Great News

Windbreaker · #1 07-22-05, 12:40 PM

I think for NL, the guidelines depends on your style of play and how much your starting bankroll is. If your bankroll is only $50 then I wouldn't mind putting it all in one table because:

A) winning 2 dollars on the 5/10 cent tables after an hour is a waste of time
B) Players at the lower stakes more often than not are poor players
C) I'm disciplined enough to lay down a hand to an over bet even if I may think I'm ahead

Yes, it's never really a good idea to place your entire bankroll on one table, but if $50 is all you can afford to put into poker, quit and get out of the game.

I think for players with limited bankrolls or are new players that SNG are by far the best way to learn and earn money. If you keep buying in for 5.50 or so, you'll quickly learn to find a way to get into the money and usually you can get an hour+ at the table without risking all that much.

The worse way to spend the majority of your bankroll is on a MTT. The majority of the payout is in the final table. For people with limited bankrolls this is a poor way to build a bankroll. It's almost like a lottery. You know your shots at winning it aren't great, but if you finish well you're getting a huge payout.

BrianSwa · #2 07-22-05, 01:05 PM

I agree with MOST of this except that last part. I think it is possible to build a bankroll through MTT. Good MTT players can place in the money more then 50% of the time. So they are making back their money, and when they, like you said hit it big they build the roll. I have read many blogs about good MTT players that can do this, I'am not one of them Id say I make it ITM about 15% - 20% . Which is by far not enough to build bankroll and will lose me bankroll in the long run.

The only other thing I disagree with is if you only have $50 quit poker, I think starting at micro-limits and working your way up is very rewarding. Think about it say you start with $50 and in a month you move that up to $150 playing say .05/.10, I would be pretty damn proud of myself as a poker play for doing that knowing now I have the bankroll for .25/.50 when just a month ago I was stuck playing micro limits. Now for most of you it would be torture to play those low of limits knowing the average pot is never more then $2 but for a new person or a losing one that would be fine.

Right now I only have $50 online and im playing .05/.10 limit and $1 tornies, right now with all thats going on its all I can afford and im very happy playing those limits. Sure at times its stupid as hell but I also know in the long run the better players will end up with the money. For people with limited bankrolls for whatever reason I think playing lower limits and grinding it out is much better then putting 50% of your bankroll on table and hope not to get sucked out and go broke. Worse thing for any poker player is not having a bankroll to play even if its micro limits its still poker!

Aequitas58 · #3 07-22-05, 01:09 PM

Not picking on you ... but this:

"Good MTT players can place in the money more then 50% of the time."

Is wrong.

BrianSwa · #4 07-22-05, 01:11 PM

what would you concider a good MTT player would place? Honest question really want answer. Because even at say 40% he could still make money in long run dont you think. Not saying this is the road I would recomend someone taking, but do you think it is possible for a good MTT player to do?

Aequitas58 · #5 07-22-05, 01:18 PM

To be honest w/ you, I don't know the ITM percentage for "seasoned" professionals... or even top amateurs, for that matter...

But think about it - 50% ITM? No way. I read on RGP that MTT players have to get used to long stretches w/out reaching the money. It's the nature of the beast. Of course, one good MTT, and you are back in black.

It only takes 1 tournament out of 20 to pull up that ROI.

omahilo · #6 07-22-05, 02:26 PM

Look at Daniel Negreanu at this yrs WSOP...

He is prolly one of the best players in any tourney he enters and he played 20+ of the events and only cashed in 1 or 2 of them.

You could go months without a cash in a MTT but then you will go on a tear where you make 4-5 FTs in a month.

Look at Jesus, Siedel, Cunningham... Didnt really hear much from them till the WSOP and Jesus made 4 or 5 FTs while Siedel and Cunningham won bracelets and made several FTs.

GeoffM · #7 07-22-05, 02:45 PM

One of the reasons I don't play MTTs is because I have such a good record at them. 2/7 on FTs and I won one of them.
Well, tonight I am eyeing the freeroll on Paradise and the 1:30 am limit O8 tourney on PS, so that number could change.

Talking Poker · #8 07-22-05, 11:24 PM

I feel the need to contribute here because I disagree with a good bit of this. Well, I agree with your MTT advice (hard way to make a living), but it's the A, B, C points you make above that I'm not so sure about.

A) First, winning $2 after an hour might be a waste of time to you, but it might not be to other players.... especially new players who are learning the game and getting a feel for how hands play out. Also, you need to remember, they might not be WINNING $2 per hour, but rather losing $2 per hour. And to say that them losing $20 per hour would be better (less of a waste of time) is just silly - especially when their entire roll is $50.

