Good going ACE_RAGE - keep it going. Think I did twenty-odd during 2009.... I forget, everything's a blurrrrrrrr (that's like a dohhhhhhh but slightly more drunk)
17th was lucky though as I kind of had to make a stand with 10J suited in my BB with 50% of my chips in the blind and hit the flush against a rag ace who had a similar stack.
In Response to DYM - What's your record for consecutive cashes? : 13 for me too. Back in the days when I was halfway decent....in April 2009. Posted by RICHORFORD
I see you conveniently missed out the bit soon after wards when you lost 9 in a row ( a record surely)
In Response to Re: DYM - What's your record for consecutive cashes?: Silverback, to a certian extent I disagree with you there. You're right that it does only sample SNG's and tournaments, but by and large, if your a losing S'n'G and Tournament player then you're probably a losing cash player too*. *I'll accept that there maybe one or two players who play cash 99% and then try and satelite into major events for a coupld of dollars which might look at bit ropey on Shark Scope, but other than if you can't beat people in front of you on a table of six when the chips have only a nominal value then I fail to see how you could beat a table of six because the chips have a cash amount. Posted by ACE_RAGE
The reason you "Fail" to see is this
A sit n go lasts about 30 to 60 mins
I sit at a cash table for 4 to 6 hours maybe not playing a hand for 30 mins
This is not a "subtle" difference it is a major reason why I make money at cash and the reason i dont play mtt or stt because i am Never under pressure to play a hand.
Don't take this the wrong way as I'm not having a go but doesn't that kind of prove my point?
With all due respect but anyone can make money if they're limiting themselves to only super premium hands? Ultimately if we were on the same cash table I'd probably pick up on your rock like play and simple not get involved with you when you did have a hand you wanted to play and ultimately get paid on. In the meanwhile you'd have to cope with me consistently stealing your blind for 29 mins. The ability to be creative, as well being able to extract value when you do have hands is all part of the skill set a great player has over a good one. By limiting to yourself how are you improving even if you are being profitable?
PS run came to an end after winning my 18th in a row..... Kind of feel relieved its over as it was getting to be a bit of a monkey on my back. Went out in style too!! me A5, villian K8, Flop comes KK8 lol
been doing a bit of an experiment this mnth playing hu on this and another site with 40 quid at the start of the mnth on each. had a good day yesterday won 13 outta 15 and still on a run of 9. busto on 1 site and about 300 up on the other. question; should i carry on at that level£20 (5 min blinds) or move up to 30. heart says 1 thing, head says another!!
Rage, I know we are discussing this and not falling out so dont worry about that.
1stly I am really sorry the end came so soon. see if you can beat it now
Back to the debate.
Dont mean this in a bad way but your showing your ignorance here buy assuming i am only playing super premium hands!
you can sit for 2 hours at a cash table and for one reason or another not be involved in a hand. Its so far removed from sit n goes its like playing two completely different games.
But lets say we are playing cash
Im a 99% cash player (10 handed usually) so the blinds are usually £2 and £2 on a ten handed table thats about £8 in 30 mins and I will have looked at about 20 hands Now because the blinds never go up then they aint really worth stealing unless you have a hand to steal them with.
I will play a larger range then you because I have the time to pick and choose when i play my hands, I can play hands where it would make sense for you to fold to ladder up, or I can play a lot of hands because I expect the players to still be there in an hour it really all depends but I am never under pressure to make moves.
I may have been sat for 30 mins with no hand then pick up 23suited and call a small raise then hit the flop now people will put me on high cards cos im a rock as you say.
Or I may have good hands in good position and come out firing.
The point is that in sit n gos you have to make moves, this is where the more action players will have an edge over the patient cash grinders like me.
The reason I come to this conclusion and why i play cash games is because I thought to my self "how can I make money playing poker?"
Am I really that good a player that I can enter a tournament of 1000 players and be confident enough to be in the top 10%
Am I ever going to be one of the top 10% of poker players.
The answer to both of those questions is an emphatic NO
I dont know what you or most other poker players genuinely believe but once i realised that I set about looking for a way that I believed I could make money from poker
In cash games It is totally different I have the patience to sit there let you steal some blinds, but i will also be putting pressure on when the time is right. not because the blinds are going up in a minute or two.
