5 Rules for Beginners who want to Make Money Playing Poker

[WurlyQ]

Ahhh, this sounds familiar to me. I think I am doing the same as you, but I am, perhaps, more stuck. I'm not sure I want to play at higher levels, not sure I can be comfortable with the swings esp. in NL. I'm not sure I want to come unstuck.

However, these are not beginner's problems, are they? Beginners just need to learn the basics, how to not spew their tiny bankroll, how to play-- first tight, then adding position and player-plays, the loosening up to take advantage of other's leaks. Learning to use aggression cleverly. It's not a short road, learning poker. And, as one learns, it is a rocky trip. This is a good thread and has much that a smart beginner can use to begin to get a handle on playing the game.

But you, WurlyQ, bring up an interesting point which is, in part, about a player's risk-taking tendencies. It's not too hard, emotionally, for most of us, to blow off a $100 bankroll, or deal with variances playing at the BRM-appropriate levels. It becomes trickier when the bankroll can represent something real and substantial to you -- say, a new CD player, a new car, a house. The money, at higher levels, is, for many, uncomfortable to play with, as we really do not want to risk that much. I've been wondering how Chris Ferguson, in his $0 to $10K challenge, got from the $1000 range to $10K. And I think this may be it, the reason I am having problems moving up, becoming a higher stakes player. Risking the appropriate amount to get ahead is not a problem for him, partly because the amounts are insignificant to him and partly because he is a better player. I am resistant to it. I don't feel comfortable playing at higher levels, even though I have the bankroll for it. Losing 2-10% of my bankroll at lower levels in a couple of days, then winning it back in another few, then up again, down again, is excruciating but comfortable enough when the real money involved is not a painful amount. Once one moves to higher levels, the real amount is-- too real. I don't know, though, if moving up earlier is the answer.

I'm reading The Poker Mindset by Ian Taylor and Matt Hilger, which discussing the necessity of becoming both risk-neutral and desensitizing oneself to money as part of becoming an excellent player. (There are other key points in the book, and it comes at poker playing from the mental angle. It's not about how to play KK, it's about how to control you, so you don't get in the way of becoming a winning player. I am wondering if I can get much further... )

Playing poker seems simple at the beginning, doesn't it?

Well... I'm a huge bankroll nit up until now but I think it's more a result of a lack of confidence to beat the higher limit than a fear of losing the money. I would probably be playing higher in ring if I had more confidence in my skills but the reason why I am such a nit in SnGs is because I think that the maximization of my hourly rate is achieved from playing lower stakes and amping up the number of tables.

You do bring up the "scared money" concept which obviously makes people play less than their A game and is therefore not optimal. This amount is different for everyone but no one should be playing at a limit they are uncomfortable wagering that money.

The reason I bring up the "start out with ring" point actually has nothing to do with bankroll management. In a previous post, I actually state that this should only be for people who can "take the bankroll hit." If you can't then you need to grind out enough money to be able to take the bankroll hit. The reason I say start in ring is twofold:

1. Ring is where the money is at
2. The primary skill involved to beat SnGs is nonexistent in ring

Therefore your ability to learn the concepts to master ring are slowed because you are concentrating your learning on a concept that is inapplicable (ICM push/fold) to ring. Thus, in order to reach the maximum hourly in the shortest amount of time, lots of studying and playing only ring is the optimal path to take.

 

[doops]

Well... I'm a huge bankroll nit up until now but I think it's more a result of a lack of confidence to beat the higher limit than a fear of losing the money. I would probably be playing higher in ring if I had more confidence in my skills but the reason why I am such a nit in SnGs is because I think that the maximization of my hourly rate is achieved from playing lower stakes and amping up the number of tables.

You do bring up the "scared money" concept which obviously makes people play less than their A game and is therefore not optimal. This amount is different for everyone but no one should be playing at a limit they are uncomfortable wagering that money.

