Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

Hi Everyone,
I've been reading the "Books and Publications" section as of late and am debating what to study next. As a result I find myself thinking about where to focus.

So, since my goal is to get good enough to go pro in as short a time period as possible, what format does everyone think is best to do this with. Both in Online and B&M venues?

Is it Cash Ring Games? 6-Max Cash Ring? SNGs? Multitable Tournaments? Limit, No Limit? Etc.?

What's the fastest way to get the most profitable?

I find I'm not really sure the answer to this.

What does everyone else say?

Any current pro's have an opinion?

Also, if any 2+2 authors are reading, what's your take?

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

SNG's = limited liability - possible to make a living
MTT's = very hard way to make money without sponsorship
Cash limit = "bread and butter" poker i.e., big game at Bellagio with all the top Pros playing $4k - $8k -- like work, a long hard grind
Cash PL/NL 9/10 handed = bigger bankroll swings and very profitable if you can keep a cool head and play a little more conservatively
Cash PL/NL 5/6 handed = more hands per hour = even greater profitability - need to be more aggressive and bluff more
Short handed PL/NL is probably the hardest variant here, but the most profitable. To play in these games successfully, you need to be able to LOSE to win big. If you're afraid to put all your money in the pot with a "stone cold bluff", then forget these games.
Cheers

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

And by the way, playing online is far superior to playing B & M, because you can play 24 hours a day, have an enormous choice of games, and an ocean of fish. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you're afraid to put all your money in the pot with a "stone cold bluff", then forget these games

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely. Unless you are talking about at 5knl and up.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're afraid to put all your money in the pot with a "stone cold bluff", then forget these games

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely. Unless you are talking about at 5knl and up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here. You don't make money at lower stakes trying to bluff players who never fold anyways. You make money by getting your good hands paid off by these same players who never fold.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

There is MUCH more varience in limit holdem than PL/NL.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

It's good to get to know different formats (SNG's, MTT's, full ring, shorthanded), but my path seemed to ultimately land me at Short Handed NL. Once you know what you're doing, multi-table (I do 2-4) and you'll be at hundreds of hands per hour...10x what you'd see in a live game. You'd have to play MUCH higher stakes in a live game to be able to approach what you can make multitabling shorthanded games on the net.

That being said, at comparable stakes, players seem to be MUCH better online. Still definately beatable, but you'll have to pay attention and be able to make moves (200nl and up). Live 200nl (and ESPECIALLY 100nl) will often be boring because the best strategy is to just sit around and wait for good cards.

I haven't played a lot of full ring nl games, so I can't vouch for their level of profitability...but short handed is MUCH more exciting and engaging IMO.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is MUCH more varience in limit holdem than PL/NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that so many people don't understand this is simply astounding.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

I've observed that online 2/4 games are often more challenging than the local 12/24 is. While 4-to-6-tabling 2/4 should show less variance and require less bankroll, IMO it's more stress and aggravation than playing one game at a time against a bucket of fish.

[Note that the 12/24 isn't always this good, nor are online 2/4 games always that bad.]

At the same limit the average online player seems to be much better than the average live player. I am not sure of the reason, I just have observed it to be true.

Further, you are less likely to get into legal trouble playing in a B&M joint.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is MUCH more varience in limit holdem than PL/NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is MUCH more varience in limit holdem than PL/NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto.

[/ QUOTE ]

Negative. A large swing in limit might be 300 bb. That is what 6 buy ins at NL. 6 buy ins is not considered a large swing in NL.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

Whoa, whats the rush. Everyone is always in a hurry to "go pro". Its good that you are asking these questions, but at the same time it shows your inexperience. Studying is great, but not the cure all. What works for some may not work for you. Study and play, play play. Find what works for you and take your time.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is MUCH more varience in limit holdem than PL/NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that so many people don't understand this is simply astounding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone explain this for me? I would have thought variance would be smaller at limit because...well, there's limits.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

"Negative. A large swing in limit might be 300 bb. That is what 6 buy ins at NL. 6 buy ins is not considered a large swing in NL. "

I was just going to call you an idiot and move on, but Let's examine your logic:

A 300 BB swing in limit is 6 buy-in as NL, which is not a big deal.

