Rating Stud Game by On-Line results

[Sqred]

Looking for Expert commentary on the project I'm about to undertake.

Background Wining higher limit HE player. Used to hold my own in a 30/60 HOSE game until it went down. I don't play a lot of Stud but I would guestimate that I am a credible 15/30 player in Hi and Hilo. My HE is far stronger. I play full time to the 100/200 level, and have had success live at the 150/300 level.

Because my Bankroll is in really good shape right now I am planning to make the transition to high level mixed games (HORSE/HOSE).

To do this I need to come up to speed in the two stud games as quickly as possible. My rough plan is to three table the 30/60 with the sole purpose of becoming a reallly good stud player. How many hands and at what win rate would be proof that I could hold my own at these games in a high limit mixed games format. I am thinking at least 10,000 hands for each stud variety, I am just notsure what kind of win rate would translate into real world ability given the competition generally found on line.

Kind of a vague question but any thoughts. By the way, the goal is to become a competent player at the 200/400 mixed games at the Bellagio. Obviously that takes a lot of work, time and skill. I don't expect ot be any great shakes in that game str8 off, but it would be nice to not be a sucker either.

[iamastud]

First, if you feel inexperienced with stud, when playing online, why not just play 1 table and totally concentrate at that. You could learn more from have all of your concentration on one game than having to constantly switch between games.

As for playing live at bellagio, see first how you do at the $20/40 stud game there. There are a varied mix of players. Some good, some not so good. If you are any good, you would average about $20-$40/hr in that game.

[beta1607]

Start with one stud table at a time. Clearly you are a top notch HE player but stud is just so much different. Once you get a feel for the game add a 2nd table, there are just so many subtlties to stud that you may miss by jumping in too fast at such a high level.

Also before you just into 200/400 game at the bellagio, get live stud experience at a lower level first, it is a very different game then online regardless of what level you are playing and while I am sure your BR could handle it why lose 10K

[CarlosChadha]

Hi Sqred,

This is a pretty interesting question. I have been, and will be, in a similar position. I play stud full time online and live at the highest limit available online, which is generally 30/60 and occasionally 40/80 and 50/100, and at the 75/150, 100/200 and 150/300 level live. At the beginning of the year I was running very poorly at stud for about 3 months, and thus I decided to start mastering other games.

After about 9K hands of 20/40 short handed holdem I was up about $10K and after seeing some of the poor play by the opposition, I assumed that I was crushing the game. But within the next 2K hands I had lost all my profit and was about 6K in the hole for 20/40 holdem. I then had an expert shorthanded holdem player watch me play (Jeffage for those interested) and he basically told me that I was probably not good enough to be playing 20/40 online and that I should move down to 10/20 or 5/10.

Thus, I don't know exactly how many online games has are nessecary to be confident of your abilities, but for me it is much more than 10K games (I was playing 2 or 3 games at once on average).

I assume that you have noticed this with holdem, but the online games are WWWAAAYYY tougher than live games at the same limit. The 30/60 games online are definitely tougher than 95% of the 75/150-150/300 games I've played in AC, LA, and Vegas. Even though the games are much tougher online, they also play MUCH differently. Live stud player tend to be old retired buisnessmen who play in a style that is rather distinct from online players (it is WAY more passive). This means that even if you can beat the 30/60 games online, it will take additional time to adjust to live play (it took me about 15 weekends of playing 75/150 over the period of a year and a half to feel that I was crushing the game).

Over the next couple years I plan to transition to playing high limit mixed games, and plan to use the internet to come quickly up to speed. I think the best way is probably to play 2-4 tables of 5/10 or 10/20 in order to get the most number of games in under my belt.

I'd by interested in talking to you about this more at length. If you are interested, PM me.

Regards,
Carlos

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
I then had an expert shorthanded holdem player watch me play (Jeffage for those interested)

[/ QUOTE ]

I put my foot in my mouth with a response to Michael D. and sent him a PM to clarify. I'll try to make a point here without pissing on it.

