Making a living from poker getting more difficult

[JJMcClure]

The only thing I feel like adding is that even though I agree with everything JJMcClure said above, I also agree that it's indeed FAR more difficult to show profit today than it was say 5 years ago. But it's just that - more difficult. Not impossible.

I wasn't playing 5 years ago but I've read all about the glory days of endless fish and anyone who's read a book having an edge. These days there's so much info out there that people like Dan Harrington are finding good players/standards all the way down to 10c25c.

I play most of the other variants too but conversations like this make me feel like I ought to be putting more time into them because knowledgeable players still have a big edge in them. I like lowball variants, there's something that feels easier about trying to make the worst hand....

P.S. No, I'm not a professional player myself. I do play ~5k hands of NL200 per month (and show a steady 2.5BB/100) but I'm mainly speaking of my experience not as a player but as somebody who has been closely connected to the iGaming industry for half a decade.

Me neither, I'm stuck in an endless loop of grinding up to say 25c50c then not playing for a while and when I come back in I feel like a should drop a couple of levels and work up again... rinse and repeat... technically I'm bankrolled to play $1$2 but I feel that I should beat all the lower levels first.

Those are respectable stats though mate and 5k isn't too shabby by my standards but I don't play anywhere near as much as I'd like to and I'm no where near as good as I'd like to be.

[crabfoot]

Apologies for this delayed reply. I recently stumbled on this thread again -

Do you have evidence of this? I'm not inclined to believe it for two reasons:

1. The poker sites would be crazy to played rigged when they're making so much money, if it got out that they were fixed the online poker industry would die. The only incidences of fixed online poker have been perpertrated by rogue employees, not the sites themselves.

2. I've never heard a winning player say that the sites are non-random.

Evidence?
I didn't say non- random, I said pseudo-random.
Back in the mists of time, around 25 years ago, PCs had 8086 processors. Now, it is not possible to generate truly random numbers using a 8086 processor, even if the 8087 coprocessor is fitted (trust me, I did take a computing degree 20 years ago). Techniques for generating pseudo-random numbers were developed at the time which were sufficient for many purposes, taking a "seed" value from an internal clock chip on the motherboard.

Once PCs had developed up to the 80486DX-5 processor, it was just about possible to generate random numbers, but it was like watching paint dry when you were waiting for the results. People would still use the old pseudo-random methods if they wanted to calculate card deals "on the fly", and it is my opinion that the deals used in online casinos are still calculated that way.

Looky, there are some "rules of thumb" that people have calculated over the years, like the rule that says on any table of 10 people the flop will produce a pair in at least one hand 52% of the time.

Here's the crabfoot "rule of four" - if you have four cards contributing to a flush or a run when the flop goes down, your chance of completing that flush or run is around 50/50. It is actually about 48% for the flush and 53% for the run, but I'm not picking nits here - and yes, I did the sums to confirm the probabilities, once.

In real life, this works. In real life, you can exploit this to play those low unsuited connectors to benefit - the ones that the pros call 4% hands - you just need to see the flop cheaply. In real life, a flop that is "cheap to see" can be your best friend if you know what to do. It exploits the "blinds system" - if all hands had an ante, it would get harder because the pre-flop pot would be bigger, but if you can get in to see the flop cheap on a low blind, hands which you thought were no use can be valuable.
Online, the percentage of "hits" from hands like this is lower - around 35%, and you should not chase gutstraights, although in real life games being a fish with gutstraights can pay off.

As I said, I used to make good money online - but the modern betting strategies don't allow me to exploit my Rule of Four as much as I used to - it does not hit often enough, and you HAVE to fold if somebody raises more than 1 BB pre-flop. I can keep my head above water by being a conventional "tight" player, but I don't make big money anymore, and I know I could bluff more and do better - but that's not my style.

In contrast, the world of bridge has embraced truly random deals. In competitive bridge, everybody in a tournament plays the same hands in turn. The thing that distinguishes a great player from a good player is often just one hand in 25 - one hand where the great player demonstrates some insight that the other players have missed, whereas the other hands have all been played similarly by the players.

I have been playing both bridge and poker for over 40 years. I'm still a great bridge player, despite the truly random computer generated deals, which have messed up the game for a lot of "good" players. I've gone down to an "average" online poker player in the last few years. I can still make money in a "live" poker game, but it is all a bit too 50/50 for me to be interested in playing online.

I could do better, but frankly I always found poker boring. I only play the game to be sociable or make money. There's more skill in playing Crash (13 card brag) ...

If you want to make a living from poker, the best game to sort men from boys is Omaha Hi/Lo. No computer whizzkids have developed programs to calculate the odds properly. It is still pure mental agility and skill.

I'm an average Omaha player, but Hi/Lo is a real mental challenge.

[JJMcClure]

Hey Crabfoot,

I play OH8 but I'd have to say that 7 card stud is always going to be the toughest variant. That's not just my opinion, it's widely held throughout professional poker. (And incidently there are plenty of tools for calculating hi/lo odds, this is a good one for post hand anlaysis - http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-tool...lculator/omaha).

