Vent Thread

the rake at 0.5/1 is definitely really bad. and ive been told for years that its not beatable the rake. of course you can be a winning player but beating the rake no i don't think so. and since its going so bad and your frustrated over those standard hands. ( i hope you didnt overplay them because the boards are looking really bad from flop)

Maybe move down a bit or come talk to me on Lukas streams (im n1ghtah the mod)

see you there.

At which limits is the game beatable (rake) ? If player pool is decent?

Hi, as Ava said, boards are bad from the begining so no wonder you lose there from time to time. Instead of these negatives post how you are being beaten by pokerstars you should focus that energy to analyze those hands etc..

Rake at micros / low stakes is just an excuse for bad players. Imo 0.5/1 is beatable over 2 BB / 100 by solid player. Worst rake : player pool ratio is at 1/2 i think. Sometimes games are harder than 2/4 and 3/6 there, BUT STILL BEATABLE.

So just work hard and results will come.

Fixed limit is a tough go because while yeah, you don't lose a stack with every bad beat, you can never win a stack either.

I've never played FL Hold'em, but I do play FL 5-Card Draw. The only hope you have is play with the pot odds, and stay on the good side. In 5-Card Draw vs players who know what they're doing, you can't count on your post-draw bet being called if you hit, so even what little implied odds there are -- actually aren't.

I presume FLHE is similar, only now there are two more rounds of betting to get squashed at.

I built a decent bankroll and FL $0.25/$0.50 over a couple of years, but now that limit seems to be the toughest of all.

Best of luck,
VS

Originally posted by Avataren
the rake at 0.5/1 is definitely really bad. and ive been told for years that its not beatable the rake. of course you can be a winning player but beating the rake no i don't think so. and since its going so bad and your frustrated over those standard hands. ( i hope you didnt overplay them because the boards are looking really bad from flop)

Maybe move down a bit or come talk to me on Lukas streams (im n1ghtah the mod)

see you there.

Hands 2 and 3 aren't much of an upset, yeah. I didn't return the aggression, but folding on such draw-heavy boards seemed wrong as well. All of them just pretty much came one after the other, tipping me over the edge.
If I continue doing badly, I might want to go back to 0,25/0,5 and instead work on the amount of tables I can play at the same time.

Originally posted by Necromadx
Hi, as Ava said, boards are bad from the begining so no wonder you lose there from time to time. Instead of these negatives post how you are being beaten by pokerstars you should focus that energy to analyze those hands etc..

Rake at micros / low stakes is just an excuse for bad players. Imo 0.5/1 is beatable over 2 BB / 100 by solid player. Worst rake : player pool ratio is at 1/2 i think. Sometimes games are harder than 2/4 and 3/6 there, BUT STILL BEATABLE.

So just work hard and results will come.

I remember seeing you at the tables, do you speak from your own experience? I just don't know of anyone who has been profitable on 0,5/1 in the long run and my database is far too small at this point. I'm not at all saying that it's just the rake while I'm playing flawlessly. I'm still insecure in certain spots, but my doubts about the limit have been growing for a while. Anyway, I hope you're right.

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
The only hope you have is play with the pot odds, and stay on the good side. In 5-Card Draw vs players who know what they're doing, you can't count on your post-draw bet being called if you hit, so even what little implied odds there are -- actually aren't.

I presume FLHE is similar, only now there are two more rounds of betting to get squashed at.

I built a decent bankroll and FL $0.25/$0.50 over a couple of years, but now that limit seems to be the toughest of all.

Best of luck,
VS

Knowing your pot odds sure is a large part of it. I wouldn't call myself a beginner either, just recently I've lost a lot of confidence.

Thanks to all

Originally posted by Necromadx
Hi, as Ava said, boards are bad from the begining so no wonder you lose there from time to time. Instead of these negatives post how you are being beaten by pokerstars you should focus that energy to analyze those hands etc..

Rake at micros / low stakes is just an excuse for bad players. Imo 0.5/1 is beatable over 2 BB / 100 by solid player. Worst rake : player pool ratio is at 1/2 i think. Sometimes games are harder than 2/4 and 3/6 there, BUT STILL BEATABLE.

