Bart Hanson says play at least 2/5 to reduce the effect of rake

went to bart discord

it was a toxic place to be

bart in video, oh he raised he has a full house here, you shld fold ur flush

bart in reality *calls all in with top top on the river in a cash game, get shown a better hand*

i just hate the guy
i skip all his content

actually ive had discord forever, ive seen toxic people

hes worse than toxic, hes rotten to the ****ing core

you should learn from somebody healthier, you should learn from somebody who isnt willing to lie to you and manipulate the environment and the content

maybe sometimes out of sheer whatever he says something true it doesn't matter

if hes not saying something brain dead obvious, he pretends he knows and will say something that is the less likely to be seen as wrong

I listen to his free videos on youtube while I am driving. Interesting, mostly 2/5 or 5/10 big hands going to the river. Sometimes, the caller seems like a total fish and Bart will not criticize much, but if you read the comments (I read them after driving), they make good points and often point out how bad villain plays.

I know high stakes NLHE cash is sort of dead. However, Bart is mostly a 2/5 reg, so can't be some huge expert.

Obviously if you’re just playing poker to make a little spending money off a fun hobby, go nuts.

Just answering the “what’s the best way to make the most money” question to the best of my ability.

Thanks for this post: I reckon I suffer from this syndrome (um and I have done those retreats, too, btw). It's easy to talk about how we should play, in theory, but "falling-back" on lazy defaults or habits in the midst of a hand occurs almost daily. So often I'll say "this is what I want to do here" but don't because of risk-aversion, on a subconscious level, while consciously I'll be drawing upon a host of mental excuses/justifications such as (1) player's titled so he's not going to fold; (2) I have a losing image for the day; (3) I'm just not feeling comfortable right now and don't want to have to endure some guy tank and stare at me for two minutes; (4) it's late in the day and I just to want book a win; (5) old guys never bluff; (6) low stakes players never fold TP; (7) I can't 4bet here because I can't always have QQ+; (8) I don't like playing stuck so I'll wait for a better spot and so on.

All of the above should be treated as "noise" but more often than not it becomes a poor substitute for strategic thinking. And, yes, the players I've witnessed "hit their escape velocity" were those who worked-out what the best strategy was for the game and relentlessly executed it: it's a different sort of mental toughness to what you get through meditation (one player in particular who reached nosebleeds told me once that he tried meditation and it simply didn't work for him; he wasn't zen at all --- just smart amd motivated and risk-neutral enough to make the difficult decisions when it mattered).

Since he's from California he might be talking about some of the ridiculous California games that have a 100 max buyin and $9 drop for $1-3 which probably can't even be beat, at least not for anything significant.

Like some others have said elsewhere I think the 1-3 games can often be more profitable than the 2-5

California also seems to have bad players/action filled tables up to at least 5/10 so a lot more incentive to move up fast there. Whereas some rooms 2/5 might be the biggest game and be terrible at times

Yeah, I don't want to overheat my mental game take. It comes part-and-parcel with study. You can have the best decision flow in the game, but if you can't implement it in game, then it's for nought. But if you have no decision flow in the first place, who cares how disciplined you are in following it?

So maybe running the last mile is the wrong analogy. In that sense, mental game is kind of the connective tissue and study is the muscles. Or study is the engine and mental game is the powertrain. Study is the power plant, mental game is the transmission lines.

I guess. But to reheat my take, I think study alone CAN compensate for poor mental game in a way that doesn't go the other way. Tilt thrives on uncertainty. Can you remember the last time you raised KJo UTG? Would any amount of tilt make you do that?

In the same way, study prunes the number of branches where emotions enter the equation and it narrows margin of error on the decisions where they do come into play.

Going back to habits, IME every successful player I know makes self-deprecating jokes about how much of a station they are or how they always punt their first stack of a session. Obviously being too loose and punting are some of the most potentially disastrous habits you can have in 9-handed poker. But they've minimized the frequency and degree that those habits can defray their winnings, so if you're gonna have "bad habits" in the remaining spots, they might as well be the ones that allow you to see a showdown or test out an unorthodox line or see how opponent's react in unknown spots.

And I'm certainly not dumping on meditation. My understanding is that meditation doesn't intrinsically resolve anything, but it does make you notice the problems. And it's less likely to give you the solutions to the problem than it is to make you resolved in the lack of solutions.

So maybe meditation doesn't make anything on that 8-point list go away, but the fact that you produced it in the first place says a lot about where you're at!

