Playing at lower $$ levels can help you win at poker.

[Alan Mendelson]

The other day I was playing poker with a group of experienced players and the subject quickly became about choosing games and table limits.

One player offered this comment: "Playing above your limit is the surest way to lose."

That really makes a lot of sense.

While the game of poker doesn't change if you are playing at a $40 buy-in game or at $5,000 buy-in game, YOU the player, can change with the denomination of the game. Let me explain more.

It's only natural for players to preserve the money they have. But in poker, a desire to protect your money from loss can keep you from winning money. It's happened like that to me several times, for example:

My original buy-in of $100 has now grown to a bit more than $500 and I decide that at this point I want to "go home" with at least $500. So I decide only to play the best starting hands such as AA or KK. As a result, I fold and don't even consider playing pocket tens or pocket threes, but as fate would have it, I would have won those hands with a set or a full house. Once I even laid down a pair that had I played would have made quads.

What kept me from playing was the idea of conserving my win.

So when you reach a chip stack that you want to conserve, don't sit around waiting for AA and KK and let your blinds get lost. If you have reached your win goal leave, and take the extra blind money with you.

But let's look at the reverse situation, which is the original premise of this. Say you bought in to a game that is above your comfort zone and now you become overly defensive and you fold cards that would have won but were afraid to bet because they weren't the best starting hands.

Well, you might never get AA or KK or AK in a poker game, and you can't let your stack get blinded away waiting for those starting monsters. To put it bluntly, playing above your limit forced you to become guarded to the point that you let yourself be blinded out.

But when you play in a "comfort zone" and at table denomination that is right for you, you will not be as protective or as defensive, and you will be able to take the chances that can make you a winner.

[arcimede$]

Believe it or not this also happens to some VP players. They want to play higher denominations but often start betting one or two coins because they are losing. This reduces their long term return just like "blinding" reduces the poker players return.

[Vegas Vic]

From the Casino City Times: “Playing poker is sort of like riding a roller coaster: it's up and down, speed up, slow down, first you're scared and then you're bored. And when the ride is over and you get up to leave, you usually feel like throwing up.”

[Alan Mendelson]

From the Casino City Times: “Playing poker is sort of like riding a roller coaster: it's up and down, speed up, slow down, first you're scared and then you're bored. And when the ride is over and you get up to leave, you usually feel like throwing up.”

That quote makes me think about two players at my table the other night. When I sat down at the table (It was a $100 buy-in) one had $600+ the other had $900+. Less than three hours late, the $900+ player was busted and walking out. The $600+ player had dropped to as low as $80 but managed to win a hand that brought him back to about $150.

I am sure they both felt like throwing up.

I walked out when my $100 buy-in turned into about $520. I felt fine.

[Vegas Vic]

That quote makes me think about two players at my table the other night. When I sat down at the table (It was a $100 buy-in) one had $600+ the other had $900+. Less than three hours late, the $900+ player was busted and walking out. The $600+ player had dropped to as low as $80 but managed to win a hand that brought him back to about $150.

I am sure they both felt like throwing up.

I walked out when my $100 buy-in turned into about $520. I felt fine.

You're just a roller coaster pro.

[Alan Mendelson]

You're just a roller coaster pro.

There are players who like the roller coaster ride. I don't. I try to enter each hand with a small amount of chips and hope to catch the cards that will give me the nuts. The exceptions are when I have made hands such as AA or KK.

At the table I wrote about above, my second biggest win came with JJ. I did not raise pre flop and only called a raise to $10. Then a J came on the flop for a set. I won about $150 in that pot because the flop was J52 and when the K came on the turn a player with AK started betting big. After the hand the player next to me asked why I didn't raise pre flop with my pocket jacks? My answer was simple: JJ can't win without a good flop.

[Vegas Vic]

Video Poker roller coasters are frustrating, but they keep me humble.

[Alan Mendelson]

Video poker and live poker are absolutely two different games. You can't possibly compare the two. Let's go over the list again:

1. In live poker, you don't have to "play" each hand. If your cards aren't good, you don't play.
2. In live poker, you can raise your opponents and force them to fold. An RNG never folds.
3. In live poker, you can bluff. You can't bluff an RNG.
4. In video poker, one hand wins. But in live poker it is the best of several hands that wins.
5. In live poker, you don't know what the other guys have. In video poker there are no "hole cards."

Need more?

[Vegas Vic]

Video poker and live poker are absolutely two different games. You can't possibly compare the two. Let's go over the list again:

1. In live poker, you don't have to "play" each hand. If your cards aren't good, you don't play.
2. In live poker, you can raise your opponents and force them to fold. An RNG never folds.
3. In live poker, you can bluff. You can't bluff an RNG.
4. In video poker, one hand wins. But in live poker it is the best of several hands that wins.
5. In live poker, you don't know what the other guys have. In video poker there are no "hole cards."

Need more?

I am not comparing the two games. What I said was a simple statement that the roller coaster effect (ups & downs...rushes & boring inactivity...and feeling like throwing up when you're done) can occur in VP. Players can feel like they just got off a roller coaster in other casino games like craps & blackjack as well.

[Alan Mendelson]

Agreed.

What really makes me feel like throwing up is like what happened with those guys at the poker table... the $900 stack goes bust. The $600 stack loses most of it.

There were many, many, many (damn... there were too many times) when I was thousands of dollars ahead at VP and gave it all back trying to hit a royal. And that is what convinced me that Singer's win goal method is good. And it certainly can't hurt, can it?

[arcimede$]

Singer's win goal method

http://www.gamblingteachers.com/gambling-systems.html

[Alan Mendelson]

What is your point?

I find it ironic that you would post Larry Edell's article about using win/goal methods. When Singer advocates these for video poker you condemn him for it. But it's okay for Larry Edell to write about them for table games, which is what he did in this article?

Note: Larry Edell primarily writes about table games including craps, and not video poker.

But if your point was to show that Singer was not the originator of win/loss goals, we all knew that before. Because Singer uses a win/goal system and advocates a win/goal system doesn't mean he claims to be the originator.

So, Arc, I suspect this was another of your jabs at Singer. But if your "point" is different, please explain what it is?

[arcimede$]

What is your point?

Very simple. Win goals have been a known technique by gamblers forever. You're attempts to give Singer credit for this is where you go off the rails.

I find it ironic that you would post Larry Edell's article about using win/goal methods. When Singer advocates these for video poker you condemn him for it. But it's okay for Larry Edell to write about them for table games, which is what he did in this article?

I knew you'd fail to understand the situation. Once again I have never condemned Singer for win goals. That is another one of your imaginary fantasies. I just keep pointing out they have nothing to do with Singer. Win goals (and loss limits) are useful when playing negative games as I have said several times. The table games are all negative games. Get it now?

[Alan Mendelson]

Sorry Arc, but there is no news here. No one ever said Singer was the originator of win goals. Try another angle, and another attack. This one is a zero.

[arcimede$]

Sorry Arc, but there is no news here. No one ever said Singer was the originator of win goals. Try another angle, and another attack. This one is a zero.

You've asserted that he is many times. Don't you read your own comments?

When you say things like "Singer's win goals" you have lost the argument.

[Alan Mendelson]

Because Singer uses win goals, and because I refer to Singer saying that he uses win goals, does not mean that Singer originated win goals. You are really being a jerk.