I remember when Jeff wasn't recognized at all in the Mid Holdem forum. I knew Jeff's post because I read stud also. I believe that, in a comment I made about the cliqueishness (like that word) of responses in Mid Holdem, I was the first to state Jeff may be the best combo Mid Holdem-Stud player on here and the fact that his posts there were getting basically zero attention was wrong. His stature has taken off and rightfully so.

Having paid the props there, I have to ask. Is Jeff now more than just really good at holdem and stud? Is he really an expert?

I'm not sure how to grade expert. The limits are without a doubt a starting point because it goes without say. Then again, if you make really good money or don't have many financial repsonsibilities other than for yourself, it's much easier to play higher limits without being an expert. Look at Andy Beal. Guy plays for tens of millions and he's a busnessman.

No big deal, I'm just guessing that Jeff doesn't derive the majority of his income from poker and, if I'm not mistaken, he runs as bad as the rest of us. Doesn't mean he's not an expert but, expert status is kind of like the Hall of Fame. It shouldn't be thrown around like that. Maybe I'm wrong. No disrespect intended.

This wasn't a slap at Jeff. Like I said, I always respected his in put. It's more a slap at some of the holier than thou attitude that sometimes rolls around in 2+2 and I'm asking for a reality check here. I think there's big difference between being very, very good and being an expert. How big, who knows. Maybe I'm wrong. Like I said Jeff, if you remember, I've always respected you.

[CarlosChadha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I then had an expert shorthanded holdem player watch me play (Jeffage for those interested)

[/ QUOTE ]

I put my foot in my mouth with a response to Michael D. and sent him a PM to clarify. I'll try to make a point here without pissing on it.

I remember when Jeff wasn't recognized at all in the Mid Holdem forum. I knew Jeff's post because I read stud also. I believe that, in a comment I made about the cliqueishness (like that word) of responses in Mid Holdem, I was the first to state Jeff may be the best combo Mid Holdem-Stud player on here and the fact that his posts there were getting basically zero attention was wrong. His stature has taken off and rightfully so.

Having paid the props there, I have to ask. Is Jeff now more than just really good at holdem and stud? Is he really an expert?

I'm not sure how to grade expert. The limits are without a doubt a starting point because it goes without say. Then again, if you make really good money or don't have many financial repsonsibilities other than for yourself, it's much easier to play higher limits without being an expert. Look at Andy Beal. Guy plays for tens of millions and he's a busnessman.

No big deal, I'm just guessing that Jeff doesn't derive the majority of his income from poker and, if I'm not mistaken, he runs as bad as the rest of us. Doesn't mean he's not an expert but, expert status is kind of like the Hall of Fame. It shouldn't be thrown around like that. Maybe I'm wrong. No disrespect intended.

This wasn't a slap at Jeff. Like I said, I always respected his in put. It's more a slap at some of the holier than thou attitude that sometimes rolls around in 2+2 and I'm asking for a reality check here. I think there's big difference between being very, very good and being an expert. How big, who knows. Maybe I'm wrong. Like I said Jeff, if you remember, I've always respected you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not good enough at holdem to say whether he is a true expert, or just way better than I am, in an objective sense. But since the definition of the word is subjective, IMO he is an expert at the 40/80 limit and below. But no, he would probably not be considered an expert above 40/80 and above, because he doesn't regularly play in those games (he does occasionally when the games are juicy).

Carlos

[Jeffage]

SA125,

I remember the compliment back in the day and appreciated it then as I do now. I don't really get into the whole dick swinging battle of whether I'm an expert or not. I've done very well playing poker over the years...I've never claimed to be a world class player or make the kinda money some of these kids like BK, Schneids, etc make. That said, there are some errors in your assumptions...

[ QUOTE ]
Then again, if you make really good money or don't have many financial repsonsibilities other than for yourself, it's much easier to play higher limits without being an expert.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably the second time you've alluded to "excess disposable income" when referring to why I may be able to play high limit games. This is pretty clearly not true - my current job is not a high income position. Basically, I would be a paycheck to paycheck schlub w/o poker(this is not a knock on people who make what I make, which is decent; it's a knock on my lifestyle/spending habits); with poker, I am financially in quite good shape for my age. I recently got a new job in which I'll do a good bit better and it's a great professional opportunity, the first time I've been excited about work in a very long time. And yes, I am single - but I wouldn't be able to play at high limit games if I didn't WIN at high limit games. Being a break even (more or less) player at higher limits will wipe out anyone who doesn't have TONS of cash.