In 1/2 Limit that is a $600 swing. In NL, a $600 swing that is 6 buy-ins would be a $100 buy-in game, meaning .5/1 Blinds (usually) .5/1 NL is a higher-stakes game than 1/2 Limit. Do you see why you're wrong?

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

I was just going to call you an idiot and move on, but Let's examine your logic:

A 300 BB swing in limit is 6 buy-in as NL, which is not a big deal.

In 1/2 Limit that is a $600 swing. In NL, a $600 swing that is 6 buy-ins would be a $100 buy-in game, meaning .5/1 Blinds (usually) .5/1 NL is a higher-stakes game than 1/2 Limit. Do you see why you're wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have not proved anything. Variance is still greater at no limit.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

What a f*cking retard you are. Did you come to this site to learn something or just act like a moron?

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
What a f*cking retard you are. Did you come to this site to learn something or just act like a moron?

[/ QUOTE ]

here's the thing, he may act like a moron, and be unable to logically defend his statement, but in today's online NL games, from many different great players' perspectives, the variance compared to limit is greater. period.

the reason is because of the large all in bets/bluffs/calls that are now commonplace in that area, combined with the lack of tells other than betting patterns and speeds online (where good pros can seriously reduce variance by eliminating large calls or winning pots that wouldn't have been theirs). and the frequency therein. what is a good stdev in bb/100 hands at limit? i know "good" is like 15-16 and excellent is below that.

what about NL in PTBB/100 hands?? its like more than double that, like 35-45 from what i know. now i may be wrong here and you can correct me if i am but from what i understand, PTBB is 2xthe big blind. so if you play 20/40 limit you suffer 40*15-16 swings per hundred hands on average. at NL, you suffer 40*35-45 at 10/20 blinds.

clearly, if my understanding of poker tracker estimations of the variance in the above games is correct, variance is now way larger in no limit than in limit.

Barron

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Negative. A large swing in limit might be 300 bb. That is what 6 buy ins at NL. 6 buy ins is not considered a large swing in NL. "

I was just going to call you an idiot and move on, but Let's examine your logic:

A 300 BB swing in limit is 6 buy-in as NL, which is not a big deal.

In 1/2 Limit that is a $600 swing. In NL, a $600 swing that is 6 buy-ins would be a $100 buy-in game, meaning .5/1 Blinds (usually) .5/1 NL is a higher-stakes game than 1/2 Limit. Do you see why you're wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

.5/1 NL has the same blinds as 1/2 limit so they are the same stakes. What ever game requires more of a bankroll has more variance. I find you rude and if you clearly think I am wrong, show me.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

I've always been under the impression that when people said that NL has lower variance than limit, what they really meant was that for stakes that will produce approximately the same winrate, NL will have the lower variance. In other words, even though .5/1NL has the same blinds as 1/2 limit, they are not considered to be "equivalent" because a good NL player will be able to win much more at .5/1NL than a good limit player will at 1/2 limit. The rough equivalent to 1/2 limit might be .25/.5NL, for instance. In that case, it's more fair to compare the variance of 1/2 limit to the variance of .25/.5NL. I don't play NL, so I am not sure that this is accurate, but that's what I've taken out of the variance comparisons. Is this correct, Tony?

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Negative. A large swing in limit might be 300 bb. That is what 6 buy ins at NL. 6 buy ins is not considered a large swing in NL. "

I was just going to call you an idiot and move on, but Let's examine your logic:

A 300 BB swing in limit is 6 buy-in as NL, which is not a big deal.

In 1/2 Limit that is a $600 swing. In NL, a $600 swing that is 6 buy-ins would be a $100 buy-in game, meaning .5/1 Blinds (usually) .5/1 NL is a higher-stakes game than 1/2 Limit. Do you see why you're wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

.5/1 NL has the same blinds as 1/2 limit so they are the same stakes. What ever game requires more of a bankroll has more variance. I find you rude and if you clearly think I am wrong, show me.

[/ QUOTE ]

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME STAKES! (first time I have used caps in a year [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) You are saying that 3 apples are the same as 3 oranges. What about stud which does not have blinds? Is that comparable to 0/0 HE?

