Over the past two months, I've attempted to play NL, exclusively. I played limit for a long time and ran up a bankroll from $20 to over $2000. I heard the siren call of NL--the action, the nerve, the MONEY. NL is where it's at, no doubt about it.

But, I'm not winning. I took the $200 left in my bankroll--long story that has nothing to do with poker--and have managed to run it up to $500. In two months of playing a LOT of poker--$25NL, $50NL, MTTs and SNGs--I'm more break-even than winning. (That $200 to $500 represents a bare minimum winning % per hour.) I was at a loss as to why, until I read this, this morning:

"And some previously successful players HATE this way to play, this "Internet way" to play. Phil Hellmuth is notorious for not wanting to commit all his chips. He wants to see flops, make reads, and outplay his opponents. That is a great skill he has. But bad news for Phil, lots of the new breed of players don't want to let him use his skills. They will shove all-in. If they don't get called they win a smallish pot. If they do get called, they will take their chances with 50/50 or 60/40 or 30/70 races." Steve Badger www.playwinningpoker.com

I'm also notorious for not wanting to push. I think, hope, know, wish, I am better than my opponent after the flop. Some of these guys are so bad you cannot make a good decision when they push in. I've been called when I do push with every bad hand anyone could possibly imagine. Plus, I also make mistakes and stupid plays. Combine these two, it's actually a wonder I'm not broke.

Badger goes on to say, "Lots of people play poorly, and will gladly shove all their chips in as 1-3 underdogs. Part of their poor play is that they have no clue that they are such dogs!"

He's talking about the WSOP in this article, but he could easily be writing about NL in general. If there is any silver lining, it's the last graph:

"The game is being revolutionized... good play is being rewarded significantly more than two years ago. But in some cases it is not so easy to see, and in fact, in some circumstances you may never see actual positive results of your superior play in your lifetime. $10,000 tournaments don't come along very often, but correct play is still simply to choose the best course of action, with the best expectation."

The problem is the "in some circumstances you may never see actual positive results of your superior play in your lifetime." You have to hope that being a 6-5 favorite over the long run of your poker career is enough. You may not be gambling, but your opponents are.

It's a tough racket.

CJ

The entire article is at:

http://www.playwinningpoker.com/articles/04/11.html

you may want to try PLHE .... this let's you see flops cheaply and outplay opponents post-flop.

Ok, I just wanted to start a thread that might elicit discussion on the topic of implied collusion, bad beats, and why it's so damned hard to win consistently. I could have titled it Why YOU aren't winning, but that would be presumptuous on my part. Of course, you are winning, or you wouldn't be up all night instead of being in bed with a beautiful woman (or farm animal.) You're winning, but, it's tough, man. Why?

I went through a streak a couple days ago of five straight losses in tourneys, every single one of them I had the best of it going into the flop. Every single one of them was a bad beat, and several of them horrendous beats. I know if I'm beaten every time when I am the favorite going in, I'm playing some damn good poker, so this isn't bothering me. In fact, I'm not bothered by much of anything. Well, ok, one thing. I have an irrational need to figure things out. I have no control over my curiosity at why things happen.

I'm NOT complaining about bad beats. I know better than that, and most of you know better than that, and some of you should know ME better than that. I'm thinking about how often they happen and why. Implied collusion is one part of it. Most of the people we play against at low limits have "learned" how to play by watching poker on TV, which we all know will make them lose, and very dangerous to play against, even if we're guaranteed to win in the long run. But, you're against five of them and they are trading turns at going all in with the worst of it, you're going to take a few beatings along the way to winning. Or, are you? We're guaranteed to win against one of them, but ALL of them?

I don't know. I think I've confused myself. There's something here that's important, I just can't dig it out and was hoping you guys, with intellects far superior to mine, could help me with it.

CJ--trying to make sense of a nonsensical world.

ps--Pot limit is ok, but there's not very many games spread.

i see lots of plhe at party (at least twelve tables with more than 7 people at 8am edt saturday) and i've heard that there are plenty at pokerroom.