"....The make up situation is a very interesting one. Key for both backer and player is to keep the player motivated and making optimal decisions. If make up is big there can be the tendency for players to punt in smaller games or just reg games where they can make a big dent in make up....."
Back in the day when money was sloshing around poker like there was no tomorrow, I knew a few lads who were several hundred thou in Make Up. (It was quite usual then). So it changed their game play completely, as in effect, they had nothing to lose. 3 way all-in in front of them & they have 4-4? Snap call. When that deep in make up, they were effectively freerolling.
For every Doug Polk who rose to the top constantly moving up are hundreds of others who failed trying the same thing and either when busto, 'found their level' or quit the game. With HU poker especially people have a dangerous mentality where they perceive themselves as being superior to their opponents and are objectively inferior. Doug clearly made his money battling weaker players who thought they had the edge. But you could definitely argue it's a bigger crime to settle for mediocrity and never really know what you were capable of achieving. It's far easier to move up in mtt's because you don't even need to be as good as the regs there, just good enough where your edge on the recreational's is big enough to breakeven/ make profit. The more experience you get the more that edge should increase over time. Moving up hu has to be infinitely more daunting than moving up in any 6 max format because to break through you have to be able to beat an opponent who not only plays higher stakes than you, but is a proven winner at them. (were they not they wouldn't get to hold the lobbies)
I think gradually increasing your average buy in whilst cherry picking the best value tournaments is a decent way to move up in mtt's and stay rolled for it. I know someone who advocates an 80/20 rule, 80% grinding games they know they have the edge and 20% in ones that are marginal at best, but with the idea it will make them better. I'd be surprised if someone beating 30nl to an okay level on sky would be losing in anything other than maybe 55s+.
Yeah I often wonder if I would be best sticking to low stakes which I know I can beat with a decent win rate and concentrating on that. On the other hand, as you say, it's good to have a challenge and also I think the feeling that you're progressing can be really motivating as well. Having something to aim for and work towards, etc.
Another example would be @Duesenberg with cash games preferring to print with low variance at 20nl-30nl despite being capable of playing higher. Except he got bored and plays MTTs now!
Somewhat off-topic but have been wondering recently whether there should be some sort of link between bankroll and life roll. As an extreme example, if you had a huge bankroll but were stone broke IRL I would imagine swings would hurt and lead to suboptimal play despite being rolled for them! The more I get into it the more I find the funds management side of poker and it's psychological effects really fascinating. Timex said in an interview once that if he and a random guy off the street played HU for $1 he would obviously have an edge, but if they played for $1000 his edge would be amplified tremendously due to having the bankroll for the game and being comfortable at those stakes where the other guy wouldn't be.
I think there is a link between the two. Firstly I don't know why you would have a huge bankroll but be broke IRL but I get the idea of your example. This kind of thing is likely where someone say makes the FT of the main which they could be very rolled for playing but they may be working full time and it could be a reasonable chunk of say a months wages ftw. It is hard to criticise anyone for playing a bit tighter if the pay jumps are say a weeks wages.
Quite often you get threads where people say about going pro and one of the key things they get told is about being rolled appropriately. That means both having an appropriate roll for your games but also having say 6months bill money set aside.
Although I think this can be in a positive or negative way. If amounts involved don't mean as much we can make punty plays. If amounts are too much then we maybe don't fire that bluff when we know we should.
I do think different players cope with stuff like this in different ways. Some are super good at being completely detached from the money side of it and that must lead to better results if they can play completely optimally (assuming they have the roll with it).
That's true. So you play quite a mix of buy-ins, do you personally still try to focus as much at a £5.50 FT (or whatever your smallest stake is these days) compared to higher stakes?
Ok maybe better example than huge bankroll/broke would be being backed by a stable (so essentially infinite bankroll for whatever the backers let them play) but very little IRL money, or maybe deep in makeup.
On my monitor I fit in 6 tables and then have space for another 6 tables on laptop screen. Top middle is key game generally the main or a FT then around that is next most important games. I tend to try and group similar stuff together so mini will go below main. If I have a few sats then they may go on laptop screen. Having sats in same place is quite important as snap calls in a bh can be snap folds in a sat. On the main screen its higher buy in games and deeper games. This means I give more focus to more important decisions, eg bigger buy ins/deeper games. Early stages of £22bh you shouldn't have as key decisions as last 2 tables of a £5.50bh so even though buy in is smaller the £5.50bh would get more prominent position.