[ QUOTE ]
No big deal, I'm just guessing that Jeff doesn't derive the majority of his income from poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting guess.


[ QUOTE ]
I think there's big difference between being very, very good and being an expert.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed - I've never tried to get on the cover of Cardplayer magazine. I just want the money so I can live the lifestyle I want and poker has provided that for me so far - plus I have a DEEP love for the game. In the future, who knows...I try to be balanced in my life between work, poker, family and friends. Doesn't always work - but I do try.

Jeff

[Jeffage]

[ QUOTE ]
But no, he would probably not be considered an expert above 40/80 and above, because he doesn't regularly play in those games (he does occasionally when the games are juicy).



[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough...but just to clarify, I did play these limits for awhile in AC at Borgata and did well overall. But after a few bad days, I just decided the variance associated with this game was not good for my life and I prefer the 40 game anyway. I will jump into the 80 at the drop of a hat, however, if the lineup is weak. I would say I play the 40 compared to the 80 at about a 70-30 ratio.

As I've told Carlos on many a drive home from AC, the gamble he has inspires me. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] I used to be just like that at his age, but I've grown more conservative at the ripe old age of 26. I've seen a lot and experienced a lot, and I'm much more protective of my roll than I used to be. It was VERY HARD to get to the point I'm at, and risking that just isn't in the cards for me. Could I play 150-300? Yes. Would that be good for my life and present a good risk/reward ratio FOR ME? No. But that's just how I prefer to gamble.

Jeff

Edited to add: I just wanted to make this clear, as I have to Carlos - He is definitely a better stud player than me. If you've ever met him, you will realize he is just smart as a whip, not just in poker either. I've really enjoyed learning from him and I'm thankful that this site has allowed us to become friends in the real, non-virtual world.

[jon_1van]

You may want to spend a significant amount of time at twodimes.net running stud sims. It's very possible that you might over value some hands and under value others. Particularly since you are coming from a HE back ground.

For instance, how good is a hand like 557 on 3rd street vs a likely overpair. How good is your 557 after 4th steet comes a 6, how about a T? How good is 557 3 way?

In Holdem if you start with AA and you get 2 callers you almost double your EV. In Stud getting 2 callers does increase your EV but it definetly doesn't double it. Being aware of how hand strengths can change dramatically depending on the number of opponents is very important. (Yes in holdem some hands go from clear folds to marginal winners when getting many way action...But in stud many hands go from big winners to barely profitable when getting many way action)



I'd also try to get a feel for how the ante size and the BI size should effect you're play. If the standard ante at 100-200 is 25 yet for some reason today they make it 50 because people want more action...could you adjust properly?


Just my 2 cents. Good luck

[SA125]

I'm glad you took it well Jeff and I didn't fck it up. I don't recall before alluding to you're playing high because of excess income but, if say you I did, then you must remember better than me and I won't disagree.

I was obviously guessing that you weren't mainly a pro because I knew you had a job but if I'm wrong, again, my mistake.

I just brought it up because I've thought a lot about what constitutes an expert in poker. It's not that easy to define. For example, I believe that you have to be an extremely good golfer to make the PGA tour, but I don't believe every guy on tour is an expert golfer. There's a big gap between the elite and others on the tour.

So with poker, what makes someone an expert? I don't know. I'd define being expert in something as being consistently efficient and productive. Knowing the techniques and being able to execute them smoothly like a second nature at the right time. Being as close to perfect as one can when knowing no one can be all the time.

Looking at it like that in poker, I see many players who play really well. I rarely see those who would fit into the category of consistently being almost perfect in their play. That's all. No knock on you and, if you do derive a large source of income from poker and consistently play that efficently, than maybe you are an expert. Glad this didn't go the wrong way. It wasn't meant too. I just think that the forum gets carried away sometimes and wonder if maybe it's me who's missing something.