The reason I bring up the "start out with ring" point actually has nothing to do with bankroll management. In a previous post, I actually state that this should only be for people who can "take the bankroll hit." If you can't then you need to grind out enough money to be able to take the bankroll hit. The reason I say start in ring is twofold:

1. Ring is where the money is at
2. The primary skill involved to beat SnGs is nonexistent in ring

Therefore your ability to learn the concepts to master ring are slowed because you are concentrating your learning on a concept that is inapplicable (ICM push/fold) to ring. Thus, in order to reach the maximum hourly in the shortest amount of time, lots of studying and playing only ring is the optimal path to take.

I worry about NL ring, partly because it connects up with the get-rich-quick mindset that gets so many in trouble. I also worry about suggesting multi-tabling anywhere near beginners, as they still have too much to learn about the basics.

Poker is a game of long-term slight edges. Grinding it out, at whatever game, is slow work. One really does not get an hourly rate that compares to even a job at Burger King until one gets to bigger tables (2-3BB per hour...not much at a 5 cent table.) Learning the patience, the discipline, the equanimity to do well at any game--whichever seems to be the game you can beat--is paramount. And it's gotta be fun for you, or the variances will burn you out.

I also like SNGs, regular speed. Preferably fixed limit holdem (no shoving!), but I am OK with most games. They are pretty much my bread-and-butter (feel free to check my stats), and once one learns to play them, they do pay off. And, because I feel confident in my skill level, they can pay off better than ring for me. (But, dang, it's hard clearing that bonus with sngs.)

That said, I've been working the Academy challenges at micro NL tables, and usually leave a session ahead. Not always-- there are nasty beatdowns wherever one goes -- but often enough to feel more confident. I don't have enough of a roll, though, to play at much of a ring table NL. You need more of a bankroll to play NL, because the swings are so much greater than fixed. It's best to be a bit of a nit with your bankroll, I think.

 

[toopie]

Thanks

Thanks the info, it helps since I'm fairly new to poker only a year experience.

 

[HoldemChamp]

I am going to the ones that disagree with the notion that a beginner should start with Turbo SNGs.

Here is a my explanation why I feel this way.

Now it has already been mentioned the fact that someone mentioned a poker expert cautioned "beginners" against playing turbos. I am sure there are other pros who have made this same comment. I just can't think if any of them at the moment.

Let's look at the pros and con's of playing turbos SNGs and how they apply to beginniners.

Pro: You can play multiple ones per day as oppposed to regular SNGs.
Con: You can play multiple ones per day. lol

We are talking about beginners. Where getting more experience is a good thing. The lightning pace of most turbos doesn't give the beginner time to breath between hands. Sure the games are soft. But, soft games don't neccesarily work to the advantage of the beginner for several reasons.

If they are taking a tight/aggressive approch, which man professional Poker authors suggest (playing only premium hands), waiting to catch one in a turbo may leave them vulnerable to getting short stacked. Why, because premium hands come rarely enough when you have a Standard speed SNG as opposed to a Turbo.

This fact works against the new player. In Turbos, although I will not refer to them as crap shoots, a player must open up the range of hands open to play which is contrary to what the beginner should be doing which is playing premium hands.

It doesn't take 5 seconds to learn that faced with a big raise you should go all in with AA and KK.

It does take quite more to learn that you are being forced out of the blinds because everyone at the table has sensed you weakness and is exploiting it to their advantage bluffing you off A9 suited that you could have called in a normal SNG because there is less pressure to try to win every hand.

Getting sucked out on which is one of the big risks of playing turbos by their nature creates quite a deal of variance which tests even the best players. One only wonders what effect it has on beginners.

By nature they beginner will over raise big hands either to try to snag a big pot or out of fear that since a 4x the BB raise with QQ couldn't push off 109 off suit (suckout), then an all in AA should. Well his all in with AA is called by AJ suited and also get's sucked out on he begins to doubt either himself of the cards. Then begins to play AA or QQ to timidly for fear he will just get sucked out on again.

Because Turbos present the need to play more hands his variance and the hands he gets suckouted on will increase.

This as opposed to a regular SNG where a 3 or 4x the BB raise might get a fold from a player that is not feeling the time pressure to build his stack before he gets short stacked.

