Personality Cafe banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Stats:

ITM: 18.75%
VPIP: 24.57
PFR: 21.43
3Bet PF: 13.24
Fold to 3Bet PF: 76.79
4Bet + PF: 11.76
Fold to 4Bet PF: 45.45
Call PF 3Bet: 17.86
4Bet + Ratio: 4.54
PF Squeeze: 8.06
WTSD %: 52.03
WSD: 50.65
WWSF: 44.59
CBet F: 79.55
CBet T: 93.33
CBet R: 45.45
CBet F Suc: 37.14
CBet T Suc: 7.14
CBet R Suc: 20.00
Fold to F CBet: 57.14
Fold to T CBet: 100.00
PF Pos. Aware: 1.85
Call R Eff: 0.00
Att to Steal: 38.33
3Bet Steal: 16.95
Fold to Steal: 77.63
Total AF: 9.00
AFq: 64.29

Stats by position:
BTN VPIP: 22.78 PFR: 17.76
CO VPIP: 24.14 PFR: 22.70
MP VPIP: 23.11 PFR: 22.31
EP VPIP: 13.90 PFR: 13.98
BB VPIP: 26.57 PFR: 21.43
SB: VPIP 39.75 PFR: 31.21

Playstyle:

Tight versus Loose

A tight player plays few hands (VPIP < 20%), and a loose player plays a lot of hands (VPIP > 20%). 20% VPIP is just the cutoff percentage. Of course, players can be ultra-tight at 5% or ultra-loose at 95%.
Passive versus Aggressive
A passive player doesn’t raise preflop that often (PFR < 15%) and an aggressive player raises a lot (PFR > 15%). Again, 15% is just the cutoff with the ultra-passive player having a PFR of 1% and the mega-aggressive player at 45%.

My VPIP is 25% and my PFR is 21%. This means I generally play a lot of hands and that i'm quite agressive, which makes me feared but also very unpredictable. If those stats are lower, you know they have excellent cards when they suddenly are agressive, and people fold, limiting the amount they win, as well as being too predictable. My style however is known as maniac, which can both be a winning or losing strategy, depending on luck & skill!

I'm strategic, and the data suggests i'm positionally aware and abusing that. The best players adapt to other players and their position on the table. I'm also a very agressive stealer, and attack blinds, but I need to defend my blinds better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
It really depends where you play and with whom you play. In offline poker, I usually bluff when I see that my opponent generally folds when he has bad hands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Bluffing in poker is one of the main reasons I prefer online poker instead of the original game. In offline poker, this game becomes more psychological. You need to hide your emotions, and at the same time, read the faces of your opponents. This skill might be really useful in other things too. But sometimes you just want to relax and enjoy your time gambling. It is interesting to play from time to time real-life poker. But when you want to relax in the evening, offline poker is definitely not an option. I usually gamble on link revoved when I want to enjoy my free time. Besides, it helps me to make some extra cash sometimes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Bluffing in poker is one of the main reasons I prefer online poker instead of the original game. In offline poker, this game becomes more psychological. You need to hide your emotions, and at the same time, read the faces of your opponents. This skill might be really useful in other things too. But sometimes you just want to relax and enjoy your time gambling. It is interesting to play from time to time real-life poker. But when you want to relax in the evening, offline poker is definitely not an option. I usually gamble on süperbahis when I want to enjoy my free time. Besides, it helps me to make some extra cash sometimes.
Honestly, I never tried to play online, but I think it is worth trying. At least I can try to make some cash without leaving my house
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
I don't like offline poker, because no-one plays that seriously. I love playing (online) poker with professionals. The thing is the one who plays poker the best is the one who adapts their playstyle to their opponents.

I'm known as someone who's very unpredictable, sometimes borderline lunatic, but generally i'm very good in poker.

