Ahhhh, if we knew the answer to this question, all the sharks would migrate over to those games, right? And so that implies that the market may well be pretty efficient, where just enough sharks are in each game to feed on the number of fish, and so me moving to one game or another might not even make a difference.
But let’s start with the hypothesis that it does make a difference. So I’m going to see what there is on the different message boards and sources of info to help, and then ask people with a broad view if I can’t find enough informed opinions.
First I went searching for some threads on profitability. I’ll put those after the jump. I’ll probably also go ahead and ask in the DC coaching forum, since I’m trying to get this straight in my mind.
Stuff I’ve thought about profitability of different games, much of it documented in past posts, some of it more recent than anything I’ve written here:
- Well, tournaments seem fishier than cash games, but higher-variance. In general, bigger field = higher variance and higher EV.
- I don’t think I could take the variance of huge MTTs as my bread and butter, although they’re fun and very profitable. But maybe they should make up a part of my portfolio?
- Also the smaller the tables for games, the more profitable (if you game-select effectively) and higher-variance. In other words, heads-up > 6-max > full ring
- Lately I’ve been proceeding under the assumption that the shared knowledge base on NLHE is pretty well saturated, that is, that there are so many videos and books and stuff and all the sharks have studied up to be able to exploit the still-considerable supply of fish. But this area may be where efficient market theory kicks in, because it seems there are plenty of experts in non-HE games thinking the same thing!
- So perhaps a broader way to express it is, the more a game rewards adaptability, and the less it rewards a basic strategy by rote, the more edge I can build up. I’m intelligent and open-minded, so I expect games involving adaptability to play to my strengths. (Example: I find multi-seat sats very profitable because so few people have a clue how ICM impacts play. You could say the same thing about single-table S&Gs, except that they’re full of multi-tabling sharks.)
So taking all this into account — what should I learn to play?
I’m leaning toward heads-up sit-and-gos, since I’ve been told from multiple sources that they’re pretty profitable. Deuces Cracked has a new series by bones going on called Two Men Enter. I’m wondering if it wouldn’t make sense to work my way up a bit starting at $1s and $2s, and then pretty quickly purchase a bit of coaching in those.
(So does that mean my dalliance with big-bet O8 was a short one? Not sure. I played a $24+2 tourney for the first time today and found the opponents dreadful; I certainly think there’s value in continuing to learn it too. But with 2+2 regulars agonizing over the future of mid-stakes games on Full Tilt, although Stars is apparently still good, I’m not sure this is a great growth game.)
My eventual goal is to get back to a life situation where I can play brick-and-mortar poker, because I really do love it more than online. But I need to build up the bankroll to a point where I’m comfortable playing games that I can beat for a significant amount. Grinding $4/8 limit isn’t going to make any serious money, and I never felt like 15 minimum buy-ins was enough for NLHE.
K
8
(2 players)