Big tips to make money

[StackBundles]

what's good!


i feel this is a very big tip that I'm giving and I'm sure you will make money! but you need to make sure that your money management is RIGHT! that's the only way you can make money and just train your brain to not be GREEDY!
if you play on the internet it may help to have cash in your hand instead of seeing digits as it really brings home the truth of what your chucking away or winning


ok so here the tips:



[size=78%]trend really is your friend[/size]

[size=78%]always flat bet and have a high enough bet for you to be happy with say +5 a session[/size]

[size=78%]record the results of your system but play your wins and losses of your system i find that streaks and chops really don't bother me much at all [/size]


that's all I'm giving like or hate i don't really care but it works for me

[GARNabby]

Any one else picking up on that tvo series, "Grinders", about a few of the thousands of small-time cash-game poker players in Canada, and the States, who "sleep, eat, and drink" $5-poker?

Man, all trying to make $500 a day, or to win one $20,000 tournament after another.  With one "good reason" after another for expecting to come home a winner.  I mean, at the very least, doesn't any one stop to realize that none of those "reasons" can mean anything when stacked up against the same from each other?  Even at the roulette-table, everyone's using a different "system", but "hoping" for the same result, lol.

They even showed a clip from Negreanu's house in Vegas.  Now-a-days, he said that he gets up at 11, and sometimes goes out to his tiny backyard to practise some putts, sometimes shoots some pool on his pool-table, sometimes goes out on the road for poker PR engagements; and that he does the same thing the next day.  So, get lucky a few times on the big tournaments, and live off the "image" by "sucking in" a bunch of new "grinders" so that the casinos can make even more of them, and their families, broke.

[GameBreaker]

Equating Poker to Roulette is a mistake.  Sure both forms of "gambling" will attract losing and maybe even degenerate players.  However, gaining an edge in the casino game of poker is not all that difficult.  At the lower levels being a 'winning' long term player can be achieved with relative ease of effort.  And yes I do have practical experience in doing just that.  My opinion of course.

[StackBundles]

how can u make money against rubbish poker players? unless you have the nuts everytime you get players that call when they have nothing yet they should of folded on the call and they end up hitting something


id rather play a professional any day

[StackBundles]

R u b b i s h  turned to nonsense is that a swear word then?

[superman]

how can you make money against nonsense poker players? unless you have the nuts everytime you get players that call when they have nothing yet they should of folded on the call and they end up hitting something

Then you should be playing over $10 games, freerolls and cent games are full of idiots who play 3,9 etc

[StackBundles]

I know that but gamebreaker reckons its easy to win at low levels i disagree

[GARNabby]

GameBreaker,

As far as "equating roulette to poker", you would have to admit that the one form of gambling has a lot more to do with the other than say building a business, helping another build a business, or investing in a business; or even a gaming hobby like playing bridge, or chess.

The rake will eventually "eat up" even the best of the limit-poker players, by exeeding the (reliable) "potential difference" in skill then.  But maybe if you make it to the big no-limit games, and last long enough, some drunk and rich fool will mistakenly "bet the farm" against your A's.  Then you too can "retire" to the zombie-lifestye of the Negreanu's.

Years ago, before poker hit the television networks, someone tried to tell me that poker was a myth.  It was never a myth per se, but that doesn't mean that it's the way it's portrayed in the movies.  I mean, reality exists only in the movies, right?  Anyway, it's like someone saying, "Well, my wife is different." (Ya, sure she is!)  But, as much as women can be like gambling, in mosts cases what was meant is that that sort of gambling has its positive aspects; as do many of the standard, short-lived, mental-defence mechanisms which protect our egos, etc, from long-term harm by seeking out short-term recreations... whimsy such as this.

[GameBreaker]

If your opinion is that the 1-2 NL games as they are currently being spread in every US cardroom that I have ever seen (Rake Structure, Opponent Skill Level, Comp rate, etc.) is unbeatable in my opinion that is incorrect.  Very incorrect in fact.

Win rates of $15-$20 over a large sample and across many rooms are more common than you would think.  Beyond that and most players move to the higher levels of 2-5 and above.

There is a certain amount of work and skill required, but to say that you can't win is utter nonsense.  It is just not reality.  Casino poker at any level I have ever played is beatable by a skilled player.  Period.  This is my opinion and I have played thousands of hours across hundreds of rooms at many levels for longer than two decades.

p.s. I botted online poker for my exclusive income for over two years prior to the passage of the UIGEA and "Black Friday".  In those two years I made a profit of over $125,000 US.  Never at any point did any of my poker bots play above the .25-.50 NL table stakes.  The low and micro limits of poker both online and live are very much beatable.  Fact.

[GARNabby]

If your opinion is that the 1-2 NL games as they are currently being spread in every US cardroom that I have ever seen (Rake Structure, Opponent Skill Level, Comp rate, etc.) is unbeatable in my opinion that is incorrect.  Very incorrect in fact.

Well then you'd be at odds with Doyle Brunson who, i seem to remember having wrote that a player has to make it to the higher-stakes no-limit games, where the rakes are relatively-less.  And Matusow who still advises other players to put some of the big wins away, because every poker player who keeps at it will eventually be busted out again.

I suppose the only way to conclusively settle this matter would be to simulate the effects of the rakes on the loosest-possible games.  Ie, to determine the specific advantage of each initial holding over the others, and then separately against "the house", as played throughout by say seven erratic bettors.

