Zoom or Regular (cash)

[_xgeb_]

which one do you play? Which one is better for you?

 

[Liru]

Ive never tried playing zoom, I like to talk and get to know the poker players in my table but thats just my opinion.

 

[igroksash]

I like regular quiet poker at 1-2 tables. In zoom I played a couple of times I didn’t like it, each time new players, a new table. I prefer the classics.

 

[EarnDAStack]

I think they lend themselves to two different player types. When playing Zoom, you need to have a more balanced fundamental understanding of the game. In regular table games, you can be a little more comfortable playing a more exploitative strategy because you’re sat down with the play for a longer, strait stint, and generally the outright grinders will play more Zoom because they can get more volume which is how cash grinders make more money, so this tends to naturally filter out some of the better players out of regular table games. This is very general tho and minimizes as you climb up in stakes, but generally the same player would have a higher BB/100 winrate at a regular table and a higher hourly at a Zoom table

 

[ventrolloquist]

Zoom on microgaming it's max a 50 person field so you can take notes on everyone and play an exploitative game.

 

[fundiver199]

I mainly play regular tables. In my opinion Zoom games play overly tight, and with the high rake in the micros they are essentially unbeatable from 10NL and up. This I can not prove of course, but I would love to see someone show a grafh, where they actually beat 10NL Zoom on Pokerstars over a substantial sample like 200k hands. I always smile, when I see someone post videos on Youtube about "crushing" some Zoom game. People post their sunshine runs and wipe the rest under the carpet.

 

[fundiver199]

This is very general tho and minimizes as you climb up in stakes, but generally the same player would have a higher BB/100 winrate at a regular table and a higher hourly at a Zoom table

I will stick my neck out here and say, that I think, the vast majority of players have a lower hourly winrate at Zoom. More volume means more rake, so even if your hourly winrate before rake is higher, your hourly winrate after rake might well be lower. This by the way also goes for excessive multitabling.

For this whole “trade winrate for volume” idea to work out, the rake need to be negligible compared to the winrate of a typical winning player. Which is absolutely not the case in modern online cash games from 10NL and up. The rake is often 10 BB/100, while realistic long term after rake winrates are low single digits.

 

[sergik1992]

which one do you play? Which one is better for you?

Personally I prefer zoom . There is more action here!

 

[jcxmendes]

my preference is regular, played some far and felt little uncomfortable, maybe not ta acclimated to the dynamics!

 

[EarnDAStack]

I will stick my neck out here and say, that I think, the vast majority of players have a lower hourly winrate at Zoom. More volume means more rake, so even if your hourly winrate before rake is higher, your hourly winrate after rake might well be lower. This by the way also goes for excessive multitabling.

For this whole “trade winrate for volume” idea to work out, the rake need to be negligible compared to the winrate of a typical winning player. Which is absolutely not the case in modern online cash games from 10NL and up. The rake is often 10 BB/100, while realistic long term after rake winrates are low single digits.

Yeah I think you might be right actually. I've been watching a lot of twitch streamers who are doing cash leader boards and I hear them mention how some players will be losing players, but make money from leaderboard payouts. I wouldn't be surprised if more players than people think are actually not profitable players and make their livings off of essentially promotions. But I guess the flip side of that might just be that most people don't make money playing poker anyway.

 

[jesuisjesus]

In zoom poker, you must stricly follow bankroll managment.
In a regular cash game, bankroll managment may be softer, but don't forget about it.

 

[Iryna Stryzheuskaya]

I like regular tables more.

 

[vittopio]

Zoom play due to a larger volume of the game! Although profit for regular tables above!

 

[Steve Deeble]

Regular cash games I find are more profitable for myself. I find you get a sense of the players traits, but with zoom your constantly playing new players and can’t really predict what they’ll do.

 

[_xgeb_]

Regular cash games I find are more profitable for myself. I find you get a sense of the players traits, but with zoom your constantly playing new players and can’t really predict what they’ll do.

I think exactly the same.

 

[Igor Popadyk]

I love action more - choose zoom

 

[dgroes]

I play both. just have to tweak strategies a bit when playing cash than zoom.

 

[Dimmarik411]

I tried it once in ZOOM- some crap. For me, the usual one is better .

 

[nghoffman]

Zoom is very addicting. It's difficult to play other types of games after playing too much zoom.

 

[fundiver199]

Zoom is very addicting. It's difficult to play other types of games after playing too much zoom.

I dont mind Zoom for the playing experience. There is no going on waiting lists, no waiting for the blinds to come around, which is certainly nice. Its also nice to be able to fully concentrate on one hand at a time and still get decent volume, which you can do by playing a single Zoom table. On the downside reads and dynamics are missing, so its a much more mechanic and simple kind of poker.