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

being pro takes a lot of forms, u can be a pro like you see on tv play big tourneys look into others souls play live for high stakes, or u can be a bonus whoreing rakebacker, either way u want to go. Their is no fast way to going pro, the game takes time to learn and being able to play winning poker at limits that can support a comfortable lifestyle takes work. IMHO learning to play 6max limit, takeing into account the best bonuses and rakebacks offered is going to be the fastest way to reach a stable income playing since these things are more readily available online, id say short handed online play is the best way to reach "pro" status. If your more conserned about being able to make a living on winrate alone, spend time playing the best players you can live, take the time to discuss hands with those that are willing, because you won't always have the same chance to do so online.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

It's not the BB but # of hands that people are talking about. A winning NL player simply can't play 25k+ hands a be down money like a limit player can.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

Did Mason just post exactly the opposite?

I have to admit to being confused on this point.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is MUCH more varience in limit holdem than PL/NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that so many people don't understand this is simply astounding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

Hi Banks2334,
Yes you could say I'm inexperienced at the various formats. When I began playing Limit was about all that was spread in casinos, with some low limit, spread limits.

Yes, you might say I'm in a rush. Fed up with Corp. USA. I want out. Now! But like most working class folks, the usual dilemma. If you have time, you probably don't have cash flow. If you have cash flow you probably don't have any time.

Well, I have a small amount of both at the moment. So it would be great if I never had to go back to the cubible farm. And I've felt this way for about 15 years now. So my motivations stem not from WPT etc. as I started playing poker before it existed. At a point when poker was thought to be dying by some.

The attributes of "no inventory, no bosses, no subordinates, no schedules, can be done online" appeals to me. The variation does not, of course.

In any event, anything with those attributes is a candidate in my mind.

Were I richer I'd be looking at options trading.

In any event, the motiviations run much deeper than the current idea of being a "poker star" etc.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Did Mason just post exactly the opposite?

I have to admit to being confused on this point.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is MUCH more varience in limit holdem than PL/NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that so many people don't understand this is simply astounding.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It used to be agreed upon those who had a qualified opinion that limit games had higher variance. However, many no limit players now claim the no limit games have gotten "wilder" (bigger bet sizes etc.) and thus the variance in no limit has become higher. It may be true, I don't know, haven't played no limit lately.

But to repeat, not to you:

VARIANCE IS NOT A FUNCTION OF SWINGS/BLIND SIZES. IT REFERS TO THE SWINGS IN WIN RATE.

EDIT: Sorry for the caps, but this is really a pet peeve of mine [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img].

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

Frequency, you have a lot to learn. Open your mind and learn it.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

variance is definately not a swing in blind/bet sizes. but its measured in such so people often misstate that and it clearly annoys you [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Barron

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
it clearly annoys you [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

Only because it is repeated in several subforums several times per week [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

Serenity Now.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What a f*cking retard you are. Did you come to this site to learn something or just act like a moron?

[/ QUOTE ]

here's the thing, he may act like a moron, and be unable to logically defend his statement, but in today's online NL games, from many different great players' perspectives, the variance compared to limit is greater. period.

the reason is because of the large all in bets/bluffs/calls that are now commonplace in that area, combined with the lack of tells other than betting patterns and speeds online (where good pros can seriously reduce variance by eliminating large calls or winning pots that wouldn't have been theirs). and the frequency therein. what is a good stdev in bb/100 hands at limit? i know "good" is like 15-16 and excellent is below that.

what about NL in PTBB/100 hands?? its like more than double that, like 35-45 from what i know. now i may be wrong here and you can correct me if i am but from what i understand, PTBB is 2xthe big blind. so if you play 20/40 limit you suffer 40*15-16 swings per hundred hands on average. at NL, you suffer 40*35-45 at 10/20 blinds.

clearly, if my understanding of poker tracker estimations of the variance in the above games is correct, variance is now way larger in no limit than in limit.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

Barron,

From what I have seen in discussions of this is that at the highest limits, short handed, variance is now approaching the level of limit holdem in NL because of the prevelance of hugh overbet bluffs/monsters. Also, I think its closer in capped buying games, especially where you are short stack at buyin (for instance Los Angeles live SS NL games), but this is just from my experience that you need to build a stack at some point fairly early.

I have never seen anyone say that NL has a much higher variance than limit at any level. I will try to search for the thread on this in HSNL, but that was what I thought the concensus was there.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

What is variance? Obviously those that say 'NL has less variance than limit' don't mean the same thing as I do. Your variance is the width of the swings around the win rate. And that's much, much higher in no limit.

