You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
Great Read from a great player!
Apologies for hi-jacking thread JC because it was an excellent blog. I play them similarly but possibly even tighter early doors but open shove almost anything when I get down to 4, which I invariably do. Going to re-think my strategy though because you make some excellent points. A re-reading or two will be the order of the day. Good stuff.
What kind of ROI can a good player expect from these (what do you get or what do you aim for if you don't mind me asking)
If I played 100 £5.50 DYMs for an investment of £550 (obviously), I'd need to win 55 to break even, but how many would you expect to be winning per hundred?
Excellent bloggage sir, i remember encountering you on many £5 tables and it doesnt seem to be that long ago. Will deffo be rereading the guide and spending more time on these in the future.
In Response to Re: ABC of DYM's, by JOHNCONNOR:
Hi James (thanks Tikay), thanks for your input.The reason why ICM is not mentioned in the blog (I actually took out a couple of references) is because it is primarily intended to be more of a basic strategy guide and I did not want to complicate it too much. Also, I doubt that too many of the players who will use the blog will be routinely running ICM calculations when they're not playing. In any case, I have to admit that ICM is not my forte and I would bow to your superior knowledge on the subject.
Turning to the question kindly translated by Tikay, I will offer my thoughts on the merits of using ICM in DYMs. From your posts, I would guess that you are an "ICM rules all" kind of player and that's fine (obviously), you are infinitely more successful than I am. My thoughts, anyway, FWIW and for those who are interested:
1) ICM calculates shove/calling ranges in STTs. I accept that it gives more accurate results (subject to some of the points below) but I do not really see that it teaches us that much that can not be learned from experience. I have in the past tested my own shove/calling ranges (adopted though experience) using SnGWiz and have been happy with the results.
2) ICM calculations rely on the shove/calling you input for your opponents. For this reason they're never going to be 100% accurate. This point is, I think, exaggerated in the DYMs on Sky because of the number of recreational players as opposed to solid regs. It is even harder to adjust to their calling ranges accurately.
3) ICM does not take into account player skill or relative position at the table. Clearly relative position will be very important on the bubble of a 6 max DYM since each player is in the blinds 50% of the time.
4) ICM is less effective when the stacks get small in relation to the blinds, as often happens on the bubble of DYMs. Admittedly this is when the short-stacks get to 2-3 BBs generally, but this is not that uncommon in the very late stages of DYMs.
5) ICM does not take into account positions in relation to the blinds (eg if a short-stack is in next then ICM overvalues their position) or the timing of the blinds (I mentioned in the blog my thoughts about playing sometimes as though you are already in the next blind level).
So, as is fairly apparent, while I believe ICM is very important (paramount to the hardcore 9 man turbos on Stars etc), I actually don't think it plays that big a part in DYMs on Sky which are what my blog is aimed at. That being said, I would never discourage anyone from having a play around with an ICM calculator in an attempt to improve their shove/calling ranges.
Respected you anyway but my respect is now infinite.
1) My average ROI is 3% over about 12,000 games. I'm not 100% sure but I think that must be brought down by lower ROIs at higher stakes (and vice versa) but also weighted according to volume.
2) When I discussed DYMs with a fellow Sky player in the past I said that I had a 6% ROI over 1,500 games at the £5.50 level. I said then that I felt this was quite low as I was learning alot at the time and had huge leaks. I remember saying that I felt a 10% ROI would be just about possible at the £5.50 level. Perhaps some other regs can shine some further light on this for you?
Using the 10% as an example, if I can, then you would be looking to make £55 per £550 investment which equates to cashing 60.5% of the time. (I hope these are right, ROIs have never been my strong point). Looking at it this way, I would feel confident that a 10% ROI would be sustainable for a good player in the £5.50s.
Read the blog JC. Very good and interesting stuff. Will get into it here over the weekend hopefully but to start off I agree with the large bet sizing as a whole, although if is very opponent/table dependant. If you are playing people who are fairly tight and know how to play a DYM, small works fine. If they think it's like other poker, big all the way IMO.
Ok skolsuper obv could have been more diplomatic (understatement) with his posts. But he is being slated for two things:
1. Having the temerity to suggest ICM is important in dyms - Im no expert on either but this would seem to be obviously true
2. Stating that he didnt think dyms used a lot of the skills you need in other forms of poker - possibly fair
I dont like dyms either, I think they are the most boring form of poker, but to each their own. I havent read the blog for this reason, but from what I've seen JC post in this forum I'm sure its excellent and a valuable resource for anyone playing them (also huge respect for people who take time to do this kind of thing). But if it doesnt mention ICM its a fair point to make that maybe it should (again maybe not in manner skolsuper did)
One quick question JC. Given the low ROI figures that good players attain. I'm surprised that you advocate playing normal speed, as I would have thought extra volume from playing fastest games possible would make bigger profits due to extra volume (esp at higher stakes), despite having slightly less edge. Thoughts?
