Hello again 2+2!

I used to play and post here a fair bit back in 2001-2003, but quit poker when life took over in my mid 20s. I've been feeling the itch lately and figured I'd rejoin the forum to see what's going on these days.

I'm curious to hear the thoughts of people that played a fair bit 10-15 years ago and still play today.. b/c the game certainly seems different enough based on what I'm seeing here. Any short list of things I should make sure I know before diving back in?

well basically nobody knew what in the holey heck 15 years ago and any idiot who read a book lately would be a favorite in them games

that's not to say poker is super hard nowadays because reading books is hard and a lot of effort for most people, but yes it's nowhere near as soft as the videos you'd see

revolutionary strategies like raising preflop in position and continuation betting are pretty standard now

if you're not a dumbass and you're willing to put at least a few hours into studying you can still win live

It realley depends on local.

But games have gotten way tougher.

With that said. 1/2 and 1/3 live. Your likely not going to run into any players without massive leaks.

At those levels 90% players are still recs and regs looking for fun evening.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I learned NL from two players, both professionals. And the game they taught is just not the same game anymore.

First, starting hands. You can't just play AJ+, TT+, AQ+ in EP. Because of the increase in c-betting, you have to represent that you could have hit anything. I see a lot more low pairs, mid suited connectors, etc ... being played.

Second, the number of good players. The games in general, are much tougher today than 10 years ago. Granted, there are more bad players than ever before, but there are more good players too. Really good. You have to be able to withstand pressure unlike the weak bets of yesterday.

Like you, I've taken some time off and tried to educate myself on the "modern game". The books are mostly worthless now (I say that with a library of about 100 of them.) But you can win if you adjust to the new game. The ranges are much wider, the bets more aggressive ... but just as much fun.

And I'm winning again.

Way to quit right before the boom! I'd say the biggest difference is players are more aggressive. Cbets are common even from the worst players. Preflop ranges have gotten better. The good news is most players are still ****ing terrible on the turn and river.

Brush up on basic preflop/flop play and focus on hand reading on later streets.

I probably quit kinda in the middle of the boom, and the reasons didn't have much to do with poker itself. I played a ton online and in Canada in college (2000-2004), and then in Atlantic City when I turned 21. By the time I was 22 I had a decent gig that paid me well that I worked hard in, and I decided I wasn't a huge fan of spending a lot of my free time in card rooms around a bunch of grumpy OMCs.

In my very quick analysis of both these forums and the game I played a few hours in... there is no doubt that there are less totally incompetent players. There used to be 3-4 people at any given table that barely knew the rules of poker.. and these days everyone at the table has at least watched 1000 hours of poker on TV (not that this makes them any good...)

It also seems like PF raise sizes have increased dramatically, and there is a lot more c-betting going on even by the more passive players.

Fun to get back into the swing of things. I hope to contribute a bit more on here again. Looking forward to it!

Nothing. Everyone still sucks.

Tight is still right.

Read title. Only thing that has changed is actual size of population. Whereas 5 years ago there were probably 15+ 5/10games running in Florida on a Saturday night, now there's 4.

So high stakes games have sort of dried up but that is relative. When a new room opens in a decent state (wealth) the big games go for a good while. MGM is a good example.

Oh and it's slightly harder to stack TPNK.

My random observations...

The fundamental difference is the average player simply has put in more time at the tables today than in 2007. If I had to estimate id say the table is playing one level higher. So there are no level 0 players and the average player is at least trying to play on level 2.

There was a glut of new players back then. Today the low hanging fruit has been largely picked.

As a result most players:

know what cbetting is.

Know AA gets cracked.

Know TP isn't the nuts.

Can fold made hands a little more pre and post to heavy action.

In general are playing a more playable range preflop.

Are more likely to be positionally aware.

Probably need a bit more in the way of bad beats to get them super monkey tilted.

Probably have long ago exhausted that HELOC or whatever seemingly endless source of cash was flowing in the mid 2000's.

So you tend to see:

Even bad players will Cbet as the PFR and will play a little less fit or fold on flops as the pf caller. Floating is more of a thing. Understanding flop texture, delayed c/bet and double barreling is more necessary as the PFR.


Because there are more people folding stronger hands post flop straight set mining isn't the money printing machine it was back in the day. Not that it can't be profitable but the implied odds aren't nearly what they used to be across the board.

With experience opponents have calibrated the relative strength of TP hands somewhat so there are more times where TPTK or OP hands may not be 3 streets of value propositions.

Opponents are far more likely to assign you a wider range as the button raiser and be appropriately sticky post. So there is a decent chance cbetting too high a frequency will cost you.

