Learn Texas Holdem

Top 3 Beginner Rooms

• $10 bonus at Colt Poker Free $10
• $10 bonus at Cake Poker Free $10
• $400 bonus at Minted Poker

Let me provide a little set up to my theory. I started playing about a year ago, and recently have had a series of realizations and paradigm shifts every month or two, with each one netting me more consistent earnings.

After my last realization I went on a tear playing $1-$2 No Limit on the Internet. I played 16 sessions in a row in which I was buying in with $200 each time and making between $150-$300 profit each game. Each session would last between 3-8 hours, and I would usually end it on the hand that put my earnings above the $200 mark for the day. For example, if I had worked my stack up to $250, and then doubled through another big stack to $500, I would think "$300 is pretty good for 5 hours, I'm quitting now". My reasoning was that I was getting a continued psychological boost from always ending up a winner, making more money per hour than my day job.

The way I played during this streak was very simple. In essense, I would make my money on trips, straights, full houses and flushes. I played very conservatively in hands that were somwhat contentious (i.e the hands that you think you may be ahead in, but you're not sure. I would largely fold top pair with Ace kicker, or hands of similar strength, to an opponent who was going nuts betting more than the pot. Similarly, I would fold hands like bottom two pair to an all in bet from a player who wasn't a total fish. And in the last example there, I'm certainly not talking about when the board shows three to the flush and the texture of the hand inferred that the all in player was drawing to it. I'm talking about folding when things were not so clear cut, rationalizing that sure, I may win and make a few hundred more dollars, but I could easily be calling off $200 myself, trapped against somebody with trips or a higher two pair.

While I was playing conservatively by my normal standards, I was still quite aggressive with initiative. In late position I would always raise to $8 (remember, it's a $1-$2 game) if I had AK AQ, any pocket pair, any suited connector (probably not 23, 34 or 45). When the flop came out if I was only against 1 or 2 players, I'd bet the pot or half the pot about 80% of the time when everybody checked around to me and I was the last to act. Often, as you know, you win the money that way, and if people called or check raised I was basicly done with the hand - I'd check and fold the rest of the way through unless I improved. I'd pretty much always play a suited Ace, not heads up against an aggressive pre flop bet, but in most other cases, looking to be in family pots and hit a flush. A move I really like is betting this hand when you're one card away from hitting your flush after the flop in multiway pots. I'd catch people drawing to a smaller flush and then bust them when they hit, never expecting that I was playing my draw strong. Still though, I would be very wary of small flushes myself, never even thinking of raising my Jack high flush, for example, when I'm bet into hard on the river, for fear that my flush MAY be beat.

In short, I'd basicly fluctuate in chips by only a small amount each session until I'd finally double or triple my money and quit for the day. I'd have one to two huge hands a session that would make up my winnings. Maybe I'd raise with a small pocket pair like 55, get a caller from a big Ace and bust him when the flop came back 5 A K. Maybe I'd play a draw strong in a family pot and bust somebodies smaller flush when we both made our hands on the river. Maybe I'd be holding KQ in a 4 person pot with a board of 2 8 9 10 J, and go all in hopin somebody had the Q only and would be stupid enough to call $200 into a $20 pot in that circumstance. The point is, I'd pretty much only win big in a few different ways.

Well, since then I've suffered a slide. I had a lot of big hopes of living the good life, as I reasoned I'd figured out how to beat the game I played in with amazing consistency (3K extra spending money in three weeks is a lot for me). But a funny thing happened in the last two weeks. I'm down $1000 in that period, and I think I know why. My games changed during this period. I'm a lot more aggressive and playing in hands that are closer, that I may or may not be ahead in. I wouldn't be doing this, but I absolutely can not hit any good hands. My pocket pairs that I'm raising with pre flop are NOT hitting, my flushes that I'm playing strong are NOT hitting, and I would say the amount of premium pre flop hands I'm getting is down too. As a result, I'm geting more aggressive, because I feel pressure to win money each time I play like I have been. I feel like I'm better than most players I sit with at my limit, but I'll consistently know I have the better hand, bet more than the pot, get called by a huge dog, and recently, the dog always ends up making a big hand on the turn or river. The point is though, that these are little battles that I normally would not bother getting involved in, under my old mind set, knowing that I could easily get stuck playing a big pot with a bad player with too much luck factoring into the outcome.

So back to my initial statement, my claim of knowing the secret to poker. Is the way I was playing during my recent winning streak potentially a great way to play $1-$2 cash games? Is it profitable and safe, insuring that you'll almost always win or at least break even? I think so. However, catching such a streak of cold cards had made me wonder if it's highly unlikely that I will get one of my "magic situations" with consistency.

These situations, like hitting trips, for example, made up the bulk of my winnings during my streak, and without them, in my subsequent slide, the only way to try to make money was playing riskier hands and bluffing more. I should reiterate here, that I didn't make money that way during my slide, I lost $1000. So are these situations really that hard to come by? Is it common to go through a few weeks without really getting any? Do I need to keep playing like I did when I was winning and let the cards dictate my results? I think so, and I'd love your input.

And lastly, if you could also offer your opinon on one other thing. Lets say that I can make $2500 per month playing $1-$2 limit about 30 hours per week using my little method. I think that's doable, if I'm patient and ride out the cold streaks without losing my head, and my cash. The problem is that that's not enough money for me, as my main goal is to be stinking filthy rich. I'm talking about $100,000 per year rich, if not more - that's definately rich to a poor sap like me. So logically, if I would not augment my play too much and I'd be letting the cards dictate my winnings, the only thing I could augment would be the limit. But if I play in bigger games will that style work? A lot of my winnings are based on bad players calling big raises when I have the nuts. Will you see that many bad players at the big tables?

