What to do with $20 br

[BlueNowhere]

Guys, you would have a better chance of finding a fart in a wind storm than convincing BlueNowhere he is wrong. It's like he automatically puts up a brick wall around the critical thinking part of his brain whenever someone points out the flaws in his reasoning.

OP, listen to Rudy.

Your wrong. That would imply I have flawed thinking to begin with.

Seriously shot taking is quite clearly the best idea, I don't get why people can't see that. Listen to Rudy if you want, you'll be bust in a few 100 games though.

 

[darkassassin89]

At least he will gain a ton of experience instead of trying to be the next money maker.

 

[Tammy]

Your wrong. That would imply I have flawed thinking to begin with.

Seriously shot taking is quite clearly the best idea, I don't get why people can't see that. Listen to Rudy if you want, you'll be bust in a few 100 games though.

And it's not at all likely that he'll do it with your method, right?

 

[BlueNowhere]

Much less likely he'll go bust

 

[shinedown.45]

Seriously shot taking is quite clearly the best idea, I don't get why people can't see that. Listen to Rudy if you want, you'll be bust in a few 100 games though.

I think you're right, why go bust in 100 games when you have a better chance of getting busted in one.
BTW blue, why not take your whole BR and take a shot at something big, you have a way better chance of increasing your BR.

If you wouldn't do it with your BR, then why would you tell someone else to do it?
Your reasoning is horribly askew.

 

[JOEBOB69]

Posting from phone (ballingI know).I kind of take it to heart what phill Ivey said because well he was talking about me.I don't know what else to say but me and blue are right and every one else is wrong.The only thing good about playing low stake is a "little game experience"
By the only good I'm talking about a roll so small to be able to use proper BRM not small stake properly rolled for

 

[calicard]

A few years back there was a player on stars from argentina. I do not know how much he bought in for but he played 3 of those 10 cent 360 player things on saturday he busted out of all 3 really quick. Sunday he entered the sunday million He took it down. Never to be seen or heard from again. Maybe Blue has a point

 

[shinedown.45]

A few years back there was a player on stars from Argentina. I do not know how much he bought in for but he played 3 of those 10 cent 360 player things on saturday he busted out of all 3 really quick. Sunday he entered the sunday million He took it down. Never to be seen or heard from again. Maybe Blue has a point

That is a horrible camparason, there are 2 totally different mindsets. On one hand you have..........FFS, if I have to explain this.
My point is when you enter any tourney, you should be in the same frame of mind regardless of the buy-in amount.

In lower buy-in games, most of us tend to underestimate our opponents play with-out seeing or caring what kind of hands he has played earlier and we just assume our AT is good here against a raise when we are in position, where if you had the same hand in the Sunday millions, you would just muck AT in the same position.

I would rather give a player credit than to underestimate his play until he shows me different.

 

[calicard]

That is a horrible camparason, there are 2 totally different mindsets. On one hand you have..........FFS, if I have to explain this.
My point is when you enter any tourney, you should be in the same frame of mind regardless of the buy-in amount.

In lower buy-in games, most of us tend to underestimate our opponents play with-out seeing or caring what kind of hands he has played earlier and we just assume our AT is good here against a raise when we are in position, where if you had the same hand in the Sunday millions, you would just muck AT in the same position.

I would rather give a player credit than to underestimate his play until he shows me different.

I was making no comparisons whatsoever. I was just stating facts. The guy played in 4 tournaments total on pokerstars in a 2 day period. 3 10 cent buy ins saturday and the sunday million.I have came up with many scenarios in my mind why this happened and have came to many conclusions. But the fact is I will never know the truth of what happened. Was it Phil Ivey playing incognito? Did he play in those 10 centers and bust out early on purpose. To make himself look like a guppy to the sharks in the Sunday Million?
Was it some Argentinian Drug leader who was trying to launder money and ended up getting lucky as heck? It had to be a skilled player you do not just luck your way into winning the Sunday Million. But why were they the only four tournaments he ever played in.Was he so proud of his ROI at that point he did not ever want it to go down so he just tossed that screen name ? WHY WHY WHY ?????????.

 

[BlueNowhere]

I think you're right, why go bust in 100 games when you have a better chance of getting busted in one.
BTW blue, why not take your whole BR and take a shot at something big, you have a way better chance of increasing your BR.

If you wouldn't do it with your BR, then why would you tell someone else to do it?
Your reasoning is horribly askew.

I have done several times. I've played with my whole roll on a cash table and half of it in one tournament in my first month of poker. I'm not saying anything I wouldn't do myself. Peope are saying it's fine to play with 5% of your BR, unless it's a one of, it is not. It's like me jst randomly going to play $60 HU matches, It's horrible BRM and just playing one $1000 would be relatively +ev. If we presume villians aren't very good (as in OPs case) then I stand less chance of busting by gambling in a -ev match to have a BR that can handle a $60 game slightly more than I do by shot taking with 5% of my BR.

