This isn't going to turn in a thread to discuss who is good and who isn't, nor to bash players.

Kamel and anyone who quoted, I suggest you edit out any screen names/names before I do something else to your posts.

I literally lol'd

Sorry, my sound was harsh and incorrect. I often post when I'm tilting (just because it's better than playing then).

I just wanted to say, that some regs hurts you more than other regs at the tables. The classic 9/6 20-tablers don't hurt me, some other that fight also back at early levels do hurt me and I usually select tables with looking to that criteria.

However, I really like OP's effort here and I think, he is indeed correct in what he says, (and however, at high stakes, you usually have a lot of regulars in - so you either beat them or live from FPP - both are o.k. ways). My general view is, I can't avoid regs at high stakes - without them there would not be a game, but if I have I choice, I take the 9/6 regs. Like often, the view depends, like most stuff in poker.

Hey guys literally just stumbled onto this thread and realized that I have played w/ loads of you at the $16 level the last few days. SN on PS = bigjimmylea1 (Started SNG's little while ago but am now gonna try and take em seriously, just joined SNGGrinders). I completely agree bout game selection, I come from cash background, however my problem is barring 4/5 of U who I recognize so far I have no idea who the regs r But I am sure I will realize soon enough. I do have a question though if I have a +ROI is it more +EV to have my Sharkscope stats showin or not? As while playin I SS'd a few of you the other night and saw ur results r on there.

thx bigjimmylea1

Im a regular at $109/$216 sng and 9 out of 10 times its a donkey that takes me out. Good players know when to fold, bad players suck out. They call all ins with 22 and it effing holds up against AKs or owning my over pair.

if you have notes saying they play really well, and maybe some ss stats to back it up, then that would make sense. but to use top net winners and top net losers overs what i guess to be a small sample seems pretty silly.

You beat me to it

That's right.
I only wanted to underline that I am really not be afraid of 9/6er regs.

Congrats...?

We get your argument, it's just that your last post does absolutely nothing to strengthen the argument. The difference between someone like gravy and stevie having a few % diff in VPIP early being the difference between you loading on top of 7 stevie's or jorj's vs 7 LJ's or gravy's is a ridiculous argument from any stakes because the math doesn't magically change based on the buy in.
Also, certain of these opponents play various table amounts at different times and that's a huge factor. We get that you can exploit super tight regs playing 25 tables, anyone with half a brain for poker should understand that, but your argument is that you want these guys instead of a bunch of random ass opponents in your game which is just ridiculous in STTs. You can throw on Bill Clinton and the God of the Sun on that random list of players (that is against the rules of posting, fwiw) and it won't change the the argument.

Let me reiterate that on STTF, we are not posting lists of SNs and discussing their leaks, bad play, or even good play. Thanks

And where are those random ass opponents at 500s+?
We need some regs in the game to get started.
And if I have choice, I take the 9/6 multitabling regs - that's it.
That was my argument and keeps it.
I would even pay a small amount to get them in their - that's true, too.


@TrueFloridaGator:
I didn't discuss the leaks, the playing styles or w/e from w/e regular I mentioned. I even removed some of my Top10 lists, that I thought would not feel fine mentioned. All names I mentioned are fairly known regulars (most of them post here aswell) and more or less part of the poker game society.
In a lot of posts, we mention name of villain and then discuss how to play vs this guy. I usually don't take part of those discussions, allthough it happens. Nothing of that happened here, so sometimes I wonder.
But as said, feel free to censor me.
But it's really hard to get a discussion so on.

kamel,
i can understand wanting a couple of 9/6 regs at the table instead of what you perceive to be better regs that play a bit more active early. everyone is fine with that.

but wanting to pay to play at a table with 8 winning/nit regulars is just dumb. you are not gonna make money at this table. most likley everyone loses. sorta why the thread started....as you add more regs to a game your roi goes down, if you get to 9 regs at a 9 man you are screwed...