Help!

Answer:

I like the way you are thinking. Some of the key points you mentioned here are ones that I suggest player's use to beat low limit no limit holdem games. Here are some things I agree with:

1. Don't get married to one pair in NL holdem -- meaning you shouldn't play a big pot for one pair, most of the time. The reason for this is, not only because it is risky, but also because if you are up against worse players, there are easier ways to beat them. In poker you look for the shortest and easiest path from point A to point B. That isn't to say that you are only going to bet the nuts, it just means that you'll pass a few more spots and wait for a better opportunity -- especially against weak opponents who provide so many of those opportunities.

2. I like the set play and also what you mentioned about when you do have a big hand, you try to think about what your opponent might have and then milk it for all its worth. One thing I want to say about this though, is that it is true of all hands, not just good hands. If you think you have the winner, you bet in such a way that you will extract the most from your opponent. The problem is that betting too much doesn't always serve that goal. This is where you have to be a little more flexible. You think about what your opponent might have and what he might call with. And if he does call you, how much would he be willing to pay you off. You try to price your opponent in. Say you know you have the nuts but your opponent doesn't have much. This is the time to think about how much you can get from him, not going all-in.

3. I also like the fact that you are mixing up your play some, so when the opponent's are in a hand with you, they can't pinpoint what you have.

4. Lastly, I like the fact that you are clocking wins and leaving. There are two schools of thought regarding session length. One school -- the 2+2 publishing group -- purports that there is no real end between sessions, it is just one long session, so there is no reason to stop playing when you are ahead or down. The second side thinks that there are other factors besides just time involved in winning. Winning isn't just an hourly rate function. I agree with the later. Like you said, I think there are advantages to playing and winning some and then leaving. I find this to help my game because it keeps me fresh and also confident. Winning breeds winning. Barry Greenstein has another take on things in that he leaves when he is down some, for whatever reason: not playing well, cold cards, etc. His idea is that it is better to leave when you are down some so you don't end up playing longer when you are in a losing state. Likewise, when he is running well or playing well, he pulls marathon sessions. I think there is a lot of logic in that because I know from experience my longest sessions are those in which I'm losing. I think the bottom line though is to know yourself. If the game is good and you are honestly playing well, then stay, regardless of your ups or downs. The problem is that most people can't think objectively when they are losing. I know after I've lost X amount relative to the big blind, I'm in trouble. At that point I am very unlikely to bring it back, so its best I just call it a day.

Now, I said above that winning breeds winning, success breeds success. That is true to a point. Just like anything else, you can be over confident which boils over into either too loose or too aggressive play. When the deck is hitting you and you've won a lot recently, the game feels dangerously easy. When those cards stop coming, if you aren't careful, you can lose everything back. Is this the problem in your case? Maybe, maybe not. The first question you should ask yourself is: "Am I implementing my previous strategy?" You may think you are playing the same way you were before, but there's a good chance you aren't. So instead of reconsidering everything, you may just need to get back in tune with what you were doing before. I know this is something everyone battles with. Playing winning poker day-after-day isn't easy, even if you know all the ins and outs because knowing how to play is different than actually doing it. To figure out if you really are playing badly or if you are just getting a bad run of cards, you need some objective measure. I would suggest you make notes after each hand that you win or lose and then look over it at the end of your session. That may be an eye opener. In the heat of the moment, it is very easy to rationalize a play and then your selective memory takes care of the rest.

The second thing I wanted to mention has to do with "trying to win." There is a difference between playing your cards the best you can and trying to win. Trying to win has to do with going uphill to much (taking the worst hand against a better one), playing too many cards, bluffing too much and making other fancy plays to try and get to your goal. Above I listed the two schools of thoughts for session length, well the one I don't side with is better when it comes to this. The problem when you go in and attempt to win X amount of money is that you end up working for it instead of letting the cards do the talking. You said something above to the affect of you don't want to be at the whim of the cards. But that is poker. Remember, when you win all that money, you are showing down the best hand each time. I doubt that much of your 3k was made from purely bluffing. And remember that the best way to beat bad players is to have the best hand, not get fancy. The next tip I would give you is to be ok with losing days. Some days are going to be so cold that you may not even win a pot. Will that be a day that you give back another three days winnings? Or will it be a day that you end up losing just a little? See I don't think you are playing badly, you just need to deal with the cold cards better. How many times will you raise with AK or AQ and miss the flop before you get frustrated and make a bad play? Sharpen that up some and you'll do better.

And to answer your question about the $100k mark and this style of play, yes and no. First of all, there are bad players and bad plays at all levels of poker. Generally speaking, the bigger game you play in, the tougher the game will be, but that doesn't mean you can't beat it. For the most part, this style of play would work. I don't know everything you are doing, like how much you are calling other player's raises, how you play middle hands, etc. What may be a surprise though is that you'll actually have an easier time getting action at a big game versus a small game. There will be fewer players calling, but those who do will generally be less likely to fold weaker hands to you if they suspect they may be good. You may have to be a little tighter in some spots, but the majority of what works there will work at the bigger game. A set is a set, AA is AA, and the nuts are the nuts. To beat the bigger games, you'll just need to be able to play the marginal hands better -- folding when you aren't and of course making a stand and calling when you are. That's the reason the game is tougher, because more of the game play happens with weaker hands.

Your rating:

User Rating: (2 Votes)

• Share on Facebook
• Print
• Digg
• Del.icio.us