moving up
 

ive been playing 4$-8$ limit at foxwoods now for about 2 years.during that time ive managed to build a modest bankroll, with one very good session in wich i doubled my bankroll a few weeks ago, wich brings me to last week.during 2 24 hour sessions, i lost it all.on tables where i should have done well[3 or 4 LPP'S and 1 or 2 maniacs], time and time again i was sucked out after being ahead after the flop. i cant get into every hand specifically,but i had 4 boats cracked[2 by quads]1 nut flush cracked by a sr8flush, and numerous trips broken by runner runner or miracle rivers, while my strong drawing hands never got there time after time.the only hands i was able to win were against the better players on the tables,while giving it back to the tourists.ive been a student of this game now for about 4 years, studyingbooks from sklansky, malmouth, krieger etc. as well as this site and its excellent forums. while i believei am still an intermediate player, i also believe ive aquired enough skill to beat these low level games, yet my bankroll tells another story.evaluating my play on those last 2 sessions,the only thing i can come up with is that maybe i should try playing higher limits[10$-20$, 20$- 40$] before giving up entirly.can anyone give me some advice on my problem?

Re: moving up
 

your bankroll wasnt big enough to play 4/8 if you could lose it all in 48 hours

Re: moving up
 

200 bb's

Re: moving up
 

Hey Fuzz welcome to the forum. I play the FW 4/8 game also.

Anywho here is my opinion, take it for what it is worth.

First I think playing for 24 hours straight is probably not a good idea. How well can you concentrate after that much time? Are you really able to continue to make correct decisions, even at the lower stakes? I know for me after about 10 or 12 hours I get a little loopy and start playing looser, chasing crap etc.

Second I usually only bring 10% at most, of my bankroll to a session. If I lose this I go home.

Best of luck and see you at the 'woods,
Mygtar

Re: moving up
 

thank you mygtar. have you tried higher limits at fw's. if so, how different is it from the lower limits?

Re: moving up
 

I have not, but this thread may be of help.

Best of luck,
Mygtar

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
200 bb's

[/ QUOTE ]
So if I take a shot at a recap:
Over 2 years, you built up an $800 bankroll.
A couple weeks ago you doubled it to $1600.
A week ago you lost it all.
Now you wonder if you should be playing $20/40.

It sounds to me like you've been seriously under-bankrolled all along and only needed a bout of bad luck to break you. You're lucky you went 2 years without having that bout.

In order to safely play 20/40 you need (at least) three things:
1) a minimum bankroll of $12K (300BBs)
2) a basic understanding of bankroll management
3) the ability to beat better players, on average, than those that play 4/8.

It doesn't appear as though you have any of those 3 requisites.

Re: moving up
 

thank you seaeagle. you suggest i stay in 4-8 with larger bankroll.thats seems to be what everyone is suggesting

Re: moving up
 

by the way, how often should one expect these bad luck outings with a limited bankroll?

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
by the way, how often should one expect these bad luck outings with a limited bankroll?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the same frequency as you would have with an infinite bankroll.

Re: moving up
 

stupid question. i guess i should learn to read people better so i can muck full houses and nut flushes when i know their beat.

Re: moving up
 

Hey man relax, it can happen to all of us. I'm steaming right now having just lost 40 big bets in my 5-10 game. However I have another 360 at home to fall back on. These swings happen, which is why you need to have a 400 BB bankroll at least if you wanna play this game seriously. Forget about 20-40 or even 10-20 until you have 400 big bets at those levels.
You can be the best player in the world but if you can't manage your bankroll properly you WILL go bust.

Re: moving up
 

my reasoning for moving up in limits is that it seems that i win smaller pots against better players and lose bigger pots against weak players.i truly believe if i played against better players during my last break session,although i probably would have had a losing session,i would not have gone broke, maybe even won a little.im i wrong for thinking this?

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
stupid question. i guess i should learn to read people better so i can muck full houses and nut flushes when i know their beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It was a stupid question. This is a stupid thread. It belongs here.

Re: moving up
 

thanks argy

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
my reasoning for moving up in limits is that it seems that i win smaller pots against better players and lose bigger pots against weak players.i truly believe if i played against better players during my last break session,although i probably would have had a losing session,i would not have gone broke, maybe even won a little.im i wrong for thinking this?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's your money. Just send Hobbs a PM before you take a shot at the 20 game.