And NONE of that was relevant to the topic of the thread 😃

This makes a lot of sense to me good post. Before when I wasn't studied enough I feel like it was a lot easier for me to tilt because my knowledge wasn't good enough to know for sure whether or not a play was +ev.

Now that I feel I have a much better understanding I usually can resist the urge to tilt/make plays that I know are -ev. Not so sure it's better self control but just a better understanding of the game

There are some problems with Sklansky and Malmuth's book, and not sure they are pro-level in NLHE or anything these days. However, they make the point that 1/3 is much better than 2/5 in Vegas. The Vegas 2/5 games are reg infested, but the 1/3 games have lots of literally tourists.

Yes, Vegas 2 5 games are reg infested, however 2 5 games are great in other regions of the country, where you have people play some poker after work.

Also, the big difference in winrates between skilled players in 1 3 and 2 5 is when fishy players make the mistake for an entire stack. In 1 3 that mistake is usually for 200-400, in 2 5 it is often for 1000+. When that happens a few times a month, there goes your difference btwn 1 3 and 2 5 winrates.

Unless you are talking some Texas uncapped games with unlimited straddles, no one is making $40+ in 1/3 long term. There are plenty of people averaging $60+/hr in 2 5.

much better series of posts than the forum deserves tbh

Yeah, I agree good players can make more at 2/5 than 1/3. However, 1/3 is easier. You don't have to play deep stacked against regs so much.

With multiway pots, you can't cbet and barrel much. It is also tricky to play an overpair or TPTK, etc. with several players who can have random 2-pairs.

However, multiway pots are great for small pps, particularly with players who have trouble folding top pair or 2-pair.

Also, when you 3! at 1/3, usually it gets called, even though most 1/3 players 3! a strong range. Then you usually get it 2 or 3-way with fairly low SPR. Your overpair or AK that hits etc. often gets action. You can also semibluff or bluff and put a lot of pressure on.

People seeing a flop with junk can be a problem, but can also be profitable. For example, I recently 3! AK over a raise and call from the blinds. Flop comes K74 2-flush. I cbet half pot, get a call and a shove from a player who started the hand with about 300. I call, caller folds. Shover shows KTo for top pair. So he calls a raise with that and then calls the 3!. Once he gets to the flop, his play may be OK, as I might have AQ/QQ/JJ or some light 3! and would cbet that flop. I understand that 1000 deep, you can get more stacking someone. However, you could win at 1/3 just playing 99+/AJs+ and pps when it is likely to go multiway with high SPR. I don't play like that at all, but there are reasons some people play nitty.

This analogy comes the closest. The point being that study should drive the thought process but if you're mental game is off (agitated, distracted, angry etc.) you won't stay in your proscribed lanes and more likely become involved in a costly accident.

Yes, meditation helps with awareness and concentration. Of course, there are other ways of honing these skills. In my book, lack of attention at the table (not watching action and showdowns and building profiles of players) is a major leak for many in live poker.

#rename-the-thread

I doubt almost anyone has this problem 10m after they sit down ... BUT probably way more than you'd suspect have this problem 6h later.

The old school way I've heard this said is that:

Study improves your "A game", which has an unlimited upside, but mental game improves your "B game" down to "Z game" to be closer to your "A game".

And while you've very likely thought about it a lot, and you used a lot of words ... I don't think it's better than that.

Also maybe worthy of comment is that if you are going to tilt, doing so early in the decision tree is pretty much always better ... like tilt opening KJo UTG isn't that terrible (as long as everyone doesn't know/suspect you are tilt opening wide), but tilt calling off river bets can seriously torch your winrate.

But people are way more likely to tilt later in hand, and at least some of the mental game thing is to have some internal alert popup on the river and be like WTF are you doing in this hand just lose it for less.

So if you could magically go on a meditation retreat on the turn, if you suspect it's not going well, it would very likely help a huge amount IMO.

My point is study helps your A game AND it limits the universe of hands where your B and C game comes into play. Avoiding your D game is mostly about like good BRM and racking up when you're deliriously tired, and anything beyond that is prolly like undiagnosed gambling/drinking/mental health problem.

Again, only point is that study can help mental game in a way that doesn't run the other way.

Back in my breathing exercises days, I would achieve a zen state that I will call empty-headed poker. I was able to slow things down and clear all the emotions and irrational sources of poor decision making only to find that there were no other sources of decision making left. That's when I realized the (main) problem wasn't my headspace but the lack of information filling it. I was panicked and lashing out precisely because I was scared and insecure of what I didn't know.

