Friday, January 10, 1997 11:51 PM Abdul Jalib In article <1997Jan9.111547@trident.tec.sc.us>, zpwilliamsm@trident.tec.sc.us writes: > In article , abdulj@earthlink.net (Abdul Jalib) writes: >> In article , >> jbs@quiotix.com (Jeffrey B. Siegal) writes: >>> In article , >>> pudaite@pipeline.com (Paul R. Pudaite) wrote: > >>Abdul Jalib > >> However, I think this line of reasoning is dangerous. I prefer to be >> conservative about the bankroll and not try to use any virtual bankroll. >> Exponential growth is not possible forever (because at some point between >> $300-$600 and $3000-$6000 you start running out of opponents.) > > For practical purposes in relation to poker there is a limit to what > one may make. I'm interested in Abdul's statement about loss of > opponents. Abdul,or anyone else, what do you feel the theorectical max > is that one might make yearly? I could see making a quarter of a million a year even at relatively modest stakes (40-80 to 100-200). I would assume the best poker players with the biggest bankrolls make many millions per year, but I don't run with that crowd, so I can't estimate a theoretical max. > Also since opponents are limited in the > 3k to 6k range would a 300-600 structure offer a greater income than > the head banging, lack of new blood 3k and up games? Quite possibly, but since I've never played 300-600 nor 3000-6000, I just have to admit ignorance. 300-600 seems quite fashionable nowadays. I view it, however, as the game designed for the better pros to take money from the weaker pros. > Abdul, since I have been reading for a long time about your progression > through the levels would you mind sharing with us what the climate > and oppposition is at the various levels? First off, it really varies by locality. Below I'll describe each level by my impressions in California. For Nevada, you have to cut the stakes almost in two. 1-2 - insane and cheaters too, rake makes winning nearly impossible. 2-4 - insane, rake makes winning nearly impossible. 3-6 - insane players sprinkled with some "good"; rake is oppressive. The schooling of fish reduces the severity of their calling errors and encourages tight players to make incorrect laydowns. I never could beat it. 6-12 - first appearance of solid players able to exploit table geography, but number of callers prohibits many fancy plays. Lee Jones' book is mostly applicable to 6-12 and below. I was so disgusted with 3-6 and anxious to apply the principles in S&M's _Advanced Holdem_ that I pretty much skipped straight to 10-20, though I had many chances to play 6-12 while waiting for a 10-20 seat. 10-20 - first appearance of professional players, who can eek out a living of $10 to $20 an hour. Big jump in tightness. Game finally starts to play like it says in S&M's _Advanced Holdem_. Heads-up confrontations are possible for the first time. Bluffing becomes possible, even important. 15-30 - similar to 10-20, but the 3-6 structure makes it looser because of the 2 chip small blind and tendancy of people to call pots that have lots of chips. 15-30 has perhaps the highest variation in game character - it can be anywhere from incredibly tight to incredibly loose, perhaps owing to its position as one of the highest games common fish will play and one of the lowest games pros will play. Games may not be as good as they seem, as some of the good players may be quite good at exploiting table geography (e.g., raising over a fish to drive you out). 20-40 - similar to 15-30, and the seemingly favorite game for many (most?) pros. You can make $20, maybe $40+, per hour playing this game if you're good, enabling a comfortable living if you put in the hours. The 4-8 structure puts even more chips in the pot, encouraging even looser play by others compared to 15-30, but relatively smaller small blind (1/2 big blind instead of 2/3's) makes the tight play of the pros more correct. Many fish can still afford this level, and depending on the ratio of pros to fish, the game can be very tight to fairly loose. Multiway pots are still more the norm than the exception, at least in good games, though heads-up play is increasingly important. 30-60 - much tighter than 20-40, because of the higher stakes and less chips in the pot. At this level, the table needs only one or two donators to provide a living (or break even) for the rest of the table, and the majority of your opponents are more or less solid full-time players. 40-80 - looser than 30-60 because of the extra chips in the pot. It's the level I most often play. It can be either more or less profitable per hour than 20-40 or 30-60, depending on the opposition, so when the 40-80 is surprisingly tough, I try the 20-40 (30-60 is not an option where I play most often). Heads-up play and psychology start replacing the multiway pots of 20-40 and below, and you start wandering outside the scope of S&M's _Advanced Holdem_. However, when the game is good, S&M covers just about all you need. 60-120- *much* tighter than 40-80. To me, it's the first level where it's obvious that pros are feeding off pros - the weaker pros are winning at lower levels and bringing the money up to 60-120 to feed the better pros. Heads-up play becomes crucial, though occasionally the game can be very loose like 6-12. I find 40-80 almost always more profitable than 60-120. The true fish are people with a rare level of disposable cash - doctors, merchants, criminals, idle rich, and poker tournament winners. 75-150- Slightly tighter and slightly harder to find true fish compared to 60-120. I like this level because so few people can afford it that the games are often short-handed (which I prefer), and sometimes the 75-150 stud players get the crazy idea that they can play 75-150 hold'em well too. 80-160- better structure than 60-120 or 75-150, I've only played it a few times, as it is rare. 100-200-I've only played it a few times, as it is stressful to my bankroll. I never did see a good 100-200 game except when I wasn't in it. :-/ Normally very tight, and at most one fish. -- Abdul Jalib | | Rotsa ruck. abdulj@earthlink.net |