I posted this magnum opus five hours ago on a different thread, and got no comment on it--so I thought I'd see if maybe people thought that thread had run its course and so didn't read, but might be interested in discussing this issue (which I think is a huge one) on its own, appropriately titled thread.
Quick background: Yahkin had said he felt like he ran better against skilled players than against bad ones, which raised a few eyebrows. I chimed in to agree, then ended up fleshing out some ideas I've been mulling:
I totally agree with Yahkin here. Though it sounds counterintuitive to be sure, I feel like this is true for my game as well. Look at how much better I do in our strat tourneys than in low buyin SNGs (most of the time). Mike Matusow seems to strongly feel this way about playing online in general (though I'm sure his stakes are a lot higher), because people just get so sticky with their hands.
Now, whether it's me, Yahkin, or Matusow, an argument could be made that we are not properly adjusting our strategy to suit our opponents. After all, if villains are playing "badly", how can they collectively "outplay" us? I think the answer is complex, and not easy to nail down. But my attempt would be like this:
The "bad" players tend to stick around and call (or make) preflop raises, or chase draws, they mathematically "shouldn't". But because so many of them do it on any given hand, they kind of "gang up" on the player who is playing "properly". If any given one of them doesn't suck out on the "good" player, another one likely will. Even if none of them do and hero gets a big stack, in a big MTT there will always be plenty more* loose donks (with big stacks themselves because they were the ones who got lucky--the rest are long gone) to continue to make kamikaze runs at our hero. And because they kind of come in waves, they will eventually take him down (most of the time). After the solid strategic players are wiped out, the clueless loose players kind of randomly flail away at each other until someone inevitably "wins" (happens to end up with all the chips).
But surely these people have to be exploitable; it just requires a different strategy (and, getting back to the original point, Yahkin and I feel more comfortable with the type of strategy that works against solid, aware players). I've been pondering this, and my working theory (as yet unproven) is as follows, for two types of donkish tables I often see:
(1) Passive tables, with lots of calling stations but not much aggression (except on later streets either with a huge hand or as a desperation bluff with something like bottom pair, or nothing at all). At the first blind level, and to some degree the second, you should limp in with almost ATC (and literally ATC if you're getting odds), and try to hit a big hand so you can take down a huge pot. Forget trying to play smallball, and don't try to use big bets to thin the field if you flop TPTK. Also, you perhaps should almost give up on AKos in terms of the conventional strategy of raising preflop to narrow the field, then if you hit, betting the flop big enough to chase out draws, etc. Won't work against these players, and your TPTK will look pretty shaky when the pot is bloated by the river and you've still got three opponents. OTOH, if you get a 5xBB raise preflop followed by a couple calls, this is a good time for AK to get back in the saddle as you can push it.
When you get to the third and fourth level of blinds, tighten up your starting requirements, but still look for opportunities to play nice drawing hands (suited aces, suited connectors, small and medium pairs) even if you have to call a raise in position. If you're going to play a semi-big pair (JJ, QQ, even KK to an extent) you'd better raise huge preflop, or else you're going to have to treat it as a drawing hand like the smaller pairs. Reraising all in with any of the higher pairs (even a little lower than JJ) should be considered.
At the higher blind levels, play a little more standard strategy, but be a little tighter in terms of making blind steals and other position plays, and a little looser in calling raises (especially with suited aces). When Ms get really low, just go back to the basic push/fold strategy and hope for the best.
(2) Aggro-donk tables. Clearly, limping and playing drawing hands isn't going to work here. You've got to be a lot tighter to a certain extent, but at times you've got to be looser (perhaps calling a push with something like 99, TT, or AQ that you wouldn't dream of doing against a solid table). Fold preflop most of the time, but when you jump in, be prepared to go all the way.
Make sense?
-----
*One reason I often prefer to play STTs, though all my profit paradoxically came from that 922-player MTT the other night.
Full Version: Strategy To Deal With Bad Players
I think it's hard to draw such a clear distinction between the types of tables because I find that every micro SnG I play has a mix of both types, they just differ with respect to the mix. It's incredibly rare that a micro SnG makes it through 4 or 5 hands without at least one guy already knocked out by going all in on something like KT. I also find that once you get to the later stages (say, level 5 or 6, or around bubble territory), those donks have been weeded out and you're left with the half-decent players - or donks who have at least tightened up considerably.
I'm not so sure about limping with ATC even with the odds, since you still have to play postflop. You can dig yourself a deep hole (as many donks do) by limping with hands that are very difficult to play even when they hit. It's also difficult to hit a monster hand with many, many combinations of ATC. That said, I think you do have to loosen up in the first 2 levels by playing hands like small suited connectors and middle connectors when you have the odds to do so. Those are hands that can hit big but are easy to throw away if they miss or even if you just get a piece (e.g., limping in w/ 65s and the flop comes A5T, not your suit). This is an approach I just recently started to adopt thanks to some feedback from people in this forum.
I actually disagree with your late-stage strategy, though. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the late stage is the time to tighten your calling range, not loosen it. The quality of play tends to be quite a bit better in the late stages than in the early stages, and calling raises with suited Aces can get you in trouble (unless they're the good suited Aces). Since players tend to tighten up quite a bit around level 5, I think you need to tighten your calling range but loosen your raising range to steal some blinds.
Of course, there are a whole lotta people more experienced than I in this forum.
I'm not so sure about limping with ATC even with the odds, since you still have to play postflop. You can dig yourself a deep hole (as many donks do) by limping with hands that are very difficult to play even when they hit. It's also difficult to hit a monster hand with many, many combinations of ATC. That said, I think you do have to loosen up in the first 2 levels by playing hands like small suited connectors and middle connectors when you have the odds to do so. Those are hands that can hit big but are easy to throw away if they miss or even if you just get a piece (e.g., limping in w/ 65s and the flop comes A5T, not your suit). This is an approach I just recently started to adopt thanks to some feedback from people in this forum.
I actually disagree with your late-stage strategy, though. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the late stage is the time to tighten your calling range, not loosen it. The quality of play tends to be quite a bit better in the late stages than in the early stages, and calling raises with suited Aces can get you in trouble (unless they're the good suited Aces). Since players tend to tighten up quite a bit around level 5, I think you need to tighten your calling range but loosen your raising range to steal some blinds.
Of course, there are a whole lotta people more experienced than I in this forum.
People who say they do better against better players are just wrong, plain and simple.
Against bad players who call you down with draws they are priced out from making, you will win less pots, guaranteed. However the pots you win will be so much bigger if you are playing the player correctly, and you will be a long term winner.
If you can't beat the $5 and $10 SNGs consistently, you are not a winning player, period. Everyone thinks they are great at poker and that the rest of the world is an idiot, but if you cant figure out how to beat somebody, then you are not good. A good player who plays within his bankroll will never go broke, period.
With calling stations, there will be higher variance, however if you are a good player who plays within his bankroll this should not be a problem. You just have to learn to deal with it.
If you don't like taking bad beats, play chess.
Against bad players who call you down with draws they are priced out from making, you will win less pots, guaranteed. However the pots you win will be so much bigger if you are playing the player correctly, and you will be a long term winner.
If you can't beat the $5 and $10 SNGs consistently, you are not a winning player, period. Everyone thinks they are great at poker and that the rest of the world is an idiot, but if you cant figure out how to beat somebody, then you are not good. A good player who plays within his bankroll will never go broke, period.
With calling stations, there will be higher variance, however if you are a good player who plays within his bankroll this should not be a problem. You just have to learn to deal with it.
If you don't like taking bad beats, play chess.
