/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.16774924]

Why isn’t Biz playing single table sit and go’s for extra money? 9 player tables, $25 buy in, positions 1-3 get paid $75. Games take about 1 hour, and most of the other players are amateurs. I generally play 3-4 per day and over the past week I placed in the money 16/20 times. You literally have to beat out 6 sub par players to triple your money. Literally free money if you are a decent poker player. $50/hr is not too shabby, right anon?

[Anonymous No.16774929]

>>16774924
Because it's not 2006 anymore

[Anonymous No.16774939]

>>16774924
Imagine being those poker chips

[Anonymous No.16774945]

Can I play online poker anywhere using crypto that's not KYC'd?

[Anonymous No.16774953]

>>16774929
The myth that you can’t make money post 2006 in poker was made up by the fish...plenty of opportunities to make substantial side money if you know how to identify opportunity. Although I do agree it has gotten much harder post 2006

[Anonymous No.16774960]

>>16774929
This. My life would be so much better if Black Friday didn't happen.

>t. Former 180 and 45 man PS "pro"

[Anonymous No.16774971]

>>16774945
Yes you can... acewins.io

[Anonymous No.16774978]

Because the variance will make me jump off a building.

Id rather bet shitcoins. Too stupid for poker.
Back in the day i used to rake in 700$ per month playing around 60 hours a week. Better to wageslave.

[Anonymous No.16775002]

>>16774924

>imagine thinking high variance gambling is a good idea to make money

Get back to me when you have your first losing year,

[Anonymous No.16775007]

>>16774924
i didn't understand a single worrd you said.
will i make it?

[Anonymous No.16775049]

>>16774953
Shut your gay nigger fish mouth, sample size 20.

I was unironically a top 10 micro grinder for 09, lol. Glad to see sharkscope still works. 30k games lifetime shieeet

[Anonymous No.16775050]

>>16775002

This shit gives me PTSD. Please dont post these

[Anonymous No.16775135]

>>16775002
anon, that's not variance, it's a run good period, followed by a period of tilt-induced bad play

[Anonymous No.16775149]

>>16774924
You are absolutely correct, anon. The problem is is that winning is only part of the puzzle. The other part is bankroll management. That's where I think most people fuck up. Bankroll management is a major talking point. I feel that most fuckers on /biz/ don't have the greatest bankroll management hence investing in literal shitcoins.

[Anonymous No.16775174]

>>16775002
See
>>16775135
As I said above bankroll management is unbelievably important. Was watching part of Phil Hellmuth's interview with Valuetainment and he discussed this. He was talking about how some insanely talented poker players are poorer then average poker players because those average poker players have excellent bankroll management.
The biggest difference between a profiting player and a donk is not tilting.

[Anonymous No.16775258]

>>16775049
That’s just the sample size of this week, I’ve probably played close to 100 games and have taken around 75% in the money. You literally have to beat out 6 out of 9 players to triple your money in an hour. Also take into account that some players are gambling, not playing poker. It’s easy to identify and exploit these players. In my opinion it’s a super simple sit n go structure that is profitable if you’re a good player

[Anonymous No.16775271]

>>16775174
Agree 100%. Bankroll management is essential. It’s very easy to go on tilt when things don’t seem to be going your way. Just play the math and you can profit off of these type of structured tournaments

[Anonymous No.16775346]

>>16775258
Multi-table is way better for exploiting payout bubbles, and turbo is more life roi (and more exploitable).

Learn shove ranges, pokerstove or w/e...if this shit isn't already a ui overlay that plays for you. People started to figure it out almost a decade ago, I'm sure there's plenty of fish and retarded chink gamblers left with no cc processors and half the table is bots.

[Anonymous No.16775378]

i used to make decent money by botting those games. Autoit. Gto with dynamic ranges

[Anonymous No.16775432]

>>16775378
How can I bot these tables? Why did you stop?

