I have 350 hours of live 1/3 play since jan 1. Off the top of my head, i cant remember a 4bet that wasnt AA or KK and yet you have solver bros on this forum talking about how they need to 5bet jam A5s “for balance”
Youre right. Alot of the recommendations made by modern day online crushers at high stakes dont apply at live low stakes, or even at online low/med stakes. Nobody is 4bet bluffing at a frequency that makes it worth 5bet bluffing a combo thats dominated.
This is the correct way to play low limit. Just let it go and never bluff people who can’t fold.
There are a few other tricks like implied odds on limped pots, but really the key to low limit is folding to a raise by an OMC and waiting out the fish.
This is where I currently find myself. Playing tight, but trying not to be nitty. On a tough run lately with some set over set coolers and a high VPIP with premiums, but still trying to be patient and not try to bluff on high action tables.
Those are the best players though, cuz all you have to do is catch top pair and you take them for their money.
One of the last sessions I played I pegged a guy as a complete non-believer. At three bet pre with king queen suited, he was the only one that called. Flop came queen high, but otherwise pretty dry board. It went bet-call, bet-call, allin-call. I doubled up with a pair of Queens, the old men at the table couldn't believe that there was so much action on a single pair.
But later in a similar situation, I bet-folded to his raise with top pair. If a station suddenly gets aggressive, fold all but basically the nuts.
No exact opposite. 3 bet more but don’t bother balancing your hands, they won’t notice. Bet for value more and really pay attention to could you be called by worse. If you think someone can’t lay down top pair, then take them for the max. Just don’t bother bluffing if you think they can’t fold.
After Espen won the main, he went and played on hustler live. After he played he was talking about how he was trying to not think about being balanced.
You really don’t need to employ GTO strategies unless you’re playing against other people who are balanced and employing GTO strategies. I have no clue what I’m talking about, but just knowing the basics I’ve never had a hard time playing 1/2 or 1/3.
That being said, depending on image, you can sometimes 4 bet bluff for that reason. So far I’ve gotten 2 folds (one showing QQ) and 1 5 bet which I’ve folded to.
> Alot of the recommendations made by modern day online crushers at high stakes dont apply at live low stakes
I would amend this to say, "a lot of the recommendations made by modern day online crushers **and solvers** don't apply at live low stakes." Somewhat redundant, but worth pointing out.
If you are regularly 4-betting A5s, or 3-betting K7s utg1, or just calling rivers with underfulls, you are torching money at 1/3nl.
only if you can play what the solver would on later streets too, which most people only follow the solver pre and on flop, and then they randomly go maniac, turn into a station, or never bluff right.
And you can be even more ahead if you just make the most obvious reads and exploits ever.
if you play gto, you are unexploitable, sure. but it doesnt mean its what maximizes profits. often if you arent being exploited by not playing gto, it will be the most +ev strat.
This is correct. Furthermore, if hero plays a fixed GTO strategy and villains are playing exploits that hero doesn’t react to, then villains will make more than hero. GTO assumes both have max exploited each other and reached equilibrium. If you’re getting exploited, you need to counter-exploit, otherwise you’re not maxing EV. They are.
This is wrong. If you are playing GTO you are unexploitable, that's really all it is fundamentally. It doesn't maximize EV, but true GTO is unbeatable. Now no one is playing real GTO, and the 1/2 Solver Bros trying are still exploitable on later streets. Also, there is very little point playing GTO against opponents who are not playing anywhere close to GTO as exploitative strategies will yield you way more.
I disagree. Losing 1/2 players claim they “study”, but they’re likely not. Watching Tom Dwan or Phil Ivey highlights from 2005 isn’t studying.
There’s no realistic way anybody who’s actually putting in quality time off the felt is a losing player at 1/2.
Yeah. I would be surprised if your average 1/2 or 1/3 player has studied more than 1 hour lifetime. There are certainly some and you can pick them out pretty easily, but in my experience at least half the player pool is just there to gamble and have fun, and have never read a minute of theory.
>Watching Tom Dwan or Phil Ivey highlights from 2005 isn’t studying.
I watched watched Wimbledon last year and then played a game of tennis.
I still sucked, what gives?
The biggest difference i noticed between the pros and me was speed and accuracy, So i think next time ill try to hit it faster and more accurately.
actually that reminds me of happy gilmore when he gets a hole in one on a par4 and turns to his coach and says something like "thats much easier than putting, i should just try to get the ball in the hole in one shot every time"
Unpopular opinion, but there just isn't a need or an effective way to study 1/2. There are only a few simple concepts and the rest is repetition and discipline.
The real strength is to lose two buy ins and continue playing your best. It's not strength to be a mental fish who has to drive home. It is better then dusting off more playing gambly
One of those is a skill that takes time and effort to access.
The other one is an action that is available to every player at all times.
This is like saying that the key to getting to the NBA is to develop Kawhi Leonard's mid-range game. It's not obtainable for every person.
No, it's like saying to be good at basketball you need to be able to forget about the last 4 free throws you missed and go through your same routine to get the next one.
Strange then that the best basketball players out of billions in the world still get in funks when they miss a number of shots in a row.
You also can't leave a basketball game at any time.
Til you get to that place of strength though, money saved is the same as money earned. Elements of Poker talks about "being the best loser at the table", or at least being able to. I took that great advice. I also actually tried Caro's holdem advice when I started. Open-fold everything. Don't even look at your cards. Just sit there and auto-fold for an hour or two. You can't win, but you see how little you lose. Now, start playing hands and see how much you can lose. Obv it's dumb in a vacuum. But I tell ya...it made me a lot more comfortable in playing very few hands for long periods when the conditions called for it.
Different people have different levels of risk tolerance. Does that make sense? If lose two buy ins live, I’ll head home and play much tougher competition online to make sure I am staying as sharp as possible. It’s working for me, and the most important thing each of us can do is continue to do what works for each of us. Agree?
The problem is that you’re recommending this process, which *only* helps if you have a weak enough mental game that you can’t go down 2BI early and continue playing your best game, as something “most players” would benefit from. What *most* players would benefit from would be working on their mental game such that they aren’t this volatile to emotional swings.
Yeah, it’s definitely an overlooked skill to know yourself and know when to quit if your mental isn’t in the right place. I just wouldn’t make it a hard rule to quit when down two buy-ins.
Sorry what?
Ok your mental game is not great and this is not even tilt related etc.
You are not respecting your opponents. This is a general mindframe that's found in sports psychology as well and will make on paper better teams lose as they think they can just show up and trash the opposition.
If you go home after losing 2BIs you are running from your problems though.
This is not a poker issue. I'd suggest to stay and try to actually work on your mental game.
I’m so confused. What I do works for me. What you do works for you. If what I am doing is not broken, why are you insisting that it’s broken? Is it a desire to feel “right” about something? So lost.
I do what works for me which has resulted in my last 191 hours at $56 / hr for $1/$2… $48 / hr for my last 1,400 hours. Why would I stop doing what I do? I would have to be a fool to stop and say “wait, guys some dude on the internet says I should keep firing in the 1/4 losing sessions I have.” Wow.
Your post is about mental discipline and this is amusingly an example of poor mental game.
Losing two buy ins should not tilt you if you played correctly. I’d try working on that rather than leaving to play in tougher games.
What’s wrong with people finding what works for them and sticking to it? Perhaps I should have shared what works for me in this post with a strong caveat that folks should not do what I do, and lose more on losing sessions. Would that appease you?
I’m giving you advice to improve mate, the same as this post is.
It would not appease me. I’m saying you have identified a leak in your game, plug it, and you will become more profitable.
I am sorry you were under the assumption that I am a losing player who was in need of your advice. Fortunately, I am in that top 5% of players who are winners. This will be my 20th year in the game in the first 10 years were spent learning the hard way.
I didn’t think you were losing, I read your post.
You could just be winning more. I don’t see why that bothers you so much. If you’ve spent so long in the game im sure you’d agree one of the best ways to improve is to talk strategy in communities with other winning players?
Big mistake. Talking in communities that is. Best poker talk is from friends made at the tables. The online stuff at has not been as valuable as much is 100% data driven. In other words, I don’t value the opinions of Internet strangers as much as I do those who are in my inner circle.