QUOTE (SlackerInc @ Wednesday, May 9th, 2007, 4:12 PM) 
But surely these people have to be exploitable; it just requires a different strategy (and, getting back to the original point, Yahkin and I feel more comfortable with the type of strategy that works against solid, aware players). I've been pondering this, and my working theory (as yet unproven) is as follows, for two types of donkish tables I often see:
(1) Passive tables, with lots of calling stations but not much aggression (except on later streets either with a huge hand or as a desperation bluff with something like bottom pair, or nothing at all). At the first blind level, and to some degree the second, you should limp in with almost ATC (and literally ATC if you're getting odds), and try to hit a big hand so you can take down a huge pot. Forget trying to play smallball, and don't try to use big bets to thin the field if you flop TPTK. Also, you perhaps should almost give up on AKos in terms of the conventional strategy of raising preflop to narrow the field, then if you hit, betting the flop big enough to chase out draws, etc. Won't work against these players, and your TPTK will look pretty shaky when the pot is bloated by the river and you've still got three opponents. OTOH, if you get a 5xBB raise preflop followed by a couple calls, this is a good time for AK to get back in the saddle as you can push it.
When you get to the third and fourth level of blinds, tighten up your starting requirements, but still look for opportunities to play nice drawing hands (suited aces, suited connectors, small and medium pairs) even if you have to call a raise in position. If you're going to play a semi-big pair (JJ, QQ, even KK to an extent) you'd better raise huge preflop, or else you're going to have to treat it as a drawing hand like the smaller pairs. Reraising all in with any of the higher pairs (even a little lower than JJ) should be considered.
At the higher blind levels, play a little more standard strategy, but be a little tighter in terms of making blind steals and other position plays, and a little looser in calling raises (especially with suited aces). When Ms get really low, just go back to the basic push/fold strategy and hope for the best.
(1) Passive tables, with lots of calling stations but not much aggression (except on later streets either with a huge hand or as a desperation bluff with something like bottom pair, or nothing at all). At the first blind level, and to some degree the second, you should limp in with almost ATC (and literally ATC if you're getting odds), and try to hit a big hand so you can take down a huge pot. Forget trying to play smallball, and don't try to use big bets to thin the field if you flop TPTK. Also, you perhaps should almost give up on AKos in terms of the conventional strategy of raising preflop to narrow the field, then if you hit, betting the flop big enough to chase out draws, etc. Won't work against these players, and your TPTK will look pretty shaky when the pot is bloated by the river and you've still got three opponents. OTOH, if you get a 5xBB raise preflop followed by a couple calls, this is a good time for AK to get back in the saddle as you can push it.
When you get to the third and fourth level of blinds, tighten up your starting requirements, but still look for opportunities to play nice drawing hands (suited aces, suited connectors, small and medium pairs) even if you have to call a raise in position. If you're going to play a semi-big pair (JJ, QQ, even KK to an extent) you'd better raise huge preflop, or else you're going to have to treat it as a drawing hand like the smaller pairs. Reraising all in with any of the higher pairs (even a little lower than JJ) should be considered.
At the higher blind levels, play a little more standard strategy, but be a little tighter in terms of making blind steals and other position plays, and a little looser in calling raises (especially with suited aces). When Ms get really low, just go back to the basic push/fold strategy and hope for the best.
This is completely backwards.
Early in a SNG, I am open folding A Q, that's how tight I play. These levels (10/20, 15/30) are essentially meaningless when compared to the 100-200/25 level you will be playing in about 20 minutes(for turbos, more like 40 minutes for a regular SNG). You cant afford to be dusting off a couple hundred chips playing stupid hands and chasing the draws you flopped with your little BS suited connectors.
Which brings me to my next point, is that suited connectors are overrated for SNG play, (not cash games though). With limited chips, you will more often than not, flop a draw rather than a made hand, and be forced to pay to hit your hand.
When you do pick up a big hand (10 10+, AK) in the small-medium SNGs, raise big to force the others to pay if they are going to play some BS hand. If someone raises I usually just shove at this level since you wil usually get called my far inferior hands and get an early double up. The same theory applies if you flop top pair, and you feel your opponent is on a draw. You should bet huge, (though not so big to get them to fold) to make them pay to hit their hand. Bet an amount that they will be making a mistake by calling.
I'm looking to see a cheap flop with small PPs, because if you do it the hand you need, you can bust someone with top pair or an overpair. The implied value exists here, and not in suited connectors, because you will either hit your hand or you won't, and you won't wind up making poor decisions on later streets.
When the blinds get higher, (25/50, 50/100) you should still be playing tight, and only be playing hands that you are prepared to play for your entire stack preflop. At the 50-100 level, restealing can be very profitable. If you think someone is making a late postition steal by raising to 300, an all in can pick up an additional 450 in chips, which is pretty valuable at this stage. Also, weak suited aces and suited connectors are not worth playing at all in this level.
Very late in a SNG, (100-200/25, 200-400/25) you should be extremely loose with your stealing requirements. If you have 4.5-8x the BB left ( you should never let yourself go below that) I am pushing with any two from the SB and the button if the blinds and antes will increase my stack by at least 20%.
Consolidating from both posts...
People who say they do better against better players are just wrong, plain and simple.
[...]
If you can't beat the $5 and $10 SNGs consistently, you are not a winning player, period. Everyone thinks they are great at poker and that the rest of the world is an idiot, but if you cant figure out how to beat somebody, then you are not good.
Well, maybe I've just been lucky against you all so far (because according to sharkscope, I have a -8% ROI in SNGs, though my MTT win the other night was not counted and the profit from it is twice my total SNG losses). Time will tell.
But the discussion with Yahkin actually revolved around having dropped down from $5 to $1 SNGs. You may not even bother with the latter, but in those (and in the 50 cent, no vig MTTs, which I also play from time to time) the play is significantly, ah, different from even the $5 SNGs. These are where my advice was really aimed.
You seem to be almost saying "just play the best strategy you'd use against good players and it will all work out in the end". Sklansky and Miller as well as Harrington have said that when you play at tables where many players go to the flop and raises do not significantly thin the field, suited connectors and small pairs go up in value while high unsuited cards go down in value. Do you disagree with that?
This is completely backwards.
Early in a SNG, I am open folding A Q, that's how tight I play.
I'm not sure we disagree here as much as you seem to think. In the early blind levels of SNGs, AQos is not really a hand I relish playing either., because it often effectively becomes a "trap hand" if you flop TPTK. I would be happier to see ATs; or if it is super duper "no fold 'em hold 'em" (five or six players to nearly every flop), I'd rather have A2s than AQos. But of course this comes with the disclaimer that if you just pair your ace, you have the discipline not to put many chips in the center. You need to pair your other card or if not, at least don't build a big pot (the opposite of the conventional idea of betting big to thin the field). Now, again: this is a theory which I have some level of trouble implementing as it goes against my instincts. But I do think it would work if implemented in a disciplined way.
These levels (10/20, 15/30) are essentially meaningless when compared to the 100-200/25 level you will be playing in about 20 minutes(for turbos, more like 40 minutes for a regular SNG).
Big difference between turbos and regular SNGs; I have stopped playing turbos myself as I think they are too crapshootish. And in those first couple levels, some players will be hemorrhaging chips--so staying super tight preflop is not a great strategy (this is also covered in HoH: Harrington says that if you were playing against LAG players like Gus Hansen, Phil Ivey, etc., playing converse to them (tight) would be best--but if the guys you are playing just think they are Gus and Phil but are actually Larry, Curly, and Moe, you want to get into their pots so you can get their chips before someone else does. (The more I think about it, the theory I'm presenting does have a lot of correlates in HoH; they are simply sections I paid little attention to when I first read the book because I wanted to learn the "pro style" and also because I was playing against a group of RL tight players rather than the characters you meet in micro online events.)
You cant afford to be dusting off a couple hundred chips playing stupid hands and chasing the draws you flopped with your little BS suited connectors.
It just depends on whether you can chase them cheaply. In the $1 SNGs, you'll quite frequently see people make bets that are less then one-tenth the size of the pot (seriously--if you haven't played them you should play a few and see: it's pretty funny), and getting the four other players still in the pot all calling (no one raising). This obviously is lucrative "chasing" odds!