So to your point of limiting yourself and not improving well 3 years ago i was playing two pub tournys a week and winning those and taking a bit of cash afterwards then tried online tournys with no real results.
About 18 months ago switched to 25/50 cash and started making profit.
Anyone half decent can sit at the 25/50 cash tables and make a profit because thats where many of the people who put £50 or £100 into the account and go "right lets have a go at this then" again you just need to avoid the sharks and take the scraps which is what all the sharks are doing anyway its just a case of getting respect on the tables then grinding away.
About 9 months ago i started playing live 3 nights a week on the £2 £2
I am now playing the £2 / £5 once a week as well
I have played that 3 times and cleared a tidy sum on each occasion
I am hoping to play the £5/£10 at dusk till dawn in the near future.
So thats how I view and gauge my improvement. Nothing special nothing Super Nova just "reasonably" solid poker with a few lucky breaks in between and NO pressure from the blinds.
I know in sit n gos sometimes you end up being all in with 2/3 os. the only time i remember that in a cash game was when i hit A45 on the flop.
Hope that helps clear it up from my point of view but feel free to discuss further.
been doing a bit of an experiment this mnth playing hu on this and another site with 40 quid at the start of the mnth on each. had a good day yesterday won 13 outta 15 and still on a run of 9. busto on 1 site and about 300 up on the other. question; should i carry on at that level£20 (5 min blinds) or move up to 30. heart says 1 thing, head says another!! Posted by pod1
Confidence is important here so if you feel confident then give it a go but maintain your discipline and accept if it doesnt work out concentrate on what does. By the sounds of it you need to pay close attention to BR management if you do then things should progress nicely
Having read your post I'm not really in disagreement with anything you say in particular, I did wrongly assume that when you referred to playing hands, only every 30 mins or so, you were limiting yourself but I'd made that assumption of 6 seat tables, in which case the button would have passed you on several more occasions than on a nine so thats a fair point you raise.
However I think you've also been a little been assumptive in thinking that I'm a SNG only player, I'm a regular at DTD on the cash tables playing the £1/£2 level. (This might not sound much to those not aware of the venue but those in the know will be aware of just what sort of pot sizes that can be)
Regarding DTD you might struggle to find a £5/£10 action on hold em as the usual high rollers table is £5/5 dealers choice. Don't let the relative low blinds be deceptive you're going to need a minimum of £2/3k cash to buy in mid week and upto £5k to get a seat at a festival weekend. You can contact Simon Trumper though and I'm sure he can get something put together for you.
We've got a away from the point a little which is does Sharkscope give you an idea of the quality of the player your against?, I would say yes for 99% people. Although clearly your not in the 99%!. However if your interested in having a bit of fun, I'd like to chuck a challenge down to you to prove my point that a winning player at one format is a winner at another.
The challenge is I'd like you to register for three DYM SNG at any level upto £11, I'm confident that as cash player of your level you will win at least 2 out of three which would be the sort of form you'd need to make them pay over the long term. I'll then match what ever you win and I suggest we make a donation of the winnings and my matched contribution to Help for Heroes?
No i wasnt assuming you were a sng player you said you "fail to see" and I was just trying to explain the gulf between sitngoes and cash
Even 6 handed your still only looking at £24 or so, which as your aware is very small in relation to the average pot size.
also having played significant cash I would say it very rarely folds round to the bb so there is usually pressure on the blinds anyway.
Perhaps im reading too much into your quote of "fail to understand"
The whole point I am trying to explain is that I am not atuned to playing DYM sitngoes I delibrately choose not to play them as they do not suit my game.
Yet you want me to play them to raise money for charity???
HFH is a chosen charity of mine anyway, so i carnt refuse the challange no matter how daft it is Eh?
I am playing tonight and getting ready for Glasto on Tuesday so it will have to be when I get back but I promise I will take it on. By all means remind me as I have a memory like a sieve.
There is a 5/10 at DTD once a month that one or two fish play in
I suppose I am looking to be one of those fish !!!
Cool man, we'll do it when you get back. The reason I've chosen your 'weak' event is prove to you that it isn't, as long your making fundamentally correct poker decisions, which based on this conversation you are. I'm quietly confident you'll win all three and prove my point and at the sametime HFH benefits.
I think you reading too much into what was glip theoretical remark about the 'failing to see'.
