BW to poker - differences

Hello all, this is my first post on PS. Ive played BW off and on for about 10 years and achieved a high level of play within the game. I love BW and I could play it all day, I think the strategic depth and perfection of balance is beautiful, and I was very addicted - but I cant afford to invest any more time in it atm and Im looking for ways to make money and move ahead in life as well. Enter poker

I started out playing micro limits heads up, and then moved to NL2 and NL5 9player zoom games. Both of which I had very limited success with. Im having difficulty believing in a solid strategy to win online poker, although I know there are people that do succeed at it, many of whom also played bw first. I think to myself "If they can do it, so can I, I just need to find out what they know that I dont". Ive become frustrated though. The way I played bw seems to be dissimilar to the way people win at poker.

I played a defensive macro style in bw, aiming to cut corners wherever possible but always remain safe to any aggression through careful scouting. In poker though, "scouting" seems impossible without some kind of tracking software, and wins seem to be based more off prediction and feeling than any real knowledge of what is the correct move. You guess what skill level your opponent is, and what thought process he therefore will be using to beat you, and then level him. I dont see how that is a reliable strategy though, especially considering that most regs play many tables at once. I cant imagine being able to get inside the heads of any opponents when you have only a second or two to spend at each table to make the correct move, so the decision must come down to some predetermined formula, or gut feeling in the moment.

Maybe I just dont know enough about it to understand its depth, but poker strategy seems too simple to be a consistent money maker in a field of players who all know the same basic rules. Yet there are people who do consistently make money off of it lol..so what is the difference between winners and losers/break-even players? The way I see poker now I would compare it to rock-paper-scissors. Lets say for example in a 9player games, player1 3bets from mid position, and player2 in late position reraises him (4bets? still getting used to poker terminology..). So by reraising, player2 is representing that he has a strong hand like AA or KK. Player1 should probably fold unless he also has AA or KK. But given that thought process of player1, player2 could reraise with much less than AA or KK, assuming that player1 would fold in that situation most of the time. Player1, knowing that player2 could be thinking to reraise with anything and expect a fold, could call or even go all-in after the re-raise to represent AA or KK and force a fold...etc. Which of these are the correct play? Is there a correct play? Theres no play that cant be beaten some of the time, so the objective is to go for the play that will win more than 50% of the time, but the way to determine that is unclear and very unreliable as far as I can see.

I have some questions for those more experienced than me:

-is there a certain amount you should expect to win per hour/per something on average compared to the limited you play at, that indicates you are doing well? for example at a NL5 table maybe you could expect to win on average 2dollars per hour...also what is a good time period to base these averages off? 10hours? a week? a month?

-are tracking devices and playing the opponent what makes a winning player, or is it possible to win without having to pay for shit like that (I assume u have to pay for HUD or whatever else people use)

-how long does it take to grow from a noob to someone who can make 10hour..15/hour..20/hour..30/hour etc

and most importantly, what is the difference between people like me who arent making money, and those who are. would someone be interested in coaching me?

TLDR just read the bulleted parts
thanks for any feedback!

1 votes

Comments (19)