What really made me move away from Zoom was, that when I reached 10NL and 16NL, there was just to much difference in my winrate between regular tables and Zoom tables for me to ignore. Some of that might have been variance, and some due to the fact, that I mainly played regular full ring tables and not 6-max.

But at the end of the day I saw no reason to continue playing a game, where my results were way worse, and where I was actually losing money. It also helped me realise, how important it is to find soft games by table selecting, playing at the right time of day, playing on the right poker site etc.

The simple fact is, that we win in poker, when our opponents make mistakes, and the only way to win big (and overcome high rake) is to play against someone, who make big mistakes. And these players are just not found in Zoom games. For starters according to my database preflop limping occur less than half as often in Zoom. And since "raising against limp" generate way more profit than open raising, again according to my data-base, this absolutely matter.

So many people get obsessed about perfecting their ranges in every single spot, and if you plan on playing 500NL online, you absolutely need to. But for all us micro or small stakes players, who have to content with high rake, there is simply no substitute for playing against those fish, who will limp-call preflop with K8 offsuit and then call us all the way down with second or third pair. Its not fancy or glorious, but this is where, the profit comes from.

 

[_xgeb_]

I dont mind Zoom for the playing experience. There is no going on waiting lists, no waiting for the blinds to come around, which is certainly nice. Its also nice to be able to fully concentrate on one hand at a time and still get decent volume, which you can do by playing a single Zoom table. On the downside reads and dynamics are missing, so its a much more mechanic and simple kind of poker.

What really made me move away from Zoom was, that when I reached 10NL and 16NL, there was just to much difference in my winrate between regular tables and Zoom tables for me to ignore. Some of that might have been variance, and some due to the fact, that I mainly played regular full ring tables and not 6-max.

But at the end of the day I saw no reason to continue playing a game, where my results were way worse, and where I was actually losing money. It also helped me realise, how important it is to find soft games by table selecting, playing at the right time of day, playing on the right poker site etc.

The simple fact is, that we win in poker, when our opponents make mistakes, and the only way to win big (and overcome high rake) is to play against someone, who make big mistakes. And these players are just not found in Zoom games. For starters according to my database preflop limping occur less than half as often in Zoom. And since "raising against limp" generate way more profit than open raising, again according to my data-base, this absolutely matter.

So many people get obsessed about perfecting their ranges in every single spot, and if you plan on playing 500NL online, you absolutely need to. But for all us micro or small stakes players, who have to content with high rake, there is simply no substitute for playing against those fish, who will limp-call preflop with K8 offsuit and then call us all the way down with second or third pair. Its not fancy or glorious, but this is where, the profit comes from.

Thanks for sharing your experience. I feel identified with your thinking. The zoom is very mechanical in the small and difficult limits, not to say impossible, to take notes of the players and thus be able to exploit them and take advantage of them. Recently I am entering the world of cash, but I always got better results at regular tables because I was able to identify villain game styles and I knew how to exploit them and keep their chips. Another thing, in small limits I was better at max 6 tables than at 9 .. since we usually take surprises at 9 because there are many players who enter with very bad hands.

 

[akmost]

Personally I play both , apparently zoom is way more fun especially for the impatient players who chase action no matter what. I don't know if micro limits zoom is a good place for totally amateurs because poker needs some ''waiting''.I mean you can't play any 2 cards and zooms doesn't ''teach'' you that compared to a regular table.

Also in zoom you gonna need more time-hands to start labeling players in orer to adjust your play in some future spots. :driver:

 

[dgroes]

Zoom is very addicting. It's difficult to play other types of games after playing too much zoom.

no not at all. all you need is some adjustment. for example: you need to know is understand the nature of zoom and adjust to the slower nature of the normal games. the getting hooked part is you yourself not being aware of what is going on.

 

[M13A13]

The Zoom you see a greater amount of hands and play with different players and have a greater chance of winning.
The regular game sees a smaller amount of hands and the players are fixed.

 

[Nathan Williams]

Short answer:

Zoom is better for a hardcore grinder who wants to put in a ton of hands and get to the long run faster. Zoom is also good for a recreational player who just wants the convenience of sitting down and playing right away.

Regular tables are better for somebody who wants to table select, have a higher winrate and ultimately reduce their variance.

For me personally, I prefer regular tables, but it is an individual decision. You can find my complete guide to Zoom poker strategy for 2020 right here:

https://www.blackrain79.com/2015/07/zoom-poker-strategy-essential-guide.html