So just work hard and results will come.

its actually been mathmatically proven that 0.5/1 is worse rake than 1/2.. everybody has said since boomer taught us that 0.5/1 was the sort of black pit we shouldn't fall into. But yeah no problem beating it if your a winning solid player. If you can beat 25/50c then 0.5/1 is no different.

Originally posted by Garvante

Originally posted by Avataren
the rake at 0.5/1 is definitely really bad. and ive been told for years that its not beatable the rake. of course you can be a winning player but beating the rake no i don't think so. and since its going so bad and your frustrated over those standard hands. ( i hope you didnt overplay them because the boards are looking really bad from flop)

Maybe move down a bit or come talk to me on Lukas streams (im n1ghtah the mod)

see you there.

Hands 2 and 3 aren't much of an upset, yeah. I didn't return the aggression, but folding on such draw-heavy boards seemed wrong as well. All of them just pretty much came one after the other, tipping me over the edge.
If I continue doing badly, I might want to go back to 0,25/0,5 and instead work on the amount of tables I can play at the same time.

well it depends on the action but i do see myself folding before river in a few of those hands. But im glad you didn't rage raised ♦ first step towards winning.
I personally play anything from 5/Tc to 25/50c and 3 tabling. over the years ive experimented from 1 to 8 tables at once (i can still beat 5/Tc 8 tabling) but it just doesn't do it for me anymore to mass grind. I just jump on 3 tables and have this nice little setup with a 3bet and a ORC chart. just for security in case i get Q7o in CO I can see where my line is to what folding hand and whats a raise.

and ive been successful over the years in micros but then again i belong in higher stakes my skill definitely is ready for at least 0.5/1. I just dont put enough volume in and honestly ive begun to not care. Im totally fine playing 5/Tc for 300k hands (yes im that lazy ♦) as long as im a winner i am a happy man.

Yes I am talking from my own experience. I am actually actively playing limit hold'em from 0.5/1 to 10/20. Mostly warming up on lower stakes. Even tho I am not a huge winner higher ( just slightly around 0.3 - 0.5 BB/100 ) on the six max tables I still manage to get close to the 2 BB/100 on the 0.5/1 over 100k hands or something like that. And yet there is so much room to an improvement, I mean that I know that I do a LOT of mistakes. I know, even this sample is so small, but I think you got the point.

Tables there are so swarmed by recreational players, that its not even that hard to have solid winrate, just rule of a thumb: if you are not that confident yet, just play the easiest tables possible and try not to get to any reg wars, sometimes this can be very expensive.

Good luck and probably see you at the tables in a few days. I am on a vacation, thats why you dont see me anymore. ♠_drink:

Btw if you dont believe me and really want a proof, you can check out my blog at CZ comunity, even tho its in czech, you dont need to know the language for the graphs. I mean, it could be a motivation, atleast for me other players always have been a great motivation. ( and i think i did a great job this year ) And anyway noone really reads it, so any visitor is cool.
http://cs.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?postid=1171729#post1171729

To Ava: yes mathematically, 0.5/1 have a higher rake than 1/2, BUT there is another issue, tables at 0.5/1 are like fish pools compared to 1/2. What i want to say is, that on 1/2 there are so many good regulars ( for example: scorpio or pelon, etc... ), that rake to players ratio is pretty tough. Talking about 6-max ofc. HU tables are much different, they are playable from 1/2 due to the rake.

Hope it all makes sense, had a couple of beers earlier.

Originally posted by Necromadx
Yes I am talking from my own experience. I am actually actively playing limit hold'em from 0.5/1 to 10/20. Mostly warming up on lower stakes. Even tho I am not a huge winner higher ( just slightly around 0.3 - 0.5 BB/100 ) on the six max tables I still manage to get close to the 2 BB/100 on the 0.5/1 over 100k hands or something like that. And yet there is so much room to an improvement, I mean that I know that I do a LOT of mistakes. I know, even this sample is so small, but I think you got the point.

Tables there are so swarmed by recreational players, that its not even that hard to have solid winrate, just rule of a thumb: if you are not that confident yet, just play the easiest tables possible and try not to get to any reg wars, sometimes this can be very expensive.