Your standard deviation divided by your hourly win rate is going to be less in no limit most likely. But that's not what the word 'variance' means.

Variance is lower in one specific scenario though, and that was the norm rather than the exception back when many of these ideas were published. When the opponents are extremely weak-tight and the majority of your gain is based on stealing small pots.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

the best way to make money quick...is to be good...i prefer sit n gos

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've always been under the impression that when people said that NL has lower variance than limit, what they really meant was that for stakes that will produce approximately the same winrate, NL will have the lower variance. In other words, even though .5/1NL has the same blinds as 1/2 limit, they are not considered to be "equivalent" because a good NL player will be able to win much more at .5/1NL than a good limit player will at 1/2 limit. The rough equivalent to 1/2 limit might be .25/.5NL, for instance. In that case, it's more fair to compare the variance of 1/2 limit to the variance of .25/.5NL. I don't play NL, so I am not sure that this is accurate, but that's what I've taken out of the variance comparisons. Is this correct, Tony?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is my point thatwhile a .5/1 NL Game and a 1/2 Limit game both have blinds of .5/1, the .5/1 Limit game is a higher stakes game.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

Dude, all I have to say is that if your really that unsure about all that, maybe you should wait a little while (ok, a long time) before even considering going pro.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
...the average online player seems to be much better than the average live player. I am not sure of the reason, I just have observed it to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absolutely correct, and here is the reason why:

-Live play: the fish play one table at a time; the sharks play one table at a time.

-Online play: the fish play 1 or 2 tables at a time; the sharks have a wall full of 2001FPs and play 8, 12, 30, 69, or more tables at a time.

The players are not tougher online per se, but you're more likely to run into the tougher players on any given table, due to the multitabling effect.

This is also why Pacific Poker is the fishiest poker site on the 'Net...no multitabling allowed there.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

I think that's an important contributor to the effect, but it's not the only story. My working hypothesis is that it's also because merely playing online shows an enthusiasm for the game that B&M players do not generally have. A lot of B&M players play poker merely to drink and socialize and gamble in a way that is relatively low-intensity--this continues up to quite a high limit, I've seen it even in 20/40. This "social player" does not exist online. Therefore, I hypothesize that the average online player will do more to educate himself towards proper play than a B&M player will.

This is just a bunch of psychobabble on my part.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

Good advice, no doubt.

Been thinking about the pro route for 6 years. LOL! Just haven't played at all between 2000 and now.

So I agree. Lots of work to do. But just want to put my efforts where they will most likely lead to the desired results. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

No point in spending a lot of time in a format only to find out it was a mistake.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

Isn't there a FAQ somewhere that has in it "Does limit poker really have bigger swings than NL?"

Why not? Could someone make one or add this question and an answer to an existing FAQ? You can include what I wrote below, although I can't see why you'ld want to.

[ QUOTE ]
Your standard deviation divided by your hourly win rate is going to be less in no limit most likely. But that's not what the word 'variance' means.


[/ QUOTE ]
"Variance" actually means the square of the number you are talking about above, so you are close enough. It does not mean that people occasionally hit gutshot straights or that winning players run bad sometimes, which is the normal meaning of the word on this site.

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your standard deviation divided by your hourly win rate is going to be less in no limit most likely. But that's not what the word 'variance' means.


[/ QUOTE ]
"Variance" actually means the square of the number you are talking about above, so you are close enough. It does not mean that people occasionally hit gutshot straights or that winning players run bad sometimes, which is the normal meaning of the word on this site.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. Variance is the square of the standard deviation. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that's an important contributor to the effect, but it's not the only story. My working hypothesis is that it's also because merely playing online shows an enthusiasm for the game that B&M players do not generally have. A lot of B&M players play poker merely to drink and socialize and gamble in a way that is relatively low-intensity--this continues up to quite a high limit, I've seen it even in 20/40. This "social player" does not exist online. Therefore, I hypothesize that the average online player will do more to educate himself towards proper play than a B&M player will.

This is just a bunch of psychobabble on my part.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Live poker seems to be for some more about fun and excitement, whereas people buy in online alot more for the idea of profit and therby try harder. They also see a ton more hands and gain alot quicker experience