 

[BlueNowhere]

I was making no comparisons whatsoever. I was just stating facts. The guy played in 4 tournaments total on pokerstars in a 2 day period. 3 10 cent buy ins saturday and the sunday million.I have came up with many scenarios in my mind why this happened and have came to many conclusions. But the fact is I will never know the truth of what happened. Was it Phil Ivey playing incognito? Did he play in those 10 centers and bust out early on purpose. To make himself look like a guppy to the sharks in the Sunday Million?
Was it some Argentinian Drug leader who was trying to launder money and ended up getting lucky as heck? It had to be a skilled player you do not just luck your way into winning the Sunday Million. But why were they the only four tournaments he ever played in.Was he so proud of his ROI at that point he did not ever want it to go down so he just tossed that screen name ? WHY WHY WHY ?????????.

I7AXA came 2nd, some of his FT moves were lolbad and apparently he wasn't much better for the rest of the tourney.

 

[BlueNowhere]

That is a horrible camparason, there are 2 totally different mindsets. On one hand you have..........FFS, if I have to explain this.
My point is when you enter any tourney, you should be in the same frame of mind regardless of the buy-in amount.

In lower buy-in games, most of us tend to underestimate our opponents play with-out seeing or caring what kind of hands he has played earlier and we just assume our AT is good here against a raise when we are in position, where if you had the same hand in the Sunday millions, you would just muck AT in the same position.

I would rather give a player credit than to underestimate his play until he shows me different.

Why give your opponent credit? There is zero point in that since general population is awful. I play with the assumption that everyone I come up against is a drooler until they do something to prove otherwise.

 

[shinedown.45]

I have done several times. I've played with my whole roll on a cash table and half of it in one tournament in my first month of poker. I'm not saying anything I wouldn't do myself. Peope are saying it's fine to play with 5% of your BR, unless it's a one of, it is not. It's like me jst randomly going to play $60 HU matches, It's horrible BRM and just playing one $1000 would be relatively +ev. If we presume villians aren't very good (as in OPs case) then I stand less chance of busting by gambling in a -ev match to have a BR that can handle a $60 game slightly more than I do by shot taking with 5% of my BR.

:banghead: I'm done with this thread.

 

[-Phil Ivey27]

Not going to try to convince flawed logic anymore.

So far as the guy who won the Sunday Million, it is very possible he did just luck his way in to winning, what makes you think it isn't?

Do I dare give you multiple examples of players like Jamie Gold, Darvin Moon, and the defying all logic winner Jerry Yang!?

Just like him you can get lucky too, I know you've been playing for hours and hours every day for months, but go ahead and put your roll into the Sunday Million baby, I wish you the best.

 

[TheKAAHK]

Blue, I gotta say, ITT you say things that sound smart, but overall it's just plain dumb.

Seriously man, you advocate learning how to be better but you never concede that you may be wrong sometimes (or if not wrong, at least on the wrong track). Isn't there an old saying about a full cup or something...? How can you expect to give advice if you are not willing to take some?

Anyways, you're not completely off. True, if OP is a losing player he's just going to go broke slower by playing more low buy-in games. But whether or not he does go broke is really irrelevant here. The experience he gains from those 15 or 20 micro tourneys (such as getting comfortable with different situations and stack sizes in tourney play, or the structure of that particular site) will give him a better skill set for when he does take the inevitable shot at a bigger one.

IMO, the best thing to do with a $20 br in that situation (as I've just done in the last 3 months with a $12 br on Stars) is to pad it a little bit playing very low level games (.50c - $1.50) then take a shot at a larger ($3-$10) games as he gets more comfortable (and ideally with the "padding").

Basically, a little bit of both ways: Slow build for a bit, then take a shot with a larger chunk. I'm assuming that there is sufficient funds for another $20-$50 reload, so why not try a slow steady approach for a bit (as it's obv the OP is thinking going this way anyways) then take a shot or two for a br boost later.

 

[Makwa]

20 bankroll I would spend on a Big Mac with Onion Rings, twice...

Zero to hero is a great ambition but a very long road.

Whether you supermulti micro ring or throw it all in one session MTT or SNGs or whatever, it's all learning at 20 bucks, don't expect miracles...

Actually I would get one of those new chicken sarnies too... :beer:

 

[BlueNowhere]

Not going to try to convince flawed logic anymore.

So far as the guy who won the Sunday Million, it is very possible he did just luck his way in to winning, what makes you think it isn't?

Do I dare give you multiple examples of players like Jamie Gold, Darvin Moon, and the defying all logic winner Jerry Yang!?

