Fast and fold (Zoom)

GreejnbuddyGreejnbuddy Red Chipper Posts: 9 ✭✭
Was listening to a podcast from Jonathan Little, he said from an inside source that just 5 % win on Fast and fold (Zoom). He did not mention what kind of stakes and he also said that there is more edge in normal 6-max NL table.

What do you think about this? Is it more profitable playing the normal 6-max ? Is it just a small percentage wining?

Comments

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,655 -
    Do you know if the rake is the same in both cases? 5% winners sounds a little low for online, but is conceivable. I would think it would require some solid specialists at those stakes as well as pretty awful rake, though.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • wescrowescro Red Chipper Posts: 54 ✭✭
    JL's a solid coach and a great podcaster, so I'm sure he's not just making stuff up. But that does sound low. After a quick internet search, it looks like each site which offers fast fold doesn't show a different rake for those games versus regular cash. If the rake is the same, then I would think the only possible explanation would be that fast fold games have a much tougher player pool and therefore it could be harder to profit in those games. However, my personal experience in playing Zoom is that it actually seems softer than regular cash games.

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,655 -
    These stats are always a bit problematic. For example, you might have a fairly large population who tries a given game. 75% of the original pool don't like it, lose, and quit. So maybe only 5% of players from the original pool are winners, but they now constitute 20% of the surviving pool.

    Or something.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • wescrowescro Red Chipper Posts: 54 ✭✭
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    So maybe only 5% of players from the original pool are winners, but they now constitute 20% of the surviving pool.

    This is it right here. Especially now with the Corona-bump in online poker traffic. The player pool online (no matter the game) is now filled with players who used only play live, as well as online recs (probably losing players for the most part) who have dramatically increased their hours playing. No matter what you play, it's safe to say your online game is much softer now than it was a couple of months ago. And given that some of these players will stick around and others will drop off (at their own pace) I would guess that trying to get a reasonable metric around what percentage of "winning" players are out there at this particular moment would be impossible.

  • EurocratEurocrat Red Chipper Posts: 73 ✭✭
    5% doesn't seem to be too off to me when you count biological individuals. I have the impression that most regs play 3-4 tables of zoom, whereas recreationals play only one table.

    I think the player pool is much tougher because I would say that the format suits regulars more, plus you have zero option to table select (except maybe for site and time), so you'll play more against those regulars. I just never liked the format and preferred much much to exploit some recreational players at the classic tables.

    As concerns rake: I only played zoom on NL5, but rake is same as normal tables with Pokerstars, 6.40 bb/100 as compared to 6,70 bb/100 on normal tables.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2
    It's not so much how tough the players are, but how close they are in skill level. If you take 10 terrible players, or 10 average players, or 10 great players, at 3 separate tables, then you will have 30 losing poker players (assuming rake). So I think it's a combination of that and rake that determine the % of winners. It's kind of hard to imagine lower than 10% winners, but I didn't do any real research, so.....
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,655 -
    jeffnc wrote: »
    It's not so much how tough the players are, but how close they are in skill level. If you take 10 terrible players, or 10 average players, or 10 great players, at 3 separate tables, then you will have 30 losing poker players (assuming rake). So I think it's a combination of that and rake that determine the % of winners. It's kind of hard to imagine lower than 10% winners, but I didn't do any real research, so.....

    Yeah good point, the easiest way to squash the % winners is to make everyone the same skill level, but I would be surprised if that is the case below fairly high stakes. As I said above, stats like this are hard to interpret.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,503 ✭✭✭✭
    Is the rake schedule different on fast poker tables than regular tables?

    They used to be the same but I haven't look in a long time.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file