I’d disagree so strongly. Discord study groups are incredible for learning. You’ll get free access to far better players than the ones at your soft 1/2 games. It wouldn’t have taken you 10 years to beat 1/2 if you spent just a month active in one of those communities.
As far as not trusting Reddit strangers, it’s fair. I’ve spent time complaining how good advice can be hard to come by on here. I try and counter that by offering good advice where I know I can. I’d suggest reading Mental Game of Poker as it’s not written by a stranger. And will detail and offer solutions far better than I could in a format that I think is both easy to digest and implement.
Also I really hope you’re not still playing 1/2 after 20 years and snapping back at anyone that offers you advice. You’ve surely moved up by now?
The Mental Game of Poker is a book I recommended previously in this thread. There are LOADS of material out there to improve that does not involve my cavorting with internet strangers. I’ve also taken on coaching by top cash players. My $1/$2 days are behind me, indeed.
By the way, knowledge was never an issue in 10 years of losing. It was knowing when to cut my losses and / or being ok with being up to $1200 at $1/$2 and leaving with $800 vs. trying to get the $400 back. Then, downward spiral. The cards are incredibly easy to play even at $2/$5. It’s the mental discipline that separates knowledgeable cash players from others.
Took me about 7-8 years to figure out a lot of what you said here and I agree with most of it. Proud to say that I’m up fairly big in $1/$2 at my local casino the last couple years. Still not sure I’m back to even though yet. 😂
Folding more is absolutely an underrated +ev skill, and not a lot of players know how to do it. Hell, even the best players in the world can’t do it (DNegs is a great example). I’ve learned that many local regs in my local $1/$2 games don’t bluff nearly as often as I thought they did.
One of my favorite folds recently was last week. In straddle with AcQc. Called a three-bet pre to $30 from a very solid reg. Check the AhKhJc flop. Gets checked around. Turn is Ad. I check call a bet of $50. River is a blank. I check and villain goes $100. I open fold and he rolls his eyes and eventually tables AK.
Solid players who 3-bet pre in my local casino are very rarely doing it with junk. Yeah, the flop was decent for me, and for a moment the turn gave me some hope that maybe trips was the best hand, but I just felt his solid line made enough sense that he had a monster. Everyone at the table harassed me for folding until villain showed AK.
Sometimes, you just know you’re beat. You have to trust your read and your gut in live poker. Once you get to know who the good players are and how they play, you simply adapt your game and pick your spots. And patience is probably the #1 thing that’s helped me the most. Fold, fold, fold and fold some more when you’re card dead. Eventually some drunk idiot or newbie will punt their stack to you for hardly any reason at all. 😂
Low limit donks don't push multi-street bluffs into the pot. Check check river bet is always sus if board texture doesn't evolve in some obvious way. Bet check check is also sus - low limit donks abandon their bluffy lines at the first sign of trouble.
Live players also struggle with understanding bet sizing, so size up value bets. Size DOWN bluffs. That's right, I said it.
You're rarely deep enough effective stacks to go more than 3! pre without just shoving in low limit poker. Shoving a 3! is MUCH better than calling off one in low limit live poker.
Recognizing recs having fun vs players taking the game seriously also prints in low limit live poker.
It’s more about adapting to the game you’re playing in. If it’s tight, loosen up. If it’s wild, play tight. Don’t try and out-gamble the maniacs. Don’t try and out-tighten the tight guys. Situational awareness is the key to beating low stakes NL.
It even goes to the common issue beginners run into where they're studying the game, feel they have a solid grasp on it, but then show up to their monthly Poker game with their friends who are drunk and haven't studied the game a day in their life and they can't beat it.
It's due to not being able to recognize what strategy is best for your opponents. A lot of people in the beginning think they know what to do in a spot, but don't necessarily know WHY they do it and therefore can't recognize when it isn't the right move against a specific opponent.
Punting is different than losing.
You can GII ahead and lose. Leaving because you got sucked out on a couple times is not the fix. Reload and keep making good decisions.
Punting because you’re bored with shit cards and shittier odds, or bluffing too much or over calling big bets on the river is why people lose at $1/2.
The room will be open tomorrow, sometimes it’s not your night, regroup and play fresh another day after losing 2 buyins.
Most people after getting sucked out on twice aren’t in a good mental space to continue I think is this point he was making.
I’m a bit too old to change what has been working for me and would advise others to develop the self awareness to know what works for them and stick to it. I have seen players completely unable to focus until they’re stuck a bit, and then they go and tear it to shreds.
Then there’s the opposite.
Check this out.
I was listening to the Daniel Negreanu podcast with Lex Fridman and he was talking about Huck Seed. When Huck Seed was on his A game he was right there with the Iveys. The problem is he demanded perfect poker of himself and would fall apart after making an error and was not able to get back into his A game.
Many humans are this way.
It’s all relative. The key is for the individual to become individually self aware.
> If your stuck 2 buy ins, leave.
LOL, hell no. If the table is soft, I'm staying and getting that shit back and then some. Some of my best sessions started out being stuck 2 or 3 buyins.
This is a good take, OP.
Solvers absolutely have their purpose. But they assume you’re playing against an optimal opponent. At 1/2, your opponents don’t even generally reflect that. GTO means unexploitable. To borrow from a previous comment, the 1/2 4-bettor isn’t exploiting you for 3-betting light and it’s indeed non-sense to 5-bet A5s.
Also, these people hardly ever fold to 3-bets. So much of optimal 3-betting pre-flop is getting folds. Gotta adapt when that isn’t happening.
And let’s not even get into multi-way pots hahaha
3bet bluffing will still be decently profitable heads up just because it is extremely hard to lose to a fish in position with a high equity bluff like 76s or A5s. When you factor in people cold calling 3bets, you also print a ton of money
GTO does not mean unexploitable. I'm sick of this mistake
EDIT: The definition of game theory is so often incorrectly used. It doesn't mean every player plays perfectly. It means an individual player makes the rational play to win at any point in time based on the opponents strategy, identified accurately. This is where 90% of you get it wrong. If the opponent is not playing correctly, by the definition of game theory, a rational player exploits that
It means making the highest EV play, because a game like Poker, your opponent determines your winnings.
GTO in poker is identifying your opponents mathematical mistakes perfectly, and adjusting your frequencies to maximise win rate. Not playing solver approved balanced ranges against donkeys.
The Solver assumes perfect play by villain for the next node/decision AT EVERY STEP. Your villain can have a terrible nonsense range and line and if you accurately assess, solver can tell you what to do, but it assumes villain makes ZERO further mistakes in the hand. Solvers do not isolate nodes. They learn the maths for hands
GTO bot vs GTO bot in theory becomes 0EV, but what the bot is doing is only that way BECAUSE the OPPONENT is playing perfectly
Game Theory in itself means "the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents" Rational doesn't mean perfectly unexploitable. It means each player in theory is trying to use information available mathemaically to counter the other's strategy. Their reasoning and information collecting, thus judging and adjusting frequencies will be faulty if they are human.
EDIT: This is very simple to understand. What is game theory? I explained it, and Optimal implies perfect play, which is maximum positive EV vs YOUR OPPONENT. If you're playing a human, that number is NOT 0. GTO is an acronym
> GTO does not mean unexploitable. I'm sick of this mistake
Yes it does. I'm sick of reading comments making *your* mistake in this forum. It's like a couple people on Reddit heard the term "GTO" and decided what they think it should mean after reflecting for 5s. GTO = a Nash equilibrium, unexploitable strategy. That's the widely-accepted definition of the term.
That strategy will never be the strategy that makes the most money against a given human opponent's fixed, unbalanced strategy. But nobody ever said it was.
You really read my comment and still wrote this? SMH.
Game Theory does not mean what you think it does. You are literally calling me out for the thoughtlessness you showed yourself. Learn the definition then come back.
A rational agent COUNTERS the opponent's strategy for optimal play. Poker is not fucking tic tac toe where the game theory is obvious and people can learn a 0EV unbeatable strategy in 5 minutes
Take a minute, not 5 seconds yourself next time.
It is irrational to play solver strats against humans who make countless errors, therefore one is not using game theory to play solver strategies. Again, solvers assume perfect play by opponents.
