American in America

Gerv I think that maybe i didn't explain my thoughts clearly.
It is not about improving. The problem is that in order to make a profit we need fish.
In todays games even at nl50 regs do understand the edge so it is quite common even at nl50 for the table to break as soon as the mark left.
Just look what happen to high stakes where there is mostly 5 people waiting for the fish.
Same with empty tables as soon as fish sit the fight for the Jesus seat begins.

The only money that we can win is the money that came from the depositors. Even the money that you win from regs came firstly from the fish that lost to reg. The weak reg won't play if it isn't profitable for him anymore.
So basically if the fish leave and doesn't play anymore I get hit 2 ways firstly I can't win from the fish and I can't win from the weak reg cause he doesn't play anymore cause there is no way to be profitable for him.

Poker isn't like any other games. So trying to compare it to egaming is bad imo. In poker it isn't about competitiveness. If it was every fish would try to play with best regs at nl1k+. Same we would play those games cause hey you want to learn from the best?? It isn't true at poker cause even fish play for profit they just lack of knowledge how to be profitable.
It is the same reason weaker regs won't play with me and i won't play with Phil Galfond, Tha Giggy, AeJones. Cause I am here to make money and the other regs are here because of the same reason. So at the end we fight only for the fish money cause regs won't play without edge.
Even at nl25/nl50 tables instanty breaks if mark leaves. For sure I have an edge against most of them but they will refuse to play cause staying at the game when there is no fish is hughely -EV for most of them (due to rake and lack of edge).

So by teaching recreational players and helping them to become better we destroy our game and make it even less profitable for ourselves. Simply every month there has to be deposited like 300mln $(I am not sure about the exact number there were some calculation just can't find them) to sustain current amount of tables and profitability(cause there is a rake in almost every pot). So the less fish the less tables and overall way less profit. For me it is simple.

Whilst teaching the fish to play well is bad for the poker ecology, it's definitely not as destructive as you are making out. There are a lot of recreational players who will seek no help and just continue playing for fun. This guy is one who WANTS to become better, so chances are what would have happened is either he got better (By coaching with verneer or through his own study) or he quit. So helping him to get better doesn't take his "easy money" away, just means there is someone else who is participating in taking "easy money" from other fish. His "easy money" was already gone, I highly doubt he would have continued playing the way he did after he KNEW he was bad.

If you yourself just keep on improving as much as you possibly can you won't have to worry about these sorts of problems much until the high stakes because the regs at low stakes all have a very solid amount of leaks, so improving means we are still winning even when our table isn't a fish fest.

Yeah but in order to stay profitable there has to always be someone worse to play with me (so someone I have edge big enough to make a profit-so clearly a fish).
You underestimate regs willingnes to compete they just play for profit. So if they know that I am better they won't play with me.
So at the end everone fights for the fish money.
I wasn't taking about fotakis I was taking about teaching fish in general. Same as berating them, showing them their PTR etc. Fotakis wouldn't never understand that there is somethings wrong if he didn't know about the pokerstrategy.
When I didn't understand poker properly I introduced my friends to pokerstrategy they either become a winning players or they quit cause they understood how advanced it become and how big the edge is. So their illusion of superiority was crushed. That's really bad.
Sites like pokerstrategy,leggopoker,pokertableratings,coaching overall make it unprofitable for everyone.

I remember reading Korn blog post when he was taking about making it more recreational friendly. So basically the advertising should be focused on the fun/recreational aspect of poker. Cause the strategy focused business model turned to became an epic fail.
Regs do generate a lot more rake but at the end the whole business is based on depositors and to sustain it need them the most.
Currently it isn't that simple. When you look at the whole egambling business the betting and casinos still increase their results year to year while in poker there is stagnation at best. Simply we either discourage fish from playing or help them improving. Either way it is bad overall.
Let's make it fun again for recreational player instead of focusing on the strategy/improving. I do believe there is way for poker to become more profitable for everyone. Just the whole affiliates/players attitiude has to change.

