Sorry guys, lets agree to differ. If we can't beat "bad" or "poor" players, what does that say about us, & our game? It tells me they are better than those who cannot beat them. I'm not sure how that logic can be contested. The flawed logic exists almost universally in poker, in no other game could it possibly be said that good players cannot beat bad players. I mean, think about it! They play different, they play "awkward" (ALL calling stations are awkward), but if we cannot find a way to beat them, then they are better than us, or we are not as good as we think we are. Good Luck against the better players. If you can beat the 2p-4p game, you might be ok at 15-30. But if you cannot beat 2p-4p, you are going to seriously struggle at higher Levels. The logic is watertight - good beats bad. Posted by tikay1
In Response to Re: is it the place to learn : Greghogg, When you work your way up to 25/50, 50/1 I'll see how well you play but for now shhhhhhhhh. Posted by stien
In Response to Re: is it the place to learn : Greghogg, When you work your way up to 25/50, 50/1 I'll see how well you play but for now shhhhhhhhh. Posted by stien
lol, come play some mtts and sngs with me
and fwiw i can play 4nl and win i just choose not to.
now you shhhhhhhhh innit
p.s we are allowed different views around here, i agree with tikay on this one, i dont always agree with him, but on this i do.
Stien obv in one hand its very easy for a fish to get lucky (or even over a few hundred hands for that matter). But when you're talking about the long term, over a very large sample size, the better players will always win against the worse players. That's undeniable. In one of your posts you said that the bad players are kept going by the suck outs they get, that is wrong. You might see them get lucky winning a few hands, but over a long period of time the only reason you'll see a continuously bad player still playing is that they are able to reload.
Pod, if you can't beat 4NL (where the standard on here is obviously terrible) then you'll have no chance of winning at a higher level. If, however, its that you decide you have the bankroll and ability to start playing cash a bit higher, then just try it and see how you get on imo.
thanks for the advice and time you put into your response dohhh, much appreciated . tikay what im trying to say is the likes of sparce, red ,lolufold and were on tv( please dont think i am putting myself anywhere near there level) are playing 1 on 1. i watched red and lolufold go at it for hrs on sunday. their mentality of " i would rather play 1 really good player than 5 good players" must hold true. with your thinking they would be more profitable playing £2.50/5 on a 6 seater than £5/10 hu. night after night they play heads up, not against each other all the time i admit, but they do play each other and others of a high standard. very very rarely do you see them sat on a table of 6/10. of coarse you wouldnt want to sit down at a table with 5 better players than yourself and i feel insulted that you think i implied that. what i am saying is that the amount of bad players you sit down with will make a difference. phil Posted by pod1
So it's not the quality of the opposition, it's the number of them?
So why do you think that exact logic would not hold good against a regular 2p-4p player?
Do you think you could not beat a 2p-4p regular Heads Up more than 6 times in 10? because if you could not.........it's "next case".
But using your logic, beating them Heads-Up should be easy.
I'm not having a pop, pod, (scans nice that, eh?), but Sky Poker, & myself, are accused again & again & again by the usual suspects of not caring for the players at the lower levels.
And yet players are repeatedly happy to say they are hopeless, & at the same time admit they cannot beat them.
Go square that equation!
Sorry poddy, but I'm not being party to saying these guys are hopeless, but we cannot beat them, it just sits badly with me I'm afraid.
Really, at whatever level you choose to play, I hope you get the lot.
But "I can't beat 2p-4p but I can beat 10p-20p" makes no rational or logical sense.
morning tikay, at no point did i say i couldnt or havnt been beating them.( made a profit on both tables i played yesterday) . The original question was "is it the place to learn" not poker, as you know i have been playing quite awhile, but the art of cash. having 3people calling you with 4 hearts on the table and 2 of them not having 1 is great, but i am not learning anything. i play golf with 2 friends, 1 plays of off of 3 and the other plays off scratch. do i get beat 90% of the time, yep i sure do but my handicap has come down from 21 to 11. dohhh put it nicely when he said why people play poker. i am not playing to make a living although a slight profit is always nice, i play to improve and to enhance my game, pit my wits as they say. the standard at 2/4 i said was awful (only tables i had played) was not a dig at them or sky, people need to learn how to play somewhere, i was saying it wasnt offering me what i want out of playing poker. phil
I think your both right to an extent, personally i think if your rolled to go in higher eg nl20-30 i dont think it will do you too much harm as long as you know when to drop down when you have to.
another reason i am recommending this as pod1 is a good player so i reckon he would easily be able to adjust and like he says dont really learn much at nl 4. i agree their easily beatable but myself i'd rather play sit n gos/mtt at the mo and when rolled for higher as i have played in the past i will then try to learn cash again
I think all in all their are different views here none wrong, tikay is spot on you need to start from scatch but soo many bad players does sometimes leave you scratching your head and makes it tougher
personally i'd rather play with 5 bad players, also play better with good players which is weird. problem is 5 bad players lucks going to be more of a factor
Thanks for the clarification, & that makes absolute sense.