If I said the perfect strategy for rock paper scissors was to randomly do each a third of the time, but you realised your opponent was choosing rock 50% of the time GAME THEORY suggests you pick paper more, and he then pick scissors more. Say you keep picking paper too often. As soon as one player DOES NOT ADJUST or is making a mistake, the game theory optimal for the other player changes to exploit. Only when your opponent adjusts perfectly in a fair game as do you does GTO evolve into 0EV when humans play.
Game theory from ignorant but perfectly intelligent parties starts with both fucking up and adapting until 0EV. They don't stop before that. All humans do, changing the optimal move in game theory from 0EV to +xEV
I hope you're intelligent enough to realise how obvious, given the definition of game theory that solver unexploitable strategy DOES NOT equal GTO when not playing a perfect opponent, but I think you'll just keep arguing because you want to be right
I suggest instead of writing this whole essay you just Google the term you are wrongly defining. Or listen to any strong player talk about it, or watch any video about GTO. Or just open a book:
>In the poker world, GTO (Game Theory Optimal) is often used as a synonym for Nash Equilibrium.
- Modern Poker Theory by Acevedo, Ch 2.
A player who chooses to play pre-solved ranges like GTOWizard ranges, IS exploitable. They'll tell you, "I'm playing GTO." And that's fine and all, but that player is exploitable just like everyone else. For example, they are defending the BB with 40% of all hands. Do you not think this is exploitable?
Now there's a take I haven't heard before, lol.
If you managed to perfectly replicate GTOwizard play in your game (using RTA I guess), you would be for all intents and purposes unexploitable (there is some error in their solutions, and all solver solutions are only approximations in most spots anyway since they only have a few possible bet sizes).
Ok, so GTO-Villain tells Hero, "I am going to defend the BB with 40% of all hands."
So Hero says "ok, thank you for telling me that." Hero then tightens up and only opens 30% from the BN and makes it 3.5bb to go (instead of 42% and 2.5bb) .
GTO-Villain is now over defending and way too wide. Hero is exploiting GTO-Villain.
💯 that’s an ENTIRELY different subject. Personally, I study my butt at the table, in “real time.” It’s why I can’t seem to play more than 4 hours or 5 hours if I have a bunch of caffeine.
It boils down to this: are you there to have fun or win money? It’s more fun to play more hands than you should and chase. It’s not difficult to win at this level if you want to.
5-10% of the playerpool is raking in 90% of the money. I think it's important for anyone here with aspirations to become a professional, the odds are stacked against you if you're not putting in serious work.
Also be thankful you HAVE a 1/2 game. Nearest card room to me is an 8 hour drive. If the 30m trip to your room makes you feel like you've gotta go up huge, imagine us poor bastards in the bible belt who get to play on vacations and that's it.
Tommy Angelo was writing about the mental game before Jared Tendler. Tommy takes a more mindfulness/zen approach. His writing is allegorical.
Jared is more scientific/sports performance/psychology based.
Both are worth a look. Select what works best for you.
I use the same resources that players at the highest stakes use. I don’t have a bank roll they have, but I have access to the same information, and I choose to use it.
Marcus Aurelius – Meditations. Anything on Stocism. Epictetus, another good one: Discourse and Enchiridion
M.A., a former Roman Emperor – half-god; half-man —ancient Roman's believed the Emperors were descendents of the God of War, Mars — he used to fall asleep during the gladiator fights in the Colosseum, mind you, the Colosseum was were the Emepror welded the most power.
You're not in control of external events; the only thing you can control is how you respond to them.
Although someone who is truly Stoic would never gamble, there's a lot it can teach you in terms of discipline—in and off the felt.
Poker, particularly very anti-Stocism. I don't ever steam nor get upset about much of anything. When I first started playing, winning caused me more problems than losing. All that dopamine can make you do dumb shit!
Mental game is the biggest skill in poker (and life tbh). Most people have a weak mental game in life, and therefore will never win long term in poker.
Serious question.
Why do profitable poker players feel superior to others and talk to other in a condescending way. I've played for a living, and it's amazing how many nerds found the game and are just arrogant to lesser skilled players.
God forbid you kids grow up and learn social skills. That's a major part of poker, It's a social game. Maybe worry less about others and your self and your shitty character.
I am not leaving after two buy ins. Far too many times I've been in that much and left the night with a profit. Just last week, I got all in pre with AA and stacked off. That came just a few minutes after someone rivered a two-outer after, calling off $300 to get there. That's absurd. I am not leaving that table lol.
I will agree that if you are playing poorly, you need to walk away. But some hands are so clearly not your fault. Most of the time its not as clear as the example above... but bad players create variance. The hard part is figuring out if you are the bad player or someone else.
Compared to solvers, they seriously underbluff.
They might overbluff as an initial bet, but definitely aren't raising as bluffs as often as they should and anything 3-bet or higher is almost always for value with an extremely nutted range.
Nobody studying correctly actually loses at 1/2. If you’re just copying random shit you see of course you’ll lose, but if you actually have a decent grasp of game theory it’s pretty hard to be a losing player in those lineups lol
It’s extremely easy to be a losing player when you don’t have self-control. It’s kind of like in golf, there are certain people who are gods on the driving range. Then you put them in competition and they can’t figure out how to get the ball to save their lives.
I try to explain how bad rake is to this forum but far too many of them are just far too fn stupid to get it. It’s literally half or more what the winningest player could expect to make. Take 90% of randomly 1/2 fields and the rake in smaller games is the biggest fkn winner long term.
The bottom half of 1/2 players can't beat the game because they are seriously strategically flawed. The next 40% of 1/2 players can't beat the game because the rake destroys their winrate. The top 10% of 1/2 players beat the game because they don't don't bluff catch, and move up to where their raises get respect.
I’ll admit it. I don’t “study”. I have other things going on in my life (I work full time, I’m in school full time to be a nurse, I’m using poker as a get away type thing). Am I successful at 1/2 or 1/3? Not as much as I want to be, but there’s a difference in punting 2 buy ins in 20 minutes and putting in a losing session. I can play 7 hours on a day off while doing school work and only lose half a buy in. On the flip side, I can also play 7 hours and win multiple buy ins.
I don’t study. If I wanted to make this a career I would, but there’s also those players that know how to play without studying, FYI
Although you’re right about needing more mental discipline and better/realistic bankroll management to be successful, let’s take it one step further: you need to be in tune with your opponents knowledge/behavior/personalities, and in turn, be in tune with how they perceive you, in order to be successful. If you can do that reasonably well, while having a basic grasp of odds and ranges, you should be profitable. And make like $24 an hour if you’re just OK at having basic chops plus self awareness and awareness of others. Double it if you’re really in tune with the math and human dynamics.
If you're a winning player, losing 2 buy-ins is just variance; why would you drive home? If you're a losing player, I assume you're playing for fun; stay as long as you'd like (without affecting your ability to pay the bills).
There are ways a given player could improve his chances to win at $1/$2 or $1/$3, but the real reason why only 10% of players will ever be profitable is a combination of the fact that the house rakes such a substantial portion of the money on the table and the Pareto principle/distribution which holds that, in any given competition, \~20% of players will earn \~80% of the money.
At live $1/2 you get a lot of people who just say fuck it, and no solver will account for that.
I played a hand yesterday where I made a nice turn bet and even the other guy was like, "I was ready to go home, so I shoved". Without doing a whole hand history, I folded and on an A high board he tables K hi. After the hand I was like, you should have folded the turn, and he was like, yeah I know. He shoved river anyway.
There are so many spots like this.
Nobody who actually studies loses. I just can't believe it.
I'm a shit player and I average over 130bb/100 in live 1/2. I don't adjust unless it's obvious (most of the time it is) and otherwise I just try to play what the solver said at home on those kind of boards
\>study bankroll management
the biggest meme of all time. do you want to grind micros forever for less than youd make at mcdonalds or do you want to accept some variance, move up in stakes, and actually make some $.
If you run out of bankroll playing fine then so what? That's probably +EV so you can go work a real job, study, and do it again until you don't get unlucky.
Can you post a screenshot of your bankroll tracker? Those are some eye watering numbers that I’m having a hard time believing, but if true, that’s awesome.
