Should I not be playing zoom?

Zoom is also a cash game, so I guess you meant you could be playing zoom or regular tables

If we are now talking about no-limit poker, it is still the same game, no matter if you get hands fast or slow.

I don't know why it would be a rake trap. I also don't get why it would have much higher variance. Imo the more bad recreational players you have who are taking chances with weird hands, the higher your variance is.

When it comes to profitability, that is a bit debatable also. In zoom games people could be a little bit tighter and because it is fast you could have a bit less concentration. You also won't see the same players so often so you can't exploit the weak players as much.
That could slightly decrease your winrate. But we don't really care about that. What we care about is our hourly winnings, and in zoom you could be playing double the volume compared to regular tables.

There has been a lot of debate about this topic for a loooong time. Personally I don't think it makes a big difference. Imo you should play the format you want to play.

Originally posted by la55i
Imo the more bad recreational players you have who are taking chances with weird hands, the higher your variance is.

I don't agree, it's true only in a misleading sense as if I told you not to try getting a pay raise in your job because you'd pay more taxes on your salary and nobody wants to pay more taxes right ?
(In this analogy variance is taxes and your salary is your winrate.)
Variance can be seen as a quantitative function of your profit so the more there is profit (as in your more random fishes example) the more there is variance technically speaking. Sure. But that's not the "omg my variance is higher help me I'm gonna tilt" kind of variance rise which is more a psychological thing.

Originally posted by la55i
When it comes to profitability, that is a bit debatable also. In zoom games people could be a little bit tighter and because it is fast you could have a bit less concentration. You also won't see the same players so often so you can't exploit the weak players as much.
That could slightly decrease your winrate. But we don't really care about that. What we care about is our hourly winnings, and in zoom you could be playing double the volume compared to regular tables.

There has been a lot of debate about this topic for a loooong time. Personally I don't think it makes a big difference. Imo you should play the format you want to play.

The difference can be HUGE depending on the stake. At NL2 it's tremendous, I checked it recently during a NL2 friendly challenge I played with a coach for a different site I won't name here. Our sample isn't really enough to prove anything of course but I don't think it's just a fluke if we both ended up having more or less twice the same winrate at standard tables. Yes your heard me. Nearly twice more.

I think you underestimate the relative nititude of zoom players, the fact that most real whales don't play zoom and that it can be really hard to play without stats or historical dynamic when you don't have solid basis in game theory. For all those reasons and some more like the lack of pausing time between two spots for the brain zoom can and should be really harder to play for players that aren't already really solid in their game.

You are probably right about the variance thing but I'm not sure if I 100% agree with what you said about winrate differences between zoom and regular. I guess it depends on many different things and can't really comment on your experiences without seeing some data. And as you said the sample you have is small. Did you compare pokerstars zoom vs some random chinese room's regular table player pool? I'm not sure if I can agree with that "total whales don't play zoom" either. And I'm not sure if solid basis in game theory is needed if you have adjusted properly to the tendencies of that specific player pool. For example the "auto-profit lines", which you probably don't like that much, could be working very well in some cases.

I can attest that fast poker being more nitty and less fishy is a trend at least for pokerstars and partypoker and it seems sound to suppose it's the case everywhere. A format that encourages you to fold more easily and to play more concentrated, come on, how can you expect it to be as fishy in the end ?
There are more regs and less whales in fast, see for yourself or ask anyone.
Autoprofit lines work everywhere, I don't see why they'd work more at fast, but yeah they do work.

All in all I've never had a better winrate in fast tables. Nor have I ever heard of anybody having one. But I've heard lots of people telling me to play more standard and less fast for my own sake ^^
And I seldom listened. I'm quite addicted to the speed format. But it's stupid of me.

I don't expect to be just as fishy all the time but I wouldn't say there are no very bad players. Especially during some promotions there are plenty of them. I'm also not saying the winrate would be same or higher in zoom.

I still don't think zoom is a bad format. I like it. But I must say that it takes some adjusting. When you are encouraged to play fast and fold quickly, you still shouldn't do it. If one has tilting problems, zoom can destroy you.

I guess zoom is not for everyone, but I personally prefer playing 2 or 3 zoom tables and taking my time with the decisions instead of multitabling regulars. With regulars I might end up having action on 3+ tables at the same time and I have found it to reduce my concentration more.

I still think everyone should try both formats and see which they like.

Of course but don't say there isn't a winrate gap because there is. Also it might be lessened in the end in the hourly winrate because it's easier to play more hands in zoom.
And as you said tilt is one more reason to avoid zoom if you aren't rock solid lol. I never said it's a bad format. But it's the hard format. For the most true such as me !

Originally posted by MyFloXyBabY
Of course but don't say there isn't a winrate gap because there is. Also it might be lessened in the end in the hourly winrate because it's easier to play more hands in zoom.

[...]That could slightly decrease your winrate. But we don't really care about that. What we care about is our hourly winnings, and in zoom you could be playing double the volume compared to regular tables.

I didn't say there isn't a gap. I listed reasons (tighter pool, less concentration, not seeing same fish often) and said the winrate is probably smaller. I also pointed out that it could be balanced by higher volume..

Note: Hold'em is not my main game.

Some observations:
 At a standard 6-max table, you get to know the players tendencies fairly quickly, and they get to know your tendencies just as fast.
 There is a "culture" as well. At some sites, everybody limps in to try to see a flop. If you iso-raise, they don't fold. They paid to see the flop and by gar, they're going to see it, and to hell with your pesky raises. Other sites, you can steal the blinds with a 3BB open raise from UTG.
 At zoom tables, it takes a long time to build up an image of a player, since you might see that player only once in 10 hands -- if even that. For that reason, opponents use other clues to form an opinion. One of those clues is stack size. I find that when I have a 250+ BB stack, I have much greater pre-flop fold equity, and 3Bets are far more effective. I also tend to defer to larger stacks, and play tighter against them. On the other hand, those larger stacks like to keep them large, and seem to be ready willing and able to fold post flop in the face of aggression.

Oh -- and after all that rambling, I prefer non-zoom tables, but don't like playing shorter than 4-way (don't know why really). Also, a table becomes "stale" after a time, and the action seems to die away, and when that happens, I just change tables.

Now if only there was a site with 300 active 5-Card Draw tables <sigh>

Cheers,
VS

no money in ZOOM poker in current year, everyone is solid