I'll take the "don't teach fishez" side of the argument, GENERALLY speaking.
This case is a different ballgame, the guy knows that he is going to get better and asked for help, if he is an intelligent, fun guy to work with, why not? He is going to get better anyways. Like Wriggs said, he's easy money is gone, gone, gone...

I get tilted when regs abuse recreational players @ the tabs and start talking about how bad they are playing tho. Again I know, there is only a slight possibility that the guy in question is going to read about strategy, but there is a slight chance...why risk turning the little light bulb on in his head right?
I turned towards pokerstrategy when I was constantly abused by a reg and felt bad @ the tabs, but I had no idea how much I lost until then- When he shoved my results in my face I was shocked.
I really thought that I knew how to play this game.
(given my bigish mtt score in the beginning)- hell I was ready to take on phil ivey...L to the O to the L

Anyways in general I am tilted to see regs giving away free info and talking strategy on the tables a lot and abusing rec players, if anything chat "nh" or "happens, gg" when they type in "sry" or "I got lucky" or even the usual spanish and south american classic "jajajajaja" - but maybe it is best to just focus on tabs and not get involved in chat.

In the case verneer brought up, I see nothing wrong with helping this guy develop into a good player

Poker is evolving and there is no way of stopping it.
I would say it is good to educate the fish a little so they can win once in a while. If the skill differential gets too big, then the fish will lose their money fast every time they deposit and think something like: "this is rigged I stop depositing"

Educating recreational players to a level where they could run hot and win some of the time is good for the games imo. Because such a player is much more likely to redeposit vs the player that gets hunted down everytime he sits and everybody stops when he sits out.

Still there needs to be a balance because if you level the playing field too much only the sites will profit. So it is not an easy problem.
Maybe the games will get so though that the worst regulars need to stop and the reg/fish ratio will improve and games get softer again.

Hmmm tbh during my time at NL25 and NL50 I rarely saw a table break when the fish left, this only happened if it was a table full of regs and just one terrible fish. If you're putting yourself in that situation I suggest you move to a site with less regs.

As soon as fish realise they are fish, their money is gone. So fotakis' fish-money was gone as soon as he realised he was doing badly. But you said you weren't specifically talking about him, so i'll add that in general I do agree with not teaching the fish, I never berate fish in chat or tell them how bad they are, it's just not economically viable, much like I wouldn't give a fish the link to Pokerstrategy.com. But when the fish realises he is a fish there isn't much harm in someone coaching him, the only "bad" thing about it is the extra competition for the remaining fishes money, but with the amount of regs around a few more being in competition with you doesn't do much harm on lower stakes.

Originally posted by franeczek
Gerv I think that maybe i didn't explain my thoughts clearly.
It is not about improving. The problem is that in order to make a profit we need fish.

You keep using the word "fish". Could you define it?

In todays games even at nl50 regs do understand the edge so it is quite common even at nl50 for the table to break as soon as the mark left.
Just look what happen to high stakes where there is mostly 5 people waiting for the fish.
Same with empty tables as soon as fish sit the fight for the Jesus seat begins.

The dynamics and ecosystem of high stakes games are completely different from uNL. Completely. Motivations are VERY different as well.

So by teaching recreational players and helping them to become better we destroy our game and make it even less profitable for ourselves. Simply every month there has to be deposited like 300mln $(I am not sure about the exact number there were some calculation just can't find them) to sustain current amount of tables and profitability(cause there is a rake in almost every pot). So the less fish the less tables and overall way less profit. For me it is simple.

What do you mean by "our" game? Who is part of the "our"? You and who?

The sneering language adopted by self-styled "regs" in reference to "fish" is somewhat disturbing.

So this comment is addressed to any and all self-styled "regs" who sneer at us "fish".

Accept the fact that we "fish" ARE improving, whether YOU teach us or not. If you "regs" do not improve, then we will overtake you. Right now Phil Ivey class players are just learning the game. As they improve, you will be left in their dust unless you yourself outpace them.

