Re: Reflections on Money Management, Career Choices, and Poker
- From: "lawhonac@xxxxxxxxxx" <lawhonac@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:42:19 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 19, 1:13 pm, Diane from Green Bay <hrdi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 13 2008 9:01 PM, lawho...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I have been reading some of Mike Caro (and other authors) wisdom on
money management and building your bankroll. I have been playing
serious poker - where "serious" is defined as actually trying to make
money - for a little over a year now. >
(On one memorable> trip I managed to increase my bankroll by $800.00 after two days of
play and then lost $600.00 on one hand when my pocket Kings ran smack
in to bullets. It felt like a punch in the stomach.) Rather than
reloading and risk playing on tilt, I decided to get up, leave the
table, and go home. > Alan C. Lawhon
Huntsville, Alabama
______________________________________________________
Alan,
IMO as a long term Limit player ---- you will have much smaller and more
controllable fluctuations in your bankroll if you stick to Limit play for live
action and away from the NL games, except for tournaments where your exposure is
capped at the price of the entry fee.
I admittedly haven't read the entire thread and long string of responses since I
have been traveling extensively and am just now getting caught up on rgp.
Perhaps someone else has already made this point. If so, ignore me.
Although I have dabbled in some small stakes NL poker over the last year or two,
I just am not as comfortable there as I am in my usual spot at a limit table.
Its odd as a psychological response the difference to me and the mental state I
am in when I play at live NL tables.
A $300-500 buy in NL game makes me tentative, anxious, and I can't "settle in"
and play my best game. But I can sit in a $40-80 Limit hold em game with
my typical $2,000 buy in (4x that of the NL game) and not be the least bit
concerned. Even though during the $40-80 limit game any single hand could have
me putting the same amount of money at risk as the total NL buy in.
I am just not "wired" correctly for NL live games. The idea that at any time the
money in front of me may ALL be at risk on one hand and hanging by the
capriciousness of fate is bothersome. You can't avoid going broke if pre-flop
someone raises your pocket aces all in. No way anyone will put aces down
preflop in a live game. Yet there is no guarantee that you will win.
NL Tournaments - that's a totally different situation and I can be relentless,
fearless and as a result have had success in NL tourneys going back many years.
You will have greater control over your bankroll and less fluctuations if you
stay with Limit play. If I were going to use poker as my method of making a
living it would be a combo of limit games and NL tourneys, B&M and online.
Diane from Green Bay
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com
Diane:
Thanks for your comments and observations on LL versus NL hold 'em. I
have gone back and forth in my mind debating this question. I've
noted your comment in the last paragraph about less variance and
better control of your bankroll playing limit versus no-limit. Those
two points are certainly "pros" for favoring limit over NL. (And it
is certainly true that you can "lose it all" on a single hand when
playing no limit - as I have discovered.)
At the same time, there are definite drawbacks to playing limit.
Chief among them is the fact that it is much more difficult to protect
premium pairs (and other good hands) against too many callers in
limit, especially really low limits, than it is in NL where you can
pop somebody for a really big raise. I don't know how many times I've
bet the max preflop in limit, (holding pocket Aces or Kings), got
called by somebody holding 7-4 suited, only to listen to the guy
chortle like a hyena when the board flops a couple of 7's. (I was
playing a 3-6 limit game in Tunica recently when this exact thing
happened. The guy was shortstacked and actually re-raised me when I
bet the Aces, so I went ahead and put him all in. After the two
sevens flopped and he started laughing, I just sat there silently not
saying a word. Finally, this idiot said "Well, they were suited!") I
have a feeling that players who call bets (or raises) with 7-4 suited,
don't hold up very long playing NL, so there are arguments for both
sides of this debate. (Maybe this problem is a function of the actual
limit you play. You mentioned that you play at $40-80 limit - which
is pretty high. Maybe this guy wouldn't have re-raised me with 7-4
suited if he had had to put $80 [instead of $6] into the pot.)
I have noticed the thread arguing that Omaha/8 may be the better low
limit game for skilled players. I have not played (or studied) Omaha
yet - mainly due to the fact that 90+ percent of the tables I see in
Tunica are spreading hold 'em. However, I do recall listening to Eric
Seidel, the pro, being interviewed on ESPN during the coverage of an
Omaha/8 WSOP event. Eric made the comment that Omaha is a game that
"even rocks" can win and that "patience and rock solid discipline" pay
huge dividends in Omaha. Taking all these factors into consideration,
I'm starting to think that maybe I should spend some time peeling back
the layers of the Omaha onion.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I hope we might have the
opportunity to meet one day at the poker table.
Alan C. Lawhon
Huntsville, Alabama
.
- References:
- Reflections on Money Management, Career Choices, and Poker
- From: lawhonac@xxxxxxxxxx
- Reflections on Money Management, Career Choices, and Poker
- Prev by Date: Re: Necessary Necessary Necessary Necessary Necessary
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Prickly Politics
- Previous by thread: Re: Reflections on Money Management, Career Choices, and Poker
- Next by thread: Re: Reflections on Money Management, Career Choices, and Poker
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