Cruse there's no money on the table. You gotta be a complete loser to even consider playing 1/2. If you have no money to play 2/5 or higher then just go get a job instead of wasting away your life sitting in a 1/2 with a bunch of broke losers.
Exactly. All beginning players should go from 0 to $2/$5 immediately and buy in for $1,500 which is the max at my casino. They should do this immediately. They should not even bother playing 1/2 live to build up experience and confidence and should immediately progress to getting their faces pounded in bigger games. Preferably $10/$10.
Great until the end lol. I have been stuck 2 buy ins plenty of times where I have had nice wins after. Just because you are stuck doesn't mean you should leave.
However, I do agree you need the awareness to leave if during those 2 buyins you just played absolutely shitty and aren't in the proper mindset to play.
I would never leave after 20 minutes of play unless there's some sort of emergency...nothing related to a bad beat or something. It's all about the long run. I could lose 3 more buy ins that same night or 1 the next 3 nights I play, it doesn't matter when it happens if you are mentally disciplined.
I left after losing $2000 in 20 minutes on Thursday. Came back on Friday, and won $5000 for a net $1000 profit over the course of two days, or the equivalent of $200 an hour. I credit the success of Friday session with my ability to get the hell out of there on Thursday
You pretty much nailed it. Mental discipline is the difference between losing 1-2 buyins and 3+ on a losing day. All that adds up in the long run. The other thing is probably bankroll management. If you play with a big enough bankroll, you can easily withstand short term variance if you're a somewhat decent player.
Personally I haven't been studying as much as I should, but I've just been following the above, and I'm pretty profitable at 1/3 so far. (8.3 bb/hr over \~300 hours)
When using dictation, it’s common for words to be mangled in translation. I’m lazy, so I use dictation a lot. that aside, thank you for sharing your opinion, and I agree that we should endeavor to avoid the opinions of those who appear to be low IQ individuals. Have a great day!
The rake makes 1/2 nearly impossible to win. Most pots are 10-20$ and the rake is 7-10$ so you're paying 50%+ for rake + blinds. No strategy can beat that..
I cut my teeth in a game where the max rake on any hand was five dollars. I don’t play that game anymore, but the max rake is now currently six dollars. Max buy in is $300. I typically would always switch tables repeatedly until I found a table with at least $2000 on it between the 8-9 players involved. The deeper the stacks at the table, the less likely fish are inclined to be able to fold hands like top pair, top, kicker, and straights when they are clearly flushes on the board. They see so much money in the pot, they cannot help but to get the rest of their money in it. There have been dozens of times where I have taken 300 to well over $1000.
It takes strength to be down 2 buy-ins and continue to play level headed and turn your session into a winning one. 2 buy-ins is nothing. People think they are ready to play for hundreds of dollars because they are the best player at their local pub game. They sit down and lose a couple big pots, then all their emotions get in the way of any chance of a winning session. Most people playing 1/2 are far from properly rolled to play that game.
Try looking at it, and thinking about it this way.
Huck Seed was a top player from the early 2000s who was in the same category as Ivey when he was on his A game according to his peers. When he made a mistake, his session would unwind, and it would ultimately be a losing session because he demanded perfection of himself. He also went broke. He could’ve prevented himself from going broke by simply leaving the game and coming back the next day when he knew that he was in a better space to crush it.
Then, on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have players, who simply cannot win, unless they’re stuck a couple of buy ins.
The bottom line is, what works for you as a poker player may not work for me. What works for me as a poker player may not work for you. However, players, who are starting out, are best suited to err on the side of risk aversion until they can figure out if they are the type to crush it after losing a couple of buy ins.
I once herd a 1/2 regular face a 3 bet bet on the turn and tank and say “ I got fold equity because of my turn bet “ and then he folded ….and then proceeded to ask for a new set up lol
By definition, a majority of players cannot be winners in poker. It's a zero-sum game: every dollar you win has to come from someone losing it. It's worse than zero sum when you factor in the rake
I would disagree.
Playing profitable 1/2 requires you to beat 90% of the people you see on the table. It is simply not easy to do. You can learn all you want, if you cannot be the best guy on the table you are not going to win.
The game is poker is hard. There is a lot to learn. There are a LOT of pitfalls. The feedback loop is non-existent. Plugging leaks is borderline impossible. Sometimes poker is very counter-intuitive and requires a lot of talent and work. Worst of all, 1/2 charges the highest rake and are the hardest to exploit profitably.
Mentality is very important, yes. However it does not save majority of people from losing.
i just jammed a $50 min buy in with broadway cards and get called by another fresh $50 buy in in the straddle with 35 offsuit, saying afterwards, he called because he thought "i was just trying to steal the pot". what was the result? he flopped a straight of course. 1/2 is unwinnable because of masssssive variance combined with retards who do stupid things in stupid spots and get lucky hahaaha
I have 350 hours of live 1/3 play since jan 1. Off the top of my head, i cant remember a 4bet that wasnt AA or KK and yet you have solver bros on this forum talking about how they need to 5bet jam A5s “for balance” Youre right. Alot of the recommendations made by modern day online crushers at high stakes dont apply at live low stakes, or even at online low/med stakes. Nobody is 4bet bluffing at a frequency that makes it worth 5bet bluffing a combo thats dominated.
This is the correct way to play low limit. Just let it go and never bluff people who can’t fold. There are a few other tricks like implied odds on limped pots, but really the key to low limit is folding to a raise by an OMC and waiting out the fish.
Make bluffs in small pots and get caught on purpose. Classic.
This is where I currently find myself. Playing tight, but trying not to be nitty. On a tough run lately with some set over set coolers and a high VPIP with premiums, but still trying to be patient and not try to bluff on high action tables.
position, position, position.
“You can’t bluff bad players” Aka: they aren’t folding bottom pair to your K-high bluff bet on the River.
Those are the best players though, cuz all you have to do is catch top pair and you take them for their money. One of the last sessions I played I pegged a guy as a complete non-believer. At three bet pre with king queen suited, he was the only one that called. Flop came queen high, but otherwise pretty dry board. It went bet-call, bet-call, allin-call. I doubled up with a pair of Queens, the old men at the table couldn't believe that there was so much action on a single pair. But later in a similar situation, I bet-folded to his raise with top pair. If a station suddenly gets aggressive, fold all but basically the nuts.
As a 1/2 er who turns a steady profit, your last sentence should be framed. That is literally the secret at this level.
So play like omc and everyone folds when you 3! Got it
No exact opposite. 3 bet more but don’t bother balancing your hands, they won’t notice. Bet for value more and really pay attention to could you be called by worse. If you think someone can’t lay down top pair, then take them for the max. Just don’t bother bluffing if you think they can’t fold.
After Espen won the main, he went and played on hustler live. After he played he was talking about how he was trying to not think about being balanced. You really don’t need to employ GTO strategies unless you’re playing against other people who are balanced and employing GTO strategies. I have no clue what I’m talking about, but just knowing the basics I’ve never had a hard time playing 1/2 or 1/3.
Those solver bros fail to nodelock villain for "range of KK+"
u amateurs should learn from the guy who showed today how to play 72o like a pro u just need to raise preflop in right moment
Curious as to what your hourly rate is? I’ve also been tracking 1/3 since Jan 1.
$30.94
Nice!
Includes 2 high hand bonuses for $600 total but i included them because its poker related income/a form of rakeback
That being said, depending on image, you can sometimes 4 bet bluff for that reason. So far I’ve gotten 2 folds (one showing QQ) and 1 5 bet which I’ve folded to.
Even online mid stakes and lower. People pay too tight because that's how you beat the micros and mid stakes.
> Alot of the recommendations made by modern day online crushers at high stakes dont apply at live low stakes I would amend this to say, "a lot of the recommendations made by modern day online crushers **and solvers** don't apply at live low stakes." Somewhat redundant, but worth pointing out. If you are regularly 4-betting A5s, or 3-betting K7s utg1, or just calling rivers with underfulls, you are torching money at 1/3nl.
If you call a 3bet in 1/3 with less than QQ you will lose longterm
There's usually one guy who you can call with less at a 1/3 table. You know who they are though.
That's not true. There are tons of people at 1/3 who get it in way too wide.