I play games because I like them. I like to be good at what I do.
If you are "in it for the money", and are just looking for "fish" to pick on, then you are actually a poor player who will be a losing player as the "fish" improve.
In order for players like me to continue playing, the game has to have some measure of enjoyment. Poker is not my job -- I have a great one already thanks -- and if I lose a buy-in now and again, it is not a big deal. If I am not a winning player in the long run, though, I will likely find another game. In fact, the danger is that if I DO become a winning player to the extent that it is too easy, it would be boring and I would move on -- this isn't too likely, tbh. A HUGE part of the enjoyment for me is learning, improving and testing myself against others.

You -- the "reg" -- on the other hand, see poker as a career, and consider yourself a professional poker player. So be professional already. Drop the sneering attitude. Take the time to be among the best at your game. Study, research, learn the math, develop your own unique style. Mentor some fish. Coach some beginners. Be a role model. Players like veriz, verneer, vonki and others at pokerstrategy are doing more for the game by building it up than any number of "regs" who are just mining the pennies at the bottom of the pool.

I had a great laugh when I looked up an opponent who had been giving me trouble.
The write-up said, "Shark - He is a very solid player with a tight and aggressive playing style. He should be avoided at the tables as he is a tough opponent. ". This is over 419000 hands, and his has lost over $2000. He was rude to other players, very aggressive, and took down a lot of pots by 3Betting pre, and extreme aggression post-flop. Over the few hands I played at that table he won a fair bit. I figured he had to be some sort of uber-reg.

So I was rather surprised to see this:

I was left wondering how many of the "regs" are actually just posers?

sry for the tl;dr post in your blog, but thanks for the opportunity to get this off my chest -- it's been bugging me for a while.

As much as I would like to discuss it longer we got to the point it is pointless. I won't convince anyone to my point of view and it is now like me vs anyone else. It is the fight I just can't win.
I thought that there will be more understanding to my point of view that for sure isn't that common however I was wrong.
For me poker was always like a food chain. There are predators and there is a meat. Simple as that. I guess people don't share that point of view. So I won't post anymore about the subject here. There is just no point.

Originally posted by VorpalF2F

Looks like -2BI at NL1K whilst drunk, followed by 400K hands of rakeback pro at NL10 to me.

hey verneer..

I read in the op that you repeatedly went back to nl10 through to nl200 pllaying the stales. on ur graph it looks very non downswingy so i guess the reason you did it was because you thought it was plus ev and the reason you have large samples at stakes where you could have moved up. Do you not think just getting coaching at the level you were at would be infinitly more plus ev as someone who coaches so many players and has an obvious sound understanding of the game should with dedication, which you obviously have be able to beat nl600+ generallt the people who cant beat it are the ones who have pychological problems when it comes to tilt etc, but you mention in your blog you identify and help all your students with their mindset.

If we rate intelligence on a scale of 1 to 10, just general, this kid is a fucking genius and this kid is incredibly simple, whats the minimum rating that you think can beat nl200.

What sample size/wr do you have of nl400 plus and what do you think is the main difference between bad regs at nl400/600 and bad regs at nl100?

Do you currently play live/ have you relocated to vegas etc so you are able to play in good live games.

Sorry if things already been covered itt.

Strat...

On table of unknowns but we assume co to bare competent yet readless regs, fish limps utg, how wide do you iso from mp?

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
The sneering language adopted by self-styled "regs" in reference to "fish" is somewhat disturbing.

So this comment is addressed to any and all self-styled "regs" who sneer at us "fish".

Accept the fact that we "fish" ARE improving, whether YOU teach us or not. If you "regs" do not improve, then we will overtake you. Right now Phil Ivey class players are just learning the game. As they improve, you will be left in their dust unless you yourself outpace them.