I think this debate has got to the point where I'm not really in that much of disagreement with you on your personnel view as I'm trying to use a general rule of thumb or holistic generalisation of typical players.
We could go off into an entirely different theoretical argument and debates as to whether you calculation allows for you failing to win a couple of times in a row that you do get involved to variance but frankly that would be the start of a book.
Irishrover has had a couple of superb 20+ DYM runs. Sure he said that you need to hit around 24 to get on the Sharkscope leader board thingmebob. Posted by emilyegg
I manage to get 20 dym on the bounce one time on Omaha ,
16 was my best on nlh dym,
one needs to get 24 on the bounce to get on the top twenty leaderboard on
Well done on your dym run mate On sharkscope it doesn't count satellite does it? so if you satellite into the primo and don't cash it says you have lost £30? I am not 100% on this but i think that's the case and that's the reason i don't pay to much attention to sharkscope Posted by robc
Correct, Rob. It logs it as if you'd paid the full buy-in.
This discussion between Ace and Hal highlights the big difference between playing cash and playing tournies/sit and goes.
If you are playing cash properly within your BR, there is no time pressure on you. Also there is generally not the same variance in the stacksizes as in a tourny. Therefore you can sit with the same players, build an image, and look for leaks in their games. These are skills I am still learning, and also developing the patience to use them.
In tournies the players at your table can change quicker, and opportunities arise due to the varying stack sizes. Different pressures can be applied when you cant reload. And as the field reduces and the average stacksize goes up, you have to exploit some of these chances irrespective of your cards, in order to stay competitive. And in the later stages, the bubble brings its own pressures and opportunities. When the blinds rise high against the stack sizes, players are forced to make moves you would not see at any cash table.
DYM sit and goes are different again. Because there is a finite number of chips on the table, there is no need to look to double up or greatly increase your chips, other than to keep it above the average as players are lost. The successful players are those who put their stack at risk the least, and generally win pots without going to a showdown. There is less reward for aggression, more for patience and awareness of relative stacks and where the button is. I have more than once "won " a DYM without making a bet. The main problem with making money at DYMs is the rake, you have to win 7 out of 10 to show a small profit.
But three totally different sets of skills for the three formats.
Well lets just put one more major difference in as to why i dont play them.
The main reason for not playing DYM is that, as stated many times before on these forums. They represent very poor value for money to someone like me. I no longer play poker for fun, I play it seriously, and I enjoy it, and have fun whilst playing it but i do not do it for fun.
So i have important decisions to make such as how do i get the best return on my investment? how do i risk less to get more?
The bare truth is this
If I play a £50 dym i risk £55 to win £45
If I play a cash game and shove £50 then I am risking £50 to win at least £98.20 back but only minus a maximum of £1.80 as the rake compared to the buyin is so different.
The point of playing it over 30 mins instead is irrelevant as I am always trying to put my money in the middle in order to make money so the more times I can do it the better but for me. To contemplate the massive rake of doing it on DYMs just makes no sense at all the variance is absolutely going to take that massive percentage and gobble it up. where as if I play cash that 8% or so is when I win, coming back to me, now assuming i win on both then why would I want to pay that extra % or indeed risk more money to win less.
So assume I am on a cash table or two, I can get my money in 3 or 4 times an hour maybe, that means I need to be playing 3 or 4 dyms at the same time to present me the same opportunities so thats 3 or 4 times £8 or £32 per hour never mind the fact that i have to concentrate on twice as many games!!!
Shall I go on about how different these two games are LOL
DYM have a place for gathering experience but they are not an option for the longterm poker player it simply is a question of whats the best value and as you see everyone is stating that they have long runs of loses as well so eventually people realise that hold on if i wasnt paying this big rake i would be making another £8.
BTW This is not a moan at the rakes I am just pointing out the huge difference in how much you can pay to risk your money.
All figures are purely as a guideline so dont quote me but you get my drift i assume
Comments
17th was lucky though as I kind of had to make a stand with 10J suited in my BB with 50% of my chips in the blind and hit the flush against a rag ace who had a similar stack.
Silverback, to a certian extent I disagree with you there. You're right that it does only sample SNG's and tournaments, but by and large, if your a losing S'n'G and Tournament player then you're probably a losing cash player too*. *I'll accept that there maybe one or two players who play cash 99% and then try and satelite into major events for a coupld of dollars which might look at bit ropey on Shark Scope, but other than if you can't beat people in front of you on a table of six when the chips have only a nominal value then I fail to see how you could beat a table of six because the chips have a cash amount.
