Who here makes a living from playing poker?

[Karl Pilkington]

I'm wanting to make 'the leap' to playing full time for income purposes for a couple years to support myself through university.

I want to know what setup most people use for this: i.e. do you play strictly cash ring games, mix it up with some tournaments etc?

What sites are best for rakeback and bonuses? I've been mainly playing pstars but looking to go in to a full grind, where every bit will count as I'll be playing very TAG.

 

[mdc]

I wouldn't say a "living", but it pays the rent/bills while I'm at uni.

My routine is pretty simple;
- 10 hrs at most a week during semester, no single session > 3 hours.
- 6-max ring games only. I refuse to believe that any good player can make a higher rate in tourneys or 10-man tables.
- 4-5 tables at any one time.
- Record everything.
- Only play games/levels that I've historically beaten.

If I want to try move up levels, or take a shot at an unfamiliar game, I'll do so on the holidays.

As for what sites to use, I tend to stick to the bigger ones, although I'm going to experiment with others on the holidays. I will say though, I'd stay away from Tilt. Might be worth your time hitting them up for their bonus (depending on what stakes you play), but that's about it. Stars is soft enough though, as is party.

As far as rake-back, I use the Hendon-mob for Tilt, Stars have their own rewards thingy, and Party you need someone to hook you up - they don't have public rakeback AFAIK.

Out of curiousity, why are you set on playing very TAG? To reduce variance?

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Basically, yes.

I'm planning on hitting up a lot of tables at once and just sticking to the formula. I'm fairly maths oriented and to be honest I'm not looking to become a truly brilliant poker player, rather, I just want to grind out some decent money at lower limits.

What limits do you play at? I'm not wanting to have to literally grind it out every day, and would prefer to do 3 hour stints maybe 4 times a week, like yourself.

 

[mdc]

Limits vary a little bit depending on mood and how I'm running. For NLHE, I've played as high as 2-4 before, but hold'em players have improved heaps over the last 1-2 years, so I basically don't play any NLHE at all during uni. I get higher returns at equal and even lower stakes on other games. In PLO and limit games, for example, it's not uncommon to get 2-3 terrible players on one table. Almost never happens in NL any more.

As for the TAG thing, I have serious doubt over whether that's optimum strategy right now. But if it works for you, then it's all good.

 

[The Passenger]

just out of interest are you able to re-sign up with poker sites to get different and better bonuses.

After dabbling in the online scene over the last few months i'm now confident enough to take it on seriously with proper bankroll management etc,.

but i currently have no bonuses at all with full tilt as i just signed up with them some time ago not realising what i can get, and with CD Poker (iPoker) i have used my first deposit bonus but i am eligible for their monthly freerolls...

i am planning on splitting my money about 75% to CD Poker for cash games and 25% to full tilt for SNG's and some MTT's.

From what i've read the iPoker is where the softest cash games are (atlhough i was having trouble adapting from SNG to cash at first i'm now going ok in cash games)... whilst the slow blind style of full tilt really suits me, as well as them offering Stud games which i want to give a crack.

anyway, i basically would like to re-sign up so i can get rakeback with CD Poker and deposit bonuses/freerolls with Full Tilt. Am i able to re-sign up and if so what's the deal?? i assume if i give a different e mail address all will be fine yeah??

Don't need rakeback on full tilt as i don't plan on playing cash games with htem. i've read they are tough and from memory the lowest limits are 0.25c/0.50c which is above my limits for now as i can only commit about $125US due to saving for overseas trip...

in saying that rakeback probably wouldn't even make a difference at these levels but i still would want to have that bonus as once i get o/s i'll know whether and how much more money i can commit to a bankroll...

 

[mdc]

BT, I think you might have a fair bit of trouble trying to sign up for a new account under the same name.

When I had the same problem years ago, I just used a family member's name...it just works out a lot easier.

 

[The Passenger]

BT, I think you might have a fair bit of trouble trying to sign up for a new account under the same name.

When I had the same problem years ago, I just used a family member's name...it just works out a lot easier.

would that not cause problems when you go to claim a big win or something??

 

[mdc]

would that not cause problems when you go to claim a big win or something??

Who am I claiming it from?

When I cashed out, I'd just get the cheque sent to dad or my brother, and then they'd transfer the cash over to me.

Once the bonuses expire, go back to playing your original account.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Limits vary a little bit depending on mood and how I'm running. For NLHE, I've played as high as 2-4 before, but hold'em players have improved heaps over the last 1-2 years, so I basically don't play any NLHE at all during uni. I get higher returns at equal and even lower stakes on other games. In PLO and limit games, for example, it's not uncommon to get 2-3 terrible players on one table. Almost never happens in NL any more.

As for the TAG thing, I have serious doubt over whether that's optimum strategy right now. But if it works for you, then it's all good.

That's my biggest dilemma, whether to go with NL or not. Seeing as I'm fairly adverse to the swings I'm leaning towards limit.

 

[paxmaniac]

That's my biggest dilemma, whether to go with NL or not. Seeing as I'm fairly adverse to the swings I'm leaning towards limit.

6max limit is a grind. Really good players can make 1-2 big bets per 100 hands. There are some interesting datasets out there showing that very very few players beat the 5/10 limit on Stars for example.

Make sure you maximize bonuses and rakeback, because chances are most of your profit will come from there.

 

[mdc]

6max limit is a grind. Really good players can make 1-2 big bets per 100 hands. There are some interesting datasets out there showing that very very few players beat the 5/10 limit on Stars for example.

Make sure you maximize bonuses and rakeback, because chances are most of your profit will come from there.

Game selection is really important.

Even if you can make 1.5 BB / 100 at, say, 2/4 Limit, that works out to be roughly $30 US/hour (4 tables + bonuses). That's good coin.

 

[paxmaniac]

Even if you can make 1.5 BB / 100 at, say, 2/4 Limit, that works out to be roughly $30 US/hour (4 tables + bonuses). That's good coin.

I reckon anyone smart enough to beat 2/4 online for 1.5BB/100 would probably earn a lot more than $30/hour doing something else.

 

[mdc]

I reckon anyone smart enough to beat 2/4 online for 1.5BB/100 would probably earn a lot more than $30/hour doing something else.

Poker ability != intelligence. Anyone with a steady temperament and decent reasoning skills should be able to get those numbers if they put in the work.

And KP will be at uni (like myself), so your possibilities in terms of part-time work aren't exactly limitless.

Plus, $30 US is $50 AUD right now, and it's tax free. Like I said, it's good coin.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Game selection is really important.

Even if you can make 1.5 BB / 100 at, say, 2/4 Limit, that works out to be roughly $30 US/hour (4 tables + bonuses). That's good coin.

Noob question here, but what do you mean by 1.5BB / 100 ?

Is that 1.5 times more than the the big blinds you've bet every 100 hands?

I've only played tournament before really. So I'm new to a lot of the ring game lingo

 

[mdc]

Noob question here, but what do you mean by 1.5BB / 100 ?

Is that 1.5 times more than the the big blinds you've bet every 100 hands?

I've only played tournament before really. So I'm new to a lot of the ring game lingo

BB = Big Bets (e.g. in 2/4 limit, the big bet is "4", and the blinds are 1/2)

The 100 is 100 hands, so basically you'd be making $6/100 hands on 1 table. 100 hands usually works out to roughly an hour online, depending on the game.

 

[The Passenger]

Noob question here, but what do you mean by 1.5BB / 100 ?

1.5 big bets per 100 hands profit in limit hold em

if you are new to cash games, as i said to a guy in another thread i would consider dropping down one limit for your first 500-1000 hands to get used to the difference in tournament and cash game play. using the standard bankroll you want about 20 buy-ins of 100bb's, so you want 2000bb's in your bank roll. so if your bankroll was enough to play $0.50-$1.00 NL ($2,000), if you've never played cash games i reckon it's smart to drop down to $0.10-$0.25 (giving you 8000 big blinds) for a short while to get used to the difference and not risk much of your bankroll at all.

in saying that some people think you may pick up bad habits playing in the lower limits which is also legimate.

biggest difference i found is people will make marginal calls in cash games even if they are even slightly +EV, whereas the same person won't make the same call in a tournament if it's for a big chunk of their stack - they'll pick a better spot to get some chips in a tourny. but in cash games if you give the guy odds to call they'll go for it and when they hit you won't be happy.

and even though you need to be aware of them in sng and mtt's, even more so in cash games you need to be aware of your anti-outs. if you think the guy is on a flush draw and you've got an OESD you only have 6 outs as opposed to the 8 you would have on a rainbow flop.... sounds simple enough but it effects your pot odds and whether your call is +EV or -EV....

i was like you almost playing entirely sng's and tournaments and really struggled in the cash games early on, but now am starting to get my act together and probably coming out around about even.

the other big difference i noticed is the lack of multiway pots in cash games. in a 9-handed cash game you will rarely go to the flop unraised, and when it's raised you'll normally only go heads up or 3-way. even unraised pots usually less than 50% of the table will see the flop, and i generally don't like to get involved in these because you've no idea what is out there... whereas in a 9-handed sng you will often go to the flop unraised with 5,6 or 7 players, and even in raised pots sometime you will go 4 or 5-way to the flop.... that may just be a co-incidence that has occured to me in the relatively few cash hands i've played compared to sng and tournaments.

 

[The Passenger]

and even though you need to be aware of them in sng and mtt's, even more so in cash games you need to be aware of your anti-outs. if you think the guy is on a flush draw and you've got an OESD you only have 6 outs as opposed to the 8 you would have on a rainbow flop.... sounds simple enough but it effects your pot odds and whether your call is +EV or -EV....

just on that i've read of guys making plays in the cash games when they are flushing and have picked their opponent an OESD.

they'll bet out and give them odds to call for the 8 outs, knowing that their opponent only has 6 outs.

doesn't sound like it makes much of a difference but they know that every now and then when their money card comes out (one of the cards thats give them a flush and their oppponent a straight) they'll be a big chance to take their stack.

they've made two great plays here - if the money card comes out and their opponent picks the flush and folds then they've still forced their opponent into a -EV call which is +EV for them. plus if their opponent doesn't pick him on a flush the implied odds are through the roof.

 

[mdc]

just on that i've read of guys making plays in the cash games when they are flushing and have picked their opponent an OESD.

they'll bet out and give them odds to call for the 8 outs, knowing that their opponent only has 6 outs.

Couple of things here...

First off, an OESD has more than 6 outs against a flush draw...pair up is obviously good, and sometimes you'll have the higher cards to begin with (if he has a low flush draw).

Secondly, you should never "pick" your opponents hands. You should pick their range.

Lastly, if you play out the hand scenarios, I think you'd find a stack-off for the OESD is unlikely even if the "money card" hits. Especially true if the OESD has position.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

BB = Big Bets (e.g. in 2/4 limit, the big bet is "4", and the blinds are 1/2)

The 100 is 100 hands, so basically you'd be making $6/100 hands on 1 table. 100 hands usually works out to roughly an hour online, depending on the game.

So that would mean $6 net, as in, after accounting for any blinds you've lost, right?

 

[paxmaniac]

So that would mean $6 net, as in, after accounting for any blinds you've lost, right?

Yep, big bets per 100 hands (or big blinds in NL) is the net profit measured long term.

One thing to bear in mind is that success is very difficult to judge until you have played a lot of hands (and I'm talking ~100,000 here). Variance is huge, and it can take a very long time to work out if you are really a long term winning player. This is another reason to make sure you maximise your bonuses while trying to work out where you stand as a player!

 

[Cartman121]

I wouldn't say a "living", but it pays the rent/bills while I'm at uni.

My routine is pretty simple;
- 10 hrs at most a week during semester, no single session > 3 hours.
- 6-max ring games only. I refuse to believe that any good player can make a higher rate in tourneys or 10-man tables.
- 4-5 tables at any one time.
- Record everything.
- Only play games/levels that I've historically beaten.

As for what sites to use, I tend to stick to the bigger ones, although I'm going to experiment with others on the holidays. I will say though, I'd stay away from Tilt. Might be worth your time hitting them up for their bonus (depending on what stakes you play), but that's about it. Stars is soft enough though, as is party.

Really? I tend to disagree completely. I've made the majority of my money from just MTT's, it isn't as steady as playing cash games but over the long term i've made alot more money from large tourneys than I have from cash games. Built my roll from just grinding out sng's starting at $1 up to $50 + $100, if you're a good player there is alot of easy money to be made at the $50 + $100 9/10 man sng's. Some of the players are just terrible and if you have a solid grip on the structure of sng's it can provide a solid income. I think that the cash games players are a little better, the $0.10/$0.25 players are tougher than the $0.50/$1.0+ tables are, just for the fact that they tend to play only the premium starting hands - basically it's just harder to get any substantial money out of them. Just my experience.

I agree with you on the 6-max cash games though. It allows you to really play poker, gives you alot more flexibity and players tend to give alot more action with weaker hands. Alot of LAG players at the six man tables - i.e. ATM's. You find alot of bad players at these games, especially three handed - my claim to fame is leaving a 3 handed cash game after 10 minutes with six times as much as I came in with .

I used to play on PokerRoom.com until my account was blocked for playing 'underage', but I highly recommend it to all players. The lobby layout is great with fantastic software, support is online 24/7 in the lobby chat and is always friendly, they have a nice range of different games available and the general skill level is quite low. They don't have a massive amount of players (approx 10k players online on average) and not a whole lot of MTT's. But the ones that they do have are incredibly soft, IMHO the $100 MTT's are just as weak as the $10 ones. The players just love to give action on a consistent basis, bluffing often, calling down with bottom pair, they seem to want to gamble in coin flips situations preflop regardless of chip to blind ratios, and often find themselves in dominated positions that they didn't need to be in. If you want some easy cash, PR is your site.

Lately I have been playing on FullTilt and immediately noticed that the general skill level is higher, of course you get your fair share of fish but the general level of play seems to be more advanced than on PR. Have only been playing low stakes cash and sng's but haven't really gotten anywhere after a good 3-4 weeks of playing. Was planning on making a deposit onto PokerStars - renowned for having the best tournaments which is my specialty but their bonuses are pretty weak - software and layout is just OK but that's just my opinion. Have read some pretty good reviews for Pacific Poker - mainly just that it is pact with fish. Associated with a gambling website I believe so it attracts alot of inexperienced players over from its betting site. Anyone have anything futher on Pacific?

Any recommendations on which site to play on? From my research it is down to PokerStars, Party and Pacific, but i'm open to any suggestions.

Sorry about the wall of text, and if the majority of it doesn't make sense...i'm pretty tired

 

[paxmaniac]

Have read some pretty good reviews for Pacific Poker - mainly just that it is pact with fish. Associated with a gambling website I believe so it attracts alot of inexperienced players over from its betting site. Anyone have anything futher on Pacific?

I can't tell you about tourneys of NL, but FL on Pacific is very, very fishy up to at least 3/6 (and also usually on the rare occasions that a 5/10 or 10/20 table is running).

Any recommendations on which site to play on? From my research it is down to PokerStars, Party and Pacific, but i'm open to any suggestions.

Again, I'm in a different game, but I generally find the smaller rooms and networks (e.g Microgaming, Bodog) to be fishier. I have also played iPoker and OnGame, and find them generally tougher.

Any semi-pro grinder needs to make maximum use of bonuses and rakeback as a top priority. I suspect most players will make more money out of bonuses and rakeback than they will out of play, at least at the smaller limits.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Ok, I've decided I'm going with PL Hold Em, full ring cash games, going to start on 0.10/0.25 for a month or two and evaluate it after that (using poker tracker). then as my game improves after some assesment, will move up to 1/2 or 2/4

Planning on making all/bulk of profit through bonuses/rakeback, which leaves one question, which site?

I've got the following I'm considering:

FullTilt (sup Pax, still mulling over it) - i've heard there's a fair lack of fish though
Absolute Poker (not much of a shot, too small)
Pacific Poker (sounds pretty juicy as far as amount of fish go, but I don't know what kind of rakeback they offer?)

 

[Borgsta]

Karl possibly also look up prop playing. Some offer about 80% rakeback but their is some strict guidelines to how you play.

I'd also stay clear of AbPoker

 

[The Passenger]

Karl possibly also look up prop playing. Some offer about 80% rakeback but their is some strict guidelines to how you play.

I'd also stay clear of AbPoker

yeah wahts the deal with Absolute Poker?? have heard some ordinary things about them.

i know they just merged with ultimate bet who had the cheating scandal....