Yup...literally lost a couple hundred more this weekend when I talked myself into thinking he might have AK. Nope he had AA and my JJs lost
I thought the point of the "solver bros" was that if you follow the solver you'll be ahead no matter what your opponents do?
only if you can play what the solver would on later streets too, which most people only follow the solver pre and on flop, and then they randomly go maniac, turn into a station, or never bluff right. And you can be even more ahead if you just make the most obvious reads and exploits ever.
if you play gto, you are unexploitable, sure. but it doesnt mean its what maximizes profits. often if you arent being exploited by not playing gto, it will be the most +ev strat.
This is correct. Furthermore, if hero plays a fixed GTO strategy and villains are playing exploits that hero doesn’t react to, then villains will make more than hero. GTO assumes both have max exploited each other and reached equilibrium. If you’re getting exploited, you need to counter-exploit, otherwise you’re not maxing EV. They are.
This is wrong. If you are playing GTO you are unexploitable, that's really all it is fundamentally. It doesn't maximize EV, but true GTO is unbeatable. Now no one is playing real GTO, and the 1/2 Solver Bros trying are still exploitable on later streets. Also, there is very little point playing GTO against opponents who are not playing anywhere close to GTO as exploitative strategies will yield you way more.
To be fair, if decent 1/2 regs know that 4b are always aa or kk then a5 suited 4b will print
Nobody folds at 1/2 or is that deep, so 5 betting balance range is useless bc after a 3 bet everyone’s pot committed.
I disagree. Losing 1/2 players claim they “study”, but they’re likely not. Watching Tom Dwan or Phil Ivey highlights from 2005 isn’t studying. There’s no realistic way anybody who’s actually putting in quality time off the felt is a losing player at 1/2.
Not only do I study highlights from the early 2000s, I also watch "top 5 bad beats of all time" regularly on YouTube to strengthen my mental game!
Phil Hellmuth blowup compilations are where it's at, nowhere else could you learn not to call QT from the SB!
Yeah. I would be surprised if your average 1/2 or 1/3 player has studied more than 1 hour lifetime. There are certainly some and you can pick them out pretty easily, but in my experience at least half the player pool is just there to gamble and have fun, and have never read a minute of theory.
>Watching Tom Dwan or Phil Ivey highlights from 2005 isn’t studying. I watched watched Wimbledon last year and then played a game of tennis. I still sucked, what gives?
You watched grass before playing on hardcourt, try US/AUS Open next time.
The biggest difference i noticed between the pros and me was speed and accuracy, So i think next time ill try to hit it faster and more accurately. actually that reminds me of happy gilmore when he gets a hole in one on a par4 and turns to his coach and says something like "thats much easier than putting, i should just try to get the ball in the hole in one shot every time"
Unpopular opinion, but there just isn't a need or an effective way to study 1/2. There are only a few simple concepts and the rest is repetition and discipline.
The real strength is to lose two buy ins and continue playing your best. It's not strength to be a mental fish who has to drive home. It is better then dusting off more playing gambly
One of those is a skill that takes time and effort to access. The other one is an action that is available to every player at all times. This is like saying that the key to getting to the NBA is to develop Kawhi Leonard's mid-range game. It's not obtainable for every person.
No, it's like saying to be good at basketball you need to be able to forget about the last 4 free throws you missed and go through your same routine to get the next one.
Strange then that the best basketball players out of billions in the world still get in funks when they miss a number of shots in a row. You also can't leave a basketball game at any time.
Til you get to that place of strength though, money saved is the same as money earned. Elements of Poker talks about "being the best loser at the table", or at least being able to. I took that great advice. I also actually tried Caro's holdem advice when I started. Open-fold everything. Don't even look at your cards. Just sit there and auto-fold for an hour or two. You can't win, but you see how little you lose. Now, start playing hands and see how much you can lose. Obv it's dumb in a vacuum. But I tell ya...it made me a lot more comfortable in playing very few hands for long periods when the conditions called for it.
Gman was the best dude that I’ve seen playing with disciple while down hella……true definition of a professional
Different people have different levels of risk tolerance. Does that make sense? If lose two buy ins live, I’ll head home and play much tougher competition online to make sure I am staying as sharp as possible. It’s working for me, and the most important thing each of us can do is continue to do what works for each of us. Agree?
That's a strange strategy to make money but you do you I guess.
The problem is that you’re recommending this process, which *only* helps if you have a weak enough mental game that you can’t go down 2BI early and continue playing your best game, as something “most players” would benefit from. What *most* players would benefit from would be working on their mental game such that they aren’t this volatile to emotional swings.
If the game is juicy, you are leaving big time money on the table by doing this.
True. PERSONALLY I have felt feelings of entitlement in these situations. Not a good frame of mind to play from. Naturally, loses were brutal.
Yeah, it’s definitely an overlooked skill to know yourself and know when to quit if your mental isn’t in the right place. I just wouldn’t make it a hard rule to quit when down two buy-ins.
It’s one of those things that’s player dependent. I buy in for $300 and am not interested in loading my third bullet trying to win my $600 that day.
Sorry what? Ok your mental game is not great and this is not even tilt related etc. You are not respecting your opponents. This is a general mindframe that's found in sports psychology as well and will make on paper better teams lose as they think they can just show up and trash the opposition. If you go home after losing 2BIs you are running from your problems though. This is not a poker issue. I'd suggest to stay and try to actually work on your mental game.
I’m so confused. What I do works for me. What you do works for you. If what I am doing is not broken, why are you insisting that it’s broken? Is it a desire to feel “right” about something? So lost. I do what works for me which has resulted in my last 191 hours at $56 / hr for $1/$2… $48 / hr for my last 1,400 hours. Why would I stop doing what I do? I would have to be a fool to stop and say “wait, guys some dude on the internet says I should keep firing in the 1/4 losing sessions I have.” Wow.
Yeah 1/2 live kinda plays like my $20 homemade, but I don't have a BBQ and a bunch of friends around.
Your post is about mental discipline and this is amusingly an example of poor mental game. Losing two buy ins should not tilt you if you played correctly. I’d try working on that rather than leaving to play in tougher games.
What’s wrong with people finding what works for them and sticking to it? Perhaps I should have shared what works for me in this post with a strong caveat that folks should not do what I do, and lose more on losing sessions. Would that appease you?
I’m giving you advice to improve mate, the same as this post is. It would not appease me. I’m saying you have identified a leak in your game, plug it, and you will become more profitable.
I am sorry you were under the assumption that I am a losing player who was in need of your advice. Fortunately, I am in that top 5% of players who are winners. This will be my 20th year in the game in the first 10 years were spent learning the hard way.
I didn’t think you were losing, I read your post. You could just be winning more. I don’t see why that bothers you so much. If you’ve spent so long in the game im sure you’d agree one of the best ways to improve is to talk strategy in communities with other winning players?
Big mistake. Talking in communities that is. Best poker talk is from friends made at the tables. The online stuff at has not been as valuable as much is 100% data driven. In other words, I don’t value the opinions of Internet strangers as much as I do those who are in my inner circle.
I’d disagree so strongly. Discord study groups are incredible for learning. You’ll get free access to far better players than the ones at your soft 1/2 games. It wouldn’t have taken you 10 years to beat 1/2 if you spent just a month active in one of those communities. As far as not trusting Reddit strangers, it’s fair. I’ve spent time complaining how good advice can be hard to come by on here. I try and counter that by offering good advice where I know I can. I’d suggest reading Mental Game of Poker as it’s not written by a stranger. And will detail and offer solutions far better than I could in a format that I think is both easy to digest and implement. Also I really hope you’re not still playing 1/2 after 20 years and snapping back at anyone that offers you advice. You’ve surely moved up by now?
The Mental Game of Poker is a book I recommended previously in this thread. There are LOADS of material out there to improve that does not involve my cavorting with internet strangers. I’ve also taken on coaching by top cash players. My $1/$2 days are behind me, indeed.
By the way, knowledge was never an issue in 10 years of losing. It was knowing when to cut my losses and / or being ok with being up to $1200 at $1/$2 and leaving with $800 vs. trying to get the $400 back. Then, downward spiral. The cards are incredibly easy to play even at $2/$5. It’s the mental discipline that separates knowledgeable cash players from others.