Posted by ACE_RAGE
Hal
Don't take this the wrong way as I'm not having a go but doesn't that kind of prove my point?
With all due respect but anyone can make money if they're limiting themselves to only super premium hands? Ultimately if we were on the same cash table I'd probably pick up on your rock like play and simple not get involved with you when you did have a hand you wanted to play and ultimately get paid on. In the meanwhile you'd have to cope with me consistently stealing your blind for 29 mins. The ability to be creative, as well being able to extract value when you do have hands is all part of the skill set a great player has over a good one. By limiting to yourself how are you improving even if you are being profitable?
PS run came to an end after winning my 18th in a row..... Kind of feel relieved its over as it was getting to be a bit of a monkey on my back. Went out in style too!! me A5, villian K8, Flop comes KK8 lol
Having read your post I'm not really in disagreement with anything you say in particular, I did wrongly assume that when you referred to playing hands, only every 30 mins or so, you were limiting yourself but I'd made that assumption of 6 seat tables, in which case the button would have passed you on several more occasions than on a nine so thats a fair point you raise.
However I think you've also been a little been assumptive in thinking that I'm a SNG only player, I'm a regular at DTD on the cash tables playing the £1/£2 level. (This might not sound much to those not aware of the venue but those in the know will be aware of just what sort of pot sizes that can be)
Regarding DTD you might struggle to find a £5/£10 action on hold em as the usual high rollers table is £5/5 dealers choice. Don't let the relative low blinds be deceptive you're going to need a minimum of £2/3k cash to buy in mid week and upto £5k to get a seat at a festival weekend. You can contact Simon Trumper though and I'm sure he can get something put together for you.
We've got a away from the point a little which is does Sharkscope give you an idea of the quality of the player your against?, I would say yes for 99% people. Although clearly your not in the 99%!. However if your interested in having a bit of fun, I'd like to chuck a challenge down to you to prove my point that a winning player at one format is a winner at another.
The challenge is I'd like you to register for three DYM SNG at any level upto £11, I'm confident that as cash player of your level you will win at least 2 out of three which would be the sort of form you'd need to make them pay over the long term. I'll then match what ever you win and I suggest we make a donation of the winnings and my matched contribution to Help for Heroes?
But I also once managed 11 consecutive losses.
Poker is a game of form and confidence.
Nice fish
I think you reading too much into what was glip theoretical remark about the 'failing to see'.
I think this debate has got to the point where I'm not really in that much of disagreement with you on your personnel view as I'm trying to use a general rule of thumb or holistic generalisation of typical players.
We could go off into an entirely different theoretical argument and debates as to whether you calculation allows for you failing to win a couple of times in a row that you do get involved to variance but frankly that would be the start of a book.
I manage to get 20 dym on the bounce one time on Omaha ,
16 was my best on nlh dym,
one needs to get 24 on the bounce to get on the top twenty leaderboard on
sharkscope.
28 is the best recorded in sharkscope .
If you are playing cash properly within your BR, there is no time pressure on you. Also there is generally not the same variance in the stacksizes as in a tourny. Therefore you can sit with the same players, build an image, and look for leaks in their games. These are skills I am still learning, and also developing the patience to use them.
In tournies the players at your table can change quicker, and opportunities arise due to the varying stack sizes. Different pressures can be applied when you cant reload. And as the field reduces and the average stacksize goes up, you have to exploit some of these chances irrespective of your cards, in order to stay competitive. And in the later stages, the bubble brings its own pressures and opportunities. When the blinds rise high against the stack sizes, players are forced to make moves you would not see at any cash table.
DYM sit and goes are different again. Because there is a finite number of chips on the table, there is no need to look to double up or greatly increase your chips, other than to keep it above the average as players are lost. The successful players are those who put their stack at risk the least, and generally win pots without going to a showdown. There is less reward for aggression, more for patience and awareness of relative stacks and where the button is.
I have more than once "won " a DYM without making a bet. The main problem with making money at DYMs is the rake, you have to win 7 out of 10 to show a small profit.
But three totally different sets of skills for the three formats.