Plus, thought turbos can be softer, good players are aware of this fact. Don't be surprised if within the 4 or 5 donks out there there are competent players waiting to gobble those donks up. And, thos same competent players are on the look out for the beginners who they can pound away on post flop when the beginner either misses the flop or hits 2nd pair and is unsure of what to do. If they check because of the overcard. That competent player will pounce on them and steal the pot with nothing. If the checking the flop becomes enough of a pattern everyone will take advantage of that fact.

Ok, this is getting real long. And I have barely scratched the surface on how SNGs are disadventagous(sp) to a beginner player.

My suggestion is for the new player to find small sized freerolls and small sized buys in to play to limit the variance as much as he can in the beginning.

Stick with limit poker for that same reason.

 

[PurgatoryD]

Wow, thanks for posting c9! I especially love the info about rakeback. I hadn't really given it all that much thought. I need to look at that a little more closely! Thanks again!

-Dave

 

[PurgatoryD]

This thread has a lot going on, but in regards to equating sit-and-go turbos to "luckfests", I don't think that's the case.

Isn't a 9 seat SAG turbo a lot like a tournament that has come down to 9 players, where the blinds are high and all players have come down to the final table with about the same number of chips? Grated, I've never seen a final table be so even, but if it did, wouldn't it look a lot like a turbo SAG?

No one would argue that a final table so evenly chipped is a "luckfest" would they?

That said, I think it could be hard for a beginner to successfully navigate a turbo SAG. But it could be good practice for final table play.

Anyhow, just thought I'd add that bit.

-Dave

 

[HoldemChamp]

I would say no, a Turbo SNG does not equated to a final table where the players are close to the same stack.

Yes the blinds have become quite high in the usual final table. However, that is not always the case.

But, that is not what the relevant issue here.

The relevant issue is the time factor.

let's say the blind are 200/400 and everyone has 6000 chips. They are all certainly under some pressure to make moves having only only 15x the BB each. 8000 chips each and they have less pressure. 10,000 each the pressure is even less.

Now let's say the blinds are 15 minutes in that case and they have 8000 chips each. Not only do that have less pressure but they can afford to looks for good spots and have time to pick up good hands to gain a large advantage.

Now make the blind change 5 minutes. Totally different. Now they are under a great deal of pressure to make chips as the Blinds are excalating at a very quick pace. They need to be really putting pressure on the other stacks to pick up chips before they end up short stacked.

Since most higher dollar events are not turbos, it would be to the advantage to the beginner to play with slower blind changes so they have an opportunity to wait for premium hands and not worry that they will get short stacked in the process of waiting. It is the high dollar events that you want to eventually find yourself playing sometime in the future.

Now, I am in no way saying that a beginner should not play turbos. I just think they are better suited to play a normal pace tournament in the beginning stages of their poker career.

Later on, as they get more experience, they can add turbos.

 

[seuatx]

this is definetly helpful to all new players im sure, thanks for posting!

 

[PurgatoryD]

Now make the blind change 5 minutes. Totally different.

Great point! I had not thought of that. It has been a while since I have played a turbo game, so I forgot about that.

OK, well, then I take back what I said. In that case, I'm not sure what advantage a turbo game would have for a beginner. I don't think "forcing" someone to play is that helpful since in the real game, you shouldn't "force" anything. It should all follow your plan.

Thanks for pointing that one out!

-Dave

 

[swingro]

I've won almost 150 dollars from freerolls in 6 mounths and lost them all at cash tables cose it aint the same. I am a good tournament player for a begginer but a bad cash table player. From my experience since i changed the strategy to build my bankroll i have to say that if u can earn 20 dollars from freerolls u have to play sit and go. U have to make some adjustements in your game but if u are a good tournament player u will be good at sit and go. Cash tables are like tottaly other game And also i think with 1 dollar buy-in sg torunaments on the long run u can earn 6-10 dollars a day. And that is great for a begginer. U can build your bankroll like this and than decide if u go a step higher . Another advice. Don't play 10 dollars biu-in sg with a 100 $ bankroll. U'll get broken . Not because the way u play. The reason is simple. Players are better .. much better. I experienced myself what means to underestimate other players. Now i started again from zero but i know now how to pay respect to other players.

 

[Weregoat]

Great post c9. I'm not gonna play argue Turbo vs non-turbo. I've done well enough at STTs - and am familiar enough with the format to know the pros and cons. Much appreciate you putting this information out there, c9.

