3 ms·

I’m going to answer a different (maybe more helpful) question than the one you asked: Q: As a noob, what’s the quickest way to become better than breakeven, th

I’m going to answer a different (maybe more helpful) question than the one you asked: Q: As a noob, what’s the quickest way to become better than breakeven, then better than breakeven including the rake/seat charge? A: Find a way to play against the worst players you can find, or at least players worse than you. There are likely some tough games near you; avoid those. They might be some soft games; play in those. Game selection and exploiting opponent weaknesses can easily turn a player with a grasp of the basics into a winning player.

galaxyLogic 3y ago
Isn't it much about "poker-face" including knowing your opponents?
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Poker face doesn’t matter if you play against players who are only looking at their cards (inc community cards). ;)
dmurray 3y ago
I've long decided that this is basically the only skill in poker. OK, that's too trite, but it dominates all other skills. If you can play even a little bit - eg you know some hand rankings and don't get too drunk - you're better than some players, and you can find a game you can beat. If you're the 20th best player in the world, but instead of looking to play against weaker players you yearn to challenge yourself against the best, or in general if you move to bigger and tougher games every time things are going well, you will lose money in the long run. It's not quite that simple in practice. You might be one of the worst players in your local cardroom, so your only winning move is not to play. Or you might be one of the best, but you don't travel to other games, so you win in spite of your self. I've seen so many people like this! If you play on the Internet, however, that's effectively not possible.
- waprin 3y ago
  Game selection is the most important way to make money in poker, but the stronger a player you are, the more games you can select from. Isaac Haxton is a top pro player who only plays only tournaments that cost $10k+ to buyin to, and recently discussed how this works on a recent episode of the Thinking Poker podcast by Andrew Brokos. He actually recommends against tournaments for less experienced players aiming to make money since smaller buyin tournaments have large fields and thus large variance, but the "high roller" tournaments have smaller fields which make variance more reasonable. The bigger point is that while playing against worse players is an important skill if you want to make money, poker is still a very complex game with a high skill ceiling similar to a game like chess. If you're good enough, even pro players are "worse players" and you can "select" those games. Though admittedly even the high roller tournaments require some "recreational" businessman players for enough pros to be willing to play it for it to run. Solver study has become essential for the vast majority of top pros, which Haxton also discusses in the podcast, and I mentioned my project in the space in my other comment.
  - cortesoft 3y ago
    For people actually trying to make a living playing poker, it isn’t enough just to find a game you can win; the game also has to return enough per hour to make it worth your while. Even if you can reliably win, but only $5 an hour, it isn’t worth your time. There is an opportunity cost to consider.
    - waprin 3y ago
      The more skill you have the higher your win rate. It’s true that playing against bad players will increase your win rate but it’s also true that if you study and improve you will also improve your win rate. It’s not true that there’s no point in studying since you should only play against bad players, because “bad player” is relative to your skill. The podcast episode I recommended is a long time pro player interviewing another long time pro player, whose widely regarded as one of the best players ever, so I think these people know better than the HN comment section of “well 20 years ago I read one sklansky book and a year ago I played a 2/5 game and didn’t win much so poker is pointless unless you play idiots”
treypitt 3y ago
Agreed. I think the same strategy also applies to a given table or night: only play hands where you have good cards. It's a good strategy for beginners
- Affric 3y ago
  Similarly: it’s only worth playing against a bluff if you can beat the bluff.
PennRobotics 3y ago
There's also the psychological aspect of continuing to play in those soft games even when the other players know they are losing. A guy I dealt to for years was known at the table as Hillbilly. He had a manner that just disarmed some other players. He wasn't an amazing player, but he was a lot smarter than most people assumed, and you wanted him at the table because he was fun to chat with and you thought you could beat this disheveled, ol' country boy. When you lost to Hillbilly, it was just bad luck. When you won, it's because he's a simpleton, of course. But somehow, he always had a pretty big stack of chips in front of him. A lot of pro players have this edge, too; just the right personality to get other people to believe their superiority, ignore their discipline, and "go on tilt" (make suboptimal decisions)

galaxyLogic 3y ago

Isn't it much about "poker-face" including knowing your opponents?

sokoloff 3y ago
Poker face doesn’t matter if you play against players who are only looking at their cards (inc community cards). ;)

dmurray 3y ago

I've long decided that this is basically the only skill in poker. OK, that's too trite, but it dominates all other skills. If you can play even a little bit - eg you know some hand rankings and don't get too drunk - you're better than some players, and you can find a game you can beat. If you're the 20th best player in the world, but instead of looking to play against weaker players you yearn to challenge yourself against the best, or in general if you move to bigger and tougher games every time things are going well, you will lose money in the long run. It's not quite that simple in practice. You might be one of the worst players in your local cardroom, so your only winning move is not to play. Or you might be one of the best, but you don't travel to other games, so you win in spite of your self. I've seen so many people like this! If you play on the Internet, however, that's effectively not possible.

waprin 3y ago
Game selection is the most important way to make money in poker, but the stronger a player you are, the more games you can select from. Isaac Haxton is a top pro player who only plays only tournaments that cost $10k+ to buyin to, and recently discussed how this works on a recent episode of the Thinking Poker podcast by Andrew Brokos. He actually recommends against tournaments for less experienced players aiming to make money since smaller buyin tournaments have large fields and thus large variance, but the "high roller" tournaments have smaller fields which make variance more reasonable. The bigger point is that while playing against worse players is an important skill if you want to make money, poker is still a very complex game with a high skill ceiling similar to a game like chess. If you're good enough, even pro players are "worse players" and you can "select" those games. Though admittedly even the high roller tournaments require some "recreational" businessman players for enough pros to be willing to play it for it to run. Solver study has become essential for the vast majority of top pros, which Haxton also discusses in the podcast, and I mentioned my project in the space in my other comment.
- cortesoft 3y ago
  For people actually trying to make a living playing poker, it isn’t enough just to find a game you can win; the game also has to return enough per hour to make it worth your while. Even if you can reliably win, but only $5 an hour, it isn’t worth your time. There is an opportunity cost to consider.
  - waprin 3y ago
    The more skill you have the higher your win rate. It’s true that playing against bad players will increase your win rate but it’s also true that if you study and improve you will also improve your win rate. It’s not true that there’s no point in studying since you should only play against bad players, because “bad player” is relative to your skill. The podcast episode I recommended is a long time pro player interviewing another long time pro player, whose widely regarded as one of the best players ever, so I think these people know better than the HN comment section of “well 20 years ago I read one sklansky book and a year ago I played a 2/5 game and didn’t win much so poker is pointless unless you play idiots”

treypitt 3y ago

Agreed. I think the same strategy also applies to a given table or night: only play hands where you have good cards. It's a good strategy for beginners

Affric 3y ago
Similarly: it’s only worth playing against a bluff if you can beat the bluff.

PennRobotics 3y ago

There's also the psychological aspect of continuing to play in those soft games even when the other players know they are losing. A guy I dealt to for years was known at the table as Hillbilly. He had a manner that just disarmed some other players. He wasn't an amazing player, but he was a lot smarter than most people assumed, and you wanted him at the table because he was fun to chat with and you thought you could beat this disheveled, ol' country boy. When you lost to Hillbilly, it was just bad luck. When you won, it's because he's a simpleton, of course. But somehow, he always had a pretty big stack of chips in front of him. A lot of pro players have this edge, too; just the right personality to get other people to believe their superiority, ignore their discipline, and "go on tilt" (make suboptimal decisions)