[Closed] Why am I so bad at cash games...

IMO and I dont think everyone would agree (to preface my comments) I dont think playing NL2 will tell you anything about whether you are good at cash games, especially over 3k hands. When a buyin is $2 people are just crazy. I think you should take your shot at NL10 seen as you have ~25 buyins and see if your play provides more positive results there.

But at the end of the day tourney play and cash play is very different so being good at one doesnt necessary mean that you will be so at the other!

Hey there,
I apologize for my miss-spelled words and bad grammar since some of native speakers could puke or something. ♠_cool:

Honestly im a bit sorry , since i dont know how could any PS player have -ROI on NL2 on everest. :f_cry:Are u playing BSS or MSS or SSS 6max / FR ? Since SSS is only playable on NL2 i dont see potencial grinding succesfully higher limits. I would fully recommend MSS since you have easy desitions post flop. NL 2 Everest tables are by far the easiest tables I played so far, so i guess if you are begginer in CG the MSS is the way to go. Also you must adjust your play to the players and honestlly ive seen some crazy so far. Play one or two tables as you can stay focused and get a feel about the players. As you will play comfortably MSS you can start playing BSS i wouls suggest 6max NL2 -> Fishes like action and also you can exploite the most value from your hands. ♠_biggrin:

Good luck at your tables Ohs ♠_cool:

I'm playing BSS FR, 3-4 tables, sorry, forgot to mention.
And yes, it's very sad I seem to be one of those fishes
When I muster up some courage, I'll give NL10 a shot. 2 buy-ins won't kill me, right? ♠_biggrin:

On the other hand, it could all be how things are arranged in my head. Cash games feel like work to me, while tourneys are so exciting and fun. And it's funny how I can be perfectly concentrated for 3-4 hours playing one tournament table, while I tend to lose concentration playing 4 cash game tables in less than 2 hours.

So you think tournaments are fun, and you feel like winning on tournaments but losing in cash games... why exactly do you want to play cash?
With that sample size, you really cant say whether youre winning or losing, but in the tournaments you will likely look like a winning player for quite some time, whereas in cash games you will likely look like a loser for some time, because you will have to recover your losses, and then gain the same amount as winnings in order to break even. I would go on with tournaments, for reasons of mindset/tilt...

I suckbox at cash too.

Come luckbox in mtts

Well, the problem with tourneys is that they start at a predetermined time and last 3-4 hours, or longer. While you can play cash for 20 minutes any time of day, then go eat, walk, whatever, then play some more hands. So time-wise I see cash games as more suitable and insertable between daily activities. So I think it's cool to improve cash games, just for those days when you can't manage to spend so much time on tourneys and yet have to feed the poker beast.
Plus, nothing in cash games beats the frustration of villain hitting runner-runner on you on the bubble after playing 3 hours.
That's why tourney players have less hair on their heads than an average cash game player. And must use steel keyboards.

Also, I played a few hundred hands of NL10.
Sweet jebus! That is a completely different game than NL2. No more 6 limpers per pot, no more 4-people all-in pre-flop, it's all about the pre-flop game here as far as I can tell, people actually understand position and will almost always 3-bet from the button. A whole new world.

So, any recommendations for books to read? They won't (probably) work for NL2, but I figure they will for NL10.

Cheers!

Glad you're having more luck with NL10 buddy.

Super/System by Doyle Brunson is available for NL HE as a free PDF downlaod. That man is a legend and knows what he's talking about! After you finish the first one and work on the concepts in it, read the second one.

Brunson is all about aggressive play and that is what you need in cash games, especially 6-max (I love 6-max, can't stand FR)

And I'm the complete opposite to you, I suck balls at tournament play. I try to play tight and only big hands early on, but this always seems to end up with me being a huge dog in the chip count when it gets near the bubble.

Altho I won a 24 man MTT the other day in epic style. Don't think I played a single hand until I hit the last table. Me and another guy has <2000 chips each, everyone else at the table had at least 8k. I got down to 800 before the other guy went out. I then doubled up, then tripled up in successive hands! so here i was with about 5k chips, and won an all-in to knock another straggler out. Up to 10k, 4 of us left, all in the money. Eliminated the next two players to be chip leader, then went on to eliminate the last guy, all in about 15 hands. I felt like a boss ♠_cool:
$2 into $26

we both have exactly the same dillema.. i suck at cash games but own in mtt sng. all of my winnings come from tourneys, and when i try cash games ill be up for a while then clash with some donk, get a bad beat.. then recover my loss on 1 table 6max sng. I swore to myself today, I'm never gonna try cash games. Variance is much more uncontrollable in my own experience. I wanted to multitable cash games to reach supernova status in the far far future, but i really suck at cash games. :\

Originally posted by bennisboy

Super/System by Doyle Brunson is available for NL HE as a free PDF downlaod.

Can you tell me where this can be downloaded for free please?