The make up situation is a very interesting one. Key for both backer and player is to keep the player motivated and making optimal decisions. If make up is big there can be the tendency for players to punt in smaller games or just reg games where they can make a big dent in make up. I do think there has to be a link between roll/game selection and life roll. Sometimes you should go lower variance game selection (prob lower ROI) and give yourself a better chance of some profit and get yourself straight which helps you financially but also will be better for you mentally. Getting say 10th in a mass field MTT where top 3 would sort your financial position out and 10th gets you relatively little isn't going to be good for you mentally.
That is insane - I lose the plot at higher than 6. Particularly with no timebank do you find that almost all of your decisions are second nature/subconscious at this stage or do you still end up being put in the proverbial 'tough spot'?
"....The make up situation is a very interesting one. Key for both backer and player is to keep the player motivated and making optimal decisions. If make up is big there can be the tendency for players to punt in smaller games or just reg games where they can make a big dent in make up....."
Back in the day when money was sloshing around poker like there was no tomorrow, I knew a few lads who were several hundred thou in Make Up. (It was quite usual then). So it changed their game play completely, as in effect, they had nothing to lose. 3 way all-in in front of them & they have 4-4? Snap call. When that deep in make up, they were effectively freerolling.
For every Doug Polk who rose to the top constantly moving up are hundreds of others who failed trying the same thing and either when busto, 'found their level' or quit the game. With HU poker especially people have a dangerous mentality where they perceive themselves as being superior to their opponents and are objectively inferior. Doug clearly made his money battling weaker players who thought they had the edge. But you could definitely argue it's a bigger crime to settle for mediocrity and never really know what you were capable of achieving. It's far easier to move up in mtt's because you don't even need to be as good as the regs there, just good enough where your edge on the recreational's is big enough to breakeven/ make profit. The more experience you get the more that edge should increase over time. Moving up hu has to be infinitely more daunting than moving up in any 6 max format because to break through you have to be able to beat an opponent who not only plays higher stakes than you, but is a proven winner at them. (were they not they wouldn't get to hold the lobbies)
I think gradually increasing your average buy in whilst cherry picking the best value tournaments is a decent way to move up in mtt's and stay rolled for it. I know someone who advocates an 80/20 rule, 80% grinding games they know they have the edge and 20% in ones that are marginal at best, but with the idea it will make them better. I'd be surprised if someone beating 30nl to an okay level on sky would be losing in anything other than maybe 55s+.
Thanks Grogg, some interesting points. Particularly interesting about MTTs and not even needing to be beating the regs. Couple of questions for you:
1) Would you rather play a 50 player field where there are 40 regs and you're in the top 5 regs, or a 50 player field with only 20 regs but you're the 20th best reg? 'Best' in an arbitrary general sense, not any specific criteria, just for the point of the example. Or maybe a better way of looking at it would be: do you gain a higher ROI through having a greater edge on other regs, or from there being more recreational players in that field (and being good at exploiting them)?
2) Sort of following on from this, only played the Summit a handful of times and the reg/rec ratio did not seem too appealing at all. Can the average reg in that field really be beating it just by virtue of there being a few recreational players in the field, or is the average reg probably losing long term?
1. Feels like quite a close hypothetical question. Having an edge over 90% of the field is always going to be a nice situation. It depends on whether I'm the worst reg in the field because I've got a lot of leaks in my game or because I'm really good but the other 19 are insanely good. I almost have this same hypothetical situation, but in high stakes 100bb cash games where I'll play in some line ups where I'm the 4th or 5th best reg but my edge is so huge on the recreational player at the table that I'm printing. I would much prefer that than being the best reg vs 5 other regs. If your good at poker, even the best reg's edges are going to be small in comparison to your edge over a weak recreational player.