 

[bazerk]

Good thread c9h13no3 (glad it was bumped up, somehow missed it in my wanderings).

 

[wetyeti]

Great post, I wish I read it a few years ago. Of all the rules I think BRM is the most important. Once I adhered to a tight BRM a was able to track my play better and then find out which games I was getting crushed at and which games I was killing.
I dont play turbos but I'll give it a shot just to see. My bankroll has tripled so I can afford to experiment a bit.

 

[Steves22]

Excellent info C9. The biggest point for me is practicing really really safe bankroll management. I've made way too many mistakes in the past playing a ring game after a bad bustout in a tournament and I lose my entire roll. For me it truly is better to increase slowly over time than try to do it quickly at the tables. Thats the key for me. And like you said it is a fun hobby for me that keeps me occupied for a few hours a day and I might make a little money. So there is no reason to rush and try to make money quick.

 

[leon818]

Nice post and agreed it is worth for the beginners to read it first before investing or playing real money in any poker room...and among these tips...it is important to tract the results frequently if you wanna sharpen yr skills~~

Cheers~~

 

[LizzyJ]

I think what it comes does to is, in the long term what are your goals? If you want to be an big time MTT player then playing the 9-10 person turbos would be a great place to learn, many of the concepts you learn will translate into MTT play.

If you want to be a cash game player, starting out with STT isn't a bad idea, but you would want to make the jump to cash as soon as you can.

Each form of poker requires a certain skill set, there have been many examples of a great STT players being totally dead money in cash games while some cash game players aren't comfortable with the rising blinds of STT/MTT play. Concepts like stealing is a MUST in STT/MTT play, but have little value in cash games.

If you choose one form of poker STT/MTT or cash, I think the important thing is to stick to it; don't try to learn STT and cash at the sametime, pick one.

 

[c9h13no3]

Concepts like stealing is a MUST in STT/MTT play, but have little value in cash games

While your post is good, that sentence made me want to stab you in the liver.

 

[LizzyJ]

Your response makes me think your a complete... nevermind. Have a nice day.

 

[thepokerkid123]

LizzyJ, obviously you're a tournament player.

When your winrate is xbb/100, the difference between a longterm winner and loser can be how well they fight over the the small pots.

Saying stealing isn't as important in cash as tournaments is sacrilege. While the liver stabbing may be slightly excessive, c9's got a point about it ruining your otherwise very good post.

 

[rugby0]

Thanks for this. I had never looked at the rake cost as a % ofr the buy-in. Makes great sense.

 

[c9h13no3]

Thanks for this. I had never looked at the rake cost as a % ofr the buy-in. Makes great sense.

Yeah, the rake really affects your win-rate at microstakes games.

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/rake/

For example, at pokerstars, at $5NL, you'll be winning $10 pots (200bb's), and the rake is 5% of that or $0.50. So if you win a $10 pot, you'll get $9.50, or 95% of the money.

At $200NL you'll be winning $400 pots (still 200bb's). However, even though the rake is 5% of that, its capped at $3. So when you win a $400 pot, you get $397 back (or 99.25% of the money).

While this seems like a small difference, it really adds up over time. Therefore, maximizing how much rake back you get can really affect how much money you're winning and losing.

 

[stellerteller]

Great Post C9. I think that there is a lot of good advise. Thank you for taking the time to lay it out for us.

 

[StormRaven]

Nice beginner guide c9!

 

[Bharat]

I signed up through CC. Not a bad sign up imo

I signed up through CC to FTP as well. Is there any way, I can get on some type of rackback program?

 

[dmorris68]

I signed up through CC to FTP as well. Is there any way, I can get on some type of rackback program?

Unfortunately no, once you've signed up through an affiliate and deposited, they will not give you rakeback.

I read somewhere awhile ago -- don't know it to be true and I'm skeptical -- that some affiliates have agreed to release players from their affiliate status and FTP then allowed them to get RB, but it sounds unlikely. Maybe it used to be the case, but I've not heard any success stories recently, in fact a lot of people have trouble getting RB after signing up without any affiliate links. I didn't, but we have threads here where people have been trying for months and can't.