I don't understand your rule of four. I would never play cards simply because they were suited and if you do hit 4 to your flush on the flop the odds of completing it are actually around 35% with two cards to come not 50/50, almost the same for open ended straights (32%). With one card to come that drops to 20%. What about all the other hands, did you only play draws? You don't bluff much so you never tried to utilise position or a read/table image? You always folded to a PFR? I'm starting to think that the modern game bears no resemblance to the one you're describing.

It does sound from reading your post that you're better suited to Bridge than poker because in poker you spend a lot of time lying and that deceptive element makes it an entirely different game. You say you don't bluff much, it's not your style, that is really going to hinder your poker because putting someone on a hand that you can bluff them off is a huge part of the game. They say that if you win every time you bluff you're not bluffing enough.

[JJMcClure]

I made a reply to this but it vanished? I'll reiterate as closely as possible.

The odds of completing a 4 flush with two cards to come are about 35%, not 50/50. Almost the same for an open ended straight draw (32%).

I play Oh8 (pot limit mostly) but it's not the most complex form of poker, that honour goes to seven card stud and that's not just my opinion, it's widely held throughout professional poker. 7 card stud is the players game of choice and there's a hi/lo variant of that too.

I don't really get your playing style, it sounds like all you did was chase draws but you must have been playing other hands right? Did you always fold to a PFR? What about position and reads/table image? Levelling? They say that if you win every time you bluff you're not bluffing enough. The game you describe doesn't bear much resemblance to the modern game or to advanced poker where your play depends on what the other person thinks you have and if you don't bluff much then maybe Bridge is more suited to your psychology, no pun intended.

[crabfoot]

You are not supposed to get my playing style - I'm an oddball, which makes me hard to play against. And the numbers I gave were for a favorable outcome, not a single expected outcome. That's part of the magic of playing suited and otherwise related cards.

What upsets me about the modern game is that my opportunities to bluff are so often pre-empted by some pumphead dumping his stack on the table every time he sees a K or an A. It means I have to play a tight game to make money. My edge has always been playing loose when almost everybody is playing tight, and vice versa.

I can still make money, but a lot of the subtlety has gone out of the game lately, and it is not much fun anymore. Play a tourney and you have to survive for a couple of hours until the dipsticks are out and you can have a game with the civilised players. So I'm out of it.

[JJMcClure]

You are not supposed to get my playing style - I'm an oddball, which makes me hard to play against. And the numbers I gave were for a favorable outcome, not a single expected outcome. That's part of the magic of playing suited and otherwise related cards.

What upsets me about the modern game is that my opportunities to bluff are so often pre-empted by some pumphead dumping his stack on the table every time he sees a K or an A. It means I have to play a tight game to make money. My edge has always been playing loose when almost everybody is playing tight, and vice versa.

I can still make money, but a lot of the subtlety has gone out of the game lately, and it is not much fun anymore. Play a tourney and you have to survive for a couple of hours until the dipsticks are out and you can have a game with the civilised players. So I'm out of it.

You gotta be kidding me, in no way has the subtlety gone out of the game (tournament or cash), in many ways the game has reached new levels of complexity with the meta game and 'levelling' becoming more sophisticated than it's ever been. Do you read poker magazines or watch it on TV? The pros are all moaning about how the internet kids have changed the game and they've been left behind a lot of them.

As for how people play, if you know some 'pumphead' is shoving light then you can just pick them off, good poker has always been about getting reads and using them, how people play shouldn't make any difference to you as long as you can figure out what they're doing and play accordingly. To say 'I don't like the way people play anymore' is just not thinking like a poker player, IMO.

Answer me this, would you play cards just because they're suited?

I still don't get your numbers, a flush/straight draw is never going to be 50/50 to complete, the only way I can get to 50/50 when talking about draws is if you put it into a specific hand context like a flush draw against middle pair post flop with two cards still to come which is so contextually specific that it's got me scratching my head why you'd mention it, unless you weren't. Is that what you meant by 'favorable outcome'?

I'd happily play a tourney where every player but me is a dipstick, I play to win not to challenge myself by playing better players, that's not profitable long term.

[tke71709]

Here's the crabfoot "rule of four" - if you have four cards contributing to a flush or a run when the flop goes down, your chance of completing that flush or run is around 50/50. It is actually about 48% for the flush and 53% for the run, but I'm not picking nits here - and yes, I did the sums to confirm the probabilities, once.

An interesting "rule" but completely incorrect.

In either situation you have 8 outs, 8*2+1 = 17% of completing your open ended straight or flush draw per card remaining, so roughly a 35% chance if you stay in until the end.

In real life, this works.

If you're factoring in the odds of the person folding to your bet as well the odds of hitting, than I suppose it could be EV+ in the long run.