Which brings me to my next point, is that suited connectors are overrated for SNG play, (not cash games though). With limited chips, you will more often than not, flop a draw rather than a made hand, and be forced to pay to hit your hand.
See above, and recognise that I'm talking about the first couple levels when stacks are deep relative to the blinds (though as someone noted here, the very successful Gus Hansen called off a third of his stack on PAD when holding low suited connectors). But if you are "forced to pay", don't pay. Just figure your pot odds (and be stingy about your implied odds), and be disciplined.
When you do pick up a big hand (10 10+, AK) in the small-medium SNGs, raise big to force the others to pay if they are going to play some BS hand.
And then what do you do if you get three or four callers (a common occurrence) and the flop contains an overcard (or in the case of AK, even if you hit TPTK)? Someone's likely to have you beat; and if they don't, how could you tell? You've got a huge pot and now you're probably going to have to push to deny anyone odds individually. If you're not already beat, a couple of the players who don't understand odds will call and one of them is likely to draw out on you. Or if you win a big pot this time, another group (assuming now we're talking about a pretty big field) will get you later. Maybe if you're patient long enough (play enough buyins) you'll get the situation where your solid hand holds up enough times to give you a monster stack. But since as you pointed out this isn't a cash game or winner take all, you'll still likely be sharing the prize pool with people who blundered around to get where they got; and thus the tournament equity doesn't reward your "big payoff" enough to make up for all those flameouts. Or even if it does, you have to endure a lot of annoying poker to get that occasional win.
If someone raises I usually just shove at this level since you wil usually get called my far inferior hands and get an early double up.
Agreed.
The same theory applies if you flop top pair, and you feel your opponent is on a draw. You should bet huge, (though not so big to get them to fold) to make them pay to hit their hand. Bet an amount that they will be making a mistake by calling.
Once again, you are describing heads up pots (where I agree this strategy is sound) rather than the multiway pots you see so often in $1 tourneys, and in these betting big often just bloats the pot and your top pair is not likely to hold up by the river anyway.
I'm looking to see a cheap flop with small PPs, because if you do it the hand you need, you can bust someone with top pair or an overpair.
Agreed.
The implied value exists here, and not in suited connectors, because you will either hit your hand or you won't, and you won't wind up making poor decisions on later streets.
Again it goes back to having discipline on those later streets. Something I'm working on!
At the 50-100 level, restealing can be very profitable. If you think someone is making a late postition steal by raising to 300, an all in can pick up an additional 450 in chips, which is pretty valuable at this stage.
LOL, no one makes "late position steals" in $1 tourneys. The vast majority of them are not that sophisticated. Once again, this is an area where Action Dan was right when he cautioned against trying to bluff online (and his advice really particularly fits these micros). If someone raises, they're very unlikely to fold to a reraise or even a push.
Very late in a SNG, (100-200/25, 200-400/25) you should be extremely loose with your stealing requirements. If you have 4.5-8x the BB left ( you should never let yourself go below that) I am pushing with any two from the SB and the button if the blinds and antes will increase my stack by at least 20%.
Well, of course. This is what I was talking about when I said "When Ms get really low, just go back to the basic push/fold strategy and hope for the best." "Really low" to me is higher than what you are talking about here. In fact, at the level you're talking about I'm not only pushing from the SB and button by any means, and I'm not necessarily hoping everyone folds! By "At the higher blind levels..." I meant more when you have three or four times as many times the BB left as what you are talking about here.
People who say they do better against better players are just wrong, plain and simple.
[...]
If you can't beat the $5 and $10 SNGs consistently, you are not a winning player, period. Everyone thinks they are great at poker and that the rest of the world is an idiot, but if you cant figure out how to beat somebody, then you are not good.
Well, maybe I've just been lucky against you all so far (because according to sharkscope, I have a -8% ROI in SNGs, though my MTT win the other night was not counted and the profit from it is twice my total SNG losses). Time will tell.
But the discussion with Yahkin actually revolved around having dropped down from $5 to $1 SNGs. You may not even bother with the latter, but in those (and in the 50 cent, no vig MTTs, which I also play from time to time) the play is significantly, ah, different from even the $5 SNGs. These are where my advice was really aimed.
You seem to be almost saying "just play the best strategy you'd use against good players and it will all work out in the end". Sklansky and Miller as well as Harrington have said that when you play at tables where many players go to the flop and raises do not significantly thin the field, suited connectors and small pairs go up in value while high unsuited cards go down in value. Do you disagree with that?
This is completely backwards.
Early in a SNG, I am open folding A Q, that's how tight I play.
I'm not sure we disagree here as much as you seem to think. In the early blind levels of SNGs, AQos is not really a hand I relish playing either., because it often effectively becomes a "trap hand" if you flop TPTK. I would be happier to see ATs; or if it is super duper "no fold 'em hold 'em" (five or six players to nearly every flop), I'd rather have A2s than AQos. But of course this comes with the disclaimer that if you just pair your ace, you have the discipline not to put many chips in the center. You need to pair your other card or if not, at least don't build a big pot (the opposite of the conventional idea of betting big to thin the field). Now, again: this is a theory which I have some level of trouble implementing as it goes against my instincts. But I do think it would work if implemented in a disciplined way.
These levels (10/20, 15/30) are essentially meaningless when compared to the 100-200/25 level you will be playing in about 20 minutes(for turbos, more like 40 minutes for a regular SNG).
Big difference between turbos and regular SNGs; I have stopped playing turbos myself as I think they are too crapshootish. And in those first couple levels, some players will be hemorrhaging chips--so staying super tight preflop is not a great strategy (this is also covered in HoH: Harrington says that if you were playing against LAG players like Gus Hansen, Phil Ivey, etc., playing converse to them (tight) would be best--but if the guys you are playing just think they are Gus and Phil but are actually Larry, Curly, and Moe, you want to get into their pots so you can get their chips before someone else does. (The more I think about it, the theory I'm presenting does have a lot of correlates in HoH; they are simply sections I paid little attention to when I first read the book because I wanted to learn the "pro style" and also because I was playing against a group of RL tight players rather than the characters you meet in micro online events.)
You cant afford to be dusting off a couple hundred chips playing stupid hands and chasing the draws you flopped with your little BS suited connectors.
It just depends on whether you can chase them cheaply. In the $1 SNGs, you'll quite frequently see people make bets that are less then one-tenth the size of the pot (seriously--if you haven't played them you should play a few and see: it's pretty funny), and getting the four other players still in the pot all calling (no one raising). This obviously is lucrative "chasing" odds!
Which brings me to my next point, is that suited connectors are overrated for SNG play, (not cash games though). With limited chips, you will more often than not, flop a draw rather than a made hand, and be forced to pay to hit your hand.
See above, and recognise that I'm talking about the first couple levels when stacks are deep relative to the blinds (though as someone noted here, the very successful Gus Hansen called off a third of his stack on PAD when holding low suited connectors). But if you are "forced to pay", don't pay. Just figure your pot odds (and be stingy about your implied odds), and be disciplined.
When you do pick up a big hand (10 10+, AK) in the small-medium SNGs, raise big to force the others to pay if they are going to play some BS hand.
And then what do you do if you get three or four callers (a common occurrence) and the flop contains an overcard (or in the case of AK, even if you hit TPTK)? Someone's likely to have you beat; and if they don't, how could you tell? You've got a huge pot and now you're probably going to have to push to deny anyone odds individually. If you're not already beat, a couple of the players who don't understand odds will call and one of them is likely to draw out on you. Or if you win a big pot this time, another group (assuming now we're talking about a pretty big field) will get you later. Maybe if you're patient long enough (play enough buyins) you'll get the situation where your solid hand holds up enough times to give you a monster stack. But since as you pointed out this isn't a cash game or winner take all, you'll still likely be sharing the prize pool with people who blundered around to get where they got; and thus the tournament equity doesn't reward your "big payoff" enough to make up for all those flameouts. Or even if it does, you have to endure a lot of annoying poker to get that occasional win.