Just like him you can get lucky too, I know you've been playing for hours and hours every day for months, but go ahead and put your roll into the Sunday Million baby, I wish you the best.

I presumed this is aimed at me? You seem to have completely misinterpreted what I said. Cali said someone couldn't get lucky and spike a win in sunday millions, I posted the example of AXA to show that random donks can spike big cashes. I do know it is possible to lucky you way to a win so no idea why you've psoted the bit highlighted. I'd understand if it was aimed at cali but I pretty much posted that it is then oyu ask me why I don't think it is possible, which is what I just said.

Apologies if this was aimed at cali and not me, it just seemed a very odd thing to say to me.

 

[BlueNowhere]

Blue, I gotta say, ITT you say things that sound smart, but overall it's just plain dumb.

Seriously man, you advocate learning how to be better but you never concede that you may be wrong sometimes (or if not wrong, at least on the wrong track). Isn't there an old saying about a full cup or something...? How can you expect to give advice if you are not willing to take some?

Anyways, you're not completely off. True, if OP is a losing player he's just going to go broke slower by playing more low buy-in games. But whether or not he does go broke is really irrelevant here. The experience he gains from those 15 or 20 micro tourneys (such as getting comfortable with different situations and stack sizes in tourney play, or the structure of that particular site) will give him a better skill set for when he does take the inevitable shot at a bigger one.

IMO, the best thing to do with a $20 br in that situation (as I've just done in the last 3 months with a $12 br on Stars) is to pad it a little bit playing very low level games (.50c - $1.50) then take a shot at a larger ($3-$10) games as he gets more comfortable (and ideally with the "padding").

Basically, a little bit of both ways: Slow build for a bit, then take a shot with a larger chunk. I'm assuming that there is sufficient funds for another $20-$50 reload, so why not try a slow steady approach for a bit (as it's obv the OP is thinking going this way anyways) then take a shot or two for a br boost later.

I do admit I'm wrong sometimes, if I didn't I wouldn't post HH if I thought I did everything perfectly. On this thread though I'm right and that is why I maintain my position.

OP will be a losing player originally since he appears to be a new player. If you drew a graph of OPs poker with amount of time spent on poker on the X-axis and BR on Y-axis. it would form a basic X^2 graph (obv shifted across to where x = 0, y = 20. obviouslt at latter ends on the right hand side curve would become a straight line as OP maximises productivity. **** it, I'll draw a basic one of what I mean in paint so I can illustrate things better. It's poorly drawn but I only need it to illustrate my point. This is rpesuming variance falls within nomral values and nothing too freaky happens, obv doesn't encapsulate all circumstances but gets my point across sufficiently.

X-Axis = poker time
Y-axis = BR
I drew X^2 graph on with dashed lines to show my point that I made above
So if Player does not run -(A) above expectation he will bust.
However if player recieves BR boost in a tourney that takes him above20 -(A) then assuming natural variance without random downsing then he becomes winning player before hitting the bust line.
We can express OPs graph as the function f(h)

IMO

(f(h)<0 ) < (0.15*(f(h)-b)

I can express it as a mathematical function but not with numbers as I don't have any true ones. f(h)<0 = amount of times (expressed as frequency) f(h) dips below x-axis.

Yes the standard deviations probably do overlap of the two so it's hard to say anything significant is occuring as you'll never have a big enough sample size to crunch and find true numbers. but to say it's plain dumb because you believe one sign sohuld be the opposite way round is ridiculous and taking the piss to be quite frank.

 

[Poker Orifice]

How did your exams go? Are you still playing foofoo (< or whatever it's called?).
Do you believe your own B.S.? How are your parents coping? Have u been shipped off to school?.. or living at home while studying(<?) sounds like a 'badbeat' for them .
Do you have siblings? (< coolered obv.)
Do you have a girlfriend? No? (< babeat obv... or just not enough 'rungood')

Sooo much b.s. in this thread although a bit entertaining I suppose (but read most of it prolly cuz I'm supposed to be studying here myself).

Tell us about the shot-taking? Was it the Storm?

 

[BlueNowhere]

@Poker Orifice

???

 

[Big_Rudy]

Ok, this is probably my last post in this thread since it's pretty-much pointless. There are a number of posters on this thread alone who have made a substantial BR from very little despite Blue's insistence that it can't be done and that OP will definately go broke.

Without re-reading the whole thread, Poker Orifice, Dark Assassin, Ram, probably others, and myself (although I admittedly started with $50, not $20) have all done it. So, obviously it CAN AND HAS been done without going broke by using proper BRM. Blue's insistence that it can't and that OP will go broke is pure BS.