Re: moving up
 

Hey just out of curiousity (I think all that needs to be said here has been) where is foxwoods? I assume we're talking USA but where in USA, I hear a lot of references to it.

Re: moving up
 

what do you suggest dave?

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hey just out of curiousity (I think all that needs to be said here has been) where is foxwoods? I assume we're talking USA but where in USA, I hear a lot of references to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Connecticut, between Boston and New York.

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
what do you suggest dave?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read, then ask questions. Not go broke, then ask questions.

Re: moving up
 

im not posting here to be badgered. i welcome critisism, and i realize my game needs improvement, thats why im here. but is the belittling really necessary?if your going to reply negetivly, include some suggestions dave.

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
im not posting here to be badgered. i welcome critisism, and i realize my game needs improvement, thats why im here. but is the belittling really necessary?if your going to reply negetivly, include some suggestions dave.

[/ QUOTE ]

You had a bad night but, given the questions you're asking and the understanding those questions imply, it's very likely you're not a particularly good player. I'm not being negative. You need a splash of cold water in your face. You're posting because you want someone to fix your game. No one is going to do that. If you want me to help you you should read anything I've posted in Small Stakes over the past 3 years.

Re: moving up
 

thank you dave. why wasnt that your first reply. i can handle that.

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
thank you dave. why wasnt that your first reply. i can handle that.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you or anyone else who's new makes a first post that suggests you've lurked for a while or are serious about improving, everyone will show you some respect. If your first post is a thinly veiled bad beat post with little understanding about poker or variance or bankroll management, you'll get something else.

Your first post, in a nutshell, was, "I had a bad night at Foxwoods. I went broke. Should I move up?" What people think when they read that is, "I'm not a winning player. I played 4/8. Bad beats. Should I play 10/20?"

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
stupid question. i guess i should learn to read people better so i can muck full houses and nut flushes when i know their beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or since it is limit you could just call when the raising gets crazy. Is there not cap raising on the river?

You should have $2,400 playing 4/8 LHE. You should not be playing 24 hours sessions no matter who you are.

Also, and I guess lastly, it seems you won 100 BB in one session and you are not suprised at this, however, you lost 200 BB in one session and you are surprised? I think re-reading some of the books, specifically the sections on variance and gambling philosophy may be helpful.

Once again, it seems that live games are softer than even lower stakes interet games. Is it worth moving?

Re: moving up
 

ive studied low limit stakes books by skansky and miller and i try to bring thier theories to the table, but more often than not they backfire against stupid players while i tend to do better against better opponants.can you give any reason for this?

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
but more often than not they backfire against stupid players while i tend to do better against better opponants.can you give any reason for this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the reason is you don't understand the ideas presented in the book, specifically from what I read, variance and gambling philosophy but if you do not understand those I am making an assumption that you do not understand some of the more complicated plays, theories, and strategies in this book.

My suggestion is to open an account at absolute, FTP, stars, or another site that allows US players. Play .50/1 or 1/2 for an hour or two (not 24) until you learn the methods that are presented in SSHE. EDIT: Or simply move down at foxwoods but you will get more "practice" hands in online and be able to think about and reflect on your hands through hand histories online. The go back to live.

A young man playing last night BERATED a player when he caught an open ended straight draw on the river out of the small blind. The berater had made a pair of Js or Qs on the flop with a low kicker. I immediatley was able to mark the berater as someone who did not understand the game fully. It seems to me that you would call this person "stupid" for catching his 8 outs and defending his small blind.

To be sure, some of your losses are very unlucky but most of us here have lost to quads or better full houses or straight flushes over flushes. It should not flush your entire roll.

Good luck and have fun!

Re: moving up
 

i have accounts on about 7 or 8 major sites. ive been playing lowlimit online poker much longer than live.i understand lowlimit theories such as controlling pot odds preflop to induce mistakes by weaker players playing any 2 cards too far and waiting for the turn to show aggression. ive also become pretty good at isolating weak players with strong starting hands.even using weak players when in a hand with good players. i do not play weak kickers and do not berate players for aggressivly playing good draws. theres a reason why poor players are sucking out on me with 1 or 2 outers and at the frequency its been happening lately, i cannot blame it on luck. there has to be other ways i can play against weakies to prevent this. thats why i posted this thread.

