Author: T

Having selected a game and found a seat, there is one further question that needs to be addressed before starting play – how many chips should you purchase at the start of a session? Typically, when you take a seat you will be prompted to buy-in for a certain amount, e.g. $80 for $2/$4 hold’ em, $200 for $5/$10, $800 for $20/$40 etc. These figures are perfectly reasonable for a single session at the respective limits. However, there is certainly an argument for buying-in for a little more than these amounts, since if you experience a bad run at the start of a session, you are less likely to be marked down as a target by the other players – bigger stacks do receive more respect. A buy-in of 20 or 30 big bets is certainly a perfectly acceptable figure when you first sit down. Players who sit down with 10 big bets or fewer immediately draw attention to themselves as perhaps either being inadequately bankrolled or taking a shot at a bigger game than they are used to, perhaps playing with ‘scared’ money. On rare occasions a player will manage to convert a $50 buy-in at a $5/$10 game into several hundred dollars, but far more often they will quickly run out of funds and be forced to re-buy or leave the table.

The issue of ‘money management’ is a somewhat controversial one in poker literature. Some players advocate the adoption of a single-session ‘stop-loss’ policy, whereby if you lose a certain predetermined amount you should immediately quit playing, whereas others argue that you should stay in the game until you are no longer favoured to be making money, regardless of whether you are winning or losing at that particular point.

Until you become an experienced online player, it is certainly worth considering adopting Annie Duke’s ’30-bet rule’, limiting single-session losses to 30 big bets. In an article published at UltimateBet.com, she argues that ‘unless you are able to accurately judge how you play compared to others, loss-limiting with the 30-bet rule effectively stops you from dumping off large sums of money in games you may not be able to beat.’ Furthermore, it prevents additional losses that may be incurred by being identified as a target by the other players in the game, or possibly either playing too softly or going on tilt: ‘By limiting your losses to 30 big bets, you are effectively minimising the time you spend playing with a poor table image, playing passively, or steaming at the table, and maximising the amount of time you spend playing your A-game,’ she adds.

Although $800 may be a sufficient sum for a single session of $20/$40, it is just that – a bankroll for a single session. To allow for the vagaries of chance, a minimum online poker bankroll of $4,000 would probably be required to compete in this game on a regular basis. Indeed, many experts recommend that your total bankroll should ideally be of the order of 300 big bets (i.e. $12,000 or more in this instance), although naturally the higher your hourly earnings rate, the fewer big bets you will require in your bankroll.

If you play only for fun, risking small amounts in micro- or low-limit games with no real aspirations of developing into a higher stakes player, then your bankroll requirement is simply what spare cash you have available and are prepared to put at risk. After all, many people spend thousands of dollars each year on other recreational pursuits such as golf, tennis and skiing, and they do not expect to make a profit from these activities. By the same token, there is of course nothing wrong with playing online poker purely as a hobby rather than as a means of earning money, just so long as you enjoy it and have the spare discretionary income to finance any losses.

Having said that, many people do naturally aspire to be winning players at the higher levels, perhaps one day competing in the big $40/$80 hold’em game at Paradise Poker or the $30/$60 game at PartyPoker. You should aim to maintain a bankroll of around 300 big bets at the limit at which you play, gradually moving up in limit as your bankroll increases and you become a proven long-term winner (averaging at least one big bet per hour over the course of at least 100 hours’ play) at each succeeding limit.

If you are unable to win at least one big bet an hour in the long run then 300 big bets is insufficient to guard against the going broke, and you would be well advised to play at a lower limit. Furthermore, as Mike Caro has pointed out, the larger your bankroll, the more you should seek to protect it. There is therefore a strong argument for maintaining a larger proportional bankroll as you move up through the limits and your risk-exposure increases.