EDIT: I realise the reason some people are having a go at skol is because of his manner of posting, fair enough but it doesnt mean his points are not valid
Read your blog the other day, and must say its a very comprehensive guide. Having seen you open shove with junk I now understand the rationale behind your thinking. If you can get your opponents to lay their hand down enough times then its a profitable play. Even if you get called, most times you wont be much more than a 40/60 dog.
Totally agree with your points about c4p, put enough volume in and you can bink a grand even at lower stakes. Sadly I am not a winning DYM player, I discovered that last month when I looked at my scope figs and have gone back to hu sngs (loving the hypers) and play more cash now. Perhaps one day I will read your blog again in more detail and take another stab at dyms.
Finally apologies for the rant a few days ago, loads of testosterone was flying around but its still disapointing to see a pro make such comments. You have clearly put a lot of effort into writing this and it should be commended.
Do you only play hold'em dyms only or do you mix in PLO/PLO8 as well? If so, how does your basic strategy change? Does the higher variance of Omaha combined with the fast structure magnify or neutralise any skill edge a player might have?
You are of course right that only low ROIs are attainable in DYMs. The turbo DYMs offer even lower ROIs. But yes, volumewise, you should really just look at your hourly rate instead of ROIs. I think there are 2 main reasons, though, why I advocate playing the normal DYMs on Sky (and both reasons are pretty specific to Sky):
1) Even though they still last about 40 mins (on average), the normal DYMs on Sky are still pretty fast already, in my opinion, having only 5 minute blinds. The 'Turbocharged' DYMs, with half the stack and 2 minute blinds, are more like 'super-turbos', again, in my opinion. I don't know what ROIs are possible in these games as I haven't got a sample but I would think that it is very low. But, yes, if you could play enough, there may come point where it is more beneficial to you to play these instead. That leads me on to the second reason:
2) I don't think it's possible to play the huge volumes of the 'Turbocharged' DYMs that I think would be required to make them more profitable than standard DYMs on Sky. They are a lot harder to multi-table as I think there is less decision time. I found it difficult playing 4 at a time. With normal DYMs, you can fairly comfortably play 8-10 tables. Also, I'm not sure how often they run compared to normal DYMs, although again I don't have a sample.
I definitely know what you mean when you say 'robotic nature' and there is no denying that. I almost put into the blog about how DYMs can do this and have adverse effects on your game in other formats (Cash/MTT etc). I decided not to as I didn't want to discourage anyone from playing DYMs as they are great, for reasons mentioned in the blog. In any case, and what your question is getting at, you can ensure that playing DYMs doesn't negatively affect your game in other areas.
There a couple of practical things you can do to help here. One thing I found useful on occasion was to just sit there before starting a session and ask yourself, "Am I in the right mindset (i.e. DYM/Cash/MTT whatever) to play these now". Making up (even writing down if necessary) specific scenarios may help certain players here. E.g. Ask yourself, "what will I do if I am dealt pocket 2s UTG first hand?" or "what will I do if someone shoves into me and I have 15BB's holding AK?" To continue the example for the first question one players answers may be as follows:
DYM: open fold
Cash: raise
MTT: limp in to try and see a cheap flop
So long as you are getting the answers right (according to your own strategies) this should help you separate the disciplines.
The other thing is, I would really recommend only playing one discipline at a time. It can get quite confusing trying to juggle 2 different disciplines (e.g. DYM and Cash) and I imagine 3 would be something of a nightmare. This is an easy adjustment to make and I would even recomend doing it as far as possible. What I mean is, don't just say, "I'm only playing DYMs in this session". Try to say instead, "I'm only playing DYMs today/this week/whatever". The less often you mix it up the easier it should be, in my opinion. Of course it may not be practical for players to do this and they may not want to, it is only a suggestion.
Unfortunately, I only play Hold'em DYMs so this answer may disappoint a little. What I will say is that, although I am no good at it, I love Omaha and have had a little success in the one or two small tourneys I have played on here (due to high percentages of the field being even worse than me - I know the basics).