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
waiting for the turn to show aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

HUGE leak IMO at SSLHE...this could be a major reason your getting "sucked out" and you are not winning as big of pots as you should or not taking your fair share of pots. Again, seems like you are missing some basic concepts. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Re: moving up
 

Not at all. I see people getting tricky on the flop and waititng til the turn to start betting and they miss out on heaps of value.
Lets put it this way, if you bet (or raise) on the flop, average players will call you with any pair (5 outs at best) 2 overcards (6 at best) some kind of werd straight or flush backdoor draw (1.5 outs). Bad players seem to call with anything at all. However even the worst, most attrocious players know to fold the turn, unless they have something that has a chance of winning. Therefore by not betting the flop you are usually leaving a lot of money on the table.

Perhaps you should start betting for value a little more in the 4-8 donkfests.

Re: moving up
 

page 170 and 171 ''holdem poker for advanced players''instead of raising on the flop, you should often call,then go for the raise on 4th street.because that raise will knock people out. the raise on the flop wont''-david sklansky.[playing in loose games.]

Re: moving up
 

Fair enough. I have to admit almost all of my knowledge of the game comes from extensive practice and even more extensive trawling through the posts here. All I am saying is that in the horrible donkfest of a 5-10 game that I play at you will be leaving money at the table by not making people pay on the FLOP with their rubbish cards that they simply won't pay for on the TURN.

I haven't read it but perhaps Sklansky's book is referring to situations where the players have a pretty good idea of how to play. Unless Foxwoods 4-8 is very different to our 5-10, I'd take this advice with a grain of salt.

Or am I wrong with this?

Re: moving up
 

Who cares? The reason fuzz doesn't have a bankroll probably has very little to do with whether he raises his big hands on the flop or the turn - except that it's a warning sign that he might not know how to adjust his game to his opponents.

Fuzz, my advice is to post some hands here. Regardless of where you play, the smaller the stakes, the easier the game. Individual pots tend to get smaller as the stakes go up, so smaller stakes put a premium on maximizing pot sizes with your big hands whereas larger stakes put a premium on winning smaller pots and therefore playing more deceptively. However, you need both sets of skills to get the best win rate no matter where you play.

Don't post when your FH gets beat by quads, that's just bad luck. But if you played for 2 years and only broke even, there must be a lot of hands you play where you wonder if you played them right. Post some.

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
my reasoning for moving up in limits is that it seems that i win smaller pots against better players and lose bigger pots against weak players.i truly believe if i played against better players during my last break session,although i probably would have had a losing session,i would not have gone broke, maybe even won a little.im i wrong for thinking this?

[/ QUOTE ]

The italicized portion of your post is exactly what will happen any time you are up against opponents who are playing better than you. This will happen more, not less, often when you are playing at higher limits, against opponents who are (presumably) even better. Erego, if you were playing at a higher limit game and had the exact same run of cards, you would have gone busto sooner, not later.

You ran into some very tough luck hands, apparently--boats losing to four of a kinds, an ace high flush losing a straight flush, etc. How many raises did you put in after you were beat in those hands? Were the opponents who put in those extra raises generally passive? Did either of those full house vs. quads hands happen when there were 3 of a kind on the board?

Don't focus on the beats, or on how statistically unlikely they were to occur. Instead, focus on how you could have saved a bet or two when they did occur. Sometimes that's just not possible, and you are destined to lose the maximum number of bets in those pots. Most times, especially in a live game where you should have reasonably good reads on your opponents, it is possible.

Oh, and play with an appropriate bankroll. 200 BBs is not enough to guard against normal variance, even if you have next to no major holes in your game. The 24 hour sessions are also a bad idea.

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
theres a reason why poor players are sucking out on me with 1 or 2 outers and at the frequency its been happening lately, i cannot blame it on luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you can. In a game I was beating for 6BB/100 over 20k hands (that's equvalent to over 600 hours in a live game) I went on a downswing of 200BB. I was playing the exact same game against the exact same opponents, I wasn't tilting or changin my style. It happens.

Welcome to variance.

[ QUOTE ]
there has to be other ways i can play against weakies to prevent this. thats why i posted this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. You cannot prevent your boat getting sucked out on. You can fix the obvious leaks in your game and become a winning player.

I'm at work, but I will try to compose a nice long response for you tonight addressing you situation. But let me just say now that most of the posters in this thread are giving you better than you deserve with the combination of ignorance and attitude you came here with. Generally one or the other can be tolerated, but with both its lucky you got anythign but sarcastic smart-arse remaks.

