How to beat Rush Poker?

[Esqueleto]

Some say lay and wait for aces and just go all in.

Others say only play connected cards or ace high suited cards and hope to hit a straight or flush.

Others say play pair cards and hope for set, fold otherwise.


Any preferences?

[alw4ysontilt]

well in a matter of fact, i really think in rush poker its all about luck, ppl play there usually very strong hands, a lot more then normal ring game. therefore if some1 does play with u, he might have u beat, u need win flips and u just dont have any read about ur opponent.
and, i found out that in 6man table, u get a lot of walks or no action with big hands, a lot more often then walks in normal ring game, the players dont mind going to the next hand.

therefore my own buttom line is, dont play the rush poker, its a loser for you .

gl with rush .

[PacHo21]

Some say lay and wait for aces and just go all in.

Others say only play connected cards or ace high suited cards and hope to hit a straight or flush.

Others say play pair cards and hope for set, fold otherwise.


Any preferences?

Don't play Rush... is the best preference xD!

[bigslick1]

My thing with Rush is that people play with weaker cards then usual in a ring game. That's mainly because you have no reads. Having no reads make it difficult for people to guess what cards you have. My advice is to play patient, because people don't know if your a fish just raising with any two, or if you actually have a good hand. I think that Rush poker is a very profitable game if you can master it. Good luck in your rush poker playing and win big.

[kimlovo]

I am up 1000s of dollars just by playing like I use to play. The thing about Rush is that people start to act like they dont know anything about bankroll management. They play too high. Yes, there are more swings in Rush, just like it is in Omaha. And thats why you got to be prepared on it and dont start to whine. Play lower than yoy use to, but play your regular game. If people play tight it is only good for you, right? It is just like in the gold rush years 2004-2006 when all ABC-fishes just waited on big slicks. Go get their cash with your sets and draws

[travz21]

I am up 1000s of dollars just by playing like I use to play. The thing about Rush is that people start to act like they dont know anything about bankroll management. They play too high. Yes, there are more swings in Rush, just like it is in Omaha. And thats why you got to be prepared on it and dont start to whine. Play lower than yoy use to, but play your regular game. If people play tight it is only good for you, right? It is just like in the gold rush years 2004-2006 when all ABC-fishes just waited on big slicks. Go get their cash with your sets and draws

Graphs ?

[EliminateU]

rush poker is not poker. it's a scheme to generate more rake. kudos to FTP for being original, but don't play rush poker.

[travz21]

rush poker is not poker. it's a scheme to generate more rake. kudos to FTP for being original, but don't play rush poker.

Poker is poker.

[EliminateU]

Poker is poker.

that is one of the most false statements ever made.

[grimReaper]

rush poker is not poker.

I'm w/ you on this statement and I already had this discussion w/ travz. We basically accepted our differences as "poker" players, but as for Rush, travz seems to be a profiting multitabler, and imo in the end that's all that matters, poker or not poker. Though understanding the subtle differences in how different individuals play/approach certain hands requires a different skill set, which is required in in live play.

[C8H10N4O2]

that is one of the most false statements ever made.

What exactly is poker then if poker isn't poker?

[travz21]

that is one of the most false statements ever made.

This just in: Poker =/= Poker

[C8H10N4O2]

I'm w/ you on this statement and I already had this discussion w/ travz. We basically accepted our differences as "poker" players, but as for Rush, travz seems to be a profiting multitabler, and imo in the end that's all that matters, poker or not poker. Though understanding the subtle differences in how different individuals play/approach certain hands requires a different skill set, which is required in in live play.

This is true for all forms of poker. Live requires a different skill set than online. Limit requires a different skill set than no-limit. Omaha requires a different skill set than Hold'em. SnG's require a different skill set than cash games. Deep stacked tournies require a different skill set than regularly stacked tournies... etc. That list can keep on going and going. However, they all have one thing in common, and that is that they are all different forms of poker. If this were not the case, I could make the silly argument that online "poker" is not real poker, because you cannot gain any physical tells from your opponents and physical tells is what defines poker. However, this just isn't the case, and it's inaccurate to try to claim otherwise.

[travz21]

This is true for all forms of poker. Live requires a different skill set than online. Limit requires a different skill set than no-limit. Omaha requires a different skill set than Hold'em. SnG's require a different skill set than cash games. Deep stacked tournies require a different skill set than regularly stacked tournies... etc. That list can keep on going and going. However, they all have one thing in common, and that is that they are all different forms of poker. If this were not the case, I could make the silly argument that online "poker" is not real poker, because you cannot gain any physical tells from your opponents and physical tells is what defines poker. However, this just isn't the case, and it's inaccurate to try to claim otherwise.

No, Dew. The minor differences in Rush change the original game way too much to call it poker.

[C8H10N4O2]

No, Dew. The minor differences in Rush change the original game way too much to call it poker.

Perhaps, but let me get this straight.

Poker =/= poker, so maybe Rush = poker? By that, Rush = Poker, but Poker=/=Poker, so Rush =/= Poker. Since Poker =/= Poker, and Rush =/= Poker, Rush can still = Poker! Alas, I understand it now. Unless of course Rush =/= Rush.

[travz21]

Loopholes galore.