[Anonymous No.16775677]

>>16774945
888tron.com

[Anonymous No.16775700]

>>16774945
I use IgnitionCasino, free BTC withdrawals. Lots of tourneys

[Anonymous No.16775744]

Pokerfags are a weird bunch. They've deluded themselves into believing their (extremely lame and boring) game is skill based when it's mostly luck. The "skill" is "lol just get good cards bro" and "bankroll management" is just a fancy way of saying don't gamble your entire stash like a retard.

[Anonymous No.16775761]

>>16775744
>professional poker players have just been extremely lucky for decades

[Anonymous No.16775796]

Another tard that thinks he's an expert because he made $400. See you in six months when you get BTFO'd like all the other fish.

[Anonymous No.16775928]

>>16775744
fold pre

[Anonymous No.16775957]

>>16775761
There will always be some winners no matter how retarded the endeavor. Have sex.

[Anonymous No.16776063]

I sold at 6800. AMA before I neck myself.

[Anonymous No.16776236]

Poker is all luck until an amount of time has passed where it can't be luck. This amount of time is years. There are tons of "professional" players that have losing years. Why would you waste your life sitting at a table around degenerates with the possibility of making no money at all?

[Anonymous No.16776270]

>>16774924
>$25 buy in
>win $75
You realize that in order to get that kind of average, you'd have to win the sit-n-go like 60% of the time, and get 2nd like 20% of the time, right? (depending on payout structure and the number of players)

Nobody has that win rate, even a talented poker pro playing against bad players. You'd be lucky to get a $20/hour win rate.

>>16775744
>The "skill" is "lol just get good cards bro"
>"bankroll management" is just a fancy way of saying don't gamble your entire stash
So, basically, you don't understand how either of those things work?

>>16775957
>ignores the guy's point

[Anonymous No.16776288]

>>16776236
>This amount of time is years.
Probably not.

There are lots of online players who have never had a losing month. Of course, that's because they play 6 tables, against poor players, and online poker lets them play ~100 hands per hour.

[Anonymous No.16776328]

>>16776270
No, the structure for the SnG is the top 3 split the pot evenly, all you have to do is place 1st, 2nd or 3rd to triple your money. 4th through 9th don’t get paid

[Anonymous No.16776356]

>>16774924
woman in that particular picture is conveying two things to the general audience;

1." Look how fertile I look with my tongue, hair all stylish and sexy and cleavage in plain sight."

2 "I am having fun gambling while simultaneously try to convey aforementioned thoughts (see 1)

[Anonymous No.16776423]

>>16776328
That makes it even harder.

To triple your money, you'd need to place in 1st-3rd place 100% of the time. Which is practically impossible.

To double your money (on average), you'd need to place 1st-3rd in 66.7% of all Sit-n-Gos. Which is still probably impossible, unless you're playing against some serious retards. In hourly terms, that would be about $25/hour. Which isn't shabby (especially if you can avoid paying taxes on it). But if your win rate is significantly below that, you might as well just get a job.

Also, what's the rake? That'll take a bite out of your winnings, too.

[Anonymous No.16776449]

>>16775744
this guy is right, poker is some weird boomer larp

[Anonymous No.16776462]

>>16774924
If you play anything other than cash games you're a big faggot.

[Anonymous No.16776485]

>>16776449
Until you get into statistics it will always seem like that.

[Anonymous No.16776488]

This post is a shill thread for kike gambling sites

[Anonymous No.16776548]

>>16776462

>plays live cash
>drinks free beer
>preys on the weak

[Anonymous No.16776577]

>>16776270
You overestimate the complexity of your gay, retarded game. The theory required to play like a "professional" can be learned in an afternoon. It's just not something worth pursuing.

>>16776288
Exactly right. Sure, it's possible to play poker extremely poorly, and I'm sure plenty of people do so. But milking these idiots doesn't make you a genius.

[Anonymous No.16776606]

Poker is mathematically solved nowadays, you won't stand a chance as a beginner, especially online.
The edge of Pro's is just too big.

