*** OFFICIAL 2012 STARS REGS THREAD!!! ***

[Arvid2k7]

Originally Posted by MilkMan

nice arvid, that 100nl winrate is really pretty sick. how many hands per month typically/how many tables do you play?

usually i play 12 tables and like 100-150 hands/month

[6highisgood]

what do u think about your zoom results? i dont wanna troll i really dont understand why you dont win there

[mperich]

sample size?

[pontylad]

Originally Posted by 6highisgood

what do u think about your zoom results? i dont wanna troll i really dont understand why you dont win there

Originally Posted by mperich

sample size?

yeah basically this, zoom results are reflective of his skill level, he just runs super hot at normal tables.

Spoiler:

[Arvid2k7]

Originally Posted by 6highisgood

what do u think about your zoom results? i dont wanna troll i really dont understand why you dont win there

here is my overall zoom graph




I think the first 40k hands are basically the ones where I didn't have a HUD and played against unknowns. So with a HUD I'm prob a winner in zoom, but I think my winrate is still way lower then in normal games, for 3 reasons.

first ist tilt. for some reason I tend to tilt way more then usual. maybe this is because I get to play more hands per hour and kinda have to deal with more swings in short periods of time or its just because ppl tend to play like mother****ers in zoom. although I think this has gotten better, I still spew like an idiot sometimes.

secondly I always have to play 6 handed in zoom. at normals tables I always start the tables and get to play a lot of hu and lower handed, which gives me a bigger edge.

and third I think edges in general are lower in zoom. rec players play better by accident, because they play tighter ranges. also there is way less metagame involved, which is bad for the good players, who solve the leveling part of the game better. and its obv way harder to get good reads on your opponent. where in normal games you sometimes have a pretty good idea about a guy after 15 hands, in zoom this is just not possible. so all in all the winner of zoom are basically pokerstars, rec players and rakebackgrinder imo.

[angeles]

agree w first 2 but i think youre wrong on your last reason. if anything i think theres more levelling in many ways going on, and stack depth etc should be taken into consideration also

[Arvid2k7]

do you disagree in general that edges are lower or just on the leveling part?

[dpr1012]

First post here. Thank you and Ill accept the welcomes. Im a winning reg at 10NL Zoom, slightly wining reg at 25 NL Zoom and I break even at 50NL. Not massive as in Im not buying a house on my profits but I am paying rent on them so thats something. Very slightly though on the latter and I use the 25NL really just to up my VPP/FPP Bonus level and break even at 50NL to increase my cause further. Either way, Im just here to add that while most of the posts up to this point tend to imply that Zoom has more regs playing and is therefore less profitable, I tend to disagree. Ive got enough hands total (900K+) between the 2(3) stakes and Im here to say that there is plenty to be made as far as fish at the lower stakes. I invite all that are reading to join in and try their hand at the tables. Ill be there, I promise, to take what you've got but I assure you that there is plenty left over for the advancing "regs" to have their cake and eat it too. Cheers and good luck.

[Banimal]

@ dpr those stakes sound like micro stakes not small stakes so there are going to be fish everywhere.

i pretty much agree with arvid on all his points. The only reason i play zoom is because it's more convenient tbh

[angeles]

i would be surprised if edges werent higher 4 tabling zoom vs 12-14 tbling regular tables for the better regs, although i could be completely off

I think the stack depths that develop force alot of the non-ratholing mediocre regs (as well as fish) into spots theyre not comfortable with/will make far bigger mistakes for far larger amounts of bbs. Not sure how this is comparable to the edge you get playing hu/shorthanded versus these same sorts of players but I'd imagine it's somewhat similar

[Stupidhead]

A lot of the regs that aren't comfortable playing deep will simply play nitty and avoid tough spots rather than risking a huge mistake. Some will turn into a spazzes but I'd be surprised if that were the majority.

[oxiej]

Originally Posted by Stupidhead

A lot of the regs that aren't comfortable playing deep will simply play nitty and avoid tough spots rather than risking a huge mistake. Some will turn into a spazzes but I'd be surprised if that were the majority.

Agreed, the argument that you gain a bigger edge when deep is in general highly exaggerated.
The thing I hate about zoom is that I can't adjust my ranges on the table as much. Its possible to an extent but doing this also results in slower play which kinda defeats the purpose of doing zoom in the first place.

[pontylad]

Originally Posted by Stupidhead;33481133[B

]A lot of the regs that aren't comfortable playing deep will simply play nitty and avoid tough spots rather than risking a huge mistake. [/B]Some will turn into a spazzes but I'd be surprised if that were the majority.

Originally Posted by oxiej

Agreed, the argument that you gain a bigger edge when deep is in general highly exaggerated.

Disagree, nitting up when deep is a huge mistake and can be very exploitable. People adjusting either too loose or too tight is good news for a deep player whether you're referring to them just nitting up pre or post flop or both.

I think players that game select harder get higher winrates at normal tables compared to zoom but vice versa for the players that used to table/seat select v little at normal tables.

[d_smith77]

Give me a 90/20 with 100bb over a 300bb reg who isn't great with that stack any day. Lol zoom

[pontylad]

haha, what D said also.