Would it matter which boundary conditions?  Bad players can't "tell" you what they're holding; and good ones tend to "reveal" theirs only by playing those well.  I realize that Hold'em, which is more about folding/raising than calling, was deliberately created by the so-called experts to replace amorphous variants like five-card draw.  But that was to put back more of the hustle, or set-up, into poker... nothing to do with calculated risk-taking, or with playing the lower-level games.

I made a profit of over $125,000 US.  Never at any point did any of my poker bots play above the .25-.50 NL table stakes.

Without more information, that does "stretch the imagination".  I took some time to check out who's making what from whom around the web, and found as many such anecdotes from the winners as from the losers.  There are also a few live dealers on these message-boards who have pretty-much declared that virtually every one does eventually lose.  But far more of that same-old, sponsered nonsense about how much every one would earn if only follow a few simplistic tips, and play at the listed online venues.  So, it's likely closer to the truth to make the blanket-statement that no such form of gambling is really worth it, and at the small risk of summarily overlooking something to the contrary.

The only fact which is self-evident here, that the casinos/cardrooms are making money "hand over fist" from those "little" rakes applied over and over again to the same moneys.  In that respect, does even a moderate player's profit make sense, while "helping" them keep their million-dollar games going?  Why not apply twenty+ years worth of learning and expertise, not the least of which is in "dues", to something more-reciprocal, with the standard perks?

As we move deeper into this discussion, i'm sensing the usual cynicism in terms of money.  I mean, money has more to do with currency, or a tool of account as it was invented, than with some underlaying grand-theory-of-everything "monism" from which all things might be derived.  Like even the Negreanu's, who have supposedly conquered it, a card-game after all, all end up relegated to a life of virtually no good value.  Down to a few pen's and hats, etc, with their signatures and pictures; and of course, the occasional "put up" high-stakes games especially for television.  You don't want to get yourself out of one form of poverty by landing in the middle of another.

[GameBreaker]

:.twoplustwo.com

If you are actually interested in learning the truth about all forms of poker as it is played today in both B&M rooms and Online the above forum is the place to go.

:.pokertableratings.com

Another site which independently tracks actual online players and there results over statistically significant sample size.

By the way I was simply responding to an incorrect statement about micro/small stakes poker being unbeatable.  I have vast experience beating those games therefore I know it is possible.

As far as if you think it is a thing worth pursuing ... well I dont think it is your place to decide what constitutes a life worth living for other people.

[GARNabby]

:.twoplustwo.com
If you are actually interested in learning the truth about all forms of poker as it is played today in both B&M rooms and Online the above forum is the place to go.

Actually, already been to that site, i recall, to look at a couple gambling-type calculators.  However, according to my almost-four years experience with so many of the online sites, those are the worst places to find some sort of truth about something.  Even Wikipedia is rife with errors and oversights;  and specifically speaking, guys like the Wizard of Vegas & company are little more than outright frauds and liars, in their masquerading as gambling experts trying to help out the public.  (Was briefly there until i, egs, exposed his science expert for a quack; and politely and persistently questioned Shakleford's professional conflicts of interest with openly endorsing Bodog for a generous "fee", and the latter's slogan: Be a player.  At which time, JB the "webmaster" there, cut in to invent a silly thread under my username; to elsewhere quote me as saying things completely out of character with my other posts; and to then to summarily permanently ban me.)  So, please forgive me my not out-right seriously taking a few words here from some online stranger who just says something like, "Play poker, you can make a lot of money there, eventually, if you give it 20+ years of your life.  Fact.  Garnabby doesn't know anything about what he's writing."

:.pokertableratings.com
Another site which independently tracks actual online players and there results over statistically significant sample size.

Fine, but i doubt that you're also a qualified statistician.  You appear to be much-too sure of yourself.  It's relatively-easy to work forward from the odds, etc, which are already-known, to what you're going to win/lose in a casino-game.  But it's much-more difficult, unless you're doing that Hold'em poker hustle-thing of working the "action" back a couple steps, to accurately interpret such data long after from afar.

Generally, what happened to yourself isn't a good way to arrive at such truths for others.  Second, like the few blackjack counters who can really do it to lengths required, you may be only running a near-even game.  Then, something called a "random walk" could completely account for a few persons, or a computer-like simulation of, straying way off the average over the very-long run.  Third, again, more specific information would be required to make any valid statistical appraisal of such data.  For ex, there're a lot of anecdotes about the very-big winners/losers of all of these games.  Look a bit deeper into it, and "read between the lines" to determine that none of those guys started out at the $5 tables, but instead from an assortment of strange, shady, or down-right lucky, beginnings.  Fourth, nobody save a few at the gambler's anonymous type sites talks much about their losses, let alone in public here.  Mostly, everyone tells you how much they made, or loss, today... not how much they're really down overall in the various possible ways.  Even less-likely, that you'll find an honest site, itself.  Traffic is their misguided "currency".

As far as if you think it is a thing worth pursuing ... well I don't think it is your place to decide what constitutes a life worth living for other people.

I wouldn't pretend to do that.  You wouldn't be happy for long trying to "pin your hopes" one way, or the other, on others.

Nor did i write here that the real math which subsumes the game theory of poker, itself, has no value.  After about 20 years, a smart person comes to realize that every one, like yourself, has his/her own way of living... that there is no one right way; at the age of 40, that same smart person comes to realize that, yes, that is the "one right way"... so use that to advantage, hold every one to his/her own way of living; and, at the age of 60, well... the smart person will have to figure that out for him/herself.  Anyway, then, wouldn't it be great were every one as skilled at the art of "playing his own cards" throughout all "walks" of life?  A bunch of small skirmishes neatly tied up with a you-got-me-there grin, instead of one disasterous world-wide life-and-death debackle after another.