In Response to Re: DYM's : Do you go on pasta forums continually asking why people don't just have rice or noodles instead? And end up looking like an idiot? Posted by hhyftrftdr
Good evening HHY.
Dont get me started about noodles.
All the best.
Rainman215.
P.S I THINK SOMEONE MENTIONED THE £2.20 @2.15 DEEPSTACK.
In Response to Re: DYM's : So you ignored the long term effects of rake with such a limited payout structure then - I already explained that was why they were different from rake in other formats. You also continue to deny that there's a large aspect of shove/call/fold play in turbo DYMs, which is frankly laughable - play 50 of them and see how many go there...many. Your points for being 'good at the game' and 'volume' surely fall into TKs category of 'vague claims' as an argument in favour?? But vague claims/figures seem to be allowed when we're supporting the DYM brigade I can see. There's so many arguments already given its wierd you can't read/understand them. And all of these points haven't even added in the other factor that I've met a number of players who were 'friendly' with each other - the other huge elephant in the room for these formats - why on earth would I want all of those issues to consider when choosing a game format, when most of them can be removed/reduced by simply going to a cash game? Posted by swanstu
I tried to stay away from this, I really did.
Stu it is patently clear that you do not like the format and you cannot beat the format, thats fine play something else. I you feel the need to add your tuppenceworth to a thread, also fine just try and be less combatative.
As is always the case when someone gets no support for their argument the introduce something else, we have a small player pool on Sky so of course people are going to see each other on the tables and they will chat, does that mean they are colluding?
I actually agree with you in some way regarding turbos, but some people have the skill set and the self control to beat them, that is undeniable (The most profitable DYM player on SS is Valilia who plays at least 60% turbo format and he has won over £10k before any rakeback payments, which given his volume will be massive)
I started with DYM as it was an hours entertainment for a fixed fee and I only neeeded to avoid being 4th, when I played a lot of DYM last year and listened to the advice of a 'veteran' DYM player my results improved dramatically, but I had to work at it and play a specific way, this year I have been playing more cash and MTTs, as a result my performance in DYms has suffered, I generally play them to keep up table count or when there is a promo.
So the long and short of it is, given the correct application of study and advice even very average rec players like me can beat the format, not just pro grinders.
Can someone explain to me how these are supposed to be the lowest variance poker format out there? 11.50 -22 41 100.10 -61.50 -69 -83 -12.32 18 38 -88 -28 -125 In those earlier sessions, had a mix of £5-£20, but soon wised up that £5/£20 where reggy. Wish I hadn't found them tbh, they are more swingy than Spins, at least there if am making mistakes there super obvious, here just cant work out wtf **** am doing wrong. Posted by HaveaA1Day
I disagree with the "Low variance" notion around DYMs. Low variance relative to MTTs, yes. However, sample variance is a result of many things:
1) Probability of cashing a tournament
2) Size of the cash relative to the BI 3) Sample size
DYMs are akin to flipping a biased coin to double your money, same deal with HU (except the rake is lower). So really, they're the same variance as HU.
If you play 3 £1 HU games w/ 5% rake, and a 50% chance to win, you have 4 outcomes:
W3 L0, +2.85, occurs 12.5% of the time
W2 L1, +0.85, occurs 37.5% of the time
W1 L2, -1.15, occurs 37.5% of the time
W0 L3, -3.15, occurs 12.5% of the time (EV is -15p)
If you play 3 £1 DYMs DYMs w/ 5% rake, and a 50% chance to win, you have 4 outcomes:
W3 L0, +2.70, occurs 12.5% of the time
W2 L1, +0.70, occurs 37.5% of the time
W1 L2, -1.30, occurs 37.5% of the time
W0 L3, -3.30, occurs 12.5% of the time (EV is -30p)
The variance is identical in both of these games - In the example above, you end up either £3, £1, -£1 or -£3 relative to EV with equal probabilities.
If your edge increases in both games and you start winning 55% of the games, the maths in both cases is affected identically. So when people pretend to know what they're talking about by saying "HU is high variance, DYMs are low variance", just no.
I believe the lower variance 'myth' with DYMs, comes from variance as a function of time as opposed to sample size - Basically, most recs are going to play more HU games in an hour than DYMs in an hour. Playing DYMs means if you're a losing player, you're going to get more hours of Poker for your money playing DYMs. However, you would still get a similar number of games before you have to reload.
Additionally, playing more HU games in a shorter period of time means your swings over a fixed period of time are going to be bigger.
So somehow, we end up with this notion of massive HUSNG variance and low DYM variance, it's ridic.