If someone raises I usually just shove at this level since you wil usually get called my far inferior hands and get an early double up.
Agreed.
The same theory applies if you flop top pair, and you feel your opponent is on a draw. You should bet huge, (though not so big to get them to fold) to make them pay to hit their hand. Bet an amount that they will be making a mistake by calling.
Once again, you are describing heads up pots (where I agree this strategy is sound) rather than the multiway pots you see so often in $1 tourneys, and in these betting big often just bloats the pot and your top pair is not likely to hold up by the river anyway.
I'm looking to see a cheap flop with small PPs, because if you do it the hand you need, you can bust someone with top pair or an overpair.
Agreed.
The implied value exists here, and not in suited connectors, because you will either hit your hand or you won't, and you won't wind up making poor decisions on later streets.
Again it goes back to having discipline on those later streets. Something I'm working on!
At the 50-100 level, restealing can be very profitable. If you think someone is making a late postition steal by raising to 300, an all in can pick up an additional 450 in chips, which is pretty valuable at this stage.
LOL, no one makes "late position steals" in $1 tourneys. The vast majority of them are not that sophisticated. Once again, this is an area where Action Dan was right when he cautioned against trying to bluff online (and his advice really particularly fits these micros). If someone raises, they're very unlikely to fold to a reraise or even a push.
Very late in a SNG, (100-200/25, 200-400/25) you should be extremely loose with your stealing requirements. If you have 4.5-8x the BB left ( you should never let yourself go below that) I am pushing with any two from the SB and the button if the blinds and antes will increase my stack by at least 20%.
Well, of course. This is what I was talking about when I said "When Ms get really low, just go back to the basic push/fold strategy and hope for the best." "Really low" to me is higher than what you are talking about here. In fact, at the level you're talking about I'm not only pushing from the SB and button by any means, and I'm not necessarily hoping everyone folds! By "At the higher blind levels..." I meant more when you have three or four times as many times the BB left as what you are talking about here.
I do agree with many of your points, Slacker - as someone who plays the $1.20's on Stars myself I can say that many of NE's points apply more to the higher levels where players are more likely to play "proper" SnG holdem.
1) I started off playing textbook very tight early, loosen up later strategy but what I found was that I was consistently entering the later stages of the SnG as the shortstack. Although my ITM% was very solid at the beginning, it was mostly 2nd and 3rd place finishes because I rarely, rarely had a decent enough stack to do any real damage. I've come to realize that the reason is because I was playing too tight early on against this type of competition and not giving myself enough opportunities to win big pots. Although I agree with avoiding trouble hands early and not chasing hands when it is too expensive to do so, you have to limp in with suited connectors when the price is right. Otherwise you'll always find yourself having to fight from behind against opponents who have much bigger stacks than yours.
2) Big raises early with pairs like TT and JJ can actually be dangerous at the $1.20 level, partly for the reason Slacker mentions but partly because it is not uncommon for players at this level to limp with high pairs (either because they think they're being tricky or they're just too timid to raise/reraise). I do agree with raising big with hands like KK and AA for value, but big raises with TT/JJ can get you in deep trouble.
3) Stealing blinds is a rare occurrence at $1.20, and is virtually non-existent until you get to at least the 75/150 level. As Slacker says, most players at this level just aren't that sophisticated. I'm amazed at how often you'll see the SB fold or simply complete when it is folded around to him, even at levels like 75/100. I won't try to resteal unless I have a read that would lead me to believe the player is on a steal attempt, or unless I have a big enough stack that I can keep the pressure on my opponents.
1) I started off playing textbook very tight early, loosen up later strategy but what I found was that I was consistently entering the later stages of the SnG as the shortstack. Although my ITM% was very solid at the beginning, it was mostly 2nd and 3rd place finishes because I rarely, rarely had a decent enough stack to do any real damage. I've come to realize that the reason is because I was playing too tight early on against this type of competition and not giving myself enough opportunities to win big pots. Although I agree with avoiding trouble hands early and not chasing hands when it is too expensive to do so, you have to limp in with suited connectors when the price is right. Otherwise you'll always find yourself having to fight from behind against opponents who have much bigger stacks than yours.
2) Big raises early with pairs like TT and JJ can actually be dangerous at the $1.20 level, partly for the reason Slacker mentions but partly because it is not uncommon for players at this level to limp with high pairs (either because they think they're being tricky or they're just too timid to raise/reraise). I do agree with raising big with hands like KK and AA for value, but big raises with TT/JJ can get you in deep trouble.
3) Stealing blinds is a rare occurrence at $1.20, and is virtually non-existent until you get to at least the 75/150 level. As Slacker says, most players at this level just aren't that sophisticated. I'm amazed at how often you'll see the SB fold or simply complete when it is folded around to him, even at levels like 75/100. I won't try to resteal unless I have a read that would lead me to believe the player is on a steal attempt, or unless I have a big enough stack that I can keep the pressure on my opponents.
QUOTE (NEtwowilldo @ Wednesday, May 9th, 2007, 4:15 PM)
People who say they do better against better players are just wrong, plain and simple.
Against bad players who call you down with draws they are priced out from making, you will win less pots, guaranteed. However the pots you win will be so much bigger if you are playing the player correctly, and you will be a long term winner.
If you can't beat the $5 and $10 SNGs consistently, you are not a winning player, period. Everyone thinks they are great at poker and that the rest of the world is an idiot, but if you cant figure out how to beat somebody, then you are not good. A good player who plays within his bankroll will never go broke, period.
With calling stations, there will be higher variance, however if you are a good player who plays within his bankroll this should not be a problem. You just have to learn to deal with it.
If you don't like taking bad beats, play chess.
Against bad players who call you down with draws they are priced out from making, you will win less pots, guaranteed. However the pots you win will be so much bigger if you are playing the player correctly, and you will be a long term winner.
If you can't beat the $5 and $10 SNGs consistently, you are not a winning player, period. Everyone thinks they are great at poker and that the rest of the world is an idiot, but if you cant figure out how to beat somebody, then you are not good. A good player who plays within his bankroll will never go broke, period.
With calling stations, there will be higher variance, however if you are a good player who plays within his bankroll this should not be a problem. You just have to learn to deal with it.
If you don't like taking bad beats, play chess.
Ignore the > $5 column...that was when I first started and was an idiot.
I haven't played >$5 SNG in like 5 months. I was playing way over my bankroll and knew nothing about poker. I'm actually a little surprised at these numbers. The only place I seem to be donking money off is in the $4.40 SNG's.From Pokerstars
At $5:
Yahkin 281 $0 $5 9% $138
Below $5
Yahkin 140 $0 $3 3% -$39
At $1
Yahkin 24 $0 $1 32% $10
Above $5
Yahkin 36 -$4 $12 -29% -$160
Nice post, jmbreslin...thanks for the backup!
Look guys. I haven't read through the long posts.
It's very simple.
You will make more money off of poor players, than you will off of mediocre players.
It may take a bit of an adjustment, but there will never be as much potential for earnings as there is vs the worst players. It's as simple as that. So you can't do "squeeze plays" or other "fancy" plays. If you play this game for money, you want the worst players at the table.
Period.
It's very simple.
You will make more money off of poor players, than you will off of mediocre players.
It may take a bit of an adjustment, but there will never be as much potential for earnings as there is vs the worst players. It's as simple as that. So you can't do "squeeze plays" or other "fancy" plays. If you play this game for money, you want the worst players at the table.
Period.
QUOTE (Zach6668 @ Thursday, May 10th, 2007, 4:52 PM)
Look guys. I haven't read through the long posts.
