I set a new record at my B&M (Wrong Forum?)

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't want anyone on this forum to think that I don't appreciate their advice or that I don't carefully consider everything I am told even when it is something I don't particularly want to hear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think thats your way of saying "quit bothering me, I want to do what I want to do". I understand.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[MicroBob]

Steam - I respect your thoughts on playing recreationally and having fun.
Obviously this holds true for almost all of us...even those of us who play full-time now who never would have gotten into the game in the first place if it weren't fun on at least some level.


But I'm still addressing the idea of playing so short-stacked that you end up playing many hands, perhaps a few orbits, with 5 or fewer BB's.

That's a big mistake and it's so easily correctable WITHOUT having to buy-in for a significant amount more. You can leave after dropping $500-ish or so and that really isn't that big a deal. but just keep the extra money in your stack and on the table.

This, of course, assumes you have the discipline to leave when you want to leave and that having the extra money there isn't tempting you to play beyond a level of session-loss with which you are comfortable.


You are not JUST a typical recreational player because you read a lot of poker books and you participate on these forums and you actually try to think in +EV terms about the game just like the rest of us.

To that end, you should reconsider your 'play down to the felt...then I'll leave' strategy.

you don't just say, "Well, it's okay to open-limp with AK because I'm just here to have fun and it doesn't really matter as much whether I win or not."
That's the same as why you shouldn't be playing down to the felt as I believe you do sometimes.


Just have $1000 with you and leave after you lose $500 if that's what you're comfortable with.
I don't see why this would so hard.

[Hoss1193]

Steam, no big heartburn here with anything you've said. Just wanted to point out that if you have a true poker-dedicated BR independent of household finances AND truly big enough to support your game, then MRS wouldn't care if you dropped a buy-in or two in one session. Heck, she never even needs to know, since it doesn't affect your "real" money at all.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
But I'm still addressing the idea of playing so short-stacked that you end up playing many hands, perhaps a few orbits, with 5 or fewer BB's.

[/ QUOTE ]

This rarely happens, yesterday I went from 15 big bets to the felt in back to back hands. I had played seven hours and it was time to go home.

[TomBrooks]

In a game that allows unlimited river raises HU, I wouldn't want to play without having everyone at the table covered or with at least 30 BB ready to go for those rare but highly profitable occasions when someone makes a second best monster.

[kiwi]

Steam

I am in a similar postion to you and understand the issue - there is no point debating marriage v poker - that is the Social Worker v the Investment Banker stuff
However, the BR principal is no different to ,say, pot odds with a flush draw.

I think this is the point ppl are trying to make. You could not successfully argue a -EV bet "because I am married". In the same way, you cannot defend the "dwindlling stack" approach on a serious poker forum.

[cwsiggy]

I'm wondering what people think of Lederer's -30 BB walk away rule??? Annie Duke mentioned it on one of her articles.

I don't see much difference to what Steam did to that golden rule - unless Lederer means that you should reload enough so that you have more than 5 bb's for the final orbits (in case of a massive multiway reraising action pot) but then still walk away if you've pierced the -30bb zone after that potentail final hand??????

[Wongboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Steam

I am in a similar postion to you and understand the issue - there is no point debating marriage v poker - that is the Social Worker v the Investment Banker stuff
However, the BR principal is no different to ,say, pot odds with a flush draw.

I think this is the point ppl are trying to make. You could not successfully argue a -EV bet "because I am married". In the same way, you cannot defend the "dwindlling stack" approach on a serious poker forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this whole heartedly. You may be fine with the negative EV play for non-poker reasons, but that is not all too different from someone who says "hey, Im just playing for fun" as a justification for calling with a gutshot when they are only getting 2:1 odds. This site does not have much to offer to people who want to make negative EV plays because those plays have some non-poker related benefit to them.

The last time I was in Vegas, a guy sat down at a $1/$2 NL table and proceeded to get All-in on his first hand with no pair and no draw. He lost his $200, got up and left. I'm sure he just decided it would be more fun to bet $200 on a hand of Poker than on a hand of Blackjack. Who am I to criticize his play when he got exactly what he wanted out of the game?

[Sponger.]

This thread has some really good advice. Its too bad nobody is listening. Also, to everyone who is saying to TT "you don't understand until you're married", you're basically saying "my wife isn't very smart and we don't communicate well with each other". If you can't have an intelligent conversation about poker with your wife, and make her understand very basic things like bankroll, you probably have a lot bigger problems than all the guilt she makes you carry for playing poker.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering what people think of Lederer's -30 BB walk away rule??? Annie Duke mentioned it on one of her articles.

I don't see much difference to what Steam did to that golden rule - unless Lederer means that you should reload enough so that you have more than 5 bb's for the final orbits (in case of a massive multiway reraising action pot) but then still walk away if you've pierced the -30bb zone after that potentail final hand??????

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say that rule is pretty standard, but Lederer also never hits the felt. He is smart enough to know that if he has to stop at -27 bets he will because he wants to have enough in reserves to continue firing if he suddenly finds himself with the nuts in his hand.

In short stop losses are ok if thats your thing (even though they are fictitious in many ways), but don't put a stop loss in place at the expense of your expected value. Also don't play erratically because its your last few chips, always have enough on hand to play the hand to completion, or don't play at all!

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]