I play games because I like them. I like to be good at what I do.
If you are "in it for the money", and are just looking for "fish" to pick on, then you are actually a poor player who will be a losing player as the "fish" improve.
In order for players like me to continue playing, the game has to have some measure of enjoyment. Poker is not my job -- I have a great one already thanks -- and if I lose a buy-in now and again, it is not a big deal. If I am not a winning player in the long run, though, I will likely find another game. In fact, the danger is that if I DO become a winning player to the extent that it is too easy, it would be boring and I would move on -- this isn't too likely, tbh. A HUGE part of the enjoyment for me is learning, improving and testing myself against others.

You -- the "reg" -- on the other hand, see poker as a career, and consider yourself a professional poker player. So be professional already. Drop the sneering attitude. Take the time to be among the best at your game. Study, research, learn the math, develop your own unique style. Mentor some fish. Coach some beginners. Be a role model. Players like veriz, verneer, vonki and others at pokerstrategy are doing more for the game by building it up than any number of "regs" who are just mining the pennies at the bottom of the pool.

I had a great laugh when I looked up an opponent who had been giving me trouble.
The write-up said, "Shark - He is a very solid player with a tight and aggressive playing style. He should be avoided at the tables as he is a tough opponent. ". This is over 419000 hands, and his has lost over $2000. He was rude to other players, very aggressive, and took down a lot of pots by 3Betting pre, and extreme aggression post-flop. Over the few hands I played at that table he won a fair bit. I figured he had to be some sort of uber-reg.

So I was rather surprised to see this:

I was left wondering how many of the "regs" are actually just posers?

sry for the tl;dr post in your blog, but thanks for the opportunity to get this off my chest -- it's been bugging me for a while.

Nicely put bro!!

And to all the "reg", I want to ask: Do you know poker is a game?!

Hey Patrick,

Lots here, so I'll try to address it in parts.

Originally posted by pleno1
I read in the op that you repeatedly went back to nl10 through to nl200 pllaying the stales. on ur graph it looks very non downswingy so i guess the reason you did it was because you thought it was plus ev and the reason you have large samples at stakes where you could have moved up. Do you not think just getting coaching at the level you were at would be infinitly more plus ev as someone who coaches so many players and has an obvious sound understanding of the game should with dedication, which you obviously have be able to beat nl600+ generallt the people who cant beat it are the ones who have pychological problems when it comes to tilt etc, but you mention in your blog you identify and help all your students with their mindset.

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. I never had great motivation to play MSNL. I think I handle losing much worse than the average person, so a situations where I am consistently up and down thousands of dollars (which has real-life meaning to me) would be -hEV (happiness EV as Phil Galfond calls it) regardless of my actual EV. Thus, I have not played higher than 1/2 in the last few years.

I did the "Moving Up" challenges not because I needed to build my bankroll but because I wanted to get a general understanding what it would take to move up in stakes (and how doable it would be). I have tried getting coaching myself, but I think that like with anything else in life, it's all about finding the right fit, and for me I never did.

I was never highly motivated to maximize my hourly $$ at all cost. If I was, we wouldn't be having this conversation because I would have never started a blog on PS. Of course when I actually play at the tables, I am very motivated to make the right decision (and win), but I don't see that as equivalent to being motivated to earn a lot of money from poker. Lots of people have different motivations for the game.

Take Isildur. He's clearly a highly motivated poker player, but it's also pretty clear that his primary motivation is not financial. If it was, he would be a very different person. I see Leatherass as someone who is very financially motivated - he mostly plays poker to maximize his hourly rate. This is fine as well. My motivation is still different. I want to make just enough to continue doing what I'm doing, which I enjoy.

I hope that begins to answer your question. I'll address the other parts tomorrow.

Originally posted by verneer

I thought 19/16 is a TAG on FR, does this mean I'm a LAG?
What a huge mistake, if it is. Because that's the stats I'm aiming for to be a TAG

Originally posted by verneer

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. I never had great motivation to play MSNL. I think I handle losing much worse than the average person, so a situations where I am consistently up and down thousands of dollars (which has real-life meaning to me) would be -hEV (happiness EV as Phil Galfond calls it) regardless of my actual EV. Thus, I have not played higher than 1/2 in the last few years.