You should! I think it's a pretty interesting discussion.
But I did point out also that you and I differ in that I play more for enjoyment of strategic duelling than for money, whereas you've said your motivations are the opposite. I would be happy with play money poker, actually, if people played solidly. But unfortunately, while people play chess for free and don't just wildly swing their queen around the board, there seems to be a mentality that if you are playing poker for play money, it "doesn't matter".
QUOTE (SlackerInc @ Thursday, May 10th, 2007, 6:04 PM)
You should! I think it's a pretty interesting discussion. I'll catch up on this thread later tonight.
But I did point out also that you and I differ in that I play more for enjoyment of strategic duelling than for money, whereas you've said your motivations are the opposite. I would be happy with play money poker, actually, if people played solidly. But unfortunately, while people play chess for free and don't just wildly swing their queen around the board, there seems to be a mentality that if you are playing poker for play money, it "doesn't matter".
But I did point out also that you and I differ in that I play more for enjoyment of strategic duelling than for money, whereas you've said your motivations are the opposite. I would be happy with play money poker, actually, if people played solidly. But unfortunately, while people play chess for free and don't just wildly swing their queen around the board, there seems to be a mentality that if you are playing poker for play money, it "doesn't matter".
Yeah, I don't have time for reading all of this now. I had a ton of posts to catch up on.
I did notice you say you'd rather play for the duelling, or whatever, but if you are in it to win, then you'd prefer playing worse players. Your longterm ROI will not be higher vs better players, assuming you are good enough a player to know how to adapt and exploit both groups, which we all are. It is as simple as that. Your edge will be smaller vs better players, and you'll not only win less in the long run, but your variance will be higher.
QUOTE (Zach6668 @ Thursday, May 10th, 2007, 5:12 PM)
Yeah, I don't have time for reading all of this now. I had a ton of posts to catch up on.
I did notice you say you'd rather play for the duelling, or whatever, but if you are in it to win, then you'd prefer playing worse players. Your longterm ROI will not be higher vs better players, assuming you are good enough a player to know how to adapt and exploit both groups, which we all are. It is as simple as that. Your edge will be smaller vs better players, and you'll not only win less in the long run, but your variance will be higher.
I did notice you say you'd rather play for the duelling, or whatever, but if you are in it to win, then you'd prefer playing worse players. Your longterm ROI will not be higher vs better players, assuming you are good enough a player to know how to adapt and exploit both groups, which we all are. It is as simple as that. Your edge will be smaller vs better players, and you'll not only win less in the long run, but your variance will be higher.
Again repeating myself from another thread: I love playing tennis and poker about equally. When I'm at the tennis courts, should I try to get matches against eight year old girls who will get crushed 6-0, 6-0 every time?
I do agree that it is theoretically possible to adapt and play different tactics to try to win against bad players, though. That was the main point of this thread: not to complain about them, but to lay out how I think one's strategy should be adjusted against them. NET seemed to disagree, while jbreslin largely agreed.
QUOTE (SlackerInc @ Thursday, May 10th, 2007, 6:39 PM)
Again repeating myself from another thread: I love playing tennis and poker about equally. When I'm at the tennis courts, should I try to get matches against eight year old girls who will get crushed 6-0, 6-0 every time?
I do agree that it is theoretically possible to adapt and play different tactics to try to win against bad players, though. That was the main point of this thread: not to complain about them, but to lay out how I think one's strategy should be adjusted against them. NET seemed to disagree, while jbreslin largely agreed.
I do agree that it is theoretically possible to adapt and play different tactics to try to win against bad players, though. That was the main point of this thread: not to complain about them, but to lay out how I think one's strategy should be adjusted against them. NET seemed to disagree, while jbreslin largely agreed.
The tennis analogy is completely meaningless. Most of us don't play tennis for a living. Again though, it's a totally different situation. I've given you that though, if you want to play vs good players for ego or whatever, go ahead, but you won't make as much money in the long run as you would if you played vs worse players.
Having said that, the second point is clear. It does take a different strategy to play worse players, but that's the easiest strategy of all. Value bet them to death, don't bluff, don't make plays, get all the FPS out of your system. Of course it's a different strategy than the one you employ to beat players who are paying attention, etc. My point is that while both are probably beatable long term, depending on your individual skill, you'll have more success vs the lesser opponent.
Like you said, this thread is about a strategy for playing worse players, so I'll let you keep on with that, but in no way will the hypothesis hold that you'll make more vs better players, no matter how you frame it.
"The tennis analogy is completely meaningless. Most of us don't play tennis for a living."
Who here plays poker for a living? I see a lot of discussion of playing $5 tourneys, $1 tourneys, etc. And of course by definition if you're playing against really bad players in really low buyins, how could you be playing for a living?
"Having said that, the second point is clear. It does take a different strategy to play worse players, but that's the easiest strategy of all. Value bet them to death, don't bluff, don't make plays, get all the FPS out of your system."
I don't know what you mean by "FPS". I agree about not bluffing them; but you seem to be edging more toward the NET POV of playing tight and solid and betting big to make them chase draws. I think it's more of a selective "if you can't beat them, join them" in terms of trying to play draws yourself rather than TPTK type high card hands that are vulnerable in large multiway pots.
"Like you said, this thread is about a strategy for playing worse players, so I'll let you keep on with that, but in no way will the hypothesis hold that you'll make more vs better players, no matter how you frame it."
I would still say that it could well be true if one's poker skills and instincts naturally lean toward making moves, multilevel thinking, etc, which I believe mine do (and Yahkin is saying something similar). Do you think it's just luck that I have such a good record in the strat tourneys but a losing record in low buyin SNGs?
Who here plays poker for a living? I see a lot of discussion of playing $5 tourneys, $1 tourneys, etc. And of course by definition if you're playing against really bad players in really low buyins, how could you be playing for a living?
"Having said that, the second point is clear. It does take a different strategy to play worse players, but that's the easiest strategy of all. Value bet them to death, don't bluff, don't make plays, get all the FPS out of your system."
I don't know what you mean by "FPS". I agree about not bluffing them; but you seem to be edging more toward the NET POV of playing tight and solid and betting big to make them chase draws. I think it's more of a selective "if you can't beat them, join them" in terms of trying to play draws yourself rather than TPTK type high card hands that are vulnerable in large multiway pots.
"Like you said, this thread is about a strategy for playing worse players, so I'll let you keep on with that, but in no way will the hypothesis hold that you'll make more vs better players, no matter how you frame it."
I would still say that it could well be true if one's poker skills and instincts naturally lean toward making moves, multilevel thinking, etc, which I believe mine do (and Yahkin is saying something similar). Do you think it's just luck that I have such a good record in the strat tourneys but a losing record in low buyin SNGs?
Actually, the tennis analogy is kind of funny because I remember a time when I was an adolescent and my family was on vacation somewhere in the Carribbean. My father and I signed up to play in a tennis tourney and he drew this 10 y/o local kid in the first round. The kid stunk but gave my dad a hard time because he just kept plopping the ball back over the net and forcing my poor 40+ year old father, who had survived a heart attack several years earlier, to run like crazy. My father eventually figured out how to beat the kid, but he almost had another heart attack in the process. Now, does that mean my father wouldn't have long term success against pathetic 10 year olds? Of course not, but he did have to figure out how to adjust his regular game to play a much worse opponent. On a similar note, there are also professional tennis players who compete well against top players but have trouble beating the guys ranked 150 in the world.
QUOTE (SlackerInc @ Thursday, May 10th, 2007, 7:30 PM)
"The tennis analogy is completely meaningless. Most of us don't play tennis for a living."
Who here plays poker for a living? I see a lot of discussion of playing $5 tourneys, $1 tourneys, etc. And of course by definition if you're playing against really bad players in really low buyins, how could you be playing for a living?