These figures could perhaps be doubled if you are playing exclusively heads-up, where the swings can be up to twice as great (that is, unless you are a truly exceptional heads-up player). However, if you are an Omaha hi/lo rather than hold’em player, a bankroll of 100 rather than 300 big bets might be sufficient for a winning player, since the variance in split games such as Omaha hi/lo is so much lower. (Incidentally, the ante and bring-in structure of online seven-card stud is so variable that it does not lend itself to this kind of linear analysis. For example, the $3/$6 game at PartyPoker and $6/$12 game at PokerStars both have the same $0.50 ante structure.)

One problem which many players run into eventually is that, having worked their way up through the limits, gradually building up their bankroll, they then experience a really bad run. At this point it would probably be most prudent for them to drop down in limit in order to replenish their bankroll (and perhaps restore some lost confidence). However, this kind of decision is problematic for many players, since their ego won’t let them take what they perceive as a backwards step. It is also important to remember that losing players actually require a bankroll that is sufficient to finance their losses over a lifetime – the only useful recommendation for such players is to work at their game and become a winning player; bankroll requirements are clearly redundant in this instance.

Whatever the size of your bankroll, it is inadvisable to not keep large sums of cash with a single online poker site, unless that amount is required to finance your regular play. There have been instances in the past where sites have gone out of business, leaving a trail of unhappy depositors in their wake, and there is always the possibility that it could happen again. When in doubt – cash out!

If you are used to playing in live-action games, it is worth remembering that in an online game at the same limit your hourly swings will inevitably be much greater, due to the many more hands that you will be dealt every hour – you may therefore find yourself effectively playing ‘higher’ than you would ordinarily be comfortable with. Whether you are playing in high stakes games or at micro-limits, there is one golden rule to bear in mind – never gamble with money that you cannot afford to lose. Please gamble responsibly.

At brick and mortar cardrooms short-handed (i.e. six players or fewer) games are generally quite unpopular. The nature of poker is such that each game requires a table and a dealer whether there are four players or ten, so from the cardroom’s point of view, full games are a far more economically viable option. Furthermore, many players are uncomfortable playing in short-handed games, which require that they make adjustments to their play, since the standard full 10-player ring game tactics are usually unprofitable in this instance. Indeed, some players try to avoid playing short-handed at all, if possible, either taking a break or leaving the game altogether when numbers run short, whereas those players who do prefer short-handed games are often able to play for only a brief while before the game either fills up or breaks up altogether.

However, as a result of online poker a new breed of player has emerged – the short-handed specialist. These players focus on the special five- and six-player (and even heads-up) tables that most sites offer as an alternative to normal ring games. Unlike brick and mortar cardrooms, online sites are generally more than happy to accommodate these short-handed tables, since of course they do not have to pay a dealer or take up valuable floor space with such games. Furthermore, the fast-paced nature of these games is ideal for the cardroom from a rake standpoint.

The main attraction of online short-handed games from the player’s point of view is obvious: such games are dealt at a much quicker rate than a normal ring game (typically well over 100 hands per hour for hold’em), so if you are the best player at the table, your advantage will be greatly enhanced. In addition, the quite different nature of the short-handed game (in particular, the increased importance of attacking and defending the blinds since, with the blinds coming around so quickly, you cannot afford simply to wait for premium hands) lends itself more to a looser, more aggressive ‘action’ style of play, which is particularly suited to those players who don’t enjoy having to wait patiently for a good hand. Furthermore, if you are able to identify a desirable opponent, you are that much more likely to be able to benefit from their bad play, whereas in a full game other players may reap the rewards rather than you.

Typically the maximum rake for a typical six-handed game is capped at $2 compared to the usual $3 for a full 10-player ring game, despite the fact that the average pot size is often not that much smaller, since short-handed play generally has more raising and re-raising than full ring play. Set against this, of course, each individual player will be winning a greater percentage of pots than they would in a full game, and will therefore be obliged to pay the rake far more often (although in short-handed games more hands are decided pre-flop, without a rake being charged). Certainly, if you prefer heads-up play, it is important to choose your site carefully, since heads-up rakes can vary tremendously, but in general if you have good control over your opponents you should be able to beat the rake in a normal short-handed game.