[Anonymous No.16776614]

>>16776606

Full ring isn't solved.

[Anonymous No.16776626]

>>16776577
Lol ok I make money, I have a very large sample size of hands. You don't know what you're talking about.

Of course it's a game about milking idiots. But you also have to deal with other pros, that's the difficult part.

[Anonymous No.16776640]

>>16776614

Sure it is. It's even easier to solve because of the tighter ranges, compared to 6max tables

[Anonymous No.16776663]

>>16776606
It's not solved, that just isn't true. Even if it was, it takes a ton of study and practice to even try to emulate those strategies. A beginner can beat the lowest stakes online pretty quickly if they have good direction and study resources.

[Anonymous No.16776674]

>>16776626
Yeah, you make basically all of your money milking idiots who make disastrous moves (eg bluffing with a bad hand or whatever) and breakeven against other "pros" who are primarily "skilled" at not shooting themselves in the foot. Really impressive!

[Anonymous No.16776684]

>>16776663
Play chess, faggot

[Anonymous No.16776704]

>>16775432
Banned on 21 accounts over 4 different casinos

[Anonymous No.16776710]

>>16776577
>The theory required to play like a "professional" can be learned in an afternoon.
No it can't.

Firstly, you can't even learn all the rules to all the common variants of poker in an afternoon. I'm guessing you don't even know the rules to stuff like Omaha Hi/Lo. You certainly can't learn standard strategy to all of them.

Secondly, high-level poker, and especially high-level online poker, is ridiculously complicated. It's a major subject of AI research.

https://poker.cs.ualberta.ca/

>But milking these idiots doesn't make you a genius.
Did anyone claim that it did? I didn't.

[Anonymous No.16776719]

>>16775957
AI can beat top players, retard. It's not luck.

[Anonymous No.16776727]

>>16776606
>Poker is mathematically solved nowadays
No it's not.

They nearly solved limit poker a few years ago. No limit is still far, far from being solved.

>>16776674
>>16776684
>This strategy game doesn't satisfy my standards
I bet you're fun at parties.

Do you even play chess?

[Anonymous No.16776728]

>>16776684
>>16776674
I make money. That's the whole point. I don't care about impressing anyone.

The game is profitable because of fish. I don't know why idiots play the game, but they do. They will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

I do play chess, it is more fun but less profitable.

[Anonymous No.16776799]

>>16776728

>he makes money betting on random cards

Hahahaha, get a load of this guy!

[Anonymous No.16776838]

>>16776799
I make money betting on cards that I can see, taking into account the random element of future cards to come and the range of possible cards that my opponent can have.

[Anonymous No.16776897]

>>16776710
Literally anything can be a major subject of AI research, it's not impressive lol.

>>16776719
Yeah because the game is basically just a war of attrition where the AI who plays optimally 100% of the time eventually grinds down the pro who plays optimally 99% of the time (and both just eat the YOLO retards who play optimally 60% of the time). Still, ultra lame, and hard to understand how it ever became so popular.

[Anonymous No.16776902]

>>16776838

>he makes money against almost all other players who are betting on cards that they can see, taking into account the random element of future cards to come and the range of possible cards that their opponents can have.

Everyone knows about poker nowadays. You must be getting into some really juicy games to be making so much money.

[Anonymous No.16776940]

>>16776727
Chess is interesting because it requires strategic/tactical thinking and deep calculation. You can actually get much better at chess by practicing.

You can't practice poker, you arguably can't even player poker well, you can only not play like a total retard.

[Anonymous No.16776964]

>>16776897
>Literally anything can be a major subject of AI research
What? That's nonsense.

In fact, very few things are. Checkers isn't. Monopoly isn't. Most games aren't subjects of AI research because they are either solved or trivial. Or they aren't solved, but we can easily approximate a solution, which renders the features of the games unworthy of study..