I agree with much of what you say.
I just feel that in poker, calling 2p-4p players "poor", "awful" "hopeless" etc is just so wrong.
These guys read this Forum, how do you think they must feel to be so described? And YET, those who repeatedly say that Sky Poker & myself "don't care about the low level players" have not said a dicky-bird in their defence! One Member here attacks me again & again on those grounds, but has kept totally schtum in this debate. Go figure.
Amateur footballers, weekend anglers, or Club Golfers, are not described as "awful", but low-limit poker players are. If they were that bad, we'd all sit on their tables all day nicking their money. But we can't, because they are not as bad as almost the whole of poker seem to think.
When we founded APAT, the poker world & his wife mocked it, & the players who played it, and why?, because they played at lower levels. And yet some superb players have emerged via APAT. The same myopic idiots are still mocking APAT, though, because they don't have the brain to think it through, & they want to go round, ahem, "male-hen" waving.
Institutionalised thinking ftw, the tendancy of poker players to be sheep, & unable to think for themselves, is extraordinary.
Good debate Poddy, & I wish you the very best at whatever Level you choose to play. I do agree 100%, if you want to learn to play better, more technically correct poker, then moving up the Levels is the correct way. I'd just prefer we were not quite so scathing about those at the lower levels. After all, they comprise over 90% of the total, so that's most of the poker pyramid. And I don't want to be party to being so rude about 90% of the poker population.
I know what you were trying to say in all this, the joys of using computers, its harder to describe what your trying to say through typing than actually speaking face to face.
Have a go on the higher tables, from experience 8nl is the same as 4nl. Only once you get to 20 and 30nl you get regular players like ozzie/dohhh/ricoramb etc who have a good grasp of the game and IMO all play below their level (Which is not a bad thing).
My advice to you would be what level of ability do you think you are? 50nl? 30nl?10nl? When you decide, play at least 1 level below that. Its better to play a table of players who are worse than you than a table of players that are of the same ability (Why do you think sparce/lolufold/weareontv never play each other.... Only the house wins)
Feel free to send me some hands if you need some help or post them in the clinic, you've sent me hans before and its a compliment that you thought of me when you needed help. I hope the advice I gave you was good and I'm more than happy to help you again if you want.
Small stakes is very beatable by playing a good solid ABC game. Like TK says there is good money to be earnt from those stakes and also it is a good solid grounding to cash poker. ABC poker will probably see you do well upto 50/100nl.
If you can't beat 4nl then I would suggest going back to the drawing board and look at your game in a totally new light.
The strangest thing I find about poker is how people 'complain' about worse players than them. Now it could just be varaince giving you a good seeing too, but if you are a loser over a decent sample size at 4nl then it says a lot more about your game than it does anyone elses.
Small stakes is very beatable by playing a good solid ABC game. Like TK says there is good money to be earnt from those stakes and also it is a good solid grounding to cash poker. ABC poker will probably see you do well upto 50/100nl. If you can't beat 4nl then I would suggest going back to the drawing board and look at your game in a totally new light. The strangest thing I find about poker is how people 'complain' about worse players than them. Now it could just be varaince giving you a good seeing too, but if you are a loser over a decent sample size at 4nl then it says a lot more about your game than it does anyone elses. Posted by scotty77
Short of complaining about how unfair it is that players can sit "away", I agree 100%, it really is THE strangest thing. I've spent more than 10 years listening to that tale & I've yet to figure out what on earth the logic is!
I'm convinced that something called "GroupThink" (google is your friend) is the reason.
thanks charle, i will do that as and when i get in a hole and need some more advice, you helped one **** of a lot in the past and i am sure you will again. scotty, like i said in previous post i was complaining about being beaten at that level, i was winning, i was just saying i wasnt LEARNING ( hence the discussion name!)
