EPTA TL guide to online poker - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
Etherone
United States1898 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
29 fps
United States5719 Posts
one thing: you use a lot of terms/abbreviations that may not be familiar to novices. this is important because this guide is aimed at novices, so you should define terms when necessary. still... makes me want to play | ||
|
Last.Midnight
Australia871 Posts
| ||
|
Last.Midnight
Australia871 Posts
| ||
|
Naib
Hungary4843 Posts
| ||
|
jodogohoo
Canada2533 Posts
| ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
edit* and wtf i have been so card dead for so long! lol standard poker complaints...but seriously though wtf gimme cards! | ||
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
On June 02 2009 13:15 PanoRaMa wrote: But I do think you should've devoted a section to discussing exactly how hard it is to become decent at this game (up to mid stakes level), especially in the post-leg games today. As an actual "professional" myself I feel like although I've coached many players at the beginner levels to become relatively decent, I still can't help but feel like it's getting harder and harder to stay ahead of the learning curve without putting in a sick amount of dedication (both time and effort). Also, variance is a huge bitch. A good player may be a long term winner, but "long term" is millions of hands. Poker is a game of skill, but luck is a huge factor even in 10-100k hand samples. The result is that it takes an extremely long time before you know whether you're playing well, and even the best players can lose tons of money. Bonus for mentioning Neilly though.  | ||
|
PanoRaMa
United States5068 Posts
On June 02 2009 16:00 ShadowDrgn wrote: Also, variance is a huge bitch. A good player may be a long term winner, but "long term" is millions of hands. Poker is a game of skill, but luck is a huge factor even in 10-100k hand samples. The result is that it takes an extremely long time before you know whether you're playing well, and even the best players can lose tons of money. Bonus for mentioning Neilly though. Agree completely. | ||
|
ThatGuy
Canada695 Posts
| ||
|
aLt)nirvana
Singapore846 Posts
On June 02 2009 16:00 ShadowDrgn wrote: Also, variance is a huge bitch. A good player may be a long term winner, but "long term" is millions of hands. Poker is a game of skill, but luck is a huge factor even in 10-100k hand samples. The result is that it takes an extremely long time before you know whether you're playing well, and even the best players can lose tons of money. Bonus for mentioning Neilly though. Yea variance is a huge bitch, but I believe it is also correlated to your edge over the other players/ how good you are at a current limit. For breakeven or <1bb players, sure they can have huge breakeven stretches and it might take a milion hands. But for those who absolutely crush the limits, this variance is much reduced. Its hard to fathom a solid winner at 400nl to ever have any problems at NL2 over a 10-100k hand sample. Like wise if a nosebleed player dropped down to nl400 there would still be variance but it wont need such a huge sample as say 1 million hands for him to realise a sizable profit. Thanks for the comments/feedback guys, ill edit some things in. | ||
|
PanoRaMa
United States5068 Posts
but it kills me to see DC mentioned but FoxwoodsFiend's name not listed, yet Danzasmack, etc. are. Really?? Leggo too...no Sauce123? The guy is within the top 5, maybe 10 best HU players in the world most likely. Definitely on par with aejones (and I can say this as aejones was my coach for a good majority of 2008). And finally, if BFP is to be mentioned, Samoleus and DrGiggy should be mentioned as well. Your books section should kinda be clarified. The last one is for fixed limit. I would say probably all of those books have a considerable amount of improper or obsolete strategy as well (of course not the mathematical/technical theory). Regardless, I don't think thorough understanding of those books is ALL that's needed to beat the micros (which I consider to be to the extent of 50nl). With regards to that issue, I feel like your guide plays poker out to be a systematic routine which leads to profit, but at times it also throws in a concession (like only ~15% of players win or so). What I believe the true answer to be is a combination of both which isn't so black and white (what you say probably has application in 2006), and thus I feel like it's a bit misleading to those who are genuinely looking to start playing. I've made the same mistake before when I've written a (private) guide to starting poker, it's just not that clear cut and simple imo, so i feel like you should elaborate on that (which is basically what I mentioned in my first reply to this thread anyway ).Either way I hope you get your key because I know this took a long time to write, and it has a lot of valid information  . | ||