To me, maybe winning $20 per hour is a waste of time. To Daniel Negreanu, I'm sure winning $200 per hour is a waste of time. The point is, that's all relative, and I don't think it's right to judge anyone for their bankroll.

B) I agree. Sounds like a good place to me to learn how to play.

C) Glad to hear it... that doesn't mean everyone else is... again, especially new players.

My point here is that if somone is just getting into online poker, and decides they will allowcate $50 for their bankroll, I think it would be a HUGE mistake to sit down with it all at once, and I think there is no shame whatsoever in playing the microlimit tables while you are learning to become a winning player.

omahilo · #9 07-22-05, 11:35 PM

I started my poker career with a free $25 that I got from pokerworld... the site didnt have many games only a 25 NL table so I sat down with like $10 of my roll...

I ended up leaving pokerworld with about $400 from just playing smart poker, etc.

Since starting with that $25, Ive made about $4,000 from just playing 25/50/100 NL.

I agree that playing at .05/.10 NL tables seems like a waste now but at the time it was alot of fun because you were playing for real money and were improving yourself.

Windbreaker · #10 07-23-05, 12:09 AM

My point was not to look down at anyone that played a certain level. I still play rather low limits for the times I've spent on the table.

If you're really trying to learn this game, take that 50 bucks and go buy a book or two. Go to play money tables and mess around and see if you can beat those tables. And although many people may think play money doesn't teach a whole, that's probably the best way to learn discipline.

That's why I'm saying if you only want to bring in 50 bucks to start your bankroll, you might as well not start....because you can learn a lot more faster in other ways than at the microlimits.

ChipFish · #11 07-23-05, 12:10 AM

What he said.

Windbreaker · #12 07-23-05, 12:20 AM

lol...this is starting to sound like a bashing contest.

Seriously, if you're new to the game or just not a very good player right now the best way to learn is:

A) Read a few books
B) Play freerolls
C) Come on to sites like this and talk about hands/situations/ideas/etc
D) When you do start give yourself a good shot by starting with say $200 bucks
E) Learn how to bonus whore - which makes up for many mistakes.

If at the end of all that you find yourself out 200 bucks, pick up a new hobby like golf, because it's gonna be just as expensive for either game anyways.

JDMcNugent7 · #13 07-23-05, 01:42 AM

lol wut the heck ?
Is this directed toward me ?
Starting the game, not a good player ?
All i EVER said was i learned to play within my bankroll.
I dont know how we even got started on all this other crap, oh ya i do, chipfish. I've been playing for quite awhile now, and not saying im great or anything but i'm also not a beginner by any means.

BrianSwa · #14 07-23-05, 01:49 AM

I agree with TP here I dont think if you play at low levels you have to pick up their bad habbits. You can still play good poker at low limits and win, Its not a waste of time for some. For alot of people on here they could not play for say a $2 pot but for some they are fine with building a roll through playing low limits.

story of my poker life huh, I read a couple of books and didnt get it. Deposited, lost it, deposited, lost it, deposited, won 2,500 and lost it. Kid got sick couldnt deposit alot so make little $50 deposits and play micro limits. Right now at micro limits makeing about $5 a day and fine with that. Working on my disapline which still is a little shakey.

Nugget as for chipfish, take about 20% of what he says to heart, listen to what he says about torney play because by far he is a hell of a torney player. Sorry have to edit just read what chips said, alot of what he said makes perfect sence, agree with it all but the winning $2 is a waste of time. You say dont play micro limits because you pick up bad habbits but then you say play freerolls?!?!? That makes no sence at all play for money pick up bad habbits but play for free and don't. Just as many bad habbits to pick up in freerolls as micro limits.

my advice play within your bankroll, play good poker and gl.

Talking Poker · #15 07-23-05, 01:53 AM

Easy boys....

JD started this by talking about playing withing his bankroll and the discussion went from there. Windbreaker talked about a hypothetical "only $50 bankroll" and we kept discussing - not talking about JD in particular.

No one meant to suggest you are a new player, JD (nothing wrong with that, of course) or to insult your poker abilities. We all know how good you are. Cause you keep telling us.

PhilMcNugent7

ChipFish · #16 07-23-05, 11:34 PM

Actually, I had nothing to do with anyone thinking or not thinking you were "starting the game" or "not a good player".
Nice copout.
In fact, the only person that could have caused such an opinion well, you know him.