2. The higher the buy in the less ROI we need to justify playing it, but still have to beat rake and make it worth the variance. Depends on the reg/rec ratio and how bad the rec's are, but seems doubtful the weaker regs would be winning, and the average regs probably win at a rate too small to justify picking that over say a £22bh. Although you can make a case that battling in tougher line ups serves as a long term investment. There is a lot of ego in poker. A lot of the bad reg's( i.e @MattBates) and average reg's in that field probably think they're the good reg's. If they run at expectation or worse it's just variance, above expectation (i.e @Mattbates) and it's the win rate they deserve
On my monitor I fit in 6 tables and then have space for another 6 tables on laptop screen. Top middle is key game generally the main or a FT then around that is next most important games. I tend to try and group similar stuff together so mini will go below main. If I have a few sats then they may go on laptop screen. Having sats in same place is quite important as snap calls in a bh can be snap folds in a sat. On the main screen its higher buy in games and deeper games. This means I give more focus to more important decisions, eg bigger buy ins/deeper games. Early stages of £22bh you shouldn't have as key decisions as last 2 tables of a £5.50bh so even though buy in is smaller the £5.50bh would get more prominent position.
The make up situation is a very interesting one. Key for both backer and player is to keep the player motivated and making optimal decisions. If make up is big there can be the tendency for players to punt in smaller games or just reg games where they can make a big dent in make up. I do think there has to be a link between roll/game selection and life roll. Sometimes you should go lower variance game selection (prob lower ROI) and give yourself a better chance of some profit and get yourself straight which helps you financially but also will be better for you mentally. Getting say 10th in a mass field MTT where top 3 would sort your financial position out and 10th gets you relatively little isn't going to be good for you mentally.
That is insane - I lose the plot at higher than 6. Particularly with no timebank do you find that almost all of your decisions are second nature/subconscious at this stage or do you still end up being put in the proverbial 'tough spot'?
Part of this links into the other discussions. If I am playing say 7pm £55bh then you can start with some tables where its all really good players so on that table I know I need to be on my game and paying attention a lot so I wouldn't want to have that table and a load of other tough ones. You can end up with a random table where it is super tough but generally most tables are fairly ok in terms of players putting you in tough spots. If a session is going super well and/or I have some really tough then I will unreg some games to keep count down.
Often when I have a load of tables its likely to be on a Sunday and will be quite a few sats so its just a case of having awareness of how many seats are available.
During UKOPS I had some spells where I regged too many games and was clicking very badly for a while and timing out a lot....it probably wasn't optimal!
Hardly played of late because of few weeks of concerts, but got a few weeks off now and looking forward to getting back into it!
Whilst not playing much volume at all I've also been losing recently. Wouldn't go as far as calling it a downswing and it's only around 2 days' worth of tourneys for the high volume guys!
Hadn't played the Sky daytime schedule in ages but hopped in today. Played 13 games and made 4 heads-ups lol. Managed to win 2 of them which I suppose is fair! The two I lost were a 1r and a 2.20 whereas the wins were a 5.50 and the only 11 I could find running so that was nice
With these really small fields (25-50 players) you obviously make a lot more final tables so these kinds of days are bound to happen. I actually really like the games where only 3 places pay as it creates some really sick ICM spots that I really enjoy.
Will play day times for the rest of this week probably and then Sunday night. Will obviously play the Mini Major as have 100BI for it. May well take a spewy shot at the 33bh as well. My ABI for the week will still be really low even if I include that. My favourite game ever is the Friday night Main but a spewy shot at that is a bit toooooo spewy at the moment!
Always good playing an evening session when you find yourself sharing a table with one of the forum regs for some fun chat!
Only played 7 games for a small profit today but managed to bust @Duesenberg for his bounty from 3 of them, all of which I had the worst hand when we got it all in. So a good day overall!
Comments
"....The make up situation is a very interesting one. Key for both backer and player is to keep the player motivated and making optimal decisions. If make up is big there can be the tendency for players to punt in smaller games or just reg games where they can make a big dent in make up....."
Back in the day when money was sloshing around poker like there was no tomorrow, I knew a few lads who were several hundred thou in Make Up. (It was quite usual then). So it changed their game play completely, as in effect, they had nothing to lose. 3 way all-in in front of them & they have 4-4? Snap call. When that deep in make up, they were effectively freerolling.
I think gradually increasing your average buy in whilst cherry picking the best value tournaments is a decent way to move up in mtt's and stay rolled for it. I know someone who advocates an 80/20 rule, 80% grinding games they know they have the edge and 20% in ones that are marginal at best, but with the idea it will make them better. I'd be surprised if someone beating 30nl to an okay level on sky would be losing in anything other than maybe 55s+.