Originally posted by brooksjohn

Originally posted by bennisboy

Super/System by Doyle Brunson is available for NL HE as a free PDF downlaod.

Can you tell me where this can be downloaded for free please?

http://dominateonlinepoker.com/wp-content/image/pokerbooks/Doyle%20Brunson's%20Super%20System.pdf

Just click the link buddy. Should definitely help you get the basics of cash games ♦

i had the same problem.
i think tourneys have a logical way of playing and im less inclied to (un)herocall and just fold.

im still playing cashgames now, dont really know why i didnt played tourneys (a lot better resoults).. but u get the feel for cashgame in a few K hands or more like a few 10 k hands, still i kinda think i play tourneys better, exept for the push or fold stage.

are there any regular mtt (not turbos!) that u can grind all day? (on pokerstars perhaps) (10-30$ bi)

I concur about NL10 being a lot better stage to play cash games. NL2 is just to wild, people don't care about their money in there. Nobody cares about strategy. It's like playing on facebook.

Most of my profit has come from 90 man S&G but i made a nice $20 profit in an hour at NL10, so can't complain about that.

I have recently been switching from mss to bss decided to practice at nl2 my graph just drops and drops with so many suck outs!!! I had to move up to nl25 to feel comfy with the game, although its much much tighter at party and every game seems to be full of rocks! I feel like im in the grand canyon!!!

Hi,

First off all get tracked!
In the silver articles you can find much more info.
You can run tests...
Watch vids: BSS NL2 up to NL10 = bronze

If you do not beat NL2 you are not beating NL25.
Your BR is not for NL25 so begin with just 50$ on NL2!
NL2 you can easy play 9 tables...

Work on your BSS game.
BSS FR game is much harder then tournaments.
Guess why people call it donkaments?

I started with tournys myself.
Now I played almost 80.000 hands BSS and my game improved so much.

Read articles, watch vids, make tests and post hands...

Good luck!

Imo, this "move up to where they respect your raises" mentality advocated by some of the people here is wrong and dangerous, especially for beginners!

Yes, NL2 is "wild". Yes, the players there mostly don't care about winning or losing, are calling way too much etc. But this is what makes them VERY BAD players and very easy to beat. It's the micro stakes like NL2 is where you meet the worst players and therefore good winrates without too much variance (since most opponents are passive) should be easily achievable for everyone who is beating higher limits in the long run (and in the other direction: who doesn't even beat these players, usually won't show consistent (!) profit on higher limits). Learning to play correctly against every type of fish is the bread and butter for everyone who wants to win at this game and if you fail adapting to the worst players possible, you should fix that problem and not try on higher limits where most of the players have already beaten limits like NL2!

I think, and that may be the case only for me (or not), that you can't really improve while playing >4 tables. You just play like a robot and don't really have time to think, put people on hands, notice which players are bluffable, what are their tendencies, and so on. And the most important thing for me is that I'm not having fun clicking like a maniac while my brain is overboiling. I'm not putting myself into difficult positions or giving my brain a chance to process a difficult situation. That could perhaps be the more profitable way at some point at NL2, but that's not the reason I play or how I think I could improve.
On the other hand, could you even have a chance to improve your game around all these "bad and easily beatable" players?

Also, could it be that the people who played NL2 a while ago forgot what it's really like there in maniacville? Could and would their current game (let's say NL100) work at NL2? I don't think so. But it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

Originally posted by jebozid
I think, and that may be the case only for me (or not), that you can't really improve while playing >4 tables. You just play like a robot and don't really have time to think, put people on hands, notice which players are bluffable, what are their tendencies, and so on. And the most important thing for me is that I'm not having fun clicking like a maniac while my brain is overboiling. I'm not putting myself into difficult positions or giving my brain a chance to process a difficult situation.

I agree. And I think for a beginner it is crucial to figure out how many tables he or she can play with 100% focus. Grinding/massive multitabling should imo only be done if one already has a quite well developed game and is willing to give up a bit on BB/100 to (hopefully) create a higher hourly by playing more tables.
But honestly - in the micros the hourly shouldn't be the main objective, but improving should be!

Originally posted by jebozid
On the other hand, could you even have a chance to improve your game around all these "bad and easily beatable" players?

Yes, definitely! As I said before, knowing how to crush bad players is the key element of your winrate on any limit! Imagine the following setting on a NL100 SH table: you, 4 regs, one maniac. And consider you are paying rake! If you don't know how to beat the maniac (better to crush him), where should a winrate come from? From hardcore exploiting the regs? I don't think so! Note that the other regs on the table will usually be able to adjust at least somewhat well against the maniac.

Originally posted by jebozid
Also, could it be that the people who played NL2 a while ago forgot what it's really like there in maniacville? Could and would their current game (let's say NL100) work at NL2? I don't think so. But it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

Every semi-competent NL100 Reg will know how to adjust to the micros. Of course, the game you'll see players from higher limits play on NL2 will differ quite a lot from their game at their normal stakes.