"Having said that, the second point is clear. It does take a different strategy to play worse players, but that's the easiest strategy of all. Value bet them to death, don't bluff, don't make plays, get all the FPS out of your system."
I don't know what you mean by "FPS". I agree about not bluffing them; but you seem to be edging more toward the NET POV of playing tight and solid and betting big to make them chase draws. I think it's more of a selective "if you can't beat them, join them" in terms of trying to play draws yourself rather than TPTK type high card hands that are vulnerable in large multiway pots.
"Like you said, this thread is about a strategy for playing worse players, so I'll let you keep on with that, but in no way will the hypothesis hold that you'll make more vs better players, no matter how you frame it."
I would still say that it could well be true if one's poker skills and instincts naturally lean toward making moves, multilevel thinking, etc, which I believe mine do (and Yahkin is saying something similar). Do you think it's just luck that I have such a good record in the strat tourneys but a losing record in low buyin SNGs?
Who here plays poker for a living? I see a lot of discussion of playing $5 tourneys, $1 tourneys, etc. And of course by definition if you're playing against really bad players in really low buyins, how could you be playing for a living?
"Having said that, the second point is clear. It does take a different strategy to play worse players, but that's the easiest strategy of all. Value bet them to death, don't bluff, don't make plays, get all the FPS out of your system."
I don't know what you mean by "FPS". I agree about not bluffing them; but you seem to be edging more toward the NET POV of playing tight and solid and betting big to make them chase draws. I think it's more of a selective "if you can't beat them, join them" in terms of trying to play draws yourself rather than TPTK type high card hands that are vulnerable in large multiway pots.
"Like you said, this thread is about a strategy for playing worse players, so I'll let you keep on with that, but in no way will the hypothesis hold that you'll make more vs better players, no matter how you frame it."
I would still say that it could well be true if one's poker skills and instincts naturally lean toward making moves, multilevel thinking, etc, which I believe mine do (and Yahkin is saying something similar). Do you think it's just luck that I have such a good record in the strat tourneys but a losing record in low buyin SNGs?
I play for a living.
I don't mean to sound disrespectful or anything in this discussion. It's a good, and very interesting discussion. Before you actually posted in the other thread, the same thing crossed my mind. It's almost counter intuitive, to be honest. Again, the tennis thing is interesting, but really has nothing to do with my argument, which is that you'll make more money long term playing worse opponents. It's like you'll win more playing worse tennis players, etc. Again though, if your goal in poker is to challenge yourself, with no regard for hourly, or overall income or results, etc, then fine, go ahead and play the toughest tables you can find. To each his own on that, but it doesn't change the argument, which I'm not exactly sure you're disagreeing with, even.Just because you would rather play at a level where you can use multilevel thinking, etc, doesn't mean it's more profitable than playing ABC poker vs lesser opponents. (FPS = fancy play syndrome = making fancy plays, which are unnecessary because ABC poker will be the most profitable, btw.)
Fwiw, I have no doubts that you and Yahkin are great poker players, with the ability to play with better opponents, and still be better than them, by going deeper in thinking, and making the correct moves, etc. I think you're probably just failing to adjust to the weaker competition, to be honest, and I know that's why you made this thread. I don't really want to turn this into this particular debate, because it's been done ad nauseum, and, this could be a very useful thread for people like you guys, whose skill may exceed their bankroll.
My point is this, and I may not have been completely clear about it up until this. If you were to play infinite number of games vs mediocre/decent opponents, vs an infinite number of games vs terrible opponents, and assuming we have the ability to adjust to the prevailing table conditions, you will win significantly more vs the terrible players. Btw, the reason I say this, is that being able to adapt to prevailing table conditions is a HUGE part of being a great poker player. I go over this argument all the time, and it's similar to another debate I take part in frequently; the people who say live and online are completely different. I say, it's clearly the same game, you get 2 cards, you make hands which are ranked in the same order, etc, but you have to know how to adapt to various game conditions. Online, you have to utilize PT or betting tells, etc, while live you can pick up physical tells. Live games tend to be looser and more passive, while online games tend to be more aggressive, and tighter. Just because the table conditions are generally different, it doesn't mean that they aren't the same game. It takes a great poker player to adapt to both games. This is why you see a lot of mediocre players who say they can't win online, and online is rigged, etc.
So, to conclude, I know exactly what your point is, and it has crossed my mind before. I go through the same thing when I move from my super tight LHE games on crypto, where I have to play one style of betting/semi-bluffing/c-betting turns, etc, to Absolute games where there are significantly more loose passive. It takes a bit of a change, an adjustment, that sometimes I can't even make, and usually when I go to the AP games from Crypto, I get destroyed by the donks who call down when they should be folding, but once I adjust, it's an easier game, and I know I can make more money long term from those guys.
So, while it's possible you are currently making more money playing medium-level opponents, I don't think that you'd be winning the most money you could be against them, than if you were able to adjust properly to the worse opponents.
(*note - when referring to making more money vs lesser opponents, I'm assuming the same stakes, just to be on a level playing field, I suppose it could be possible that you make more $$ playing 1 level higher vs slightly better opponents, than you could playing lower level buyins vs worse opponents, but I'm keeping it on the same playing field for theoretical purposes.)
- Zach
"Fwiw, I have no doubts that you and Yahkin are great poker players, with the ability to play with better opponents, and still be better than them, by going deeper in thinking, and making the correct moves, etc."
Thanks.
"I think you're probably just failing to adjust to the weaker competition, to be honest, and I know that's why you made this thread."
Exactly right.
Another analogy came to mind, btw. I have only played Omaha a few times, and I have not done well. In some respects Omaha is like HE, but obviously it is also quite different in others, and requires adjustments. I think there is some similarity between playing at tables where a preflop raise can often take down the blinds or otherwise tend to isolate against one opponent; vs. tables where you end up in a big five-way pot. You need to have a better hand to win the latter, usually; and at the same time the big pots can justify calling off more of your stack chasing draws, especially draws to the nuts. So it just strikes me that it's almost as different a game as Omaha; and since some people are good at HE but not at Omaha or vice versa, it shouldn't be surprising that some players have a harder time at tables where big multiway pots are the norm. (I perhaps could have made this less controversial by titling the thread "strategy to play at loose tables" or "strategy to play at tables where multiway pots are the norm".
"My point is this, and I may not have been completely clear about it up until this. If you were to play infinite number of games vs mediocre/decent opponents, vs an infinite number of games vs terrible opponents, and assuming we have the ability to adjust to the prevailing table conditions, you will win significantly more vs the terrible players."
The bolded part is a huge caveat, and as you say it is essentially the point of the thread.
"Live games tend to be looser and more passive, while online games tend to be more aggressive, and tighter."
That is not my experience, but again--I wonder if you play these $1.20 SNGs. Here, I'll go peek in on a random $1.20 in its early stages, and post the last five hands they played (no cheating--if it doesn't play out with a lot of loose calls and such, so be it):
[the converter's still not working, so I'll just post the stacks for the first hand and post the postflop action and summaries for the others]
Note that of the five hands, all went to the river, and only once were there fewer than three players in the hand at that stage (and in one case there were six!) Pretty loose-passive, I'd say.
Edit: I'm going to go back in and bold some of the more, uh, interesting plays.
(1)
PokerStars Game #9849988648: Tournament #49982915, $1.00+$0.20 Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2007/05/10 - 22:34:19 (ET)
Table '49982915 1' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: jtiii (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: ipla4me (1260 in chips)
Seat 3: 64HD (1300 in chips)
Seat 4: angelz2505 (760 in chips)
Seat 5: Tis#1 (2240 in chips)
Seat 6: Lastgoodun (1820 in chips)
Seat 7: Squint Estwd (1620 in chips)
Seat 8: Eagleknight (1500 in chips)
Seat 9: pinta (1500 in chips)
Tis#1: posts small blind 10
Lastgoodun: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Squint Estwd: folds
Eagleknight: folds
pinta: folds
jtiii: raises 20 to 40
ipla4me: calls 40
64HD: calls 40
angelz2505: raises 720 to 760 and is all-in
Tis#1: calls 750
Lastgoodun: folds
jtiii: calls 720
ipla4me: folds
64HD: folds
*** FLOP *** [3d Ks 2s]
Tis#1: checks
jtiii: checks
*** TURN *** [3d Ks 2s] [5h]
Tis#1: checks
jtiii: checks
*** RIVER *** [3d Ks 2s 5h] [8d]
Tis#1: checks
jtiii: checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Tis#1: shows [Qh 7h] (high card King) (This guy started the hand with t2240!)
jtiii: shows [Ah Qs] (high card Ace)
angelz2505: shows [5d 5c] (three of a kind, Fives)
angelz2505 collected 2380 from pot
(2)
*** FLOP *** [2h 3h 7d]
Kibber111: checks
emilien: checks
wolvesrcool: checks
fasteddie176: checks
*** TURN *** [2h 3h 7d] [5h]
Kibber111: checks
emilien: checks
wolvesrcool: checks
fasteddie176: checks
*** RIVER *** [2h 3h 7d 5h] [Qs]
Kibber111: checks
emilien: checks
wolvesrcool: bets 90
fasteddie176: folds
Kibber111: folds
emilien: folds
wolvesrcool collected 120 from pot
wolvesrcool: doesn't show hand
(3)
*** FLOP *** [Jc Qh Kd]
Lastgoodun: checks
Squint Estwd: checks
pinta: checks
jtiii: checks
64HD: checks
Tis#1: checks
*** TURN *** [Jc Qh Kd] [Qd]
Lastgoodun: bets 60
Squint Estwd: folds
pinta: calls 60
jtiii: raises 60 to 120
64HD: folds
Tis#1: calls 120
Lastgoodun: folds
pinta: calls 60
*** RIVER *** [Jc Qh Kd Qd] [Tc]
pinta: bets 40
jtiii: calls 40
Tis#1: calls 40
*** SHOW DOWN ***
pinta: shows [8d Ad] (a straight, Ten to Ace)
jtiii: shows [As 2c] (a straight, Ten to Ace)
Tis#1: shows [Js Jd] (a full house, Jacks full of Queens)
Tis#1 collected 660 from pot [Look at the monsters they all had, and look at the river betting!! LMAO]
(4)
*** FLOP *** [Qd Jc Ah]
emilien: checks
Moonbeam244: checks
Kibber111: checks
*** TURN *** [Qd Jc Ah] [7s]
emilien: checks
Moonbeam244: checks
Kibber111: checks
*** RIVER *** [Qd Jc Ah 7s] [Ad]
emilien: checks
Moonbeam244: checks
Kibber111: checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
emilien: shows [4s Kh] (a pair of Aces)
Moonbeam244: shows [7d 9h] (two pair, Aces and Sevens)
Kibber111: mucks hand
Moonbeam244 collected 90 from pot
(5)
*** FLOP *** [4h 2d 8h]
wolvesrcool: checks
fasteddie176: checks
emilien: checks
*** TURN *** [4h 2d 8h] [8s]
wolvesrcool: checks
fasteddie176: checks
emilien: checks
*** RIVER *** [4h 2d 8h 8s] [Td]
wolvesrcool: checks
fasteddie176: checks
emilien: checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
wolvesrcool: shows [Jd Qh] (a pair of Eights)
fasteddie176: shows [Ac Ks] (a pair of Eights - Ace kicker)
emilien: mucks hand
fasteddie176 collected 225 from pot
Thanks.
"I think you're probably just failing to adjust to the weaker competition, to be honest, and I know that's why you made this thread."
Exactly right.
Another analogy came to mind, btw. I have only played Omaha a few times, and I have not done well. In some respects Omaha is like HE, but obviously it is also quite different in others, and requires adjustments. I think there is some similarity between playing at tables where a preflop raise can often take down the blinds or otherwise tend to isolate against one opponent; vs. tables where you end up in a big five-way pot. You need to have a better hand to win the latter, usually; and at the same time the big pots can justify calling off more of your stack chasing draws, especially draws to the nuts. So it just strikes me that it's almost as different a game as Omaha; and since some people are good at HE but not at Omaha or vice versa, it shouldn't be surprising that some players have a harder time at tables where big multiway pots are the norm. (I perhaps could have made this less controversial by titling the thread "strategy to play at loose tables" or "strategy to play at tables where multiway pots are the norm".
"My point is this, and I may not have been completely clear about it up until this. If you were to play infinite number of games vs mediocre/decent opponents, vs an infinite number of games vs terrible opponents, and assuming we have the ability to adjust to the prevailing table conditions, you will win significantly more vs the terrible players."
The bolded part is a huge caveat, and as you say it is essentially the point of the thread.
"Live games tend to be looser and more passive, while online games tend to be more aggressive, and tighter."
That is not my experience, but again--I wonder if you play these $1.20 SNGs. Here, I'll go peek in on a random $1.20 in its early stages, and post the last five hands they played (no cheating--if it doesn't play out with a lot of loose calls and such, so be it):
[the converter's still not working, so I'll just post the stacks for the first hand and post the postflop action and summaries for the others]
Note that of the five hands, all went to the river, and only once were there fewer than three players in the hand at that stage (and in one case there were six!) Pretty loose-passive, I'd say.
Edit: I'm going to go back in and bold some of the more, uh, interesting plays.
(1)
PokerStars Game #9849988648: Tournament #49982915, $1.00+$0.20 Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2007/05/10 - 22:34:19 (ET)
Table '49982915 1' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: jtiii (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: ipla4me (1260 in chips)
Seat 3: 64HD (1300 in chips)
Seat 4: angelz2505 (760 in chips)
Seat 5: Tis#1 (2240 in chips)
Seat 6: Lastgoodun (1820 in chips)
Seat 7: Squint Estwd (1620 in chips)
Seat 8: Eagleknight (1500 in chips)
Seat 9: pinta (1500 in chips)
Tis#1: posts small blind 10
Lastgoodun: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Squint Estwd: folds
Eagleknight: folds
pinta: folds
jtiii: raises 20 to 40
ipla4me: calls 40
64HD: calls 40
angelz2505: raises 720 to 760 and is all-in
Tis#1: calls 750
Lastgoodun: folds
jtiii: calls 720
ipla4me: folds
64HD: folds
*** FLOP *** [3d Ks 2s]
Tis#1: checks
jtiii: checks
*** TURN *** [3d Ks 2s] [5h]
Tis#1: checks
jtiii: checks
*** RIVER *** [3d Ks 2s 5h] [8d]
Tis#1: checks
jtiii: checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Tis#1: shows [Qh 7h] (high card King) (This guy started the hand with t2240!)