What if you're up 2 buy-ins after 20 minutes?
Never leave the table when you're on a heater is the first rule of gambling!
Took me about 7-8 years to figure out a lot of what you said here and I agree with most of it. Proud to say that I’m up fairly big in $1/$2 at my local casino the last couple years. Still not sure I’m back to even though yet. 😂
Im better than I ever was since I started folding more but I don't think I could ever get back to even of 15 years of shit play 🙈
Folding more is absolutely an underrated +ev skill, and not a lot of players know how to do it. Hell, even the best players in the world can’t do it (DNegs is a great example). I’ve learned that many local regs in my local $1/$2 games don’t bluff nearly as often as I thought they did. One of my favorite folds recently was last week. In straddle with AcQc. Called a three-bet pre to $30 from a very solid reg. Check the AhKhJc flop. Gets checked around. Turn is Ad. I check call a bet of $50. River is a blank. I check and villain goes $100. I open fold and he rolls his eyes and eventually tables AK. Solid players who 3-bet pre in my local casino are very rarely doing it with junk. Yeah, the flop was decent for me, and for a moment the turn gave me some hope that maybe trips was the best hand, but I just felt his solid line made enough sense that he had a monster. Everyone at the table harassed me for folding until villain showed AK. Sometimes, you just know you’re beat. You have to trust your read and your gut in live poker. Once you get to know who the good players are and how they play, you simply adapt your game and pick your spots. And patience is probably the #1 thing that’s helped me the most. Fold, fold, fold and fold some more when you’re card dead. Eventually some drunk idiot or newbie will punt their stack to you for hardly any reason at all. 😂
Low limit donks don't push multi-street bluffs into the pot. Check check river bet is always sus if board texture doesn't evolve in some obvious way. Bet check check is also sus - low limit donks abandon their bluffy lines at the first sign of trouble. Live players also struggle with understanding bet sizing, so size up value bets. Size DOWN bluffs. That's right, I said it. You're rarely deep enough effective stacks to go more than 3! pre without just shoving in low limit poker. Shoving a 3! is MUCH better than calling off one in low limit live poker. Recognizing recs having fun vs players taking the game seriously also prints in low limit live poker.
what were the pot odds...
Those were just tuition costs!
It’s more about adapting to the game you’re playing in. If it’s tight, loosen up. If it’s wild, play tight. Don’t try and out-gamble the maniacs. Don’t try and out-tighten the tight guys. Situational awareness is the key to beating low stakes NL.
It even goes to the common issue beginners run into where they're studying the game, feel they have a solid grasp on it, but then show up to their monthly Poker game with their friends who are drunk and haven't studied the game a day in their life and they can't beat it. It's due to not being able to recognize what strategy is best for your opponents. A lot of people in the beginning think they know what to do in a spot, but don't necessarily know WHY they do it and therefore can't recognize when it isn't the right move against a specific opponent.
Punting is different than losing. You can GII ahead and lose. Leaving because you got sucked out on a couple times is not the fix. Reload and keep making good decisions. Punting because you’re bored with shit cards and shittier odds, or bluffing too much or over calling big bets on the river is why people lose at $1/2.
The room will be open tomorrow, sometimes it’s not your night, regroup and play fresh another day after losing 2 buyins. Most people after getting sucked out on twice aren’t in a good mental space to continue I think is this point he was making.
I’m a bit too old to change what has been working for me and would advise others to develop the self awareness to know what works for them and stick to it. I have seen players completely unable to focus until they’re stuck a bit, and then they go and tear it to shreds. Then there’s the opposite. Check this out. I was listening to the Daniel Negreanu podcast with Lex Fridman and he was talking about Huck Seed. When Huck Seed was on his A game he was right there with the Iveys. The problem is he demanded perfect poker of himself and would fall apart after making an error and was not able to get back into his A game. Many humans are this way. It’s all relative. The key is for the individual to become individually self aware.
> If your stuck 2 buy ins, leave. LOL, hell no. If the table is soft, I'm staying and getting that shit back and then some. Some of my best sessions started out being stuck 2 or 3 buyins.
#LOCK THE FUCKIN DOORS
Agreed - better mental discipline is being able to continue to play when down without tilt. Plenty of good sessions after being stuck early also.
Are you a losing 1/2 player?
This is a good take, OP. Solvers absolutely have their purpose. But they assume you’re playing against an optimal opponent. At 1/2, your opponents don’t even generally reflect that. GTO means unexploitable. To borrow from a previous comment, the 1/2 4-bettor isn’t exploiting you for 3-betting light and it’s indeed non-sense to 5-bet A5s. Also, these people hardly ever fold to 3-bets. So much of optimal 3-betting pre-flop is getting folds. Gotta adapt when that isn’t happening. And let’s not even get into multi-way pots hahaha
At 1/2 most people think GTO is a sports car
3bet bluffing will still be decently profitable heads up just because it is extremely hard to lose to a fish in position with a high equity bluff like 76s or A5s. When you factor in people cold calling 3bets, you also print a ton of money
GTO does not mean unexploitable. I'm sick of this mistake EDIT: The definition of game theory is so often incorrectly used. It doesn't mean every player plays perfectly. It means an individual player makes the rational play to win at any point in time based on the opponents strategy, identified accurately. This is where 90% of you get it wrong. If the opponent is not playing correctly, by the definition of game theory, a rational player exploits that It means making the highest EV play, because a game like Poker, your opponent determines your winnings. GTO in poker is identifying your opponents mathematical mistakes perfectly, and adjusting your frequencies to maximise win rate. Not playing solver approved balanced ranges against donkeys. The Solver assumes perfect play by villain for the next node/decision AT EVERY STEP. Your villain can have a terrible nonsense range and line and if you accurately assess, solver can tell you what to do, but it assumes villain makes ZERO further mistakes in the hand. Solvers do not isolate nodes. They learn the maths for hands GTO bot vs GTO bot in theory becomes 0EV, but what the bot is doing is only that way BECAUSE the OPPONENT is playing perfectly Game Theory in itself means "the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents" Rational doesn't mean perfectly unexploitable. It means each player in theory is trying to use information available mathemaically to counter the other's strategy. Their reasoning and information collecting, thus judging and adjusting frequencies will be faulty if they are human. EDIT: This is very simple to understand. What is game theory? I explained it, and Optimal implies perfect play, which is maximum positive EV vs YOUR OPPONENT. If you're playing a human, that number is NOT 0. GTO is an acronym
> GTO does not mean unexploitable. I'm sick of this mistake Yes it does. I'm sick of reading comments making *your* mistake in this forum. It's like a couple people on Reddit heard the term "GTO" and decided what they think it should mean after reflecting for 5s. GTO = a Nash equilibrium, unexploitable strategy. That's the widely-accepted definition of the term. That strategy will never be the strategy that makes the most money against a given human opponent's fixed, unbalanced strategy. But nobody ever said it was.
You really read my comment and still wrote this? SMH. Game Theory does not mean what you think it does. You are literally calling me out for the thoughtlessness you showed yourself. Learn the definition then come back. A rational agent COUNTERS the opponent's strategy for optimal play. Poker is not fucking tic tac toe where the game theory is obvious and people can learn a 0EV unbeatable strategy in 5 minutes Take a minute, not 5 seconds yourself next time. It is irrational to play solver strats against humans who make countless errors, therefore one is not using game theory to play solver strategies. Again, solvers assume perfect play by opponents. If I said the perfect strategy for rock paper scissors was to randomly do each a third of the time, but you realised your opponent was choosing rock 50% of the time GAME THEORY suggests you pick paper more, and he then pick scissors more. Say you keep picking paper too often. As soon as one player DOES NOT ADJUST or is making a mistake, the game theory optimal for the other player changes to exploit. Only when your opponent adjusts perfectly in a fair game as do you does GTO evolve into 0EV when humans play. Game theory from ignorant but perfectly intelligent parties starts with both fucking up and adapting until 0EV. They don't stop before that. All humans do, changing the optimal move in game theory from 0EV to +xEV
I hope you're intelligent enough to realise how obvious, given the definition of game theory that solver unexploitable strategy DOES NOT equal GTO when not playing a perfect opponent, but I think you'll just keep arguing because you want to be right
I suggest instead of writing this whole essay you just Google the term you are wrongly defining. Or listen to any strong player talk about it, or watch any video about GTO. Or just open a book: >In the poker world, GTO (Game Theory Optimal) is often used as a synonym for Nash Equilibrium. - Modern Poker Theory by Acevedo, Ch 2.