Good luck and probably see you at the tables in a few days. I am on a vacation, thats why you dont see me anymore. ♠_drink:

Btw if you dont believe me and really want a proof, you can check out my blog at CZ comunity, even tho its in czech, you dont need to know the language for the graphs. I mean, it could be a motivation, atleast for me other players always have been a great motivation. ( and i think i did a great job this year ) And anyway noone really reads it, so any visitor is cool.
http://cs.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?postid=1171729#post1171729

To Ava: yes mathematically, 0.5/1 have a higher rake than 1/2, BUT there is another issue, tables at 0.5/1 are like fish pools compared to 1/2. What i want to say is, that on 1/2 there are so many good regulars ( for example: scorpio or pelon, etc... ), that rake to players ratio is pretty tough. Talking about 6-max ofc. HU tables are much different, they are playable from 1/2 due to the rake.

Hope it all makes sense, had a couple of beers earlier.

yeah i get what you mean, I didn't knew scorpio played any lòwer than 2/4 wow i must get to know that danish dude ♦ ive been wanting to talk with him for a long time. is puskhman also still playing 1/2?

Originally posted by Necromadx
Btw if you dont believe me and really want a proof, you can check out my blog at CZ comunity, even tho its in czech, you dont need to know the language for the graphs. I mean, it could be a motivation, atleast for me other players always have been a great motivation. ( and i think i did a great job this year ) And anyway noone really reads it, so any visitor is cool.
http://cs.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?postid=1171729#post1171729

Sorry for my late response. I looked at your graphs and what stood out to me (despite the fact that you were as successful on 0,5/1 as you said), is that there seems to be a huge difference in profitability between a full 6-max table and one where just 1 player is missing or sitting out. So far I've almost always left tables when there were just 4 players left, but now I wonder whether I should even stop playing with 1 missing (which would be extremely impractical). What are your thoughts on your stats on 5-player tables?

What I've taken to heart is to be more cautious when in comes to tables with multiple regulars on them.

Originally posted by Avataren
If you can beat 25/50c then 0.5/1 is no different.

To Ava: yes mathematically, 0.5/1 have a higher rake than 1/2, BUT there is another issue, tables at 0.5/1 are like fish pools compared to 1/2.

I don't know, neither of that seemed true to me.
I know for a fact that there are much more regulars/decent players on 0,5/1 than on 0,25/0,5. Also, I'm up 1BB/100 on the latter while being down -1,3BB/100 on 0,5/1. I checked how much of that I can attribute to the increased rake and it's pretty negligable. Sure, my own results don't mean all that much since I've only played about 40K hands on those stakes, but the player pool looks a lot different, there's no denying that.

In regards to 1/2 - of course I don't really know since I haven't played there myself, but most of the time when I look at the tables, I see a lot of players that I've tagged as weak while playing against them on lower stakes.

Originally posted by Garvante
Sorry for my late response. I looked at your graphs and what stood out to me (despite the fact that you were as successful on 0,5/1 as you said), is that there seems to be a huge difference in profitability between a full 6-max table and one where just 1 player is missing or sitting out.

Sample size. Anything can (and does) happen in a couple thousand hands. You basically can't draw any meaningful conclusion from that sample.

Originally posted by redskwerl
Sample size. Anything can (and does) happen in a couple thousand hands. You basically can't draw any meaningful conclusion from that sample.

Did you look at his 2014 graph though?

There is a diference, because if you play six max with one recreational player and that player bust, you are now playing a table full of regs and therefore it becomes impossible to beat the rake. ( that couple of hands beforee you sit out on next BB ) But 5-max table with atleast 1recreational player is as good as six max.

And as redskwerl said variance plays a huge role in this.

Originally posted by Necromadx
...therefore it becomes impossible to beat the rake. ( that couple of hands beforee you sit out on next BB )

I'm not sure what you mean.
There is no rake unless you see a flop (at least in most modern on-line games).

I do have a bit of a leak in that regard, though -- when I've decided to sit out, I tighten up a lot and let otherwise playable hands find their way into the muck.

Peace,
VS

I mean, that you have 6 handed table with one recreational player, then recreational player bust and then you are playing 5 handed game with 4 other regs. In FL especially higher, edges are too small, that playing this table even for a few hands ( maybe a one or two orbits before you notice if you are multitabling ) means that you are just raking the profit - yes you are seeing flop, because FLHE is a postflop game and you are still playing your ranges. But maybe I am wrong and just suck playing 3, 4, 5 handed FLHE.

Hope that you understand what i meant. ( My english is not that good ) ♠_biggrin: