Free online poker

24/3/11

Lesson #8: In Closing

In this last chapter of this eight-part series, I want to focus on bad beats, frustration, downswings and how seemingly totally unfair this game can be.
The reason most serious players keep hefty bankrolls is because of how variance never fails to eventually knock you over, and then proceed to kick you while you're lying down. If you haven't had a meaningful downswing yet, there's a very, very good chance you haven't played for very long. Being prepared for it, both financially and mentally, is a virtual necessity if you want to go as far as you can. When I say "financially prepared for it," I basically mean that you have a bankroll that can deal with some swings, and that you've planned for the eventuality of a larger downswing happening, of such magnitude that it may force you to step down in limits. Thinking that a good player rarely loses is just plain wrong, because - quite frankly - winning poker means pushing edges, even the smallest ones. When you push a 52% chance of winning, you're going to end up losing virtually half the time. And sometimes, you're on the wrong side of the coin for an extended period of time. Of course, you could pass up the small edges and focus solely on the large edges, which would negate some of your profit, but it would also bring with it less variance. Personally, I want to play to win as much as I possibly can, and I keep a large bankroll to be able to do so.
What may be trickier to deal with is being mentally prepared for it. No one really knows how they'll react to losing half of their bankroll playing solid poker against poor players until it happens to them, I'm guessing. What happened to me was, and I think this is pretty typical, that I started questioning whether or not I was a winning player at all, if I had just had luck so far, or perhaps if I had suddenly become worse at poker. I got sick of the game for awhile, hovering with the mouse pointer over the PokerStars icon and then deciding to watch TV for awhile because I didn't want to lose even more. Bad beat, after bad beat, set of aces cracked by a runner-runner flush, big pots lost because no one ever folds, etc. I've since been through a couple of more downswings, and I know I'll keep running into them. They're inevitable. Knowing that they're inevitable is a big step. Understanding why they're inevitable means you've come a long way. Accepting them for what they are - and thereby accepting poker for what it is - means that you've reached the point you need to be at.
The problem with downswings is similar to the problem with reverse reinforcement. You may be playing well but you're still losing, which can cause you to believe that you're not playing well after all and in turn this can make you change your game for the worse. This is dangerous. In the short term, this is usually referred to as "tilt." Someone who refuses to raise his two pair on the flop when there are two hearts there, because "someone will just hit a flush and I'll lose more money," is a good example. The real problems arise when this is no longer just a state of mind that we're in for a little while, like the rest of the night or for 15 minutes or something, but when our game permanently changes because of this. Understanding how poker works, that mathematically and logically the universe is not out to get you, is very important in order to counter this behavior. Being able, away from the table, to rationally realize that what happened tonight was just variance, that your losses are at least smaller than they could have been had you not played as well, is imperative. When you don't have the cards in front of you, you can afford the luxury of thinking things through, mulling it over, and reaching the correct conclusion.
Unfortunately, it's not as easily done while still at the table. Short term tilt is, for me, mostly a small problem. I believe I have it under control, but of course it's still hard to smile and think happy thoughts when the same guy beats your flopped pair of aces by calling your bets to the river only to turn his third-pair-hand into two pair or trips, for the fourth time in a row. Being rational about it right then and there is really, really hard. You know that you were doing the right thing to bet, and you know that he made a mistake in calling, and in the long run you'll win a lot of money if you keep it up. But that doesn't help you right now, does it? No. You're still down for the session and you're pissed off about it. Now, leaving the table when this happens is, for most people, probably a good idea. If you find yourself upset, to the point where you know that it's probably affecting your decisions, then staying at the table is really bad. The fact that he's a complete donk and that if all other things were equal you'd be making a fortunate off of him in the long run may not be enough of a reason to stay. Because not all other things are equal, not if you're on tilt. Be honest: Haven't you ever been more prone to raising or calling a certain player because you've wanted to get back at him? Win your money back? I know I have. I try to avoid it, of course, but I can sometimes sense that feeling where I want to do it. People who seemingly have no idea what they're doing taking my money makes me slightly sick to my stomach, but it happens all the time. What's worse, I'm probably a part of the problem, and chances are you are too.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're sitting at a table where there's this guy whose luck is just insane. He's outdrawn you on the river four times in the last 15 minutes, and you're pissed off. You're not going to take this kind of crap. So you get pocket aces, and you raise preflop. He calls two cold, no surprise there - he calls with anything that he can reasonably identify as two cards, it seems. So the flop comes, and you don't hit a set. He checks, you bet, he calls. The turn shows a brick, he checks to you, and you bet, and he checkraises. Steeming with fury, you see your chance to win some of your money back and you re-raise him. Take that you miserable luckbox! He calls. Then he bets the river, and again you raise. He calls, shows you his two pair, and drags home the pot.
Did you play it wrong? Too many unknown variables to say for sure, of course. I didn't mention anything about whether or not this player was passive or aggressive, but last time I did something like this, I didn't 3-bet the turn because I figured to have the best hand, nor did I raise the river because I thought he was overplaying a single pair or trying to bluff me. No, I raised because I wanted to punish him. And when that's my rationale for doing something, I'm better served taking a nap than playing poker. However, there's another potentially more important argument to be made here and that's the fact that he may have been correct to call preflop with 97s. He may have been correct to call on the flop with his pair of sevens, nine kicker. How do I figure? Because with the way you're playing, you're offering him implied odds of 5 big bets (10 small bets) if he hits! Before the flop, you're about a 4:1 favorite over him. When he calls two bets cold, he needs to win back at least 8 small bets in order to make his call profitable, and he has no problem doing that from a tilting player who's out to get him.
What about his call on the flop? Again, it's only one small bet in a pot of (at least) 5 bets already. He has five outs, so he needs odds of about 10:1 to continue, but you're giving him a whole truckload of money on the implied odds platter. If he knew what you had, he'd virtually be wrong to fold. Now, you could argue that this idiot who keeps calling you down doesn't know the first thing about odds, and that he probably can't even spell "implied." And you may be right. But the fact that he doesn't know that he's playing correctly doesn't change the fact that he does. This isn't a strategy article, so I'm not going to teach you about cutting down implied odds for people who play recklessly, but I wanted to illustrate how your desire for revenge is hurting you, especially when it gives people correct odds to draw against you.
Poker is a game of small edges. It's a little bit like operating a roulette wheel. You have the odds on your side, but someone who's always betting on black, while a clear loser in the very long run, could still win quite a heap of money over the course of one evening. You already know this. Do you understand it?
Can you come to accept it?
People who berate others for poor play, the table coaches, aren't smart players. They're not impressing anyone. The fact that the other guy got lucky when he hit his miracle runner-runner flush against your flopped straight doesn't go away because you yell at him about it. Honestly, when people get so upset about this happening that they just can't stop themselves from being rude, I always (silently) wonder how long they've been playing. It happens so often, so very often, that it's amazing how they seemingly haven't gotten used to it yet. And what's worse, they're apparently trying to stop the other guy from doing it again, when they should be rooting for him to make those calls every time! The best case scenario for a table coach is that the other players consider him a jerk. The worst case scenario is that someone who was having fun giving his money away suddenly wisens up and decides to play smarter, while everyone still thinks the table coach is a jerk.
So, being almost done with this article series, I want to take the opportunity to wish you good luck, if you decide to pursue poker seriously. There's a lot of hard work needed to achieve real skill in this game, but it certainly is doable. Of the eight lessons I've written here, I truly feel that the part about having fun is the most important, and I hope you'll enjoy the game for what it is - a game of true skill, but absolutely sickening roller coaster rides of variance.

Lesson #7: Improve Your Learning

This second-to-last lesson I want to dedicate to sharing some ideas on how you can improve your game more efficiently. Reading the books and playing lots of hands is great and all, but with only a little bit more effort you can get so much more out of it. Let's start by looking at the books.
You will probably want quite a few books in your poker library. Mine - and I'm only an eager student, without any plans for a professional career whatsoever - contains 14, right now and there are at least four more I'm planning on getting. As I said in the first lesson, it's probably true that not every book is worth reading. The catch 22 here is that you won't know beforehand which of them will be useful to you, so you will still need to pick them up and read through them to form your own opinion. Of course, you can practise some selection, I'm not saying that you should go to amazon.com, put in "poker" and order everything that matches your query. But the greater point still stands: You likely have a lot of reading to do.
The human brain is a fascinating piece of machinery, and it's clever enough to automate anything that needs (or even can) to be automated. This automation is called "reflexes." One of the reflexes that I'm pretty sure every adult that can read has, is the automatic eye-movement when reading. Have you ever been reading a book and suddenly realized that you have no idea what the last two pages contained? I know I have. What has happened is that your mind took a stroll down some memory lane, but your eyes kept scanning the text. When you reached the end of the page, your finger turned it over, without you really having to think about what you're doing. Sure, some of the words stick, but in general you have no idea what you've just read. The eyes are so used to reading that this behavior becomes automatic. You have to consciously think about what you're reading in order to make good use of it. There are many ways to do this, and I think most people who have studied on any higher level of education will have heard or read about at least a few of them; taking notes, making mind maps, trying to visualize what you're reading, etc.
There's no one way that's better than all the others. Personally, I don't take notes and I don't make mind maps. I don't find "visualizing" the hand or situation (or whatever) that David Sklansky is writing about helpful. I do, however, quiz myself. For instance, if someone suggests limping with low pocket pairs on a loose/passive table, I ask myself where I'd place the cut-off point between limping and raising. 8-8? Etc. I consider what other factors that would tip my decision between limping, folding or raising. Every chapter takes more time this way, but I find that I'm able to understand a lot more about what I'm reading when I do this, as opposed to when I'm just browsing the text.
Another thing I do is to regularly go back and re-read chapters in books I've finished before. I don't often go back and re-read a book from cover to cover, however, but I often pick up a book and work through a section to see if I'll pick up something I may have overlooked last time. And even if I realize that I already know what it says, I know that repetition is the mother of knowledge, to roughly translate a Swedish saying. Repetition and reinforcement. I know what it says, and if I I now know it again, I'm less likely to forget.
If there's a chapter or a section that you have trouble understanding, ask a friend about it or post on the forums. "Why does he say I shouldn't raise with AQo preflop? I don't get it. Don't I have a huge equity advantage?" There's no guarantee that anyone who answers will be better equipped to answer your question than you already are, but arguing and discussing will definitely help you understand it better. Also, make no mistake, poker books contain mistakes sometimes. Some strategies listed can be, if not flat out wrong, at least highly inappropriate for the limits you play or for the competition you face. If something doesn't feel right, take the time to figure out why it doesn't. Discuss it with others. If you finally "get it," there's reinforcement again for you.
But reading, while practically a necessity to become a good player, is only a small part of how you'll spend your time with poker. Your long hours will be spent at the table, playing hand after hand after hand. The more you learn here, the better, that goes without saying. But how do you maximize your learning while playing? Again, there are many things you can do and ultimately you'll have to figure out what works for you. But here are a couple of pointers:
Make conscious decisions. When you decide to bet, call, raise or fold ask yourself "why." Don't just raise, raise because of something. "I will raise, because I think he will fold ace-high often enough for my bluff to be worth it." "I may yet have the best hand, and I don't want to give a free card." Again, what you're doing here is reinforcing good behavior. Very often, decisions will be automatic and the decision trivial. Even so, reinforcing it can't hurt. And when you make a conscious decision that doesn't sound right ("I'm raising because he will call with a worse hand... Uh, wait. No, he wouldn't") and you change your decision because of it, you've really accomplished something!
Think through non-trivial decisions. It's very easy to think "I'm not sure what just happened. I'll call his raise." Sure, often enough the call may be the right decision, but when you find yourself wondering, if only for a split second, what the proper action will be, take some time to think through the hand. I, myself, am patently poor at this. I tend to make decisions much faster than I sometimes should, and this is something I need to work on.
Make a mental note of difficult situations, so you can review them later. If you're playing online, just look up the hand history and review it when you're done playing. Reviewing and analyzing hands away from the table is a very powerful tool for learning, but you should already know that. Still, as obvious as it may seem, this is something that almost no one does enough of. What should trigger a later analysis isn't whether or not you won the hand, but whether or not you had a difficult decision to make at some point. Compare to the non-trivial decision making above; all the situations where you realize that you need to mull it over, even if just a little, are things that are worth a review at a later time. Very often, you'll get checkraised on the turn, let's say, and decide to call anyway. Turns out the guy was overvaluing his middle pair and your pocket kings held up, and so you just shrug and move on. But if you had to think about it at the time, it's probably worth reviewing later on. Something in your mind told you that what he did was out of the ordinary, and you'd do well to check up on things like that. And, even though I feel like I'm repeating myself ad nauseam, if you find out that you did do the right thing, you've gained reinforcement of correct play. Practise, reinforcement, repetition, experience.
I don't know if there are players who are so skilled and experienced that they have very little left to learn about playing poker, but I think I'm generally correct in saying that mastering this game is a never-ending pursuit. I can always become better. You can always become better. How much effort we're willing to put into it is, naturally, what determines how quickly we'll advance. Knowledge is sadly not really a measurable goal. You can measure how many pages you've read, or how many hours you've spent analyzing your play, but you can't gauge how much you've learned. And what's worse, your results may not immediately improve either - it can take a long time for a new experience to start to pay off. This is pretty troublesome from a pedagogical point of view, since a treat (or a dragged pot) doesn't necessarily mean that we've played it right, nor does a slap (or a lost hand) mean that we played it wrong. This is why analytical reinforcement is so important. The results of the hand won't always (or even mostly) tell you whether or not you played well, so you have to do that job yourself.
Reinforce the good habits and plug the leaks that you get from bad habits. It's a lot of work, but it's very rewarding.

Lesson #6: Have Fun

Throughout the first five lessons, I've been working hard to get across the idea that playing poker isn't, for all but the most talented and lucky people, a fast track to riches and glory. I've stressed how much work is involved, the importance of setting goals and having discipline. But goals, discipline, bankroll management and extensive studying will not do you much good if you have to every day force yourself into doing it. Working purposefully and intensively can take some time to get used to, but it shouldn't be a painful and boring experience every step of the way. Quite frankly, very few people are so discplined that they will do something they just don't enjoy, day out and day in, when they're their own boss.
I don't want anyone to do that, and I don't expect anyone to do that. I hope that you'll do it because you will see results and reap rewards from it, and that that in turn will make what may seem like tedious timesinks into something enjoyable. I've kept repeating that setting goals is an important way to motivate yourself to work hard, but there's no motivator as powerful as having fun.
You should want to keep track of your bankroll, you should enjoy studying and you should have fun while playing. Why would you bother doing this, otherwise? If you're a discplined and intelligent enough person to be successful at poker, you're very likely to be able to make more money working for a company from 9-5, because people like you are highly sought after in the job market. Playing poker in order to make money is only worth it if you enjoy it, because it takes extreme talent to make it to the highest echelons where the big money is at. I suppose extreme and ridiculous luck will do the trick as well, but no article series is going to help you in getting lucky.
So remember to have fun. If you find yourself constantly frustrated at the poker table, ask yourself why you're playing to begin with. Anyone and everyone will feel frustrated in the course of a longer downswing, that's inevitable, but if you find yourself swearing and getting enraged at bad beats even when you're winning, you're either thriving on the rage (which I'm not sure is psychologically healthy) or you're not actually enjoying what you're doing and you're caught in a gambling addiction problem. You don't have to feel sincerely chipper about having your set cracked by a runner-runner flush, but if you find that you spend most of your time playing feeling angry or frustrated, something's wrong.
It's difficult to force yourself to enjoy something, if you don't already, but there are things you can do to at least get more out of it. Here's a psychological trick I've picked up in a book (a book that had nothing to about poker): Try to smile a little while you're playing. You don't have to sit and grin, but try to at least keep a somewhat happy or relaxed looking facial expression - even if you're playing online. See, the body is a weird mechanism, and there are actually relationships between facial expresssions and state of mind. If you're happy, you smile. But if you smile, your brain will subconciously be a little happier! For more on this phenomenon, check out  There are other psychological tricks you can employ to strengthen the sense of confidence and happiness, but this one is so simple that I had to share it.
Also, making friends among other poker players is a good thing. Doing so will bring a social side to what's otherwise a loner's game. Post on online forums and bring some humor into the mix, it can't hurt. Be nice and notice how others are nice to you. These friends will be there to support you through the bad times, and there to help you develop in the good runs.
And try to not see studying as a chore, but as a challenge. Try to figure out the pattern, like a riddle that should be solved. Reflect on why you played a certain why, and if you could have done it differently. What would have happened then? Was top pair a likely enough holding for your opponent that re-raising would be profitable in the long run or did he play the hand weirdly? Why does Sklansky recommend sometimes raising with hands like 98s preflop? This is not high school, and no one will grade you on your knowledge except you yourself.
If you cash out some portion of your winnings, do something fun for it. Go out and see a movie, buy some new toy. I bought a DVD player with a hard drive, which has an added benefit: It allows me to record shows I want to watch so I can catch up when I'm at a particularly juicy table. Or maybe, if you're doing well, a trip to Vegas? The money that you've won and that you've cashed out are yours to do whatever you want with.
I don't know what works for you, but there are ways to get enjoyment out of the game that aren't solely dependent on dragging a big pot. Ultimately, you'll have to figure this out for yourself. Just don't neglect the fun sides of it, and don't think that I recommend that you turn into a machine who works without pause or emotion. Being at a good state of mind will make everything easier, and it will allow you to keep it up.
No job is worth being miserable, and poker is no exception. "Being your own boss" can hardly be such a great thing if you walk through life unhappy about what you do. So remember to have fun.

Lesson #5: Discipline

In school and in the office, someone is - generally speaking - watching over your shoulder and making sure you're doing what you should be doing. You can get away with slacking when they're not looking, but you still have to report to someone at the end of the day, or the week, or the semester. For most, this is a strongly contributing factor in doing what you're actually supposed to be doing. But this factor is non-existant in poker: You won't have anyone to report to, there's no one who expects or requires that you do anything. You are, for better and - in this case - for worse, your own boss. When the only one you have to answer to is yourself, it takes a fair portion of discipline to actually do what you set out to do.
... Or at least it should. If you've given yourself a lot of slack in what you hope to achieve, this will be a walk in the park. But if you're serious about taking the road of poker as far as it will carry you, your goals probably shouldn't have too much leeway given for slacking. You should challenge yourself.
Discipline is needed for many different areas of poker. For instance, returning to Lesson #2 and the Anna example there, if she has set out to play 5,000 hands per month, she needs to actually do that. Hopefully, you won't need to much discipline to play the game. If you find that you just don't want to play, then there is an obvious risk that you shouldn't be focusing on this game at all.
But Anna also specified which limits she was going to play at, and conditions for when she would move down or up in the ranks. Really sticking to this, and not refusing to move down after a bad downswing takes discipline; we all have a little devil on our shoulder telling us that if we stay at the limits we're playing (or even climb!) we can quicker win back what we've lost. Resisting that urge takes discipline.
The previous lesson dealt with realistic goals in building a bankroll, with the basic conclusion that it takes time, because the relative profits that are made are low in comparison to the limits we play. If you make one or two big bets per hour, how many hours of playing does, for instance, logging on and playing while being roaringly drunk cost you? I'm not saying you can't be outrageously drunk (I'm all for that) but recklessness can easily set you back weeks in terms of bankroll progress. It's unnecessary.
You also need to be disciplined about other things, such as studying. If you've told yourself that you will sit down and carefully read and analyze hands three hours a week - because you know how important this is to your personal development as a player - your job is not done there. Making the decision is easy, it's actually doing it that's hard. "Easier said than done" is rarely as true as when it pertains to planning homework. But while on the topic of studying, again, I want to point out that while you'll need some discipline to do the time that you've promised yourself you'll do, the part that's actually going to require more discipline is the self-criticism, so let me talk about that.
Psychologically, people are mostly very defensive. There are, for instance, countless courses on how to give and take criticism because of this. I've attended a few in the line of duty. If we were computers, receiving criticism would be a piece of cake. Someone tells us we screwed up, we look at the situation, objectively decide that he's correct, and adjust. In reality, however, someone telling us we screwed up will trigger all sorts of self-defense mechanisms in our psyche. The most common reaction is to claim that the criticism doesn't apply to us. The second is to vividly argue (or at the very least, feel) that we didn't screw up at all, and dismiss our critic as ignorant: "he would never bluff in that spot!" or to blame something or someone else. The third way of defending ourselves against criticism is to give excuses.
Accepting criticism and embracing it is tough, and for me personally, it's even harder to give criticism that I know can be accepted and embraced. However, when you're asking someone else to analyze your play, you're in most cases not asking someone who's professionally trained to give sensitive criticism, so chances are he or she won't be as smooth or as harsh as they need to be. And so again, you need the discipline to take it for what it is - someone else helping you. But even after getting soar spot after soar spot poked at by other players, you need to swallow your pride and keep asking for more of it. This is the part that really takes discipline, but it will pay off and it's worth it.
Now, speaking of soar spots, I have one more piece of advice relating to discipline to share in this lesson: the importance of being honest to yourself when things aren't working the way you want them to. Maybe you're not putting in as many hours of studying as you had originally planned. Maybe you went on a terrible downswing and hesitate to re-count your bankroll to see just how bad it's been going. But you already know that you should, and the only thing standing between you and something you can and should do, is to actually do it. Discipline.

Bankroll Management


Bankroll management is the process in which a player decides how much of their money they should risk in any given game, specifically in regards to poker. If you are simply playing for fun, then play for whatever stakes make you happy. Otherwise, if you are trying to maximize your chances of growing your bankroll in the long term, then read on.

Never play with scared money

The first rule of bankroll management is to never play with scared money. By scared money I mean money that you need for important things like rent, food, or other necessities. Not only could this ruin you life, but it will undoubtedly effect your play, usually for the worse. Your bankroll should be an amount of money set aside specifically for poker.

Let your bankroll always determine your limits

After some minor adjustments, your bankroll should determine the stakes in the game you sit down at, every time you sit down. This rule is very simple in theory, but gets a little complicated when you look at the details. The purpose of doing this is so that when you inevitably take a big downward swing, it usually won't bankrupt you. Your starting bankroll should be whatever you are comfortable with (i.e. an amount you won't cry about if you lose it). With sites like Poker888 you can select from games as low as 1¢/2¢, so you should be able to follow these rules even with a very small deposit.

Limit vs. no-limit cash games

In limit cash games, the general consensus seems to be that you should have a bankroll of about 300 big bets. So if your bankroll is $150, then a good game to play would be .25/.50. No limit cash games are much more volatile, so when you do have a bad run of variance, you'll need more of a cushion. A typical no limit cash game player should have about 20 maximum buyins in his/her roll. The max buyin is usually 100 times the big blind, so that works out to 2,000 big blinds if you want to think of it that way. So if your bankroll is $500 a good limit to play would be .10/.25. I realize that sounds like peanuts, but no limit cash games can get bloody very quickly.

Sit and go's and Multi-table tournaments

For sit and go tournaments (often referred to as SnG's), a rule of thumb is to have at least 25 buyins in your bankroll before going for one of these tournaments. Multi-table tournaments (MTT's) with fields as high as 5,000 players are exceedingly volatile investments. A very good player is very likely to only cash in about 15% of these large tournaments, however if you do cash, the winnings could be gigantic. MTT entries should be few and far between if you even play them at all. If you were really serious about playing MTTs regularly for long term profit, I think a bankroll in the range of 60-100 buyins sounds reasonable.

Styles of play

The numbers given so far are only guidelines, as your style of play will effect these numbers greatly. If you are a winning, solid conservative player, you may be able to lower your threshold of 300x big bets in limit down to 200x since your variance should be more stable. Note that this will put you in a high risk / high reward game. On the other hand if you are a hyper-aggressive type player, you may need to up it to 500x to handle those bigger swings. Additionally, if you play poker for a living, you may want to up it to 500x just to take things conservatively in order to make sure you can easily pay bills even after a losing streak. Again, the opposite of that position would be if you are willing to make more risky play in the hopes of building your bankroll quickly, or if you can easily afford to lose your entire bankroll without a sweat. In these cases you can consider dropping your threshold down to 200x for limit cash games as an example. However you slice it, figure out your metric and stick to it. You do not want to suddenly change these requirements because you think you are doing very well or you need to 'make up' some losses. Any changes should come slowly so that you can account for variance.

Changing Levels

After you have established your metric, changing levels should be a no brainer. Once your bankroll can support higher limits, move up. If you have taken some losses, then don't be too proud to move down. Moving down in limits happens to the very best players, don't let it effect your play. Chances are that in the long run, even with a big cushion in your bankroll, you will probably even go bust at some point. Most professional poker players have a story about going bust, just don't let it happen to you suddenly. You would have to be some sort of superman to go from 1¢/2¢ up to $30/$60 without having to go down in levels at some point. Of course your available games will vary depending on which site you decide to play, so if the site you are playing on doesn't offer a $2 + $0.20 SnG game, you should stay down in the $1 + $0.10 buyin games until your bankroll is ready for the $5 + $0.50 game. He is an example metric for a tight aggressive SnG player:

Bankroll                                      SnG Buyin
$25-$124 $1 + $0.10
$125-$249 $5 + $0.50
$250-$499 $10 + $1
$500-$749 $20 + $2
$750-$1,249 $30 + $3
$1,250-$2,499 $50 + $5
$2,500-$4,999 $100 + $9
$5,000-$12,499 $200 + $15
$12,500+ $500 + $30
Bankroll SnG Buyin


















Lesson 4: Building a Poker Bankroll

The overall theme of this series, if it isn't obvious yet, is that mastering poker and reaching our goals takes time - a lot of time. It's this investment of time that makes it so vital to define our goals and our plan on how to reach them. Spending time working in one direction only to find we didn't really want to be where we ended up is unfortunate. Spending time working to reach a goal only to come to a late realization that it's unattainable is also unfortunate. Proper planning should minimize the risk of these things happening.
But this lesson is about taking into account that building a bankroll is, or can be, a slow and tedious process as well. Some people take a shot and win a (relative to their bankroll) huge amount of money in a tournament which allows them to move up very quickly. Many more people take shots and lose their stake; hopefully they realized that this was the more likely outcome. Some other people refuse to take shots and simply grind their way up, moving up in the ranks no sooner than their bankroll is good for it. I'm one of those people, although I wouldn't presume to say that it's the only - or even necessarily the best - way to work one's way up. Different things work for different people.
What's clear to me, however, is that unless you're an exceptional player who just happens to be a bit short on money right now, the average time it will take you to reach higher limits will be about the same regardless of if you take shots or grind yourself up. If you know that you're a lot more skilled than the opposition, playing higher games than you're technically bankrolled for is alright, and so you may be able to save yourself some time by taking shots.
But if you move along the usual path of progression, learning as you go and therefore ensuring that you're ahead of the curve already before moving up (and thus keeping a solid win-rate), I have some interesting numbers to show you:
Let's say that you're a limit hold 'em player, and your goal is to reach the $10/$20 tables. You figure that your average win-rate, if you're disciplined and work hard on studying (as discussed in the last chapter), will be somewhere around one to two big bets per 100 hands played. Your original investment was to take out $300 from your savings account and deposit it into a poker site and you use a fairly standard rule of keeping a 300 big bet bankroll, meaning that you will not move up until you've built up 300 big bets of the next rank among limits. Your starting capital will let you play at $.50/$1 tables. How many hands will it take you to reach $10/$20, if you can truly sustain a win-rate of 1 big bet/100 hands all the way up?
Easy. You need to win 300 big bets at $.50/$1, which is simply 300 x 100 hands (you win one bet per 100 hands) = 30,000 hands. A single table deals about 80 hands per hour; meaning that you're looking at 375 hours of time at the table. If you study one hour for every two played (as I've mentioned in previous articles), you're suddenly looking at 535 hours spent on poker. In terms of a regular day job, that's a little more than 13 weeks. Thirteen weeks! Just to get from $.50/$1 to $1/$2! And then you have another 13 weeks to get from $1/$2 to $2/$4, etc.
Of course, if you multi-table (and sustain your win-rate) you can cut down this time by quite a bit. And if your win-rate is higher than 1BB/100, that will of course also influence how fast you get to where you're going. But even at playing four tables at once at a win-rate of 2BB/100, we're still talking about 47 hours at the table, or about 1.5 weeks of work. Aha, now it sounded easy, didn't it? 1.5 weeks is not that much. But I know of very few people who are capable of four-tabling for a long term profit of 2BB/100 successfully. So, realistically, you're looking at quite a bit more than that.
So why am I bringing this up? Because I want you to understand that this is not a game of instant gratification, and that if you think you'll be playing $10/$20 within a few months, you're kidding yourself.
Another thing to consider is that you may wish to cash out some profit once in awhile. There are several reasons for why you'd want to do this, but to name a few:
  1. It's a reward for good work; a pat on the back if you will. I discussed this in Lesson #2.
  2. You can use the money to pay for books, hand analyzing software, etc.
  3. If your significant other has a problem with you playing poker, cashing out your earnings and taking her or him out to dinner for the winnings is a good way to avoid arguments. Trust me on this one.
  4. If you lose everything, you'll still have the money you've cashed out.
The problem - if you can call it that - with cashing out, is that it's yet another factor that hampers your bankroll progress. But if you've already come to terms with the fact that you're in it for the long haul, then the extra delay that occurs because you're getting something "real" out of your effort is perhaps not such a bad thing. Furthermore, slowing down your bankroll progress is not necessarily counter-productive.
If you go on a hot streak, seemingly being invincible, you can make a huge profit in a fairly short period of time even at the low limit tables. I've had sessions of a thousand hands where everything went my way, quickly making 150 BB or so. This can be deceiving, because you're not actually that good: No one's that good. This fast bankroll boost, in turn, can make you move up before you're actually ready for it, before you've actually learned all the things you needed to learn prior to sitting down at the next level. Cashing out excess profit will effectively take the edge of that problem.Your bankroll will increase at half its speed (but still drop at normal speed) so upswings won't push you too far too quickly as easily.
Speaking for myself, I've chosen to cash out half of everything I earn. It's simple to keep track of, it gives me a decent amount of pocket change and it keeps me from playing limits I'm not really ready for yet. I've spent a lot of time at each of the limits I've played, and this has given me plenty of time to learn what I need to learn before moving up. So far, I've been ready to crush the game at the new level even before I've gotten there.
Now, when I say "half of what I earn" I don't mean half of the profits from any given session, I should point out. What I do is to keep track - on a weekly basis - of the size of my bankroll. When my bankroll is at a new maximum (which thankfully happens pretty often), I simply take out half of the difference between the new maximum and the old one - half the profit. If I go into a slump, I don't cash out anything until I've reached a new record, etc. In practice, I cash out $100 whenever my bankroll has increased by $200, for simplicity.
But to summarize this lesson: Building a bankroll the conventional way takes a lot of time. Don't expect miracles, because miracles by definition don't happen very often. Instead, take this slow advancement as a good time to learn more about the game and practice hard. At the higher limits, the challenges will be much greater, and you will be able to make good use of the experience you amass here, once you get there.

Lesson #3: Studying

 TOP 5 Poker books

1) Doyle Brunson's Super System: A Course in Power Poker, 3rd Edition

2) Harrington on Hold 'em Expert Strategy for No Limit Tournaments, Vol. 1: Strategic Play 

3) Caro's Book of Poker Tells

4) Ken Warren Teaches Texas Hold'em

5) Phil Hellmuth's Texas Hold 'Em



Learning poker will take a whole lot of playing it, but what separates the experts from the novices is often the time spent on studying the game away from the table. I'm not just talking about reading books (although that is surely a big part of it) because lots of people read books but never excel at poker. No, you need to study the books, not just read them. There's a huge difference, and anyone who's ever gone to school (that presumably includes all of you) will know what I mean. Sure, I can read through the entire book I have on calculus, probably pretty fast, too. I can even feel like I get what the author is saying, and have no real trouble following the lines of reasoning about integrals and derivatives. But if all I do is read it, I'm going to flunk the test for sure. I need to practise what I've learned to fully absorb it, and so all math courses (this goes for virtually any subject, but math is a convenient example) supply their students with problems to solve, helping them to absorb the knowledge they've just read about.
Few poker books do this, with a very notable - and commendable - exception of the Harrington on Hold 'em series. Many of the other Two Plus Two publishing books have quizzes at the end to help you test your knowledge, but most of them fall hopelessly short of a standard that would allow the book itself to be enough material for absorbing the concepts it contains. Therefore, we need to work harder than just reading the books. In fact, without a stern teacher and an upcoming test that we may flunk, mustering the motivation to force ourselves to study at all may be hard.
But I realize - as do you, surely - that learning more about the game is the way we come to the point where we can beat it. And so the problem is not that we don't understand that we'd be better off if we study hard, the problem is that hard work is often not fun. We need to be motivated to pull it off, and making a habit out of studying takes time and discipline. That's the core of this lesson: Realize that learning takes time and plan accordingly.
Furthermore, we must realize that studying doesn't end at some point; we don't graduate. The money that we make in this game come from the mistakes of others and our job is to make fewer mistakes than our opponents - or more specifically, less costly ones - which is how we show a profit. Competition at its finest. But our opponents aren't dumb - well, not all of them at least, and the dumb ones become fewer and more far between as we move up in limits - and they learn more about the game for every day that passes, too. In order to keep our win-rate where we want it to be, or even keep winning at all, we need to stay ahead of the curve. We need to know more about the game than they do and we need to work harder than they do so that we can keep outsmarting them. For this reason, there's no end in sight, no light in the tunnel, no day when our job of studying is done. Learning is a continuous process in poker.
I can't stress this enough. It seems very obvious to me that most of my opponents today have read many of the same books I have, even at the low limits. I see them applying concepts that I recognize so well that I could almost pinpoint the page where they read about them. Of course, they misapply a lot of them, and that's why I'm still profiting. They have read the books, gotten the general idea, but they still fall short of understanding how to apply the concepts. You don't want to be one of those people, you want to be one of the ones who know how to beat those people. You've got to know more than they do.
I spend at least one third of my "poker time" studying. For every two hours I spend at the table, I try to spend one hour reading books, analyzing hands, posting hands on boards, etc. Sometimes I play a session with the specific purpose of practising something new. Specific tips on how to make good use of the time we spend studying are found in Lesson #7. How much time you are willing to spend on learning more about the game is of course a matter of choice, but I put in about 10 hours a week on poker, and spending on average three of those hours working on improving my game away from the table has worked for me so far.
You would do well to take this - studying - into account when you plan how you will spend your time on poker. How strict you want to be about it is, of course, a matter of preference. Perhaps you want to take a whole week to finish a specific book before you go back to the tables, or perhaps you like to spend only 30 minutes here and there on it; do whatever suits you best. But be prepared to spend a lot of time on it. No, be willing to spend a lot of time on it. You already know that it's the right thing to do, but it's up to you - and only you - to actually make it happen.
I believe there's also a risk of overstudying. The theoretical knowledge of 20 books doesn't mean much without the experience that tells you how to use it properly, so for the best result, you should balance these two. Although I spend on average one third of my time studying (in "studying" I basically include all the time spent away from the table actively thinking about poker), this is not something that I've scheduled rigorously - I don't set the alarm for Sunday morning so I can go up and review sessions in PokerTracker. I think the best thing that can happen is that you're excited and curious about the game, so that you freely look up the information, rather than having the "must study"-sign hanging like a weight around your neck. Learning new things is fun for me, and I hope it's fun for you, too. It makes the whole process so much easier. So if you find that you're just not interested at the moment to continue reading the book you're trying to work your way through at the moment, take a break from it. Play poker instead, let the book rest for awhile. While studying is virtually a must to become better, it doesn't have to be a "must-right-now." Forcing yourself to learn something is pretty inefficient, and I think you'll find you have much better results if you spend your time on it when you actually feel like it.
If you have a busy schedule and only a determined number of hours every week to spend on poker, make sure that you don't set goals that require such a high number of hands played that you leave no room left for learning more about the game. Remember: You must stay ahead of the curve!