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.
For the first step I searched DC’s forum for profitability. I didn’t find any silver bullet threads, but I found other stuff, some related, some just interesting.
http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/19-Coaching/topics/28519-HU-Coaching-in-exchange-f#posts-215270
http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/21-Heads-Up-NL/topics/21590-100nl-Average-Winrate-Pro#posts-160783 - (looks low-value, just an “I played a tiny sample and won so is this sustainable?” thread.)
Then I tried an obvious Google search, which I’ll follow up with as I go.
First link: http://www.beatthefish.com/poker-strategy/make-most-money-online-poker.html
It looked like there was also a very relevant 2+2 link in the Theory forum. So I’ll check those out and see if they’re interesting, but meanwhile proceed on to ask in DC and maybe 2+2 forums.
i think the HUNL SNGs are a really good idea. besides being profitable in themselves (amazing game selection etc), the skills just translate so well to all NL games. while there is tons and tons of info out there on NL, i still dont think most people play well out of position. people are getting much more comfortable c-betting, 3-betting preflop IP, floating, etc., but im always surprised how little relative info/stress is on playing OOP or when things dont go according to plan. plus playing HU should give you a huge edge in hand reading. i read “the talent code” by daniel coyle, and when i tried to apply it to poker all i could think of was play more HU.
other than that, i think that omaha hi/lo cash is probably pretty profitable with relatively few “sharks” at the lower limits. it seems like its a game not many people play well and if youre patient with your starting hands can have a big edge. plus it seems like in the less popular games, good players are going to play higher faster, whereas in NL there are good players sometimes even at 25 or 50NL.
ive been having fun playing NL FR rush poker too. there seem to be a lot of aggro donkeys trying to bully everyone around and its easier to get paid off when they dont realize youre not monkeying around too (since they havent been at your table and dont have your stats).
just some thoughts. i obviously havent solved the online poker puzzle myself. i would also say to be extra careful of the stuff you read on forums. after spending way too much time on them last year, i realize more and more how many of the people (even the ones everyone respects and listens to) have no idea what theyre talking about.
Hey, man, always good to pick your brain. I think your suggestion of HU SNGs back when I was playing 9-man ones was probably part of the reason it “clicked” when I saw the new DC series. And as you say, learning to play well heads-up has spillover benefits to other forms, as long as I don’t forget to adjust back from playing 50/40.
—
BTW, speaking of when I was trying to get serious about SNGs, I’ve realized that my problem there was that I Peter Principled myself between the $10 and $20 level. The lesson to learn from your example wasn’t so much to concentrate on NL cash games, but to value coaching appropriately and turn to wiser people before giving up on my ability to beat the games. Ah well, I got out with most of my roll intact which is better than a lot of people.
—
Interesting point about forums. I guess you get what you pay for.
Which forums have you seen that have a tendency toward groupthink or toward privileging the opinions of the wrong people?
—
And should I use the address you left here instead of the one I’ve been using for you? You seem to get both. I should be on Skype more these days since it’s def. the IM of choice for the poker crowd.
—
[And I like this new template, except for the lack of paragraph breaks -- not sure what's going on with that.]