In real life, you can exploit this to play those low unsuited connectors to benefit - the ones that the pros call 4% hands - you just need to see the flop cheaply.

Hence why any decent player will not allow you to see the flop cheaply.

able.

Online, the percentage of "hits" from hands like this is lower - around 35%, and you should not chase gutstraights, although in real life games being a fish with gutstraights can pay off.

The % are not going to change based on real life or online play.

In a real game, playing horribly can play off if you get lucky. I'll agree with that.

As I said, I used to make good money online - but the modern betting strategies don't allow me to exploit my Rule of Four as much as I used to - it does not hit often enough, and you HAVE to fold if somebody raises more than 1 BB pre-flop.

Seeing as the standard raise is 3X BB your "strategy" has been negated to uselessness by better strategy.

That's the whole point of games, strategies are developed and counter-strategies are developed to beat those, and so on... A game that never evolved would become boring awfully quickly.

[crabfoot]

You gotta be kidding me, in no way has the subtlety gone out of the game (tournament or cash), in many ways the game has reached new levels of complexity with the meta game and 'levelling' becoming more sophisticated than it's ever been. Do you read poker magazines or watch it on TV?.

No, I don't read about it. Sometimes I watch it on TV.

The pros are all moaning about how the internet kids have changed the game and they've been left behind a lot of them.

Yes, that's a fair description of me at the moment - but I'm not left behind. My game is still sound. What I don't like is all the sitting around, because the game is more competitive. It's still the same game, but I don't make money as quickly as I used to.

As for how people play, if you know some 'pumphead' is shoving light then you can just pick them off, good poker has always been about getting reads and using them, how people play shouldn't make any difference to you as long as you can figure out what they're doing and play accordingly. To say 'I don't like the way people play anymore' is just not thinking like a poker player, IMO.

I don't like being unable to predict when the pumphead is going to do it - I don't like putting money on the table, then folding - so I have to play like a calling station and be prepared to call anything when I make a light bet. Makes me fold more or play dominantly. I don't like being forced to play dominantly because it demands concentration.

Answer me this, would you play cards just because they're suited?.

In certain circumstances I would - but I want a K or A and a weak opponent. You can't wait for that perfect hand all the time ...

I still don't get your numbers

Looky, I'm qualified in numerate disciplines. I'm a chemist and a robotics engineer. I learned a lot of mathematics and scientific programming.

Learn about quantum mechanics, and the concepts of quantum betting can become understandable. They contradict the instinct of most poker players.

I'd happily play a tourney where every player but me is a dipstick, I play to win not to challenge myself by playing better players, that's not profitable long term.

Quite right, but I want more to interest me than just the money.

An interesting "rule" but completely incorrect.

I like playing people like you ...

In either situation you have 8 outs,

There are 13 cards in each suit. If I have two cards of my suit in my hand, and two on the table, that leaves 8 outs?
I like playing people like you ...

Seeing as the standard raise is 3X BB your "strategy" has been negated to uselessness by better strategy.

That's what was happening a while back, I adapted to cope.
Why is it a better strategy to fold out people with weak hands who would otherwise put money on the table?

That's the whole point of games, strategies are developed and counter-strategies are developed to beat those, and so on... A game that never evolved would become boring awfully quickly.

As far as I am concerned, holdem has evolved to become boring - that's why I'm not playing.

As for the rest of this conversation - there are three good tips in what I have said here. And a lead to the future.

No one has said anything to contradict my opinion that the poker hands dealt online are not truly random.

Please stop trying to pick holes in what I've said. I can and have changed my game. I can still play and make money, without using software as a crutch.
But nowadays, HOLDEM IS SODDING WELL BORING as far as I am concerned.

[tke71709]

There are 13 cards in each suit. If I have two cards of my suit in my hand, and two on the table, that leaves 8 outs?
I like playing people like you ...

Sorry, I got screwed out of $10K shortly before I wrote that post so I wasn't paying attention.

9*2 = 18% * 2 = 36% chance of hitting your flush with two cards to come, and the 8 cards still stands for OESDs.

36% <> 50% like you stated earlier.

[crabfoot]

OESDs - Old English Sheep Dogs?

So with two cards hunting a flush, I don't also stand a chance of hitting a straight, a pair, two pairs, carpet, or a full house? Pick up on the rest of the conversation, I don't generally move unless the cards are connected as well as suited.

I'm going to say this for at least the third time, explicitly. The argument is whether the deals are truly random or not.
I believe that all the poker sites are still using pseudo-random number generators to get their deals. Those pseudo-random deals favour players with high card hands.
The way I played was working to give me a useful edge.
Betting strategies have eroded that edge, but I can still make money if I need to, because I am capable of playing the same way that all the other players do, and I still have a few "advantages" - I just don't get to use them as often as a few years ago.

If you cannot DISPROVE the assertion that the deals are pseudo-random, please stop trying to pick my brains for the few "advantages" I still have.
THIS IS MORE BORING THAN PLAYING HOLDEM.