[C8H10N4O2]

Loopholes galore.

Haha... if Poker =/= Poker, there is no way to not have loopholes... unless no way =/= no way, or loopholes =/= loopholes. Or = =/= =.

[grimReaper]

This is true for all forms of poker. Live requires a different skill set than online. Limit requires a different skill set than no-limit. Omaha requires a different skill set than Hold'em. SnG's require a different skill set than cash games. Deep stacked tournies require a different skill set than regularly stacked tournies... etc. That list can keep on going and going. However, they all have one thing in common, and that is that they are all different forms of poker. If this were not the case, I could make the silly argument that online "poker" is not real poker, because you cannot gain any physical tells from your opponents and physical tells is what defines poker. However, this just isn't the case, and it's inaccurate to try to claim otherwise.

Of course, this discussion circulates around on how one defines "poker," but there's a general consensus that poker, at least where the skill is involved, involves playing the player, especially when you are playing NL and PL. How do you play the player when each hand there's a new table and set of players every hand? But w/e, if you make money doing what you do, then like I said, that's great!

In fact, coincidentally I saw your post on the AK thread about the pokercast on 2+2, and I went ahead and semi-randomly selected the interview w/ Barry Greenstein, and he talks about what poker is. http://pokercast.s3.amazonaws.com/twoplustwo_22.mp3 go to 3/5 through.

"A good player is going to say I know what this guy does in these situations...most of poker is not what somebody can teach you. Somebody raises and you have AQ and you have to make a decision: should I call this, should I fold this, should I come over the top? And I don't care what anyone's taught you, but this now poker. Feeling out the other player, what has he been doing, did he just lose a pot, does he feel strong or weak, there's a a lot of feel, there's no mathematics, I mean there's some mathematics arranged but you really have to combine w/ feel at the table .... and the better player will make more better decisions and having seen what the weaker player does."

I bolded this is not mathematics, b/c it emphasizes the point. (obv he didn't mean that literally, but the mathematics is just a "prereq" to playing poker as I've described before,as Greenstein also mentions). And I obv don't need Barry Greenstein to back me up, I feel this general consensus on what poker is (at least as a general idea of playing the player) is pretty well understood. But I thought I'd bring it up b/c I just heard it and is relevant to this active discussion.

He also describes a hand where he misses a flush on the board somewhere in there, which goes back to our previous discussion on colored deck. I know Barry doesn't play online much, but the point is that these mistakes happen (do you guys not play any live?), and it's a theory that a colored deck can encourage these mistakes. But w/e I'm over that discussion.

[travz21]

You can play the player without knowing anything about how they play. I can sit down at a live table and tell how people play just by looking at them. Just like online I can tell if people are auto-topping up they aren't total fish. You know stats aren't true in any live game you play in? Even the longest live sessions will still have under 1k hands. Without accurate stats, you can't play the player. Therefore, your claim that "not playing the player isn't poker" relates to every live session you've ever played. And what about SNGs? You play like 100 hands max. You have 0 accurate reads on people in that time frame. Rush poker is exactly the same regarding reads, you just play against different people every hand. All you can do is make your best educated guess to how they play and go from there. Unless you have thousands and thousands of hands on someone, you are not playing the player accurately like you think you are.

And why don't you just admit that you make simple mistakes in live games and stop trying to prove that online hurts your live board reading ability.

[C8H10N4O2]

He also describes a hand where he misses a flush on the board somewhere in there, which goes back to our previous discussion on colored deck. I know Barry doesn't play online much, but the point is that these mistakes happen (do you guys not play any live?), and it's a theory that a colored deck can encourage these mistakes. But w/e I'm over that discussion.

Oh no you din't just restart that discussion! Lol... That in no way strengthens your argument that a 4-color deck can encourage these mistakes. In fact, it might even help out everyone else's side of the argument since Barry doesn't play online much at all. And yes, I do play live. Linking a 4-color deck as being responsible for missing flushes live is just ridiculous for so many reasons. It'd be like my saying because I'm drinking a beer right now, Tiger Woods is a sex addict. The two might both be true, but there is no validity to claiming a correlation or causation.

You are still missing the point that you can play against the "standard" player, and be right more often than not (That's why there is such thing as a "standard" player). Also, you are still playing the player, and like I said previously, believe it or not, but I have several hands now logged with the regulars in Rush. Enough that getting reads on them isn't as "impossible" as you seem to think it is.

There are a ton of players who mathematically make the incorrect plays. By playing 100% mathematically, I'm sure you'd still show a profit. The live player though is able to use so much more to make the correct plays. But that still does not mean that an online player is no longer playing poker. By your argument, if I were to take the opposite approach and say that online poker is not poker, I could use Barry's argument to support my claim as well. If I were to say that poker is much more than merely bet sizes and "lines" that players take, online poker is no longer poker. I agree that a lot more goes into the decision making playing one table online, or a lot more goes into the decision making for live play, but that does not rule out mass multi-tabling as "not a form of poker". It's still poker. You just lose some of the elements of what you are used to in more standard forms of poker. If I were to take the way you are approaching "poker" vs "rush poker" and apply it to online poker vs live poker, I could "prove" that online poker was not poker... but it is still definitely poker.