|
|
#31
08-28-2007, 07:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I have been playing low limit $2-$5 spread for over 4 years (in Colorado) so I am definately not new to the game and may have much more experience then some of the low rake tighter internet players. In my experience, over thousands of live hands, it seems like this game is simply not beatable in the long run! [/ QUOTE ] It is possible, and I say this with no malice or ridicule, that you just suck at poker. [/ QUOTE ] Good god... that's it! My incredibly legitimate argument, which hasn't been disproved by the way, comes down to the mere fact that I just suck at poker! Even if I do "suck at poker" my argument still stands. The mathematics of this situation is not affected by my lack of poker prowess. 
|
|
#32
08-28-2007, 07:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
im going to recommend a thread lock before this gets out of hand.
its up to james though.
|
|
#33
08-28-2007, 07:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
jackhigh, i think you should read small stakes holdem, and get a better feel for pushing your edges pre and post flop, and value bets, and etc etc...my local live game has a $4 rake usually, i believe. it sounds like you have put in a lot of hours at the table but maybe are missing some skills to push small edges which is key in winning live low limits. for example if 5 guys limp to you, are you raising kq suited? if 3 guys limp, are you raising pocket tens? if there's a raise to you from an aggressive player, do you reraise aq or even at suited? are you able to valuebet second or third pair, or ak high, on all streets even the river? if you have the nut flush draw on the flop and there's a bet and four calls to you, do you raise? are you able to adjust your play according to your opponents, occasionally bluffing the tight ones and also throwing away decent hands against them, and getting to showdown with weaker hands against bad aggressive players and throwing away good hands when a really bad passive player comes to life? i put these examples out there as ones that i see a lot of live players tend to misplay, and which, when added up, can make all the difference between a winning and losing player.
|
|
#34
08-28-2007, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
also jack, your prowess (hypothetically) completely affects your argument -- those of us who are winning players can rebut it though relating our experience of, well, being winning players. so it seems self-evident to us.
|
|
#35
08-28-2007, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
[ QUOTE ]
im going to recommend a thread lock before this gets out of hand. its up to james though. [/ QUOTE ] Allright, maybe my argument is a little too abstract. Here's another scenario: If there is 7 people calling a $5 raise pre-flop (2+5*7=$49 in pot). Calculating the rake ($5+2 jackpot+ $1 potential tip) how big of a hand (percentage) do I need to be getting a positive ev in this situation pre- flop? I'm not good at this kind of math, obviously.
|
|
#36
08-28-2007, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
At least part of the jackpot is not part of house edge. In a lot of places it's +EV. DUCY? Also you deride "tight internet players", but do you realize that you can cut down the house edge AS IT RELATES TO YOU by playing less hands, which, given some of your comments in this thread, you should probably be doing anyway
|
|
#37
08-28-2007, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
How did this get to be a "you suck at poker" thread. I raised a simple question that can be answered through statistical analysis.
Let's pretend I don't play poker. My question stands. Actually I found a thread that somewhat backs up my hypothesis. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1
|
|
#38
08-28-2007, 07:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
I only read like half the thread.
It could be possible that this structure is -EV with that absurd rake, but it's not because your opponents are loose. In fact if the game were tighter I'm pretty sure even the best players in the SS forums would not have an edge. EDIT: My earliest games were in $2-$6 spread games and I built a lot of my online roll there, but with no jackpot and rake capped at $3. Even there I found them just about worthless to play in unless the games were loose; once I made a max raise from the BB, three limpers folded, and I just racked up and left without even playing my free hands. Tight spread limit games are about as fun and profitable as fishing change out of men's room urinals.
|
|
#39
08-28-2007, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
[ QUOTE ]
How did this get to be a "you suck at poker" thread. [/ QUOTE ] Because your belief that you can't beat loose games because "OMG they keep sucking out" demonstrates that there are some very basic things about poker that you do not understand.
|
|
#40
08-28-2007, 07:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] How did this get to be a "you suck at poker" thread. [/ QUOTE ] Because your belief that you can't beat loose games because "OMG they keep sucking out" demonstrates that there are some very basic things about poker that you do not understand. [/ QUOTE ] The jist of my argument has to do with a 10-16% house vig, not the loosness of the players. I am basically highlighting the exact scenario (these games have an average of 5-7 players pre-flop) for correct analysis. Pretend I am a bystander watching these games, I do not play, so please no more "you suck at poker" comments. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