Usually I play TAG or LAG style, Tight - Agressive (playing few hands, but when I play, being quite aggressive) or Loosely - Agressive (playing more hands but not all again, and when I play, being quite agressive). Which one to follow is dependant on the opponent. Sometimes I play more tighter, but that makes me more predictable. But generally the winning strategy is a TAG playstyle, but skilled players can get away with LAG as well. Sometimes i'm between in those two categories, as i don't want to be predictable, but as I say I adapt to my opponents, and sometimes that require a more tighter playstyle, sometimes you can be a bit more aggressive when the circumstances are there, or when you are able to exploit some weaknesses from some players.

Do I bluff? Probably at some points yes, but generally I don't like bluffing and i don't like to blufing, but I probably bluff, but I don't call it bluffing. Like it's poker. I know if people think people about poker, they think about bluffing, but that's not how it's meant to be played, is very luck-based and in the long run, you'll lose money with it. But as i said, sometimes bluffing is necessary to exploit weaknesses of other users. And if you play as a LAG vs TAG players (or against a Rock), you need to be play more agressive. And everyone in general has over multiple poker matches the same kind of luck, and the same amount of good cards as other players. If you play more hands, you'll of course sometimes play hands with less good cards than the other cards. In that sense, i probably bluff a lot. But i don't call it bluffing tbh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
Rocks or NIT are players that play few hands and also don't play aggressive. They're much more careful about what they do. In the long run, you'll play too few hands and even sometimes lose these hands if you're up to a more aggressive player, partly because you're way too predicatble because the opponent will know when to fold, because he'll know if you play you have good cards and are likely to win with your hand, so at the end when you play (and win your hand), you'll get not enough money from it, to keep up with the losses of being a big or small blind. You can win as a NIT or ROCK but it requires some luck, and in the long run you lose money with it.

Fishes are loosely and not-agressive players, and that's a very bad strategy as you play too many hands, and are not agressive with them. Usually those people are either non-serious, unexperienced or just casual players that don't care about winning. And people hate it when a fish does well or win a poker match. But in general, they'll always lose money in the long run and quite fast too. It's a very bad strategy. Not one that experienced poker players use. Because you'll lose with your blinds, but you also participate in putting money in the table because you want to see the next three cards, and than you'll realize your cards are bad, or that you not had some luck with your set of cards, and you fold. But since they sometimes raise over the big blind, you'll lose a ton of money with that, and it's not feasible in the long run. You just can't play to see what cards there are going to be on the table, you need to be able to anticipate.

The best players are the ones that adapt though, and are able to read the board well, the ones who can abuse weaknesses of other players by analyzing their strategy and how they play. But also someone who understands the game as well, is able to pressure blinds (or someone who has the Big Blind or Small Blind, can re-pressure on the attacker), because a good player doesn't give their blinds away, you need to be able to make the other player doubt himself and put constant pressure on them up to the point that they sometimes need to be certain that they're going to win their hand, but also you have to recognize when the other player indeed has good cards or a good set-up, and also recognize what potential cards can be on the table as sometimes people are betting on getting a straight or a good last card, or realize that they have a high card next to what they already have. It requires a lot of knowledge, something you'll only develop after lots of practice.

Position is very important... in poker. If you're the last person before the blinds and nobody before you betted, indicate that they all have not good cards, and than you're able to bet the BB and SB have bad cards, someone who isn't able to defend their blinds will easily get abused by this, especially if all other players on the table are also quite tight, because you recognize who has some good cards and who has not. It makes you "the leader of the table". In general, if you're after the big blind, it's harder to recognize what players after you'll do, so than you're in a worser position to pressure someone, but according to reverse psychology if you're on a table with professional players, and you're in a early position you can also make players after you think that you have good cards, to be quite agressive early.

There are several attacking strategies as well when you do have indeed good cards. You have to know what to do best if you want to get the most out of your opponents. Everyone at some point will have good cards, so that's when you to get most out of them, because that will determine more and will determine whether you're able to get further in the tournament or not. The players who can get the most out of their opponents is in a better position to do better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
Playing poker for money is also usually only worth it if you are among the top 10 - 20% best poker players of them all, because it's not 50 / 50. It's like capitalism. There's only a small percentage of people that earn money with it, and most of them will go to them, so the majority of poker players in the long run will lose money with it.