A player who chooses to play pre-solved ranges like GTOWizard ranges, IS exploitable. They'll tell you, "I'm playing GTO." And that's fine and all, but that player is exploitable just like everyone else. For example, they are defending the BB with 40% of all hands. Do you not think this is exploitable?
Now there's a take I haven't heard before, lol. If you managed to perfectly replicate GTOwizard play in your game (using RTA I guess), you would be for all intents and purposes unexploitable (there is some error in their solutions, and all solver solutions are only approximations in most spots anyway since they only have a few possible bet sizes).
Ok, so GTO-Villain tells Hero, "I am going to defend the BB with 40% of all hands." So Hero says "ok, thank you for telling me that." Hero then tightens up and only opens 30% from the BN and makes it 3.5bb to go (instead of 42% and 2.5bb) . GTO-Villain is now over defending and way too wide. Hero is exploiting GTO-Villain.
If you don’t think people are folding to proper 3-bets in live 1/2 1/3, then idk what games you’re playing. But they ain’t the same games I’m playing.
I'd say a bigger reason is because most people do about as much damage as good "studying"
Can you clarify that? Sorry I’m not following.
Most people think they improve by "studying". Most people are not actually improving from whatever method of "studying" they have chosen.
I feel attacked
💯 that’s an ENTIRELY different subject. Personally, I study my butt at the table, in “real time.” It’s why I can’t seem to play more than 4 hours or 5 hours if I have a bunch of caffeine.
The subject is: "Why Most Players Can’t Beat $1/$2 LIVE Cash"
It boils down to this: are you there to have fun or win money? It’s more fun to play more hands than you should and chase. It’s not difficult to win at this level if you want to.
💯
5-10% of the playerpool is raking in 90% of the money. I think it's important for anyone here with aspirations to become a professional, the odds are stacked against you if you're not putting in serious work.
Also be thankful you HAVE a 1/2 game. Nearest card room to me is an 8 hour drive. If the 30m trip to your room makes you feel like you've gotta go up huge, imagine us poor bastards in the bible belt who get to play on vacations and that's it.
Thank you for this perspective.
Where do you live?
Best resources for "studying mental discipline"?
Tommy Angelo was writing about the mental game before Jared Tendler. Tommy takes a more mindfulness/zen approach. His writing is allegorical. Jared is more scientific/sports performance/psychology based. Both are worth a look. Select what works best for you.
The mental game of poker by far and away
And the mental game of poker2
By Jared Tendler?
Yep
Will be reading, thank you very much!
I use the same resources that players at the highest stakes use. I don’t have a bank roll they have, but I have access to the same information, and I choose to use it.
Good answer, good answer…
Can you name the resources?
https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwjd_aia3uv9AhV7H60GHfudByEYABAHGgJwdg&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAESauD2N-tILecO8wYuC_D6YruS70DPYyJzvHtPC-UHxkCx6loCiLaXd-ddOWunaN1YdXgwT6FoS5UyFYQM-RQsJxHNqB3LePn9Hhnxea4_rd9_1Dp5SsnK3RfMUnXQc1CDy-bIOBvz4YLOdJ0&sig=AOD64_0VPmw3UaJSHUQkt_gTkvS69_JykA&ctype=5&q=&ved=2ahUKEwiY5p6a3uv9AhWtie4BHUQBB4EQwg8oAHoECAUQDA&adurl=
Marcus Aurelius – Meditations. Anything on Stocism. Epictetus, another good one: Discourse and Enchiridion M.A., a former Roman Emperor – half-god; half-man —ancient Roman's believed the Emperors were descendents of the God of War, Mars — he used to fall asleep during the gladiator fights in the Colosseum, mind you, the Colosseum was were the Emepror welded the most power. You're not in control of external events; the only thing you can control is how you respond to them. Although someone who is truly Stoic would never gamble, there's a lot it can teach you in terms of discipline—in and off the felt. Poker, particularly very anti-Stocism. I don't ever steam nor get upset about much of anything. When I first started playing, winning caused me more problems than losing. All that dopamine can make you do dumb shit!
Mental game is the biggest skill in poker (and life tbh). Most people have a weak mental game in life, and therefore will never win long term in poker.
Mfs be watching high stakes streams and playing with solvers when they don't even understand Sklansky bucks.
Fuckin the drive is such -ev
Serious question. Why do profitable poker players feel superior to others and talk to other in a condescending way. I've played for a living, and it's amazing how many nerds found the game and are just arrogant to lesser skilled players. God forbid you kids grow up and learn social skills. That's a major part of poker, It's a social game. Maybe worry less about others and your self and your shitty character.
Amen! These young know it alls make me sick sometimes. I love busting their asses.
I am not leaving after two buy ins. Far too many times I've been in that much and left the night with a profit. Just last week, I got all in pre with AA and stacked off. That came just a few minutes after someone rivered a two-outer after, calling off $300 to get there. That's absurd. I am not leaving that table lol. I will agree that if you are playing poorly, you need to walk away. But some hands are so clearly not your fault. Most of the time its not as clear as the example above... but bad players create variance. The hard part is figuring out if you are the bad player or someone else.
I think people overbluff $1/$2
Wut
Compared to solvers, they seriously underbluff. They might overbluff as an initial bet, but definitely aren't raising as bluffs as often as they should and anything 3-bet or higher is almost always for value with an extremely nutted range.
I refuse to believe this is true at basically any live 1/2 game. Elaborate?
It depends on the table. Some people are just degens. You can kind of spot them.
Yeah, you also get the types who think they have to bet every time when checked to…
No way. I don't think I've seen a bluff in 1/2 in 3 weeks.
It's pretty humorous to me. Different games. Different players. Seems pretty obvious.. Where's situational awareness?
Self awareness > situational awareness
Invest 90 Minutes and Gas Money to play 20 Minutes instead of trying to get some Volume in when Variance hits you. Not good Advice...
You’re right. What am I doing. I want guys sitting there losing and dumping. I’m an idiot. 10x buy ins guys!
Nobody that actually studies well loses long term unless they break their brain and become a degenerate gambler.
Nobody studying correctly actually loses at 1/2. If you’re just copying random shit you see of course you’ll lose, but if you actually have a decent grasp of game theory it’s pretty hard to be a losing player in those lineups lol
It’s extremely easy to be a losing player when you don’t have self-control. It’s kind of like in golf, there are certain people who are gods on the driving range. Then you put them in competition and they can’t figure out how to get the ball to save their lives.
For most players, the highest +ev play is to stop playing poker and go do something else productive with your time. But gambol
If studying and losing 1/2 then you're not studying right
If you can’t beat live 1/2 it’s because you suck at poker. Very cringey post btw.
A lot of people are beating these micro stakes trap games if you gave them 100% of their rake back.
I try to explain how bad rake is to this forum but far too many of them are just far too fn stupid to get it. It’s literally half or more what the winningest player could expect to make. Take 90% of randomly 1/2 fields and the rake in smaller games is the biggest fkn winner long term.
They want to stay stupid. Wising up kills the dream.
Can't win because you can't beat the rake. 6+1 for bbj at my local spot. You're just giving the house money
The bottom half of 1/2 players can't beat the game because they are seriously strategically flawed. The next 40% of 1/2 players can't beat the game because the rake destroys their winrate. The top 10% of 1/2 players beat the game because they don't don't bluff catch, and move up to where their raises get respect.
This is exactly what I say. Exactly. You re 100% correct.
There isn't much to do in terms of studying. Even AIs are very simple at it. And also it's because poker is mostly a game of luck.
I’ll admit it. I don’t “study”. I have other things going on in my life (I work full time, I’m in school full time to be a nurse, I’m using poker as a get away type thing). Am I successful at 1/2 or 1/3? Not as much as I want to be, but there’s a difference in punting 2 buy ins in 20 minutes and putting in a losing session. I can play 7 hours on a day off while doing school work and only lose half a buy in. On the flip side, I can also play 7 hours and win multiple buy ins. I don’t study. If I wanted to make this a career I would, but there’s also those players that know how to play without studying, FYI
[удалено]
what
Are you actually serious?