@Blue, sorry to hear about your 65BI below EV downswing you mentioned in this thread. I have a couple possible reasons (you choose).
1) You're not "that much" of a winning player as you think you are , or.....
2) You play a particular form of poker that is extremely high varience, like, oh, say HU SnG's

Whichever you choose, you then use these results to point out, falsely, that OP is bound to go bust by playing the exact opposite - an extremely low varience form of poker like, oh, say, DoNs.

Fact is, DoN's, especially low buy-in DoN's are easily beatable by just about anyone. Minimal strategy needed, super-tight ABC play, and a basic grasp of the inherent co-operative play nature of these is pretty much all it takes.

May OP go bust playing these? Of course he may. Is it a foregone conclusion? Far from it.

Guys, you would have a better chance of finding a fart in a wind storm than convincing BlueNowhere he is wrong. It's like he automatically puts up a brick wall around the critical thinking part of his brain whenever someone points out the flaws in his reasoning.

OP, listen to Rudy.

Wow, JQ really IS right about everything .

 

[TheKAAHK]

I do admit I'm wrong sometimes, if I didn't I wouldn't post HH if I thought I did everything perfectly. On this thread though I'm right and that is why I maintain my position.

OP will be a losing player originally since he appears to be a new player. If you drew a graph of OPs poker with amount of time spent on poker on the X-axis and BR on Y-axis. it would form a basic X^2 graph (obv shifted across to where x = 0, y = 20. obviouslt at latter ends on the right hand side curve would become a straight line as OP maximises productivity. **** it, I'll draw a basic one of what I mean in paint so I can illustrate things better. It's poorly drawn but I only need it to illustrate my point. This is rpesuming variance falls within nomral values and nothing too freaky happens, obv doesn't encapsulate all circumstances but gets my point across sufficiently.

X-Axis = poker time
Y-axis = BR
I drew X^2 graph on with dashed lines to show my point that I made above
So if Player does not run -(A) above expectation he will bust.
However if player recieves BR boost in a tourney that takes him above20 -(A) then assuming natural variance without random downsing then he becomes winning player before hitting the bust line.
We can express OPs graph as the function f(h)

IMO

(f(h)<0 ) < (0.15*(f(h)-b)

I can express it as a mathematical function but not with numbers as I don't have any true ones. f(h)<0 = amount of times (expressed as frequency) f(h) dips below x-axis.

Yes the standard deviations probably do overlap of the two so it's hard to say anything significant is occuring as you'll never have a big enough sample size to crunch and find true numbers. but to say it's plain dumb because you believe one sign sohuld be the opposite way round is ridiculous and taking the piss to be quite frank.

Wow, can't believe you wasted your time and ours with that ridiculous graph. Variance is not at issue here. But thanks for the primer.

Ok, we get it. Everyone who plays micros and is new to any poker forum sucks. Your point has been made ad nausium.

But you completely whiffed on what I, Rudy, PO, Shinedown, Phil Ivey and everyone else who can see past their own nose is trying to say.

Size of br is irrelevant. Skill of OP is irrelevant. Variance is irrelevant as it pertains to this situation. Understand? Good, lets move on then...

If the OP sucks (as you adamantly insist he does), sure he'll go broke at a slower rate. But what he will lose in terms of $ he will gain in terms of experience. And idiot can drop $20 in a game, lose, and do it all over again and not learn a damn thing. Anybody can drop $20 in a single game, bink it, and still lose it all at a slower rate. But neither of those scenarios will teach the player sweet F all about the game.

Experience is what makes a good player good. A player will only get better by playing thousands upon thousands of hands and seeing and learning from new situations at the table. But I'm sure I don't need to tell you this.

Giving the advice of "Take a shot, probably lose it, and reload to take another shot" to an inexperienced player is akin to telling a new driver to speed until he crashes into a telephone pole.

So what to the fact that if he binks one that he'll have a larger 'roll to ride out variance? If that were a concern then surely one would just make a larger initial deposit.

OP wanted to know how to (and I quote): "how to build my br at a steady pace?"

Does dropping it all on one or two games hoping to build fast or bust sound like building at a steady pace? F no.

 

[Tammy]

Wow, JQ really IS right about everything .

The sooner everyone realizes this, the happier we'll all be. :girl:

 

[calicard]

This is so entertaining. I was going to pop in my Favorite DVD "Live Free or Die Hard" and wish the new "A good day to die hard" was out instead I think I'll just reread this post over and over.
What really amazes me is that these are very intelligent responses (except mine of course, Mine are just rambling gibberish). I think that if the subject you were debating was world hunger that you as a collaborative team could actually come up with a viable solution. Just think cards chat could be solely responsible for ending world famine. And after that we could tackle global peace

 

[JOEBOB69]

I have no one but my self to blame for stepping out of the cash forum.