[Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

http://slate.msn.com/id/2122188/entry/2122189/
I know there are some poker fans in here, and I thought might be interested in this. I can't play worth a damn, but the article was intersting enough to do an idimmu style thread here. I find it interesting how there are professional players who actually make money playing this game. They make enough to support a modest, or sometimes even wealthy, middle class income.

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

Poker is more exciting to read about than to play, as I would lose all my money and it would be no fun at all.

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

Well duh. Except probability doesn't mean much after the event has occurred.

If you show you have the best hand and win, your chances of winning the pot are 100 percent!

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

in before dace

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

Catch 22

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

You're taking poker tips from the MSN website?

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

As far as low-limit poker goes, that is so wrong it's scaring.

In low-limit poker, there are players who will call *anything*... "No Fold'em Hold'em". Bluffing and scaring only works when you expect others to behave sanely.

Playing tightly and disciplined, only putting money in the put when you have good enough pot-odds/good hands is the only way to make money in low-limit poker.

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

How much cash are we talking in low-limit poker?

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

It's not ****ing MSN, it is Slate. Don't be so damned illitarate.

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

Low-limit in is generally considered poker up to $2-4, 3-6, however the game at the lowest tables where the bottom rable is quite different from the "higher low-limit".

I generally play at tables where the big blind is $0.5, so pots generally end up being from 5-10 dollars. Some places have tables with even lower limits though.

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

Mother****er, this guy is a professional poker player who has won millions of dollars. You're going to tell me that he is wrong? WTF has your largest winning spree been? 12 pence?

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

I'm up 200-300 dollars since I started three months ago. Nothing to be espicially proud of in other words.

Either way, he's not talking about low-limit poker you dolt! He's talking about high-limit poker, which is an entirely different game. It's kinda like how teaching 5-year olds advanced football tactics is a ****ing waste.

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

The article is about tournament poker, not ring games. Your points are correct for a ring game but not for any sort of tournament, even play money.

Tight-Aggressive is the way to win tournaments, going all in with 27o is gutsy but (almost always) dumb unless you really have a very good read on your playing partners.

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

I wasn't advocating not playing tight aggressive.

I was merely making a point of the fact that in low-limit, the tight part is alot more important than the aggressive part. On really low-limit the majority of plays go to showdown, regardless of how much money is in the pot.

[edit]
If you know you're going to get called, you don't play unless you think you have the best hand. And if you think you have the best hand, it's not really bluffing is it? This holds wether it's tourney play or not, just as long as there are enough bad players left still.

As anecdotal evidence of how different low-limit is to real poker: I have two friends who are part time proffesional poker players. When we joined up with alot of non-poker players and even more alcohol for an evening of poker they got creamed. They expected the others to play anything near sane.

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

"The other players were too bad at the game for me to beat them :(((("

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

That still doesn't really apply to tournaments, even in a $5+.50 sit and go you need to be aggressive if you want to consistently win. In tournaments people tend to forget about the stakes altogether, it's all about the chips.

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

Sure, when there's 3-4 left and people are starting to get a look at the money, you have to crank up the aggressivness alot and start stealing. You'll still have a decent chance with being tight-passive though, as it really fools alot of players. They just keep betting with nothing to try and get you to fold :)

The majority of the sit'n'go however, will be with 5+ players and things *will* get called. Thight-aggressive - sure, sure. Bluffing - forget it, you're welcome to try though.

Incidently, I don't play anything else than $5 + .50 sit'n'go's nowadays.

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

Out of curiosity, where do you play? You describe the ring games at pokerroom.com perfectly but the tournaments seem a lot tighter to me. You're definitely not talking about pokerstars.com, that's one tough site for ring games!

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

empire/party poker mostly nowadays. High rake for the lowest games, but it makes up for it by the sheer amount of bad players.

Played at little at expekt earlier, and tried crazypoker a little too. Expekt had too many europeans / not enough americans though. Since I'm a mediocre player at best, I need bad opposition :)

You? Got any recommandations?

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

I usually play at pokerroom, mainly because of the Java client (I use Linux) and the play tends to be pretty loose. The tournaments are a bit tighter but if you can get a read on your fellow players quickly then you should be able to deal with the maniacs and push them out pretty easily. I'm not a great player, like you I'm mediocre at best but I manage to make a small steady profit. Party Poker has the reputation for the loosest games on the net but the client doesn't work under Wine :(

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

Dual boot for the win! .. and it isn't like windows cost any money :).. in fact, I'm sure people would pay to get rid of their windows ME installation discs.

I generally do all my usefull stuff on linux, and have windows for whenever I want to waste time... works out pretty well.

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

oh, and whoever neg repped me:
You forgot to sign it :(

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

now.

you know it wasn't me, because i've rep'd you twice now (even though you've neg rep'd me a lot, i rep for quality of posts you see)

and somebody does just have to point out that:
technically he doesn't have to leave his name, because he knows who you are.
but

if you are interested in who he is 20/30 points means 2000 to 3000 posts, or 2000 to 3000 rep points or most likely a combination of the two.

god. i'm turning nice. i feel dirty

Re: [Poker]The 2005 World Series of Poker
 

thanks..

the neg rep: occasionally, you annoy me :)

I just find the whole neg-repping without a name to be extremely bad form. If you don't like someone / their posts, owe up to it.