On top of that, you also have the platform or the live tournament that enables you to play. It requires an entry fee, and of course they also have to earn something by enabling you to play. So less will get paid out than the total entry fees combined, making it even harder to win money with poker.

And you already in a tournament or game have to play in the top tiers to get in the money for that particular tournament, so you also need a quite of good percentage of ending in the money, and being able to play well on the final table as well, the more times you finish first, the more times it's beneficial.

It also matters with how many players you are on the table you are. Usually you're with 9. The less players the less tighter you need to play, and it requires different skills to play with 2 on the final table. I'm usually better at tables with more players, since I usually don't finish first, but mostly second or third. I haven't mastered the skill of playing with two, also because you have less practice with it (since in larger tournaments, you almost always with more players on the table), but it's important to get in the money first, but also if you're in the money, to get first.

By playing as a rock, and waiting until every player gets out by making mistakes or showdowns, you don't get in the money, because at the time we're on the final table, you'll have paid enough big blinds and small blinds that you'll be out of it, or don't have enough to put pressure on other people (or need luck to get into the game). But also never you need to give up (some players do when they lose a lot of money in a hand, and have little over, i've managed to come back a lot from an actually lost position). That's my attitude in sports too, i never give up. I go for everything as long as I do have the energy.

When you play a poker game with real money, also ensure that you won't be disturbed or that you have to time to play at least several hours. The game might be ended after 10 minutes, but also the game might last for 2 to 3 hours, sometimes even more depending on what tournament you play, but i'm speaking of 45-player tournaments (MTT = multi-table tournaments). Never quit a game! (that way, you're only dependant on internet connection, although sometimes if connection falls out, you can return to the game, but if your internet connection is down for longer than like 30 minutes, you're probably out, until than you'll always fold and just lose blinds and the eventual hand you were playing and also "the time bank will be spent" by than. I have good internet connection, but it can always happen.

In general, be patient and never give up that are two basic rules. If you are hasty, you'll play extremely bad, because you'll be much more risky and agressive than necessary. Not only the playstyle and reading their own playstyle is necessary, you also need to realize your own playstyle and read your own style and mind to make decisions. You need to get to know the other players, but also your own. Sometimes some certain mood will make you less good than usual, and it's necessary to recognize those signs, you need to be in the best condition to play. (both yourself as well as your surroundings that need to be calm, so you can focus).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
It's 80% a luck game but that will require skill and 20% a mind-reading / psychology game. Percentages might be off, but you get the point. You certainly need some luck esp. short-term, but in the long term the 20% mind-reading / mind-tricking / strategy / psychology part will matter, and make yourself able whether your playstyle is sustainable or not, or that it needs changes or not. You can analyze that by tracking all your poker data (which I do), see first post, but you need to have played a lot of tournaments or games to get reliable data. One game is not enough, it's more like 100 games or more, esp. for more preciser data (VPIP and PFR is something that every hand will count to, but for some statistics, you need to have played like thousands and thousands of hands to get more reliable data).

Long-distance running is like that too. One world record holder (100 km running or 50 Mi running) i've contacted in the past said the key to his performances were 95% practice and 5% talent. But you'll need the 100% to be absolutely among the best in your class. So of course you need to be talented, but you also need in the first place to be in top condition and have trained a lot, requiring the skill you've gained in such a sport that demands so much from you, and you need to master everything.

Talent in general is overrated for accomplishing something, but it matters if you want to be the best out of everyone. But for a lot of other things (which doesn't require to be in the absolute top tier of the entire world, you'll get there with practice, regardless of talent and skill, but it will require some other thing: full dedication, which is the thing for high school. Someone who lacks the talent for studying might make up with the practice part (and most likely will if she's dedicated and adopted a good strategy / method), but someone who relies on only talent and being the best in primary school, and doesn't do anything from it or didn't develop a good study method, will usually fail in things that require a lot from you.

