Basic Question - High Ante's No Fold'em 7Stud

[RustyBrooks]

I've had this conversation with a poker-playing friend many many times. So many of the big-name poker players are just guys who took a chance of going broke and rocketed up through the stakes. For each of them that makes it, dozens that try (who are as good or better) get slapped down. Variance is a bitch.

But as long as we're talking about the kind of money that can be rebuilt *relatively* easily, and as long as we're not talking about living off playing, bankroll requirements can be somewhat more... fluid. Taking occaisonal shots above your roll is no big deal.

[roggles]

I did this once and proceeded to lose most of my rocketed bankroll because I couldn't play well enough for the higher stakes. Sharkscope:



From experience I don't believe very much in taking shots.

[RustyBrooks]

Taking shots implies you move up, play a bit, win or lose, and move back down. If you're making a more permanent move up, then you have to have the bankroll for it.

Also, is that sngs? I didn't know sharkscope did cash games. Also, it looks like you walked away from the shot with some profit, no?

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Taking shots implies you move up, play a bit, win or lose, and move back down. If you're making a more permanent move up, then you have to have the bankroll for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you win consistently you build the needed roll at the new level. If you lose your 'taking a shot' money then you move down.

[Red_Diamond]

Oh boy, just when I was feeling more motivated... today I ran into a 100 BB downswing to absolute retards. I got slaughtered by the lambs today while trying to stay on the roller-coaster ride by people who couldn't even tell the difference between a straight or a flush, never mind a paired door card.

Now, if I can't even prevent myself from getting butchered by people who are trying their best to GIVE ME their money... what possible chance in hell do I have of making progress at higher stakes, where people aren't dumb enough to cap with 2-7-Q rainbow starting hands?

Perhaps I'm a little optimistic, but I'd say my chances were close to 0 right now.

[chucky]

You need to search the forums. one of the posters here mentioned several months ago going on an extreme no flush streak that killed his bankroll. I cant remember the poster, but its sometimes comforting to know that as mephistophiles said to Dr Faustus, "Misery loves company". Hope you bounce back.

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh boy, just when I was feeling more motivated... today I ran into a 100 BB downswing to absolute retards. I got slaughtered by the lambs today while trying to stay on the roller-coaster ride by people who couldn't even tell the difference between a straight or a flush, never mind a paired door card.

Now, if I can't even prevent myself from getting butchered by people who are trying their best to GIVE ME their money... what possible chance in hell do I have of making progress at higher stakes, where people aren't dumb enough to cap with 2-7-Q rainbow starting hands?

Perhaps I'm a little optimistic, but I'd say my chances were close to 0 right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Happens to everybody sooner or later. Hang in there. Sounds like a juicy game to me.

[RobNottsUk]

For the higher stakes players, I'll point out that in No Fold'em games, the rake is frequently less severe than you might expect. 2 reasons :

1) Many low stakes games, feature caps around 1BB or less, Stars 50c/$1 game is 'value' capped to 50c (40c paid for 1 FPP), on Ongame network the 25c/50c level is the rake efficient game.

2) Multi-way pots, lower the effective rake

In a mainly HU pot, a capped rake at 3% on gross pot, actually means nearly 6% on your winnings; because it's 3% on 50% pot winnings.

On other hand, if 4 opponents go to you to the river you benefit from winning fewer but larger pots. A rake of 5%, which doesn't reach a cap, is 5% on 80% pot winnings, as your contribution is only 20% of pot.

Opponents who're actually playing well, and drawing correctly given the loose calling nature of others, still act to lower the rake. Though you'ld probably prefer them to accidentally fold and win the pot more often!


As for bankroll, 100BB swing is not unusual in FLHE, where hands generally have more edge, and fewer players insist on playing every hand due to contributing antes. It's common however in FLHE games to find players who never fold SB or BB, they insist on protecting their contribution to the pot, with any 2 cards.

Being properly bankrolled for the main game is essential in high ante Stud games. Having a buy in to lose in a bigger game (taking a shot) is a valid exception.

[RustyBrooks]

I'm not sure I agree with your take on multi-way pots lowering the effective rake. One common metric for rake is to take it out of the winner's pot, in that sense it makes no difference how many people are in the pot, except that multiway pots are often larger. This metric makes some sense, because when you lose a pot, you lose all the bb that you put into it, and when you win a pot, you win all the bb that other people put in... except what gets taken out for rake. In this metric, you pay less rake if you play less hands, because you win (and lose) fewer hands.

Another metric, which is also commonly used, goes by participation in the pot. If you put in 1/3 of the pot, you 'paid' 1/3 of the rake. Some rakeback methods go b y this. In either case, the real detriment of large rake comes about because it sucks all the players dry, even the live ones. I did a calculation once regarding a 5/10 game I used to go to, trying to figure out how much rake the house took in the course of a night, and thinking about the average number of people available to fill seats, etc, and after a while I figured out that there was only about $150-200 of profit to be had, period, to spread out over the whole table, because of all the money that left the table to the house. The house, meanwhile, made a pretty penny. This was a fairly high-rake private game. I don't go there any more - there are a few other decent players in the game, and between us there was no way we could all win.

[RobNottsUk]

It does make a difference, because the rake is much higher in proportion to winnings in a HU pot.

The rake is always subtracted from the pot, before it's divided amongst the winners.

Rakeback and contributory loyalty schemes, act to reduce the rake, but how they're calculated doesn't effect the proportionate rake nearly as much as the number of contributors to the pot.

Remember highly multi-way pots, means some players are in wrongly on real long shots. A solid player, is going to benefit from drawing correctly more often, and avoid investing in bad draws.

The problem is with weak made hands eg) 1 pair or something like T's up, that may be best, but are easily outdrawn. If you pay off too much, or put too much in too early without thinning the field, you get into reverse implied odds problems.

Having built up a bankroll from nothing, playing low stakes FLHE, which was advised as very difficult, my experience in practice was the opposite. These games were more profitable than the commonly advised SnG's + 10% admin fee.

The reason was, low rake caps 1/2 or 1 BB, and the low proportionate rake to winnings. Draws especially become very profitable, because against 5 or 6 players, you'ld actually play even if it was a dry pot!