Do you strive to play higher than 1/2 in the future? It really confuses yet interests me that you have no desire/wish to play above nl200.

Problems I see with this and why I could never be like that:

• You are a professional, fitting in with the rest of the field shouldn't be enough for you. Part of you hEV should be fulfilment that you have played well, tested yourself and beat players who are challenging. A huge part of your hEV will not be fulfilled because you can't feel complete by not playing higher when your skill-set and bankroll both are at a position to do so. I'm really trying to find a suitable metaphor here but struggling, but basically I think you're like this sick basketball player who trains every day relentesly, killing his body and doing 1000 free throw shots at the end of every session and then in the match he goes for the easy option because he has good hEV setting up a potential basket with an easy pass instead of going on a crazy run and getting a ridiculous 3 pointer as the buzzer is just about to go to make it 81-79 ♦, either this or a Surgeon who has great skill, worked so hard at University making sure he was the best Doctor in the district but then when it came for getting a job was happy to work as an assistant Surgeon in a small clinic rather than taking a chance.
• I keep grinding NL200/400 and so on because there is a chance that I can keep going and become a high stakes reg in the not so long future. I set myself goals of where I want to be and I enjoy grinding because I learn and improve. If you love poker so much then for the immediate future I think you can get away with just playing NL100/200 but do you really think you're going to be enjoying poker in 3 years, 5 years, 15 years?

I'll remind you of something you said earlier in the thread...

Originally posted by verneer
In college, I went to listen to a legendary coach talk about success. He said "soccer must mean everything to you. It must also mean nothing at the same time." I had a hard time wrapping my head around that at the time, and still kind of do. Basically - you must fully commit to the process and don't let bad results cloud you.

Kind of leads me on to my next questions, if you are not motivated by playing higher stakes in poker and don't want to challenge yourself, how are you setting up your future. Of course your book sounds great and you're making videos, but it feels inevitable that eventually the bubble will burst and you will get sick and tired on logging on to your PC playing poker against the same villains, only with different screen names for year upon year.

Originally posted by verneer

I was never highly motivated to maximize my hourly $$ at all cost. If I was, we wouldn't be having this conversation because I would have never started a blog on PS.

I kinda disagree with this though, if you aren't interested in playing poker at a level where you can make very good money and choosing to make books/videos then getting exposure to yourself from communities such as PokerStrategy (biggest poker community) then I think making blogs and speaking to people who hadn't heard of you and/or watched any of your videos (like myself) is definitely going to be +ev.

Originally posted by verneer

Oh and 22/18's still go into the nit column for me ♦

Originally posted by pleno1
If we rate intelligence on a scale of 1 to 10, just general, this kid is a fucking genius and this kid is incredibly simple, whats the minimum rating that you think can beat nl200.

I don't think intelligence is the primary determinant of beating a level. So I would say that the minimum would be someone slightly above average, a 6.

What sample size/wr do you have of nl400 plus and what do you think is the main difference between bad regs at nl400/600 and bad regs at nl100?

I think the main difference between any regs at ___NL and ___NL is:

1. The ability to read hands and situations.
2. The ability to then act on those reads.
3. The ability to develop to understand the current metagame you have with specific regulars at your limit.

Do you currently play live/ have you relocated to vegas etc so you are able to play in good live games.

No. My wife just got a job as a professor at a University in Virginia, so we are moving there. That's one big difference between me and a lot of other online poker players - I'm married, my wife's work is a priority for us, and thus it has a major impact on where we live.

On table of unknowns but we assume co to bare competent yet readless regs, fish limps utg, how wide do you iso from mp?

At 6-max? If I'm playing 6+ tables, it's probably something like this:

What about you?

I think its a leak, or perhaps something I do well more than others, but I isolate super wide, I'd include all the hands that you did but widen my sutied connectors. I generally don't think opening Q5ss is going to be TERRIBLE though.