|
aLt)nirvana
Singapore846 Posts
For the book section, im listing the top books which will quicken the learning pace, to get them started beating the micros with the books poker players found to have helped them the most. I have to clarify that this guide is really just an introduction to the world of online poker, not a full step 1-10 guide l to start shipping teh monies. I try not to go too indepth in the various sections cause its gonna become one long ass article which newbies might feel too daunting to read. Anyway I dont know how a total beginner can learn strategy any faster, and i feel the books are still very relevant today, tho they probably need much more knowledge to beat the stakes you play. Thanks for the comments, its good to have good poker players give constructive comments. Would be awesome if a mod could move this to the Sports and Games section, so when some1 replies it actually gets bumped. Thanks! | ||
|
PanoRaMa
United States5068 Posts
On June 02 2009 16:29 aLt)nirvana wrote: Yea variance is a huge bitch, but I believe it is also correlated to your edge over the other players/ how good you are at a current limit. For breakeven or <1bb players, sure they can have huge breakeven stretches and it might take a milion hands. But for those who absolutely crush the limits, this variance is much reduced. Its hard to fathom a solid winner at 400nl to ever have any problems at NL2 over a 10-100k hand sample. Like wise if a nosebleed player dropped down to nl400 there would still be variance but it wont need such a huge sample as say 1 million hands for him to realise a sizable profit. Thanks for the comments/feedback guys, ill edit some things in. Lots of stupid rambling incoming: I mean all of this is true but the reality is the majority of serious players don't play games where their edge is tremendous at the cost of a lower return. Technically I COULD grind 100nl for the rest of my life and make a good amount of money, but my end goal is to play much higher. So when I play 1knl I sacrifice a ton of immediate edge for a higher dollar amount return. This is true for again, the majority of serious players (ofc not all), so therefore where most people are playing is at a medium between what they usually prioritize as a higher return and a smaller edge. And as you said, those who aren't as good (who have inherently smaller edges) have increased variance, but the players we have in mind aren't 200nl-ready players playing 50nl. They are 200nl-ready players playing 200nl. So now we have this entire subset of players who are willingly embracing higher variance, which brings us to the "good player" shadowdrgn mentioned. I've talked to many high stakes players (I've studied the entire subject matter of "variance" quite a bit) about this and I think most are at a consensus that any given "good player" we mentioned, playing a stake (at least 200nl) he is well matched for can "run good" OR "bad" (ofc the mean runs roughly in-between) for as much as up to ~500k hands. Once again we're talking about typical 200, 400, 600, w/e regs playing their natural limit, not a limit they're too good for (i.e. 1knl player playing 200nl). This is the real face of poker I was kind of addressing in my earlier posts, although what I've described is probably the most boring, depressing way to put it. | ||
|
PanoRaMa
United States5068 Posts
On June 02 2009 19:40 aLt)nirvana wrote: okay i made those name additions to the training sites. For the book section, im listing the top books which will quicken the learning pace, to get them started beating the micros with the books poker players found to have helped them the most. I have to clarify that this guide is really just an introduction to the world of online poker, not a full step 1-10 guide l to start shipping teh monies. I try not to go too indepth in the various sections cause its gonna become one long ass article which newbies might feel too daunting to read. Anyway I dont know how a total beginner can learn strategy any faster, and i feel the books are still very relevant today, tho they probably need much more knowledge to beat the stakes you play. Thanks for the comments, its good to have good poker players give constructive comments. Would be awesome if a mod could move this to the Sports and Games section, so when some1 replies it actually gets bumped. Thanks! Ya, my personality is just such that I like to cover my tracks so that people can never ever manage to get the "wrong idea". I try to be very very thorough when I'm explaining something (especially something I have as much passion for such as pokers). Bad traits to have, that's why I'm not submitting a pokers guide for a key But yeah keep it up you're doing what I imagine to be a huge favor for a lot of people | ||
|
aLt)nirvana
Singapore846 Posts
| ||
|
PanoRaMa
United States5068 Posts
| ||
|
aLt)nirvana
Singapore846 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
| ||