TL;DR - If your DYM swings are consistent with what you'd expect from HUSNGs, then it's fine.
Yep, not exact stats of course - I'd say more than 'quite a lot' though, I'd say the 'vast majority' would be wasting their time in a game heavily luck based (the turbos I mean) trying to win £4.50 and paying £5.50 to enter. You've got to be quite seriously beating the game to break even. Posted by swanstu
Yes and no.
I've argued in the past for 5% rake drop to increase number of winning players in these games to promote liquidity and make recs' money last longer. They're not unbeatable at 10%, although I would wager that the % of winners in those games is pretty low relative to other formats.
Ultimately comes down to how much value you place in things like enjoyment of the game. I personally wouldn't play if I couldn't win, but some people are happy to lose £50 over a weekend for 6 hours of Poker or whatever, and concepts like "ROI" don't enter their brains.
If you are like 99% of players (who most admit they play for fun only in any case) then forget ever trying to make any money playing DYMs especially Turbo ones. The fact that everyone is so amazed by Timmy's results says a lot - most could only dream of breaking even with these games with such high rake, and most would be wasting their time trying to mimic his results. Posted by swanstu
Sharkscope posts an annual article regarding % of winning players per site - It's generally around 22% for Sky in MTT and SNG, give or take.
Take out the kind of people who only play the Social Freeroll and are "winning" players on the basis of having not spent a penny and cashed for two quid all year, then add back all the people that are -2% ROI players and win after RB and promos, and you'll probs find about 25-28% of people win still, would be my very rough educated guesstimate.
In Response to Re: DYM's : now that info will stop this thread in it,s tracks mainly because I am ignored by most who have posted on this thread lol x Posted by paige55
let,s see who can take a joke from a fun but losing player x
It's amazing how defensive the DYM players are, but also not really surprising - they make up a bulk of turnover for this site, and the shark regs earn their corn from convincing people to come play 'with them'. But be honest then that's why you love supporting the format and rake structure. Cash play is by far the best suggestion for average or new players who are looking to improve their returns through developing their game surely? Posted by swanstu
Please quote a DYM reg being defensive about DYMs for me, because I can't find it.
I'd say DYMs probably aren't the way forward for learning the game on day 1 of signing up to a Poker site - The MPN network goes as far as to advise newbies away from DYMs and gives a link to a basic "What is ICM" guide in their tournament description (At least, it did last time I logged in there, which was a loooooong time ago)
If I was coaching someone who was learning the game, I'd definitely encourage them to use other formats to learn how to play a hand before they learn how to apply ICM to the way that they play a hand. There's definitely a place for them in a player's process of learning the game though, for sure.
"Cash is best for noobs" - Depends what you want to play.
- Cash is good for learning to play 100bb+, useful for cash and early stages of MTTs. Get the odd spot where someone has 9bb left and you have to decide to push/fold vs their BB, but it doesn't really teach that.
- Regular SNGs (Which don't run on here much, unfortunately) are great for learning skills such as playing <25bb and ICM situations that are more applicable to late stages of an MTT.
- DYMs are more comparable to teaching the basics of a satellite bubble, and
- HUSNG is going to teach you tons of postflop stuff with weird hands off all sorts of stack depths. If you can play HU then you can play in a HU pot, which is a lot of the time when you're playing Poker.
I'd recommend all formats at some stage tbh. ****, go play some Zoom (or equivalent), go play something with antes in, play timed tournaments on here, play some full ring and some 4max, just play anything and everything in due course. It'll only make you a more complete player.
Personally, I reckon micro cash, HUSNGs and regular 6 man SNGs are all ideal starting points depending what you wish to play in the long tem, but there really isn't a right or wrong answer for what beginners should play IMO, although there's probably things that aren't ideal to start with.
And tbh, if enjoyment is the end goal for most, then what does it really matter?
I started with DYM as it was an hours entertainment for a fixed fee and I only neeeded to avoid being 4th, when I played a lot of DYM last year and listened to the advice of a 'veteran' DYM player my results improved dramatically, but I had to work at it and play a specific way Posted by HENDRIK62
Was this by tweaking your shove and calling ranges, or something else that you did?. Towards the end of my lil experiment, I was thinking that maybe i was shoving to much and that a better way would of been to min raise and risk less chips.
In Response to Re: DYM's : Was this by tweaking your shove and calling ranges, or something else that you did?. Towards the end of my lil experiment, I was thinking that maybe i was shoving to much and that a better way would of been to min raise and risk less chips. Posted by HaveaA1Day
I went through a dym 'phase' last year, the thing I probs struggled most with (coming from an MTT background) was what might be an auto shove with 10bb in a tournament, can be a trivial fold in a dym.