Re: moving up
 

thanks for everyones contributions to this thread.with the exception of daver and his belittling comments, ive gotten excellent feedback. this is an awsome forum.

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my reasoning for moving up in limits is that it seems that i win smaller pots against better players and lose bigger pots against weak players.i truly believe if i played against better players during my last break session,although i probably would have had a losing session,i would not have gone broke, maybe even won a little.im i wrong for thinking this?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's your money. Just send Hobbs a PM before you take a shot at the 20 game.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: moving up
 

ignorance, yes, i will admit.i dont see how any of my questions were arrogant.i stated earlier in this thread that i was an intermediate player looking to improve my game.i decided to post here because ive been reading these forums for a while now and i think most of the advice given here is outstanding.im not posting here to dazzle anyone on my poker genius. i want to learn, so, if my questions seem to irratate more knowledgable players here, i apologize.most of the books i study dont address '' bankroll management'' or '' variance'', but im going to find some that do.

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my reasoning for moving up in limits is that it seems that i win smaller pots against better players and lose bigger pots against weak players.i truly believe if i played against better players during my last break session,although i probably would have had a losing session,i would not have gone broke, maybe even won a little.im i wrong for thinking this?

[/ QUOTE ]

The italicized portion of your post is exactly what will happen any time you are up against opponents who are playing better than you. This will happen more, not less, often when you are playing at higher limits, against opponents who are (presumably) even better. Erego, if you were playing at a higher limit game and had the exact same run of cards, you would have gone busto sooner, not later.

You ran into some very tough luck hands, apparently--boats losing to four of a kinds, an ace high flush losing a straight flush, etc. How many raises did you put in after you were beat in those hands? Were the opponents who put in those extra raises generally passive? Did either of those full house vs. quads hands happen when there were 3 of a kind on the board?

Don't focus on the beats, or on how statistically unlikely they were to occur. Instead, focus on how you could have saved a bet or two when they did occur. Sometimes that's just not possible, and you are destined to lose the maximum number of bets in those pots. Most times, especially in a live game where you should have reasonably good reads on your opponents, it is possible.

Oh, and play with an appropriate bankroll. 200 BBs is not enough to guard against normal variance, even if you have next to no major holes in your game. The 24 hour sessions are also a bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

24 hour sessions are not a bad idea. In fact, i think they're a great idea. The longer you play the more you minimize variance. A while back i put in around 1k hours over the period of 4 months or so. I also put in around 6 sesssions all of which were 24 hours or longer. I came out a loser zero of those times. There would be points in the day where I would lose over and over again to two outters or runner runner flushes/straights. I remember one 24 hour sessoin where this old gentlemen hit a 2 outter against me 3 pots in a row. I couldn't believe his luck. Finally, variance worked itself out. He stopped hitting his 2 outters and eventually lost everything in front of him and in his wallet. My point in this litte story is that variance WILL work itself out. People's incredible luck never lasts forever. At the end of the 4 months i had a horrible streak of luck; I had 14 losing sessions in a row whereas I never had more than 3 in a row in over 4 months. This was playing 3/6 and 4/8 kill btw (mostly 3/6 though). My bankroll was about $2500 (more than double yours in terms of BB). Despite losing that $2500, I was still up about $3000 in that 4 month period.

Re: moving up
 

[ QUOTE ]
page 170 and 171 ''holdem poker for advanced players''instead of raising on the flop, you should often call,then go for the raise on 4th street.because that raise will knock people out. the raise on the flop wont''-david sklansky.[playing in loose games.]

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2+2 books make people money in two ways. The first way is in teaching people how to play better, and the second way is that it causes people who don't read carefully and critically to play badly. That quote is for one specific scenario. Big pot, likely better to your right. You're playing with people that are frequently calling 2 bets on the flop but will fold to 2 big bets on the turn. You have a strong, but not monster hand.

I would strongly suggest putting down Hole'Em Poker for Advanced Players and reading Small Stakes Hold'em a bunch of times. Whenever I take the bus to AC to play I bring Small Stakes Hold'em and read it for at least 45-60 minutes because I forget tons of crap thats in there. I've also misunderstood parts of it (and still do misunderstand parts I'm sure), and when I re-read it I get better.