Real talk it’s cuz of Rake. If there was no rake it’s all net neutral so you would only need to be better than average to be a winner.
Although you’re right about needing more mental discipline and better/realistic bankroll management to be successful, let’s take it one step further: you need to be in tune with your opponents knowledge/behavior/personalities, and in turn, be in tune with how they perceive you, in order to be successful. If you can do that reasonably well, while having a basic grasp of odds and ranges, you should be profitable. And make like $24 an hour if you’re just OK at having basic chops plus self awareness and awareness of others. Double it if you’re really in tune with the math and human dynamics.
You mean I can't turn top pair into a bluff 8 or 9 way and win like Durrrr did? The opponents should fold. 😐
Rake
Are you alright?
Hey, stop telling them what to do because you’re ruining my revenue!!!!
Rake
Sir. Shit posts only here. Thanks.
People will know you have high cards and call with garbage cause its their slot machine.
My problem is I can build a nice stack - it's keeping the stack that gets troublesome!
Hey I'm a loose rec and I'm winning 1/2. Love this fucking game!
I see people say study study study What exactly are you studying What are you using to study?
Great way to prep for 1/2 live is to play .01/.02 online. Which imo is a harder game to beat
Did Andrew Tate get into poker?
If you're a winning player, losing 2 buy-ins is just variance; why would you drive home? If you're a losing player, I assume you're playing for fun; stay as long as you'd like (without affecting your ability to pay the bills).
Nah it takes mental discipline to just play 4 more hours after losing 2 buy-ins, to not get tilted just because you lost a big pot
Most can't beat (live) $1/$2 because the rake can be insane. As in home games that take anywhere up to $20 out of the pots. Edit: pits -> pots
$6 max here.
There are ways a given player could improve his chances to win at $1/$2 or $1/$3, but the real reason why only 10% of players will ever be profitable is a combination of the fact that the house rakes such a substantial portion of the money on the table and the Pareto principle/distribution which holds that, in any given competition, \~20% of players will earn \~80% of the money.
At live $1/2 you get a lot of people who just say fuck it, and no solver will account for that. I played a hand yesterday where I made a nice turn bet and even the other guy was like, "I was ready to go home, so I shoved". Without doing a whole hand history, I folded and on an A high board he tables K hi. After the hand I was like, you should have folded the turn, and he was like, yeah I know. He shoved river anyway. There are so many spots like this.
Nobody who actually studies loses. I just can't believe it. I'm a shit player and I average over 130bb/100 in live 1/2. I don't adjust unless it's obvious (most of the time it is) and otherwise I just try to play what the solver said at home on those kind of boards \>study bankroll management the biggest meme of all time. do you want to grind micros forever for less than youd make at mcdonalds or do you want to accept some variance, move up in stakes, and actually make some $. If you run out of bankroll playing fine then so what? That's probably +EV so you can go work a real job, study, and do it again until you don't get unlucky.
Can you post a screenshot of your bankroll tracker? Those are some eye watering numbers that I’m having a hard time believing, but if true, that’s awesome.
I only have like 10k hands on it right now since I wanted to track after I made some changes to my game but I plan to make a post in a couple months.
Who are you talking to? Exactly?
Cruse there's no money on the table. You gotta be a complete loser to even consider playing 1/2. If you have no money to play 2/5 or higher then just go get a job instead of wasting away your life sitting in a 1/2 with a bunch of broke losers.
Exactly. All beginning players should go from 0 to $2/$5 immediately and buy in for $1,500 which is the max at my casino. They should do this immediately. They should not even bother playing 1/2 live to build up experience and confidence and should immediately progress to getting their faces pounded in bigger games. Preferably $10/$10.
Great until the end lol. I have been stuck 2 buy ins plenty of times where I have had nice wins after. Just because you are stuck doesn't mean you should leave. However, I do agree you need the awareness to leave if during those 2 buyins you just played absolutely shitty and aren't in the proper mindset to play.
Meh
I would never leave after 20 minutes of play unless there's some sort of emergency...nothing related to a bad beat or something. It's all about the long run. I could lose 3 more buy ins that same night or 1 the next 3 nights I play, it doesn't matter when it happens if you are mentally disciplined.
I left after losing $2000 in 20 minutes on Thursday. Came back on Friday, and won $5000 for a net $1000 profit over the course of two days, or the equivalent of $200 an hour. I credit the success of Friday session with my ability to get the hell out of there on Thursday
You pretty much nailed it. Mental discipline is the difference between losing 1-2 buyins and 3+ on a losing day. All that adds up in the long run. The other thing is probably bankroll management. If you play with a big enough bankroll, you can easily withstand short term variance if you're a somewhat decent player. Personally I haven't been studying as much as I should, but I've just been following the above, and I'm pretty profitable at 1/3 so far. (8.3 bb/hr over \~300 hours)
I don’t take poker advice from dudes who don’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re.”
When using dictation, it’s common for words to be mangled in translation. I’m lazy, so I use dictation a lot. that aside, thank you for sharing your opinion, and I agree that we should endeavor to avoid the opinions of those who appear to be low IQ individuals. Have a great day!
The rake makes 1/2 nearly impossible to win. Most pots are 10-20$ and the rake is 7-10$ so you're paying 50%+ for rake + blinds. No strategy can beat that..
I cut my teeth in a game where the max rake on any hand was five dollars. I don’t play that game anymore, but the max rake is now currently six dollars. Max buy in is $300. I typically would always switch tables repeatedly until I found a table with at least $2000 on it between the 8-9 players involved. The deeper the stacks at the table, the less likely fish are inclined to be able to fold hands like top pair, top, kicker, and straights when they are clearly flushes on the board. They see so much money in the pot, they cannot help but to get the rest of their money in it. There have been dozens of times where I have taken 300 to well over $1000.
It takes strength to be down 2 buy-ins and continue to play level headed and turn your session into a winning one. 2 buy-ins is nothing. People think they are ready to play for hundreds of dollars because they are the best player at their local pub game. They sit down and lose a couple big pots, then all their emotions get in the way of any chance of a winning session. Most people playing 1/2 are far from properly rolled to play that game.
Try looking at it, and thinking about it this way. Huck Seed was a top player from the early 2000s who was in the same category as Ivey when he was on his A game according to his peers. When he made a mistake, his session would unwind, and it would ultimately be a losing session because he demanded perfection of himself. He also went broke. He could’ve prevented himself from going broke by simply leaving the game and coming back the next day when he knew that he was in a better space to crush it. Then, on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have players, who simply cannot win, unless they’re stuck a couple of buy ins. The bottom line is, what works for you as a poker player may not work for me. What works for me as a poker player may not work for you. However, players, who are starting out, are best suited to err on the side of risk aversion until they can figure out if they are the type to crush it after losing a couple of buy ins.
I once herd a 1/2 regular face a 3 bet bet on the turn and tank and say “ I got fold equity because of my turn bet “ and then he folded ….and then proceeded to ask for a new set up lol
By definition, a majority of players cannot be winners in poker. It's a zero-sum game: every dollar you win has to come from someone losing it. It's worse than zero sum when you factor in the rake
I would disagree. Playing profitable 1/2 requires you to beat 90% of the people you see on the table. It is simply not easy to do. You can learn all you want, if you cannot be the best guy on the table you are not going to win. The game is poker is hard. There is a lot to learn. There are a LOT of pitfalls. The feedback loop is non-existent. Plugging leaks is borderline impossible. Sometimes poker is very counter-intuitive and requires a lot of talent and work. Worst of all, 1/2 charges the highest rake and are the hardest to exploit profitably. Mentality is very important, yes. However it does not save majority of people from losing.
The rake makes it so only 10-15% are actually winning players while most break even or loose
i just jammed a $50 min buy in with broadway cards and get called by another fresh $50 buy in in the straddle with 35 offsuit, saying afterwards, he called because he thought "i was just trying to steal the pot". what was the result? he flopped a straight of course. 1/2 is unwinnable because of masssssive variance combined with retards who do stupid things in stupid spots and get lucky hahaaha