I actually think at NL50-100 its fine to iso alottttt wider, around 45% vs some opponents, but at NL200+ its better to have a tighter range.

Originally posted by pleno1
Do you strive to play higher than 1/2 in the future? It really confuses yet interests me that you have no desire/wish to play above nl200.

I don't know what the future holds. Right now, with online poker essentially outlawed in the U.S., the future looks gloomy. That's why I'm going back to school to get my PhD - to not depend on what some politicians decide or don't decide.

If and when poker comes back to the U.S. and I can legally play again, I'll look at all my options and decide what's best for me and my family. For now, I have a limited bankroll at Merge and not too motivated to grind it out (long and limited cashout periods, insecure about money there, limited and reg-heavy games, software that's not friendly to multi-tabling)

Problems I see with this and why I could never be like that:

[*] You are a professional, fitting in with the rest of the field shouldn't be enough for you. Part of you hEV should be fulfilment that you have played well, tested yourself and beat players who are challenging. A huge part of your hEV will not be fulfilled because you can't feel complete by not playing higher when your skill-set and bankroll both are at a position to do so. I'm really trying to find a suitable metaphor here but struggling, but basically I think you're like this sick basketball player who trains every day relentesly, killing his body and doing 1000 free throw shots at the end of every session and then in the match he goes for the easy option because he has good hEV setting up a potential basket with an easy pass instead of going on a crazy run and getting a ridiculous 3 pointer as the buzzer is just about to go to make it 81-79 ♦, either this or a Surgeon who has great skill, worked so hard at University making sure he was the best Doctor in the district but then when it came for getting a job was happy to work as an assistant Surgeon in a small clinic rather than taking a chance.

You're looking at this wrong. I think I'm a very good poker player, but have the potential to be an elite educator (given my background, passion, etc). I find poker education much more fulfilling and just as challenging as poker playing.

So far, I have found a way to balance the two with a focus on education. To me, the education part is just as challenging and intellectually stimulating. There is a lot less money to be made there, but like I said - that's not my primary motivator.

If I was to focus on moving up the stakes, that would have to consume 90%+ my time and energy. I would probably have to stop making educational videos and just fully devote myself to analyzing and breaking down specific regs at the limits I'm playing. Could I see myself doing that at one point? Maybe. Am I at that point right now? Definitely not, given the current poker climate in the United States.

If you love poker so much then for the immediate future I think you can get away with just playing NL100/200 but do you really think you're going to be enjoying poker in 3 years, 5 years, 15 years?

I never said I loved poker. I like poker. I definitely think I will enjoy playing in the future, but it depends on the context. Since the future of my ability to play is uncertain, I won't bother speculating on what will happen down the road.

I'll remind you of something you said earlier in the thread...

Kind of leads me on to my next questions, if you are not motivated by playing higher stakes in poker and don't want to challenge yourself, how are you setting up your future.

I'm getting a PhD and will probably work alongside my wife at a good University working in Math Education. I will probably balance this with poker. Also, I find that many opportunities come in life that you don't expect or can plan for. I hope to be open to any opportunity that presents itself down the line.

Of course your book sounds great and you're making videos, but it feels inevitable that eventually the bubble will burst and you will get sick and tired on logging on to your PC playing poker against the same villains, only with different screen names for year upon year.

What bubble? Also, everyone gets sick and tired of grinding/playing. It's all about making poker fit your lifestyle.

I kinda disagree with this though, if you aren't interested in playing poker at a level where you can make very good money and choosing to make books/videos then getting exposure to yourself from communities such as PokerStrategy (biggest poker community) then I think making blogs and speaking to people who hadn't heard of you and/or watched any of your videos (like myself) is definitely going to be +ev.

As I said - right now playing poker at a level where I can consistently make good money is not a great option for me. Thus, I want to focus on learning so that I can have options when regulation comes back.

great discussion.

i feel like if i multi, multi quote and then you respond, things could get very complicated ♦

Going to have lunch and will address a couple of things later.

Good blog!