That's right.
But that's not how the thread started, it said, you lose -xxx if a winning or breakeven player is at your table. (O.K., OP made the post for 16 level or so, where it is right)
1st we need 1 or 2 fish in the game. 2nd, we hope for regulars that are nice for us. (that's what I call I'd pay for them, obv not more than rake, but $5 in highstakes to get them and avoid the real tough guys is just fair - allthough of course not realistic - maybe in live SnGs)

Right, allthough I believe most 9/6 regs are more screwed, but you're right here. However, we don't get good SnG without at least 6 regs or so, just as they wouldn't start. And as higher we go, as lesser the rake is we pay for.

Obviously, I'm a bit away from OP's text, but anyway, not every reg is bad for our winrate.

I guess in my perfect world everyone would just look at Kamel's first post ITT and say "oh that's just crazy ol' Kamel, talking about how he loves to play with regs again", blow it off, and move on before things get all name-cally.

Also let's think if there are any advantages if one could somehow pass off the image that they truly think they can exploit regs, in already reg-infested games with little battles of will going on all the time. IE - if 5 regs are signed up for a $225, who will blink first and drop? Well obviously not the guy who loves to play with regs. Yeah, maybe a little advantage there.

The 16s are truly brutal right now. I don't get it. I had 9 winning players in 2 of them with at least 5 decent to good regs in the rest.

9 winning players in like 10 of 20 of my games...unreal

I'm also wondering (well I'm sure there is a way) to figure out mathematically in terms of EV how effective it might be to move to non-turbos sometimes if the turbos are full of regs. I mean there has to be a point where ROI starts to trump $$/hour based on the # of regs, etc. For example, if you estimate your ROI in regulars to be, say 15%, but it's only 10% in turbos, then if the turbos are full of regs atm, is it then better to take less $/hr in order to achieve a higher ROI? Maybe I'm wording it badly, but I guess you see my point. I know this is in the FAQ, etc, but I don't think it's discussed in terms of EV depending on # of regs, etc. Maybe someone can mathematically provide evidence that (for example) 4 regs in a turbo = +EV(play a non-turbo).

im back to the 16s since yesterday and playing still scared kinda after that total pokerhell from january until last week.

but i just you CJ for this post,because i definitely already see the merits of a bit of table-selecting.
even if i am really not afraid of the 4 regs i have to share my set with its just annoying and becoming a lottery if 6 guys sit around at 200/400+antes and pushbotting.i guess thats when nobodys has an edge anymore beside the one who is running good and having the nice setups.

stop registering behind me ladies,i destroy you.

Yeah I already thought about that but on stars normal stt's are loading sooo slowly that I think it's more profitable for your $/hr to wait regs to finish their set

I dunno how Stars operates, but can't you just load behind them? I mean on Tilt, the 12s (and 6s for that matter) will often look like...

5
3
3
3
3
0

So I just register for the 0 and continue on after that. I mean it doesn't keep them from registering behind you, but at least it's something, and you know you aren't INTENTIONALLY registering in games that already have 3 regs in them.

DD the thing is,there were 2,3 occasions today where i wanted to register my set with already around 30 tables open........

so then there is the decision if you are the one to register behind the second reg,because its obv 1 reg first 12/16 tables and another opening his set or add your set afterwards and make it kinda 45 tables.

but i did this today and was ok to wait a bit for my tables,just to have 4,FOUR multitablers registering behind me,fun set

it often looked like
7
4
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
.
.

today,you get the point....

DD, I register with 1, 1, 1, or 0, 0, 0 behind almost every time, but that doesn't stop people from regging behind you. It's to the point where I never reg behind even 2 regs because there will be more behind.

So then kinda back to my question about the regulars then. Is it more +EV to wait them out or to just play non-turbos, where there are less regs and probably way more recreational players/fish? Of course the non-turbos seem like they take 4 hours now, but still...

As long as it's 1, 1, 1, or 0, 0, 0, I'm not going to stop regging even if I can't control who registers behind me. The 16s load fast enough for it to not be a concern towards your hourly. The 27s take a lot longer sometimes, so it's even more annoying when you end up with a ton of regs.