Only the better players still seem to assign a tighter EP range for you though. And even some of them still think "he's strong maybe I'll crack him". So villain's positional awareness has its limitations.

In general it's far less likely these days to find multiple players at a table just giving it away with ridiculous / wildly tilted play. Not that it doesn't happen but it used to be common for a guy to get AA cracked and just blast off a couple buy ins.

And far more recreational players are in a tighter budget situation with a limited number of buy ins. Understanding these players felting ranges are fairly snug is important.

What he said , but set mining still golden just set the trapssssss



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

+ wan mirrion

People still pay you off and chase ridiculously bad odds. LAG play is FPS and exploitive TAG reigns king in the lower stakes (even arguably 10/20 and up).

I've only been playing NL since 2010 in a fairly small market, but the biggest changes I've noticed:

- everyone sucks way less than they used to (i.e. whenever I stack someone with TP versus my set now I'm always shocked, whereas this was "standard" a few years back)
- I'm rarely the best player at the table and if I am it ain't by much (whereas a few years back I was always far-and-away the best player at the table, which is saying a lot since I sucks at poker); instead of the table make-up being me + 9 completely clueless morans it is more likely me + 1 or 2 pros + 1 or 2 retired guys who have this as their only income + 2 ok guys + 2 slight losers + 2 big losers

Games are still very beatable, just not for as much, imo. Yesterday I found myself at a table where I thought to myself, "wow, this is so 2010", and I cleaned up easily with zero effort. Seems a lotta poker today is just keeping our head above water during the poor times so that we're around for our piece at the occasional easy peasy table.

GcluelessstateofgamesnoobG

Yeah. Table selection has become much more important. I recall being able to sit at any table and count on a fair amount of action. Not the case anymore.

I'm seeing a lot of mention here and elsewhere about table selection. I just want to point out that if you're unable to sit at any table at your stake and turn a winning commensurate with your expected win rate, you need to get better, not change tables. They say it's enough to be better than half the table if you want to make money in poker, but in this day and age even the donkeys have some semblance of conceptual and strategic poker awareness.

Having said that, obviously soft games where you're the only shark are ideal, but imho you gotta work towards being the megalodon amongst great whites. I want to be the best player at every table that I sit down at, not out of a sense of pride or ego, but because I honestly think that in order to be in the top 10% of players, you - on average - have to be the best player sitting down on any random 10-handed table.

you really believe this ;p

Top 1%

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

If only 10% are truly winners, then it has to be true right?

Just struck me as funny. Stating "I truly believe 2+2=4".

It's probably more like top 2 during non peak times actually.

These days everybody's an expert, and the table talk is non existent

Most players including some from 2+2 that I see them in Vegas are deluding themselves when pretending to know the value of playing low pairs or mid suited connectors. If you reason on playing low pairs or mid suited connectors is to flop a set or some kind of draw either to the str8 or flush you will not make it into +EV. In order to show a profit with those type of hands you got to steal when you miss or lure opponents to pay you off when you hit the flop hard. Else, following the crowd misconception in regard to those type of starting hands will just grind you down.

You should play all two cards you get and take advantage of discount flops, limp life is strong

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

The thing is, I think there is a lot more money made being a basically competent player at a table with several terrible players than being a world-class player at a table with basically competent players, especially at lower limits where the rake is meaningful.

There are bad low limit games where even the best players are likely to have a mediocre win rate, IMO.

I've yet to come across a 2/3 game that's anywhere near as skilled as 10 or 25NL online. If you sit at a table long enough (3 hrs+), you'll have at least one leak on each player that you can exploit, & that's assuming a table where you think everyone is "solid." The only negative of live vs online is that it takes longer to get good reads, but let's be honest... no one playing low-stakes is at the top of the poker food-chain. With enough careful observation, we can find ways to exploit 99%+ of the player pool. I agree with HardBall47, though I think table selecting should always be utilized. I will sit at "tougher" tables when I can change at times simply to improve my own game.

In my experience there are more times sitting down in the game when I feel like everyone at the table understands the basics well, even though they may not all be strong players.

There are less people just giving money away. Less people calling down with middle or bottom pair. More people folding top pair to aggression. There are more tight passives I think -- people who understand not to give money away with weak hands but still play with too much fear and call more often than they bet or raise.

A lot of bad loose aggressives and calling stations lose their money too fast now. The better players are much better nowadays.The serious players have studied and puts thousands of hours in at the table. They've seen the same situtations come up over and over.

Also more isolating in general from competent players.