Answers for Nick (and you too)

Posted by icemonkey9 on Aug 15, 2009 in poker | 1 comment

I have a good online friend, Nick, who plays small stakes Sit n Gos and was really successful last year in building a bankroll.  Unfortunately this year has been terrible for him results-wise and he's very frustrated about his current poker state.  He asked me some good questions and I'm posting his email and my responses (with his permission).  It should make for a great read for microstakes players.  Enjoy.

//////////////////////

With pure unadulterated discipline is it possible to play consistently x hours per day and x tables per session and come up in the black every month. Factoring things such as natural variance, bad beats and emotional tilt, if someone plays the best style according to the information they know that works, is it possible to do so?

It's possible for good players at a level they've proved they can beat.  If you can reliably know that you can beat a level, you can grind it out for an income so long as you've buffered potential downswings in your bankroll.  I write a bit about this in my last post, about specifically about how many hands does it take to know you're beating a level consistently.  I made the case that for a low variance style and a low variance game, it doesn't take many hands, maybe 30,000 or 40,000 (pulling that number out of the air).  For a high variance style and a high variance game (say, Heads Up PLO) it takes a ton more hands, like 200,000 (or more!).  There are other factors to consider, like a potentially dwindling player pool for online poker at some sites and players generally being better than they were 2 years ago.  For the most part though you'll see guys at 100nl play their 30-50k hands a month and see the same "x" amount of guys in the black.  The amount of "full timers" that are actually above the 2BB/100 would shock you. I'd say it's less than 20% of the full timers are that profitable.  A lot of people win marginally and add in rakeback/rewards and that's their income. The big winners are the ones that seem to play less but more focused and profitable poker.

Why is it the best players online multiple table, is it because they know poker has now become more of a cash transaction game and are purely relying on the luck of maths?

Playing online poker on one table is easy, especially with a HUD.  There's not much to pay attention to, at least, not TOO much to lower your maximum abilities. It absolutely is not "the luck of maths" because if that was the case we'd all even out in the long run (actually we'd all lose because of the rake).  So good players use their skill and win.  Since they are able to, they can add tables until that maximum threshold is reached.  Sometimes players go above that threshold because the more tables, the bigger rakeback or rewards, and thus more bottom line money.  At the end of the day, the only reason that people add tables is to increase their take-home $$/hour (or session).

The reason for all this, I’ve suffered serious and I mean serious variance in my sng’s and I’m unsure if I made the right decision in playing them. Maybe its emotions talking but I am at the point where I do need to be drawing some form of income from the game, the hours are going in, the heart is there, yet the results are not. I remember playing abc @ 10nl and overall being up, not much but up nonetheless in the long run.

Ya, I am actually at a bit of a crossroads myself too about bringing in income from playing poker.  Unfortunately here in the United States it's nothing we can solidly rely on.  I would recommend you take a page out of BelgoSuisse's book.  He's a poker mind I hold in the highest regard, and he played Sit & Gos regularly until he took an extremely nasty slide.  It's why players like him, me, Chuckts, and others simply couldn't stay with SNGs - the results were too unpredictable and the wild swings you go on as a full time SNG grinder are too great for many to handle (myself included).  Full ring no limit Texas Hold'em is a low variance game.  Playing a nitty style is a low variance style.  Low Variance = Greater Chance of Expectations Being Met.  At 10nl and 25nl you don't even have to play ABC poker to be a marginal winner.  At 50nl you should be an ABC Poker master and still win nicely and be able to start to handle things like 3betting with position.  At 100nl ABC poker will keep you at least breakeven, but monsters like me will exploit you to no end.  Ideally by the time you are at 100nl you'll have the experience to handle all of it, but that's just my cash game perspective.  From what I understand at $33 SNGs and above, the play is extremely robotic.  Mistakes from your opponents are rare.  We win money when our opponents make more (and bigger) mistakes when we do.  Since a lot of SNGs are ICM and math based, the edge we have in mistakes being made is very thin.

I’m a little all over the shop and really REALLY want to sit at a game type, play the situation accordingly and know that whilst I will cop horrendous beats, in the long run, I will be up. Long run being far more important than anything else.

It's always a tough thing to juggle "short term variance" vs "leaks in your game" and figure out which is which.  That's where your internet friends come in and why having a support group of poker analysts is something that the profitable people are able to do.

End of the day, I’m putting in the hours and work and want to start seeing some fruits of my labour come through.

Winning is a by-product of playing well.  Your job is to play well.  I know you want to win.  Your opponents want to win too.  The only way you can win is if you play optimally and make fewer (and smaller) mistakes than they do.

I trust, value and respect your opinion hence me sitting here at 9am asking you. For me its time to get serious, make some big personal adjustments and stick to them.

We've had similar conversations to this before, specifically with moves for you to cash games and getting to a point where you can draw from poker a small income.  In the end though, a few times over, those things have gone by the wayside.  Failure is a part of success and not seeing immediate results and then quitting is the sign of a player that doesn't have the chops to last in the long run.  After seeing a lot of small and mid-stakes pros now, I can tell you that "poker skill" is probably 50% of what it takes to be a long term winner.  Fortitude, a thirst for knowledge and a level head are the other 50%.  Do you think you've demonstrated what it takes?

My mate/neighbour (Dr.G) I’ve spoken of in my blog said my problem this year, is I’ve ‘chopped and changed’ way to many times which is so true, I’m either grinding sng don’s 1 day or playing 1 table of 100nl the other day. We’re at August 13th and I am actually down like $X for the year, that’s just wrong on so many levels.

Maybe it's right on so many levels (literally).  There's a big danger in life when you become a "jack of all trades" - you are versed in many trades but a master of none.  Big winners or highly successful people in any field aren't people that can do everything, they are people that do something specific better than anyone else.  The best baseball player on Earth is paid $20 million USD because he's the best BASEBALL player, not the best athlete in the world.  You have to think of poker as something as vague as "sports" and something like NLHE Cash Games or PLO SNGs as as specific sport to specialize in and absolutely master to the best of your abilities.  That's my 2 cents, I hope it helps.