that you can intuitively grasp the dollar value of your stack, which is all well and good for you and you'll no doubt be better in-game than anyone, but people reading your article won't have that intuition and the problem with learning by trial and improvement in DYMs is that some things can be counter-intuitive (folding AA is a good example, I'm surprised you've only had to do it 15 times) and there is a fair amount of perception bias involved (it's hard to equally weight all the shoves that get through against the pain of running into the nuts and bubbling). I think an article on DYMs (where ICM is more important/useful* than any other form of poker btw) ought to give people a quantitative way of working out the best play in any situation and therefore HAS TO include or at least mention ICM, in my opinion of course.
*Dollar stacks become different from chip stacks by the greatest amount
Comments
Post less, Mr K!
Excellent blog JC and can't argue with a word. Just hope not too many on here read it ;-)
Regarding the specific question I definately think (so long as it's not a really weak field) that you should still get involved with 'Cat 1' hands. If it is a weak field then you may be able to sit back more. But, usually, even an early double up is not a sure sign of cashing, particularly as players will just take it in turns to take your blind. Having said that, you can definately sit back more and, to be more specific, I wouldn't start stealing as early or as wide. Really, the game is the same, you have just bought more time before you have to start turning up the aggression if you see what I mean (and, hopefully, you never need to anyway as the other players sort each other out).
I'm sorry I'm not sure I 100% understand all 3 questions but I will do my best to answer them, give me a shout if I don't :-).
Basically, when someone bets into a dry side-pot you have limited options and I have to say I would fold anything that wasn't approaching the nuts (I would call, say, top 2 pair or a set or worse). That's provided the bettor can damage me (usually knock me out). I would certainly fold TPTK, to be honest. However, if I have seen the person do it before, with weaker holdings, or I can simply afford to stick around, I will with lesser holdings. I make notes on people who "doesn't understand co-op play".
Yes, I would definately say it's more profitable in the long run to play normal speed, rather than turbos. Higher ROIs are attainable in the normal speeds as they give a better players' edge more chance to prevail. The more a game is 'turbo'd', the more the playing field is levelled.
however well done on beating them and writing a superb blog
secondly amazes me is this day and age people still feed the trolls, some people can help getting involved in a ruck
Great Read from a great player!
Apologies for hi-jacking thread JC because it was an excellent blog. I play them similarly but possibly even tighter early doors but open shove almost anything when I get down to 4, which I invariably do. Going to re-think my strategy though because you make some excellent points. A re-reading or two will be the order of the day. Good stuff.
What kind of ROI can a good player expect from these (what do you get or what do you aim for if you don't mind me asking)
If I played 100 £5.50 DYMs for an investment of £550 (obviously), I'd need to win 55 to break even, but how many would you expect to be winning per hundred?
Excellent bloggage sir, i remember encountering you on many £5 tables and it doesnt seem to be that long ago. Will deffo be rereading the guide and spending more time on these in the future.
In Response to Re: ABC of DYM's, by JOHNCONNOR:
Hi James (thanks Tikay), thanks for your input.The reason why ICM is not mentioned in the blog (I actually took out a couple of references) is because it is primarily intended to be more of a basic strategy guide and I did not want to complicate it too much. Also, I doubt that too many of the players who will use the blog will be routinely running ICM calculations when they're not playing. In any case, I have to admit that ICM is not my forte and I would bow to your superior knowledge on the subject.
Turning to the question kindly translated by Tikay, I will offer my thoughts on the merits of using ICM in DYMs. From your posts, I would guess that you are an "ICM rules all" kind of player and that's fine (obviously), you are infinitely more successful than I am. My thoughts, anyway, FWIW and for those who are interested:
1) ICM calculates shove/calling ranges in STTs. I accept that it gives more accurate results (subject to some of the points below) but I do not really see that it teaches us that much that can not be learned from experience. I have in the past tested my own shove/calling ranges (adopted though experience) using SnGWiz and have been happy with the results.
2) ICM calculations rely on the shove/calling you input for your opponents. For this reason they're never going to be 100% accurate. This point is, I think, exaggerated in the DYMs on Sky because of the number of recreational players as opposed to solid regs. It is even harder to adjust to their calling ranges accurately.
3) ICM does not take into account player skill or relative position at the table. Clearly relative position will be very important on the bubble of a 6 max DYM since each player is in the blinds 50% of the time.
4) ICM is less effective when the stacks get small in relation to the blinds, as often happens on the bubble of DYMs. Admittedly this is when the short-stacks get to 2-3 BBs generally, but this is not that uncommon in the very late stages of DYMs.
5) ICM does not take into account positions in relation to the blinds (eg if a short-stack is in next then ICM overvalues their position) or the timing of the blinds (I mentioned in the blog my thoughts about playing sometimes as though you are already in the next blind level).
So, as is fairly apparent, while I believe ICM is very important (paramount to the hardcore 9 man turbos on Stars etc), I actually don't think it plays that big a part in DYMs on Sky which are what my blog is aimed at. That being said, I would never discourage anyone from having a play around with an ICM calculator in an attempt to improve their shove/calling ranges.
Respected you anyway but my respect is now infinite.
1) My average ROI is 3% over about 12,000 games. I'm not 100% sure but I think that must be brought down by lower ROIs at higher stakes (and vice versa) but also weighted according to volume.
2) When I discussed DYMs with a fellow Sky player in the past I said that I had a 6% ROI over 1,500 games at the £5.50 level. I said then that I felt this was quite low as I was learning alot at the time and had huge leaks. I remember saying that I felt a 10% ROI would be just about possible at the £5.50 level. Perhaps some other regs can shine some further light on this for you?
Using the 10% as an example, if I can, then you would be looking to make £55 per £550 investment which equates to cashing 60.5% of the time. (I hope these are right, ROIs have never been my strong point). Looking at it this way, I would feel confident that a 10% ROI would be sustainable for a good player in the £5.50s.
Read the blog JC. Very good and interesting stuff. Will get into it here over the weekend hopefully but to start off I agree with the large bet sizing as a whole, although if is very opponent/table dependant. If you are playing people who are fairly tight and know how to play a DYM, small works fine. If they think it's like other poker, big all the way IMO.