1) Would you rather play a 50 player field where there are 40 regs and you're in the top 5 regs, or a 50 player field with only 20 regs but you're the 20th best reg? 'Best' in an arbitrary general sense, not any specific criteria, just for the point of the example. Or maybe a better way of looking at it would be: do you gain a higher ROI through having a greater edge on other regs, or from there being more recreational players in that field (and being good at exploiting them)?
2) Sort of following on from this, only played the Summit a handful of times and the reg/rec ratio did not seem too appealing at all. Can the average reg in that field really be beating it just by virtue of there being a few recreational players in the field, or is the average reg probably losing long term?
2. The higher the buy in the less ROI we need to justify playing it, but still have to beat rake and make it worth the variance. Depends on the reg/rec ratio and how bad the rec's are, but seems doubtful the weaker regs would be winning, and the average regs probably win at a rate too small to justify picking that over say a £22bh. Although you can make a case that battling in tougher line ups serves as a long term investment. There is a lot of ego in poker. A lot of the bad reg's( i.e @MattBates) and average reg's in that field probably think they're the good reg's. If they run at expectation or worse it's just variance, above expectation (i.e @Mattbates) and it's the win rate they deserve
Great post from @FeelGroggy. I just can't decide whether to click 'like' or 'LOL'
On the main screen its higher buy in games and deeper games. This means I give more focus to more important decisions, eg bigger buy ins/deeper games. Early stages of £22bh you shouldn't have as key decisions as last 2 tables of a £5.50bh so even though buy in is smaller the £5.50bh would get more prominent position.
The make up situation is a very interesting one. Key for both backer and player is to keep the player motivated and making optimal decisions. If make up is big there can be the tendency for players to punt in smaller games or just reg games where they can make a big dent in make up. I do think there has to be a link between roll/game selection and life roll. Sometimes you should go lower variance game selection (prob lower ROI) and give yourself a better chance of some profit and get yourself straight which helps you financially but also will be better for you mentally. Getting say 10th in a mass field MTT where top 3 would sort your financial position out and 10th gets you relatively little isn't going to be good for you mentally.
That is insane - I lose the plot at higher than 6. Particularly with no timebank do you find that almost all of your decisions are second nature/subconscious at this stage or do you still end up being put in the proverbial 'tough spot'?
Part of this links into the other discussions. If I am playing say 7pm £55bh then you can start with some tables where its all really good players so on that table I know I need to be on my game and paying attention a lot so I wouldn't want to have that table and a load of other tough ones. You can end up with a random table where it is super tough but generally most tables are fairly ok in terms of players putting you in tough spots. If a session is going super well and/or I have some really tough then I will unreg some games to keep count down.
Often when I have a load of tables its likely to be on a Sunday and will be quite a few sats so its just a case of having awareness of how many seats are available.
During UKOPS I had some spells where I regged too many games and was clicking very badly for a while and timing out a lot....it probably wasn't optimal!
Hardly played of late because of few weeks of concerts, but got a few weeks off now and looking forward to getting back into it!
Whilst not playing much volume at all I've also been losing recently. Wouldn't go as far as calling it a downswing and it's only around 2 days' worth of tourneys for the high volume guys!
Hadn't played the Sky daytime schedule in ages but hopped in today. Played 13 games and made 4 heads-ups lol. Managed to win 2 of them which I suppose is fair! The two I lost were a 1r and a 2.20 whereas the wins were a 5.50 and the only 11 I could find running so that was nice
With these really small fields (25-50 players) you obviously make a lot more final tables so these kinds of days are bound to happen. I actually really like the games where only 3 places pay as it creates some really sick ICM spots that I really enjoy.
Will play day times for the rest of this week probably and then Sunday night. Will obviously play the Mini Major as have 100BI for it. May well take a spewy shot at the 33bh as well. My ABI for the week will still be really low even if I include that. My favourite game ever is the Friday night Main but a spewy shot at that is a bit toooooo spewy at the moment!
Always good playing an evening session when you find yourself sharing a table with one of the forum regs for some fun chat!
Well done today and gl