Of course, i don't think you need to be 100% dedicated to all study directions, otherwise too many people would fail. But you can't be 0 / 95 at training/studying part, because you'll certainly fail. It requires something and depending on your talent and also method or strategy, some students will have to do less than others, but eventually you'll all have to do something, esp. if it's something that certainly demands that and has a higher difficulty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Also, when you look further into this. I don't play poker much anymore, but that's for other reasons.

I used to do a lot of sports betting and poker, because - yes - i get more money out of it. But it requires time and dedication. I win money. I lose time & energy (the same with labor actually). I could have made my "job" out of it, certainly. But the thing is it corrupts my mind. You win, you win, you win, and it changes your personality. But the recipe for winning is also full dedication. The thing is: life isn't about "winning", life isn't about "prestige", "performance" or whatever. Those are not the values I seek in what life offers me. You only have one life, i want to make good use of it. Sure, it can be fun to win at some times, but at some time you get used to it, only requiring yourself to get further and further, make more risks and win more. Like it's the allegory of the typical rise & fall movies you see in the movie industry. Winning has certainly some upsides, but it has it's downsides too. Everyone can - if with enough dedication - be a person of importance, be a succesful person, depending on what your definition out of it. But it requires so much dedication that some people can not give that. But life isn't about dedication and passion.

That's why I chose a different attitude to life, and why I don't play poker anymore, not because I can't win, but because I don't want it to make it my dedication or passion, when there are so much other things to do in life, and generally it's not worth it to casually play it. Same with betting. If you want to make out of it, it requires 24 hours on 24 hours full attention, not something I desire actually.

What do you gain at the end? Some money yes, and perhaps more money than any other person of your age will have at a certain point of life (sure you can get rich with it, or relatively rich). But what is that money worth? Tell me. At the end, they're some papers or a number on a bank account, which I usually left untouchable because if you want to keep winning, you need to keep playing. You can't have some time off. (which is especially the case for sports betting). At a certain moment, you rest on a pile of money that you can't spend, because there is nothing to spend it on, because you don't have the time for it (which is the sweet irony of all of this). Rich people have that too, but they invest in things, become shareholders, or owners of things, but is that really you something you want or desire, or that is essential to life. I doubt that strongly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Remember: you don't need money to be happy, but to be happy you need a living and less worries. Problem is our society and our economical system requires us to participate to get a living. More money eliminates that part, and eliminates part of your worries. So in that sense, money makes you happier, but not because the money itself makes you happy, but more because the system we use makes us unhappy and money makes you less dependent on it.

That's why I strongly believe in a system that provides every basic needs for free to all people, like food, healthcare, rest homes, water: everything that is essential to survive and to be happy (so also internet, public transport, name it). Ultimately we are free people and we have the right to decide what we want to do with our lives. We're not forced to work in a system that doesn't fit for us. But right now we're forced because it's the only way to survive and not be homeless at all, which is why I call it modern slavery. As long there is modern slavery, people will be unequal, people will not be free and people will be unhappy.

What we also have to abandon is a monetary system, as well as hierarchy but also the concept of time, but that's a different topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
I was able to make money on gambling, but yes i also had knowledge, experience, strategy and that kind of thing. But it exhausted me which why I stopped.

Ironically since I stopped gambling, i have less money than when I gambled, so it's harder to pay all the bills now than during the time I gambled (because it was my source of income).

But I never won a lot of money playing poker, because I didn't play for much money. Yes i made money, but it's like 6 or 7 euro's. It's actually negligible, could buy a few beers, and that's it.

Thing is it's harder to make money out of poker than during gambling, because it requires even more skills, because your opponents are also the ones that make money of it, because why would they continue to play. You just have to be even better than them. And esp. when you play for more money, you'll find less casual players there and more experienced players increasing the required skill.