Tikay, "The flawed logic exists almost universally in poker, in no other game could it possibly be said that good players cannot beat bad players. I mean, think about it!" Tiger Woods won't miss 5 putts from 3 inches, Messi won't miss 5 goals from 3 yards and horses don't trip up 5 feet from the finishing line 5 races in a row, I'm no Durrr, far from it but yesterday I lost over £1,000 in pots on the river when I was so far in front on the turn it was ridiculous, try grinding that back. Thursday evening I hit 3 sets in 7 hands on one table and lost all 3 pots!! That's poker, you get outdrawn, but maybe if you played cash on the site more you'd know how hard it is to beat the game when the game keeps kicking the **** out of you, its not as simple as bad players can't beat good ones because they do all day long, skill only goes so far, luck is the very reason the fish play. You're the analyst, you're holding JJ on an AJx flop and the fish bets half his stack at you, what you doing folding? No you're shoving he's got QQ and calls because he's a fish and can't fold......... turn a Q, this afternoon on here. Bad players can't beat good ones, you're having a laugh, want any more? Back to the OP point, if you see the flop with AA and 4 others do, you're no favourite against the field, yes you have to thin the field, as I said raise and raise big at 2/4p, get the field to fold and see the flop with one or two opponents. Yes I am well aware that you have to play the low stakes differently, I can beat it. But IMO play at least 10/20 as dohhhhhh suggests or 15/30. Posted by stien
First off, you cant miss a goal.. u can miss a chance, but if u have a goal u have already scored and thus cant miss it.
I think im right in saying you are a 50nl & 100nl player? I mean this in no way offensively, but your post above in no way indicates this.
We all know we get out draws and go through bad patches where we get stung left right and centre! Maybe its like the beach ball goal at sunderland v lpool last year, or when lampard chips the german keeper and the ball is so far over the line its untrue.
These could also be classed as bad beats. IMO its how we deal with the unfortunate circumstances that defines us as 'good players'
U say u lost 1k yest through outdraws ect... u will be well rolled for the games you play so in the long run if you are a winning player and a good player you will win regardless.
It is crazy how people always complain about bad players and always want to play better players. The logic in that is amazing to me! It blows my mind!!!
If you cannot beat the lowest level of a poker game, i wud in no way advise playing higher, and playing with better players. I am in no way suggesting op cant beat these games because i know he can, but start at the bottom and work your way up. It all adds to your experience as a player, and will help you further up the levels as you progress and come accross different situations/players/ect...
If you find bad players, keep it quiet, play them as much and as often as you can!
In Response to Re: is it the place to learn : i'll pass on the donkuments but i'll look you up on the 2/4 tables when i'm drinking, i'll give you a chance. Posted by stien
Stien obv in one hand its very easy for a fish to get lucky (or even over a few hundred hands for that matter). But when you're talking about the long term, over a very large sample size, the better players will always win against the worse players. That's undeniable. In one of your posts you said that the bad players are kept going by the suck outs they get, that is wrong. You might see them get lucky winning a few hands, but over a long period of time the only reason you'll see a continuously bad player still playing is that they are able to reload. Pod, if you can't beat 4NL (where the standard on here is obviously terrible) then you'll have no chance of winning at a higher level. If, however, its that you decide you have the bankroll and ability to start playing cash a bit higher, then just try it and see how you get on imo. Posted by yb
Comments
When you work your way up to 25/50, 50/1 I'll see how well you play but for now shhhhhhhhh.
and fwiw i can play 4nl and win i just choose not to.
now you shhhhhhhhh innit
p.s we are allowed different views around here, i agree with tikay on this one, i dont always agree with him, but on this i do.
And greg u cant beat nl4 u have to play hands and not auto fold, hehe
me you doh and dyl would eat him alive imo:)
Pod, if you can't beat 4NL (where the standard on here is obviously terrible) then you'll have no chance of winning at a higher level. If, however, its that you decide you have the bankroll and ability to start playing cash a bit higher, then just try it and see how you get on imo.
So why do you think that exact logic would not hold good against a regular 2p-4p player?
Do you think you could not beat a 2p-4p regular Heads Up more than 6 times in 10? because if you could not.........it's "next case".
But using your logic, beating them Heads-Up should be easy.
I'm not having a pop, pod, (scans nice that, eh?), but Sky Poker, & myself, are accused again & again & again by the usual suspects of not caring for the players at the lower levels.
And yet players are repeatedly happy to say they are hopeless, & at the same time admit they cannot beat them.
Go square that equation!
Sorry poddy, but I'm not being party to saying these guys are hopeless, but we cannot beat them, it just sits badly with me I'm afraid.