jtiii: shows [Ah Qs] (high card Ace)
angelz2505: shows [5d 5c] (three of a kind, Fives)
angelz2505 collected 2380 from pot
(2)
*** FLOP *** [2h 3h 7d]
Kibber111: checks
emilien: checks
wolvesrcool: checks
fasteddie176: checks
*** TURN *** [2h 3h 7d] [5h]
Kibber111: checks
emilien: checks
wolvesrcool: checks
fasteddie176: checks
*** RIVER *** [2h 3h 7d 5h] [Qs]
Kibber111: checks
emilien: checks
wolvesrcool: bets 90
fasteddie176: folds
Kibber111: folds
emilien: folds
wolvesrcool collected 120 from pot
wolvesrcool: doesn't show hand
(3)
*** FLOP *** [Jc Qh Kd]
Lastgoodun: checks
Squint Estwd: checks
pinta: checks
jtiii: checks
64HD: checks
Tis#1: checks
*** TURN *** [Jc Qh Kd] [Qd]
Lastgoodun: bets 60
Squint Estwd: folds
pinta: calls 60
jtiii: raises 60 to 120
64HD: folds
Tis#1: calls 120
Lastgoodun: folds
pinta: calls 60
*** RIVER *** [Jc Qh Kd Qd] [Tc]
pinta: bets 40
jtiii: calls 40
Tis#1: calls 40
*** SHOW DOWN ***
pinta: shows [8d Ad] (a straight, Ten to Ace)
jtiii: shows [As 2c] (a straight, Ten to Ace)
Tis#1: shows [Js Jd] (a full house, Jacks full of Queens)
Tis#1 collected 660 from pot [Look at the monsters they all had, and look at the river betting!! LMAO]
(4)
*** FLOP *** [Qd Jc Ah]
emilien: checks
Moonbeam244: checks
Kibber111: checks
*** TURN *** [Qd Jc Ah] [7s]
emilien: checks
Moonbeam244: checks
Kibber111: checks
*** RIVER *** [Qd Jc Ah 7s] [Ad]
emilien: checks
Moonbeam244: checks
Kibber111: checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
emilien: shows [4s Kh] (a pair of Aces)
Moonbeam244: shows [7d 9h] (two pair, Aces and Sevens)
Kibber111: mucks hand
Moonbeam244 collected 90 from pot
(5)
*** FLOP *** [4h 2d 8h]
wolvesrcool: checks
fasteddie176: checks
emilien: checks
*** TURN *** [4h 2d 8h] [8s]
wolvesrcool: checks
fasteddie176: checks
emilien: checks
*** RIVER *** [4h 2d 8h 8s] [Td]
wolvesrcool: checks
fasteddie176: checks
emilien: checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
wolvesrcool: shows [Jd Qh] (a pair of Eights)
fasteddie176: shows [Ac Ks] (a pair of Eights - Ace kicker)
emilien: mucks hand
fasteddie176 collected 225 from pot
About my live play assessment, I'm mostly referring to cash games. I don't have a ton of tourney experience live, and I'm not sure I've ever seriously played a $1.20 sng. I did grind the $5.50s back in the day though.
Also, that cavaet about adjusting has been my theme throughout these posts, but I think I just failed to make it clear until that one, and based on the cavaet, which should not be difficult, if one applies themselves, for anyone who can beat a higher level, you'll find you can beat worse players for more money.
Anyways, I'm effing exhausted....
Good night!
Also, that cavaet about adjusting has been my theme throughout these posts, but I think I just failed to make it clear until that one, and based on the cavaet, which should not be difficult, if one applies themselves, for anyone who can beat a higher level, you'll find you can beat worse players for more money.
Anyways, I'm effing exhausted....
Good night!
This is obvious. I think Zach and others have spoken pretty eloquently. Plus live games are much, much looser and softer than online. If there was such thing as a $1.10 SNG it would be the loosest thing ever, I mean we toke at least that, no one is toking $1 ever online.
hey, those 1 dollar sng's are a life syle, if you don't let it, gtfo out of the yard! *collapses in my own spit pool*
QUOTE (tskillz187 @ Thursday, May 10th, 2007, 11:56 PM)
This is obvious. I think Zach and others have spoken pretty eloquently. Plus live games are much, much looser and softer than online. If there was such thing as a $1.10 SNG it would be the loosest thing ever, I mean we toke at least that, no one is toking $1 ever online.
Toking? You lost me.
QUOTE (SlackerInc @ Friday, May 11th, 2007, 10:25 PM)
Toking? You lost me.
Toking = Tipping.
I'm just saying the $1.10 sng might be very loose as you have shown with your 5 hand analysis. But that kind of play is par at 1-2nl $100 max buyin. You will never see that kind of play at same stakes online, I know this wasn't the base of any argument, I was just adding in that live is way softer and way looser at much higher stakes. And it's easier to win/play against, because they suck. Another huge problem with these bad players both in the micros online and in live play is they have no idea of how much to bet into pots and routinely give you great odds to draw.
QUOTE (tskillz187 @ Saturday, May 12th, 2007, 10:22 AM)
Toking = Tipping.
I'm just saying the $1.10 sng might be very loose as you have shown with your 5 hand analysis. But that kind of play is par at 1-2nl $100 max buyin. You will never see that kind of play at same stakes online, I know this wasn't the base of any argument, I was just adding in that live is way softer and way looser at much higher stakes. And it's easier to win/play against, because they suck. Another huge problem with these bad players both in the micros online and in live play is they have no idea of how much to bet into pots and routinely give you great odds to draw.
I'm just saying the $1.10 sng might be very loose as you have shown with your 5 hand analysis. But that kind of play is par at 1-2nl $100 max buyin. You will never see that kind of play at same stakes online, I know this wasn't the base of any argument, I was just adding in that live is way softer and way looser at much higher stakes. And it's easier to win/play against, because they suck. Another huge problem with these bad players both in the micros online and in live play is they have no idea of how much to bet into pots and routinely give you great odds to draw.
I've never played live NL cash games (and I do hear there is some wretched play there, though Sklansky and Miller describe it as weak-tight rather than loose), just live tourneys and some live low-limit play (which is very loose).
QUOTE (SlackerInc @ Saturday, May 12th, 2007, 11:41 AM)
I've never played live NL cash games (and I do hear there is some wretched play there, though Sklansky and Miller describe it as weak-tight rather than loose), just live tourneys and some live low-limit play (which is very loose).
I don't know what games Sklansky and Miller play, but I've played 1/2nl, 2/5nl, and 5/10 nl along with 3-6 and 5-10 limit. I currently play almost only 2/5nl and this summer I will be putting in a ton of hours. The games that I play against are not weak/tight at all. Usually there will be about 2/3 weak/tight players, 1/2 decent players besides yourself, 2/3 guys having fun and just gambling but usually in a passive non-aggressive fashion, 2/3 players that think they know how to play but have many things that are fundamentally wrong (they are usually the regulars).
2-5nl has a $400 max at my casino and it is by far an easier game to beat than $50 max online IMO.
QUOTE (tskillz187 @ Saturday, May 12th, 2007, 2:03 PM)
I don't know what games Sklansky and Miller play, but I've played 1/2nl, 2/5nl, and 5/10 nl along with 3-6 and 5-10 limit. I currently play almost only 2/5nl and this summer I will be putting in a ton of hours. The games that I play against are not weak/tight at all. Usually there will be about 2/3 weak/tight players, 1/2 decent players besides yourself, 2/3 guys having fun and just gambling but usually in a passive non-aggressive fashion, 2/3 players that think they know how to play but have many things that are fundamentally wrong (they are usually the regulars).
2-5nl has a $400 max at my casino and it is by far an easier game to beat than $50 max online IMO.
2-5nl has a $400 max at my casino and it is by far an easier game to beat than $50 max online IMO.
Sounds intriguing!
I've only played live NL twice, and not for very long, but aren't the standard games like reaaaaally loose-retarded? Like everyone goes broke with one pair, etc?
QUOTE (Zach6668 @ Saturday, May 12th, 2007, 3:09 PM)
I've only played live NL twice, and not for very long, but aren't the standard games like reaaaaally loose-retarded? Like everyone goes broke with one pair, etc?
The easy answer is it depends. They are much much much more loose retarded than online and often will stack off with top pair, but people are getting better. My first session of casino NL was maybe 3-4 years ago and it was the first weekend I had seen Turning Stone spread NL, I played 1-2 100max and won $1700. That was the worst (best) game I'd ever played in. There was literally more money on my table than there was at the 15-30 limit.
At the 2-5 where I normally play often it is correct to be getting in with TPTK just because the PF bets are so large that you have a sizable % of your stack in there.
But yeah, if you aren't a regular you can just walk in play like a rock and get doubled up without too much trouble.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.