grinders method

[DaveTheClueless]

I don't care if someone hits-and-runs from my table. Thats just another opponent who will still have money for me to take tomorrow. Sometimes I use the find feature and add myself to the wait list for the other tables they are on.

I don't leave a table just because I have too much money in play. Every time I put money in pre-flop I know I may be facing an all-in from anyone who is in before me or left to act after. I also keep that in mind on subsequent streets. Sure, I'll be a lot less frisky with 500BB than I might be with only 50 at risk, but thats just stack management IMO.

[jakerc]

can someone explain to me what ratholing is and how the OP is planning on doing it? maybe i'm just sleep deprived but i don't really get what's going on [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[DOMIT]

[ QUOTE ]
can someone explain to me what ratholing is and how the OP is planning on doing it? maybe i'm just sleep deprived but i don't really get what's going on [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Classical "ratholing" is taking money off the table while still playing at the same table.

Online, if you just get up from one table, but are still playing on others, some see that as ratholing. However, I feel that since most sites will NOT let you come back to the same table unless you buyin with what you left with, that it's not the same {IMO}.

[aces_dad]

OP starts a 100NL table w $50. Once he gets to some predetermined amount like $60, he leaves that table and buys into a new one.

It sounds like he's not comfortable playing full stack poker much less deep stacked.

I usually leave when I'm planning to, if I win a large pot on my planned last orbit, I'll sometimes tell the table I have to go and play one more orbit, especially if it's the the same lineup for a long time like 1+ hr. I don't leave a profitable table just because I won a pot though.

[sudic]

Yes I would agree most of these players are bad players. What I've seen lately is people winning due to a suckout and then they take money off the table.

[bxb]

I dont really think this grinding plan is very good. If you plan to stop after winning 50 or losing 100 you will hopefully end up with way more winning sessions than losing sessions. However, this will not yield a higher EV since your losing sessions will be for twice as much.

I think it is bad because you will end up cutting your winning sessions short and your losing sessions longer. If you are in a winning session, it is more likely to continue being a winning session because of a good table. So when you are winning, it makes sense to play more. I think your plan would work better if you quit after winning 100 of losing 50 cuz atleast then you play longer when winning. Although ignoring things like this all together is prolly best.

[Gobgogbog]

[ QUOTE ]
Very fuzzy.

Let me just say this. If you win a big pot and take the money you just won off the table in order to lock in your win, that is what I'm saying is unethical. Since it's generally hard or impossible to achieve this online, many people "hit & run" in order to achieve the same effect. They come to a table, win a pot and then leave. But I believe that the reason they do this is the same reason why live players rathole, and therefore the hit & run is also unethical.

What makes it unethical is not the length of time you keep your just-won money in play. It is by the fact that you are taking the money off the table in order to make in inaccessible to your opponents. Which means that if you were just about to quit for the day anyway and win a huge pot, it's not unethical to go ahead and quit when you were planning on quitting. (I usually wait one more orbit, but that's admittedly stupid)

How's that for clouding the waters? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. For every guy that I have a big edge on that takes a big pot away from me and then takes the money off the table, there's another guy that I have a big edge on that still has money to lose to me because he did the same against someone else. It's zero-sum, so I don't really care. Besides, he may be playing 100NL because he can't stand to lose more than 100 in one pot, in which case I don't see any reason I should insist that he plays with 300 dollar stacks.

Then there are the guys who sit down with the sole purpose of doubling up and leaving. They might want to join a $215 but only have $100, or whatever. Sometimes they succeed, more often they donate their $100. I love these guys.

For every guy who sits down intending to double up and leave, and succeeds in doing that against you, there are 2 guys who sat down intending to double up and leave and instead gave you their stack.

[Carnegie]

[ QUOTE ]

Then there are the guys who sit down with the sole purpose of doubling up and leaving. They might want to join a $215 but only have $100, or whatever. Sometimes they succeed, more often they donate their $100. I love these guys.


[/ QUOTE ]

I love them too.

[jii]

Didn't really read all the responses. sorry for that ...but I think this kind of playing style really sucks.

For a good player a long session is supposed to be +EV. Good player makes reads and adapts to table conditions. This kind of grinding leaves much less room for skill.

[fish43]

If bankroll management is part of the game, then leaving a table after hitting a certain percentage of your bankroll should be part of the game too. If players should only risk 5% of their bankroll per buy-in, then they should probably be leaving if they manage to double up or more otherwise they end up risking 10% or more of their bankroll.

A player that risks only 5-10% of their bankroll at a time is a lot less likely to go broke.

Table selection can also provide a player with an reason to move from table to table. Banking profit may be invetible especially with the max buy-in at most sites.

Applying a single table rule (not banking profit) while still in the game to typical online multiple table session play doesn't seem reasonable. It's based on a B&M single table poker game where it's impossible for players to be playing more than one table at a time. The online poker game is different and all the rules associated with classic B&M poker aren't necessarily applicable.

I think OP grider bankroll management system is silly but not because he's a ratholer. If I understand correctly, he's risking $50 to win $5 or $10. I can't imagine that's going to work out in the long run for him.