In gambling there are strategies, but I did sports and politics betting, the thing is: you just have to predict things better than the one who sets the odds. Hard? It actually isn't to my experience.

I made a ton of money out of football, cycling, tennis and esp. politics. In the latter, i've never lost a bet. I'm quite sure about that. I never lost a bet. In sports, i frequently lost yes, but still made some money out of it. But in politics, i simply never lost a bet.

I predicted Brexit
I predicted Trump's victory in 2016 and some states he would win
I predicted correctly some senate races in 2018, including Florida's win for the GOP and Arizona's win for the DEM's.
I predicted some states where Biden would win in the primaries on Super Tuesday and predicted his South Carolina win after losing IA, NV and NH.
I predicted Biden's victory in 2020
I predicted some senate races correctly in 2020 (both for D's and GOP)
I predicted the results of the GA run-off's correctly
I predicted Macron's victory before he even surged in 2017
I predicted Boris Johnson's victory in 2019
I predicted the hung parliament in 2017 in the UK

I simply never lost so far in politics.

I look for good "value bets", so where something is kinda underrated.

Some kind of strategy is like:
waiting for Biden to be low than put money on Biden (so when Trump surges in the polls).
or if you believe Trump would win which i never believed, wait for Biden to surge, than you have to bet.

You could even guaranteed to win some money through that strategy (although the net value would be quite low, unless you play huge amounts of cash on it, which is quite risky for when a candidate never surges).

Also: one rule: YOU SIMPLY NEVER BET ON WHO YOU WANT TO WIN, you have to eliminate that part in your mind. If you're too involved because it's your favourite football team, simply DON'T BET.

Second rule i did: if i win some money, i always send a part of what I won to the bank (so I at least won something) but continue to play with a small amount of the revenue, trying to increase it even more, but i don't go all in and than again all in and than again all in, because you're doomed to lose some money than. That's not a winning strategy

Today, i however only make small bets on politics. Nothing more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Weekends where i won over 5000 euro's weren't even uncommon. On the other hand, i've also lost like 2000 euro's in a weekend, and it also happened more than once, sure. You learn to live with it. That's part of the risk you take. In total, i betted over half a million euro's, and won some money with it (but not much actually, yes probably around 5000 to 10.000 euro's, but you would expect a more, if you bet half a million euro's), and not much should have happened to actually have lost a bit of money (although i didn't always exactly follow a strategy, you actually shouldn't be emotional if you bet, you need to be a very cold thinker)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
For Trump's victory in 2016, my safety line was Iowa. If Trump lost Iowa i would have lost money, and a ton, a ton of money. If Trump won IA, i just would have ALL my money back that I invested in other states I predicted he would win, because I wasn't sure. I just thought he was undervalued in MI/WI/PA which were the real winners, but I wasn't sure he would win. I just thought the odds were completely wrong, and since Iowa still multiplied your money (it was an odd of 2.30), i thought that risk was worth it, and did it, but on the condition that i could win all my money back if he lost all three of MI/WI/PA. I invested in all 3 because I thought there was a reasonable chance he would win ONE of them, and if that happened i would have won some money... At the end he won all three, so yes... that's the probably the best bet i've ever done, but it had some strategy behind it.

He won IA by close to 10 points, so that was certainly safe in hindsight... I however thought he wouldn't be re-elected last year, and went for Biden when he was kinda underrated, but there was less opportunity to win money (the real money was won during the early primaries, esp. super tuesday (or is it sunday)).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
That being said, just don't bet. I just do it on politics, but not more than that. I don't want to encourage it. And if you decide to do it, start small, build some experience because it isn't for everyone. More than 90% LOSE money with it, and even the 10% of winners need LUCK on top of strategy and skill. But you still need luck. It's called betting for a reason.

Chance games are totally not worth it, because they're games by chance. I've never done that. Never done roulette or casino and i don't plan to either. I also don't do sports betting too, and i don't play poker often anymore too (mostly because they're extremely time-investing).
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top