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

[knife420]

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.

[Niediam]

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.

[12AX7]

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 ]

[12AX7]

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.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ 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].

[Tilt]

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

[DcifrThs]

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

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ 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]

[TomBrooks]

Serenity Now.

[dd323]

[ 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.