Rather than focusing on five- or six-player tables per se, one strategy that short-handed experts sometimes use is to search out full 10-player ring games that are either just breaking up or just getting underway. This way they are able to compete advantageously against full ring game specialists in a short-handed game, rather than merely against other short-handed specialists.

Whether you are someone who heads straight to the short-handed games, or immediately leaves a game when it is reduced to six players or fewer, is largely a matter of taste. If your playing style leans towards waiting patiently for good opportunities (using better hand selection strategy than most of your opponents), then you will probably be best suited to normal ring games, but if you enjoy the cut-and-thrust of a poker game, in which bluff meets counter-bluff and bet meets check-raise bluff, then online short-handed games may prove to be your forte.

Whereas most live-action players (outside of California and Las Vegas) have a very restricted choice of possible games, the range of games on offer online is immense. Instead of driving to a cardroom, placing your name on the $5/$10 list and taking a seat when it becomes available, online you can choose between several limits, with many sites even offering several simultaneous games at the same limit. With so many different games to choose from, selecting the right opportunity becomes a much more important aspect of the game. Indeed, for players at $5/$10 and above, in particular, the consistent ability to identify good games in which to play have a significant effect on your bottom line at the end of the year – game selection becomes that much more important as you move up in limits.

Finding your Limit
The first and most fundamental aspect of game selection is identifying the correct limit at which to play: one that is commensurate with your abilities and bankroll; not so high that you feel intimidated, and not ‘ so low that you become bored and fail to play your best game.

In general, the standard of opposition will rise as you move up in limit, since you would hardly expect someone with the ability to beat a $10/$20 game to be playing in a $1/$2 game; it would simply not be worth their while. However, it is sometimes argued that some of the players in the $30/$60 game at TitanPoker are considerably weaker than those that frequent the $5/$10 game. One possible explanation for this is the fact that some $30/$60 players may be very wealthy and are naturally drawn towards the higher limits to make the stakes meaningful, regardless of whether they possess the requisite poker skills or not.

In contrast, the $5/$10 games at Titan Poker are neither big enough to provide excitement for these wealthy ‘action’ players, nor small enough to appeal to poker newcomers, most of whom will naturally choose to begin their apprenticeship at $3/$6 and below. Furthermore, some winning $30/$60 brick and mortar players may choose to play at lower limits online for reasons of trust, fearing the possibility of collusion.

Thus sometimes the $5/$10 PartyPoker games are filled with solid, experienced players who lack the bankroll or confidence to play at higher limits. Having said all that, the nature of poker is such that successful players do gravitate towards the higher limits, so the very best online players can nearly always be found playing at the highest limits available.

In a fairly recent (2001) Card Player article Nolan Dalla put forward the interesting theory that ‘the highest-limit games do not necessarily equate to the greatest potential win amount.’ He claims that over the years he has made far more money playing in the second-highest game in a brick and mortar cardroom than the highest, and in such circumstances he will often prefer a $10/$20 game to a $20/40 game. His theory rests on the following arguments:
•    The highest-limit game will usually contain the best players at the cardroom.
•    The highest-limit game may contain players who would usually play even higher if such a game were to be spread.
•    The second-highest game will often contain a cross-section of players, including players who are not good enough for the higher game and those who are stepping up from low-limit games to ‘take a shot’ at a higher limit.
•    The second-highest game will usually contain more ‘loose-passive’ players than the highest game, and this absence of aggression (with many players seeing the flop without a raise) is, he believes, exactly what you should be looking for in a game.

Dalla concludes that ‘A winning player can make just as much playing one limit lower than his normal game – providing that the players are considerably weaker.’ Instead, many players become tied to their ego, believing that it would be a step backwards to play in, to use his example, a $10/$20 game when they usually play higher. Don’t fall into this trap – by all means strive to find the ‘ideal’ limit for your ability and bankroll, but at the same time you should be flexible enough to move up or down depending upon the specific game selection opportunities available at that particular time.