[Anonymous No.16776987]

>>16776902
You underestimate how many rich fish there are still out there lol

[Anonymous No.16776997]

>>16776987

That is true. If I'm ever playing in a live game and I know someone has a lot of money, I salivate. Much easier to make money from them then trying to squeeze blood from a stone, aka "degen regs".

[Anonymous No.16777005]

>>16776940
You genuinely don't understand poker dude.

It's arguably more strategically complex than chess. The element of randomness makes it very difficult to determine which play is correct.

The person who plays better chess moves will win a game nearly 100% of the time. So it's obvious what the correct chess moves are. The person who plays better poker moves will win 55% (or whatever) of the time. Which makes it very difficult to determine whether a person made a mistake - particularly a small mistake.

(and over a large enough number of games, a 55% win rate (or whatever the number is) will turn into a 99%+ chance of winning, but I assume you know that)

[Anonymous No.16777240]

>>16777005
>It's arguably more strategically complex than chess.
That's absurd.

>The element of randomness makes it very difficult to determine which play is correct.
That's not a good thing.

>The person who plays better chess moves will win a game nearly 100% of the time. So it's obvious what the correct chess moves are.
They will win 100% of the time, but on current evidence, finding the optimal chess moves (AlphaZero/Stockfish level) is far beyond human ability, and chess remains interesting for that reason.

There's no depth and no richness to poker. You can't skillfully and elegantly crush an opponent the way you can in a game like chess, you can only slowly grind them down over time as dictated by chance. Simply put, it is BORING.

[Anonymous No.16777260]

>>16777240
>>16777005
You both are gay

I win

[Anonymous No.16777631]

>>16774924
Because bot farms.

[Anonymous No.16777849]

>>16774924
I did this for many years. It's exhausting. Eventually I hit a losing streak and said to hell with it, devoted my time to trading instead.

[Anonymous No.16778015]

>>16777240
>It's arguably more strategically complex than chess.
>That's absurd.
Nope. If "complex" means "difficult to find the answer", then it arguably is more complex.

>The element of randomness makes it very difficult to determine which play is correct.
>That's not a good thing.
This is what we call a "value judgement". And it's an opinion. Which doesn't make it wrong. But it doesn't make it right, either.

[Anonymous No.16778267]

>>16778015
Of course chance makes it "more difficult to find the answer", the same way it's more difficult to find the winning lottery numbers than it is to win a game of poker, but that's a retarded argument.

>This is what we call a "value judgement".
Poker is gay and you're a brainlet in denial.

[Anonymous No.16778354]

>>16778267

Such a hater of Poker, must be a big loser.

[Anonymous No.16778479]

>>16778267
>the same way it's more difficult to find the winning lottery numbers than it is to win a game of poker
That isn't a meaningful comparison. It's impossible to find better-than-average lottery numbers - not difficult. There isn't any strategic element.

>Poker is gay and you're a brainlet in denial.
Cool beans, dude.

[Anonymous No.16778993]

>>16778479
Doesn't matter, by your failed logic any game that maximizes randomness and added some token strategic element would be the most complex, but this is dumb. In reality, the fact that poker is a game of incomplete information makes it less complex, not more.

[Anonymous No.16779106]

>>16778993
>[lottery is a more strategically complex game, because] by your failed logic any game that maximizes randomness and added some token strategic element would be the most complex
That's a fallacy. Just because a game with incomplete information is generally more complex than a game without incomplete information, doesn't mean that a game with no information is even more complex.

See the wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

>In reality, the fact that poker is a game of incomplete information makes it less complex
Do you think Poker would be more complex, or less complex, if all the cards were held face-up? Meaning, that Poker wasn't based on incomplete information anymore - everybody would know all the information.

[Anonymous No.16779361]

>>16779106
>doesn't mean that a game with no information is even more complex
I did not say no information. But put another way, randomness doesn't add complexity in a way that is compelling. Brainlets can be (and have been) successful at poker. Brainlets cannot be successful in chess.

>Do you think Poker would be more complex, or less complex
I meant less complex compared to chess. Poker is a shallow game either way.