The more rational information I had to latch onto, the less space I gave to the irrational stuff, and now I only force myself to slow down and breathe like one hand every couple weeks instead of in every 35bb+ pot.

Mental game becomes more at play in bigger pots because the pot's bigger but also because you're later in the tree and so the universe of hands where you're looking for answers outside of study is huge. Honestly, I think for half the players in this sub literally any river spot where they don't have a set+ is a spot that they don't have down pat.

Yeah, I mean mental game is important and anywhere I implied otherwise is precisely where I've overstated my point.

This was all just meant to be a footnote '😃

Throw your 1980 to 2020 poker books in the fire.

Those are unworthy sinful books cleansed by fire.

Rememeber that 100 monkeys with typing machines eventually writes a neat poker concept.

I don’t think this is too micro. In a high rake, capped buyin environment, I think the typical LLSNL player using the typical good-enough strategies who is always either sitting at the table with the most money on it or on the list to change to it will outperform the guy at escape velocity who is seated at random at the same blind level. No argument on anything else.

Great posts by raised announced. I place more importance on mental game, but it's more of a philosophical difference not worth debating in this context.

2/5 games in Vegas really aren't as bad as some of you seem to think.

You can find bad 2/5 games. Sometimes the one at south point is rife with a group of regs who engage in (at least) low level collusion as they grind hours for their free roll. I would avoid that one, though the games there can also be very good.

Good games are far more common than bad. I expect to be the best player at 2/5 most of the time and I am not a poker pro. I've played several games lately where there were either no full time pros or, if there were, they were too mediocre to be recognizable as such.

Most 2/5 pros are just nits with a few standard and predictable moves. And even having 2 or 3 such people in the game is a lot.

Yeah 1/3 is taking candy from a baby but if you work on your game 2/5 is really not that hard.

Moreover, Vegas has more "regs" but also more truly recreational tourist types than many other places.

You can start at belagio where the low cap virtually guarantees there will be no good players.

Take what raise announced says to heart. I'm going to do so.

Going back to the OP if you just want to have a fun hobby 1/3 is fine. You can easily make enough each year for a nice vacation and a bit of savings or whatever. No shame in that.

But the discussion is about making the most money when you take it as at least a serious side gig. If sklansky and mason said 1/2 is better for this they are dead wrong.

I guess we have varying capacities for how good we can be at poker, which I don't mean in a nasty way. Poker and gambling in general seem to confound some highly intelligent people. And beating 1/2 for 12$/hr really is the optimal outcome for some when factoring all the ways we can spend our limited time.

But beating 2/5 for quite a bit more than is available at 1/2 is not a monumental task. If you are smarter than average and have a decent knack for poker it should be a lot easier to crack $30/hr than like, becoming legit good at chess or a musical instrument.

Not a huge sample size but I played some in Dallas last year, the 2/5 played almost like online at times but the 1/3 was usually a good game with solid stack depth (not a bunch of shortstackers).

The 2/5 had the euro pros infesting the tables too. (Usually no 5/10 going)

I kinda doubt you can turn a better hourly at the 2/5 under those circumstances and I think playing the 1/3 is more interesting as you can deviate play against your sub par opponents.

Maybe my terminology isn't precise enough, but trying to get into the game with the most money at it feels bigger than micro to me. Going back to OP, the stack sizes are at least as important to your earning potential as the blind sizes.

That's a little different from being terrified of aggression or thinking players who fold TPGK to your vbets are unbeatable.

Also big stacks tend to stick around for a while, so it's not as much of a game of whack-a-mole as chasing the bingo players all around the floor.

Well yeah. Your dismissiveness of the importance of game selection seemed like it was based on an intentionally narrow definition. Obviously sitting to the left of the fish or avoiding the low stakes pros (lol) are micro concerns. But at the margins -- anywhere below time rake due to structure and anywhere above public due to availability -- this is obviously not a 'just get better' thing.

Let's put it like this: Just so long as your number 1 priority for the year is getting better, I think you're implementing my advice just fine. (From a year-to-year perspective; your to-do list day to day or week to week might vary).

Hell, my part about dressing snappy and throwing money around suggests THAT could be your focus. Just work on SOMETHING. Jordan Peterson ass advice. Clean your room, kids!

RaiseAnnounced making me feel bad that my number 1 priority for this year has been bumhunting whales on ClubWPT Gold. Time to get back to studying!

This is one of the rare times where following gambling advice from boosted Facebook posts is suboptimal.