And whereas you might not (or at least be very reluctant to) min raise fold from a short stack in a tournament, its entirely plausible in the latter stages of a dym (obv you wouldn't wanna make a habit of it though!)
Having said that, if you're CL on the bubble but its all quite tight, you don't wanna sit back too much. Things can change a lot in just an orbit or 2. It really is a fine line between not needing to get involved and shoving too much!
I should add that I didn't play many turbos, was nearly all standard DYM.
In Response to Re: DYM's : I tried to stay away from this, I really did. Stu it is patently clear that you do not like the format and you cannot beat the format, thats fine play something else. I you feel the need to add your tuppenceworth to a thread, also fine just try and be less combatative. As is always the case when someone gets no support for their argument the introduce something else, we have a small player pool on Sky so of course people are going to see each other on the tables and they will chat, does that mean they are colluding? Posted by HENDRIK62
No it doesn't necessarily, of course. However, it is still something that is added to the potential negatives for this format to even 'consider' during a game that it's possible. Something extra to have to even consider is not something I want in a game, and I don't know why anyone would personally.
I have played several DYM games where I was verysuspicious of certain players (soft play continually v one another etc etc), so it would only be sensible to be in mind if I did play one. Collusion was not my main point, I only added it because it is yet another negative (along with all the previous points discussed).
In Response to Re: DYM's : Was this by tweaking your shove and calling ranges, or something else that you did?. Towards the end of my lil experiment, I was thinking that maybe i was shoving to much and that a better way would of been to min raise and risk less chips. Posted by HaveaA1Day
If you are using a chart, you need to tighten it up considerably from standard MTTs due to the flat payout, this is also very dependant on the perceived calling ranges of others on the table, so notes from previous encounters can be invaluable.
This can be true if the other players are unaware of what ranges they 'should' be calling with, you may need to adjust accordingly, and as above the range may be tighter than you imagine.
Min raise can be a great tactic assuming you use it to steal and NOT to induce, you can mix your range a little here, but we really don't want to call shoves here if we can help it, so use sparingly as Hh advised.
I have just recently listened to a fantastic webcast on satellite play which goes into more detail and I would advise anyone to try and watch/listen to as many of these types of products as possible (assuming they are sitting at other tables ;-))
In Response to Re: DYM's : If you are using a chart, you need to tighten it up considerably from standard MTTs due to the flat payout, this is also very dependant on the perceived calling ranges of others on the table, so notes from previous encounters can be invaluable. This can be true if the other players are unaware of what ranges they 'should' be calling with, you may need to adjust accordingly, and as above the range may be tighter than you imagine. Min raise can be a great tactic assuming you use it to steal and NOT to induce, you can mix your range a little here, but we really don't want to call shoves here if we can help it, so use sparingly as Hh advised. I have just recently listened to a fantastic webcast on satellite play which goes into more detail and I would advise anyone to try and watch/listen to as many of these types of products as possible (assuming they are sitting at other tables ;-)) Posted by HENDRIK62
Any chance of pm'ing me a link, please? No dramas if you can't find it.
Comments
PS-how is Stu related to Hufty?
I disagree with the "Low variance" notion around DYMs. Low variance relative to MTTs, yes. However, sample variance is a result of many things:
1) Probability of cashing a tournament
3) Sample size
(EV is -15p)
(EV is -30p)
I've argued in the past for 5% rake drop to increase number of winning players in these games to promote liquidity and make recs' money last longer. They're not unbeatable at 10%, although I would wager that the % of winners in those games is pretty low relative to other formats.
Take out the kind of people who only play the Social Freeroll and are "winning" players on the basis of having not spent a penny and cashed for two quid all year, then add back all the people that are -2% ROI players and win after RB and promos, and you'll probs find about 25-28% of people win still, would be my very rough educated guesstimate.
- Cash is good for learning to play 100bb+, useful for cash and early stages of MTTs. Get the odd spot where someone has 9bb left and you have to decide to push/fold vs their BB, but it doesn't really teach that.
I'd recommend all formats at some stage tbh. ****, go play some Zoom (or equivalent), go play something with antes in, play timed tournaments on here, play some full ring and some 4max, just play anything and everything in due course. It'll only make you a more complete player.
Collusion was not my main point, I only added it because it is yet another negative (along with all the previous points discussed).
If you are using a chart, you need to tighten it up considerably from standard MTTs due to the flat payout, this is also very dependant on the perceived calling ranges of others on the table, so notes from previous encounters can be invaluable.