22
#878 – Letter from a Poker Friend, Part II – At What Level Should You Start?
During the first half of my friend Greg’s letter asking for advice, he asked variations on the question of how many hands to play. I addressed those in yesterday’s post. The second part of his email raised questions about “where to start” so this post will address those.
Greg:
I’m afraid my answer here is going to be pretty vague. In general, you have to play at the level at which you are comfortable.
I recommend you try to stay within Chris Ferguson’s bankroll guidelines, which I discussed with Chris in post number’s 228, 231 & 232. In general, you shouldn’t play more than 2% of your bankroll on the table in a tournament or 5% on the table in a cash game or Sit & Go.
Even trying to define “the size of your bankroll” doesn’t yield an easy answer. If you deposit $500 into your account, does that mean your bankroll is $500? In your case, it doesn’t because you clearly have the resources to reload and probably, if you get a lot of play and learned some valuable things, you would consider the $500 a worthwhile investment or quality entertainment. On the other hand, if you have, say, $500,000 in a retirement account, that doesn’t mean you should automatically feel comfortable entering a bunch of $10,000 buy-in events, or that you are underplaying your bankroll if you don’t.
This is further complicated when you factor in what you ENJOY. If you put in $500 and limit yourself to $10 buy-in tournaments, what if you find yourself thinking the stakes and potential for gain are too small? That can cause you to play non-optimal (also known as what-the-hell) poker. Your bankroll isn’t necessarily limited to the amount of your deposit. If you put in $500 and want to play higher than your bankroll – and perhaps will play better a little bit higher – you can do that, but the risk of running through your deposit is greater.
In addition, you can expect your opponents to get better as you move up in stakes. It has become fashionable to complain about the quality of low-stakes players. David “Devilfish” Ulliott went so far as to tell me when we were in verbal and poker combat at the 2008 Main Event that he would rather play against Phil Hellmuth and John Juanda than lousy players like me. (He said this about fifteen minutes before he busted himself. Erik Seidel once said that anybody who believed such a thing should keep their day job.) Let me dispel that belief.
Bad player are bad players because they play bad. How can you be a good player if you can’t play better than a bad player? Poker results have only a little to do with how well you play, and a lot to do with how well you ADJUST. Part of what makes somebody a great player – arguably the most important part – is how they adapt to how their opponents are playing.
I really think the reason Phil Ivey is the best player in the world isn’t because he has discovered some strategy that no one else knows. I think it is simply a matter of Phil being the best at adapting to how his opponents play. Adapting to your opponents isn’t always easy. Bad players do all kinds of different bad things. Sometimes, several of them are doing different bad things during the same hand. But this is the core of how you become a better player. One group of players learns to change their play and prevails over bad players and uses the profit to move up to play bigger games and better players. Then there is another group that complains about how bad people play and blames that for the reason they can’t win enough to play bigger.
Your goal, Greg, more than whatever you would do with any money you win, is to face the challenge of getting yourself into the first group. For whatever reason we play, that’s what we should all aspire to do.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I think this quote is from Michael Jordan on gambling at golf. When asked how high a person should bet, he said “Just enough that it hurts.”
Poker is a game of money. If you are playing for straws it’s not interesting.
October 25th, 2009 at 7:31 am
While I agree that anyone who claims they would rather play against good players than bad players probably isn’t thinking clearly, I think there are likely to be specific situations in which (or more accurately, specific players for which) this may be a sensible idea.
For example it can be quite frustrating to see people being rewarded by flopping two pair after making a huge error preflop, or raising with pocket kings under the gun and taking an ace high flop along with 6 other players. If you’re the kind of person who is prone to tilt in that situation, then it may be more profitable for you to play in a game which is “harder” in the abstract but doesn’t have the tilt inducing factor.
It’s also very hard to say that a player is making an error if they choose to go play in a “harder” game in which their default style is profitable rather than remain in a game where it isn’t and try to adapt – game selection is about far more than just identifying weak players.
But, good points nonetheless.
October 27th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
#1) Bankroll Management is much more than just Chris Ferguson’s rule. As Michael writes, your bankroll (online or live) is not just the money you have set aside for poker, but how much you are willing to risk.
Just because Player A has a “$1,000 Full Tilt bankroll” and plays $2/4 NLHE or $50-$150 Tournaments doesn’t mean he’s playing above his limits because he has $25,000 in reserve waiting to reload if necessary. Player B that deposits that $1,000 that he’s willing to risk and has no reserve should start obeying Chris’ rules IMMEDIATELY so he reduces risk (in the process, reducing reward value).
#2) Adjusting play is VERY hard, even for some of the best in the world. The world of online poker and the poker “boom” mean A LOT more people play poker. The ease of a $2/4 NLHE game online in 2005 where a typical return on investment for a good player was 50% has now turned into a 10-15% return on investment in 2009.
Poker is all about tendencies of players and playing the player, NOT THE STAKES. Simply because someone has $10,000 to buy into the Main Event doesn’t mean he’s a good player, it just means he has $10,000 to risk. It’s still about reading people, tendencies, betting strategies, etc. etc.
Typical ways to tell if someone is a winning player live:
– Dress (any poker gear prevalent NOT available in the everyday market, i.e. an “IronMan” jacket)
– Readiness (Does this person have comfort at the table, is he prepared for a long day, i.e. water and snacks available)
– and you can TALK to them (”I won my way in through a $250 satellite” is much different than “I won a WPT event, final tabled the EPT event, etc.”)
For judging online players:
– Try to see if you can search their screen name in Google. Are there any articles out there on that person? Are there posts on websites such as PocketFives or TwoPlusTwo?
– Use tracking software such as SharkScope or Official Poker Rankings. How many games has this person played? Does he have any big victories? Does he have a positive return on investment? Does he cash an average of 10% of the time? 15%?
– Does this player play more than one tournament at once (called “multitabling”)?
There are ways to determine winning/losing players even if you have never played with them before. You just have to be creative to find that information.
As for moving up stakes, well, there’s a reason why Tom Dwan (durrr) can adjust so well at the table, just like Phil Ivey. They both started at the bottom of the barrel and have played with the worst of the worst, and have crossed every gammit to play the best of the best. THAT’S why they win. Because they can adjust every hand, every day, every tournament to keep opposing players on their toes.