Really, at whatever level you choose to play, I hope you get the lot.
But "I can't beat 2p-4p but I can beat 10p-20p" makes no rational or logical sense.
another reason i am recommending this as pod1 is a good player so i reckon he would easily be able to adjust and like he says dont really learn much at nl 4. i agree their easily beatable but myself i'd rather play sit n gos/mtt at the mo and when rolled for higher as i have played in the past i will then try to learn cash again
I think all in all their are different views here none wrong, tikay is spot on you need to start from scatch but soo many bad players does sometimes leave you scratching your head and makes it tougher
personally i'd rather play with 5 bad players, also play better with good players which is weird. problem is 5 bad players lucks going to be more of a factor
Morning Poddy.
Thanks for the clarification, & that makes absolute sense.
I agree with much of what you say.
I just feel that in poker, calling 2p-4p players "poor", "awful" "hopeless" etc is just so wrong.
These guys read this Forum, how do you think they must feel to be so described? And YET, those who repeatedly say that Sky Poker & myself "don't care about the low level players" have not said a dicky-bird in their defence! One Member here attacks me again & again on those grounds, but has kept totally schtum in this debate. Go figure.
Amateur footballers, weekend anglers, or Club Golfers, are not described as "awful", but low-limit poker players are. If they were that bad, we'd all sit on their tables all day nicking their money. But we can't, because they are not as bad as almost the whole of poker seem to think.
When we founded APAT, the poker world & his wife mocked it, & the players who played it, and why?, because they played at lower levels. And yet some superb players have emerged via APAT. The same myopic idiots are still mocking APAT, though, because they don't have the brain to think it through, & they want to go round, ahem, "male-hen" waving.
Institutionalised thinking ftw, the tendancy of poker players to be sheep, & unable to think for themselves, is extraordinary.
Good debate Poddy, & I wish you the very best at whatever Level you choose to play. I do agree 100%, if you want to learn to play better, more technically correct poker, then moving up the Levels is the correct way. I'd just prefer we were not quite so scathing about those at the lower levels. After all, they comprise over 90% of the total, so that's most of the poker pyramid. And I don't want to be party to being so rude about 90% of the poker population.
Take care now.
I know what you were trying to say in all this, the joys of using computers, its harder to describe what your trying to say through typing than actually speaking face to face.
Have a go on the higher tables, from experience 8nl is the same as 4nl. Only once you get to 20 and 30nl you get regular players like ozzie/dohhh/ricoramb etc who have a good grasp of the game and IMO all play below their level (Which is not a bad thing).
My advice to you would be what level of ability do you think you are? 50nl? 30nl?10nl? When you decide, play at least 1 level below that. Its better to play a table of players who are worse than you than a table of players that are of the same ability (Why do you think sparce/lolufold/weareontv never play each other.... Only the house wins)
Feel free to send me some hands if you need some help or post them in the clinic, you've sent me hans before and its a compliment that you thought of me when you needed help. I hope the advice I gave you was good and I'm more than happy to help you again if you want.
Charlie
If you can't beat 4nl then I would suggest going back to the drawing board and look at your game in a totally new light.
The strangest thing I find about poker is how people 'complain' about worse players than them. Now it could just be varaince giving you a good seeing too, but if you are a loser over a decent sample size at 4nl then it says a lot more about your game than it does anyone elses.
I'm convinced that something called "GroupThink" (google is your friend) is the reason.
First off, you cant miss a goal.. u can miss a chance, but if u have a goal u have already scored and thus cant miss it.
I think im right in saying you are a 50nl & 100nl player? I mean this in no way offensively, but your post above in no way indicates this.
We all know we get out draws and go through bad patches where we get stung left right and centre! Maybe its like the beach ball goal at sunderland v lpool last year, or when lampard chips the german keeper and the ball is so far over the line its untrue.
These could also be classed as bad beats. IMO its how we deal with the unfortunate circumstances that defines us as 'good players'
U say u lost 1k yest through outdraws ect... u will be well rolled for the games you play so in the long run if you are a winning player and a good player you will win regardless.
It is crazy how people always complain about bad players and always want to play better players. The logic in that is amazing to me! It blows my mind!!!
If you cannot beat the lowest level of a poker game, i wud in no way advise playing higher, and playing with better players. I am in no way suggesting op cant beat these games because i know he can, but start at the bottom and work your way up. It all adds to your experience as a player, and will help you further up the levels as you progress and come accross different situations/players/ect...
If you find bad players, keep it quiet, play them as much and as often as you can!