I did once consider playing some Omaha DYMs but I couldn't get my head around how they would work with it being Pot-Limit. A lot of my DYM decisions are shove/fold so I thought Omaha DYMs would be hard near the end. For example, you pick up a hand you want to go with, you raise it with the intention of getting it all-in pre, or on the flop at worse (I'm talking about situations where you would open-shove in Hold'Em). But, you get 3 callers and miss the flop completely. Now you've put half your stack in the middle, there's no way you can win a show-down, and your chip stack is too uncompetitive if you fold. I'm sure there are ways around these problems but I am not good enough at Omaha to know what they are, unfortunately. I did mean to ask IrishRover about them as I understand he is excellent at Omaha DYMs. Perhaps he could enlighten me here and you on your other Omaha related questions...
Hi guys,
As I have mentioned above I am setting myself a challenge. I stated in my blog that I believed that anyone could build a 4 figure roll playing solely DYMs. I intend to do that from a starting BR of £17.12. If anyone fancies joining me in doing this you are more than welcome to and feel free to use this thread to update progress.
My bankroll management will follow what was stated in my blog, moving up when I have 20-22 times the buy-in for the next level. As such I will be starting at the £0.60 level and facing the dreaded 20% rake. Let's see if we can beat it.
I have set no targets as to completion, but I am probably thinking something around Christmas would be good. In the event of failure I'm not 100% sure but I think I will reload £30 or so and start again at the £1.15 level. I hope it doesn't come to that, though.
Following will be my Day 1 post (actually played Thursday), I am currently playing Day 2.
Was extremely pleasing to start with, reaching the bubble during level 1 in each of the first 2 £0.60 games. As I said in the blog, money in my pocket, ka-ching!!! Unfortunately, though, it didn't translate to actual money in my pocket on these occassions.
At the start of one of the mini-sessions, as the £0.60s, weren't filling too quickly (I was going to 4-table), I reg'd for a £1.15. I promptly ran trips into trips sb vs bb and was out. This is why we don't break our bankroll management rules, I won't be doing that again anytime soon.
Something that did stand out was understanding of the 'co-operation play' I mentioned in the blog. The first time it occurred we both checked it down and eliminated the short-stack, happy days. The second time we checked around a flop and I thought, this is good to see, the £0.60 players understand the play. Then, out of nowhere, a small-stack (with a micro-stack all-in) bets all-in into me, (risking his DYM life as I am the big-stack). I can afford the call but opt to lay down second pair no kicker, fully expecting to be shown the nuts. He turns over a gut-shot + undercards to the board. Hmmmmm. Then this hand happens!
Day stats:
Played 16 £0.60s W9 L7
Played 1 £1.15 L1
Played 4 £0.30s W1 L3
Bankroll - £14.37. An unhappy start.
just trying a few out now, will let u know my decision tomorrow!
Didn't think there was going to be anything to report from this session (multi-tasking, watching the show etc) until I made a big mistake near the end:
Day stats:
Played 13 £0.60s W9 L4
Bankroll - £15.57. Slight progress today but still behind starting bankroll.
Unfortunately I have to nip out now, I will address your post properly sometime tomorrow if that is ok. Cheers.
Started yesterday with £50.
Played 4 £5 ones at once and cashed in them all, once with a K10 suck-out vs A10 and another one I flopped quads vs FH in the first orbit for stacks and still only just scraped through. Good start though and will aim to play 40 of them today. I realise it sound like ludicrous BR management but I don't think it's that bad as they're fairly low variance when playing 4 at once I find. We'll see.
Current BR :£68 and think I have about 890 points thus far.
Regarding bankroll management, my ideas are outlined in the blog, so I will need at least 20 buy-ins (£23) before moving up to the £1.15 DYMs. You are right I am not going to rush and I am very keen to succeed with the challenge, with that in mind I think 20-22 buy-ins is fine, but if anything a touch on the aggressive side anyway. You could be right that for the £0.60s 20 buy-ins won't be necessary but 10 would definitely be too low, personally I'd be playing scared money then. It's worth noting my first session resulted in a £2.75 (or 4.5 buy-in) loss! Bankroll management is all about your personal goals/circumstances/attitude to risk etc and obviously you're fine starting with 10 buy-ins. I wish you every success in your own challenge and I would look forward to reading some updates on here if you would post them.
Regarding your other question, it's a very good question and I find it very tricky to answer. In fact I've re-written this part a few times now lol. What I think it basically comes down to is this. I don't think they vary according to levels, as such, no. But it can vary according to specific (fairly unusual to be honest) circumstances/fields (I mentioned some factors in the blog that might alter my thinking). As a result of this I think you might find that some adjustments occur more frequently in lower buy-in fields and some in higher ones. But they occur because of the circumstances/field rather than the actual stake, in my opinion.