Might as well seeing as we haven't had many graphs.

Not that impressive by any means by not bad with a >30k breakeven stretch, I would hope to run around 2.5BB in the long term, but difficult to say of course.

To give a bit of perspective, when I was playing 5nl I was running at 3.5BB. In people's experience what sort of winrate drop have they experienced when moving up stakes?

good ev to win ratio

Ok, I gunna post some graphs for amusement

These first 2 are from probably 2011 & 2012. I have never been a mass tabler & always spent as much time talking & watching poker as I do playing (...well not quite) so 125k @10NL hands took a loooong time.


[IMG][/IMG]


[IMG][/IMG]


I had no idea I was that bad @25NL lol . I do remember thinking I couldnt catch a ***** break there.... but DAMN

Was sick of staring at 45degree downward sloping graph so I changed my username, admitted I needed to improve, & mentally started afresh. No idea when that was, about 18months+ ago probably but cant say for sure

10NL & 25NL again...





I've must at least another 60k+ hands of 25NL that I played HUD-less on Pokerstars because I couldnt get Pokertracker to work on there for ages.

Some of those early red lines remind of just how long it took me to develop the discipline to fold very good hands that were obviously no good.

P.S The point I was making about 2bb being effectively breakeven as far I was concerned is based upon my experience. The 125k hands at 10NL I posted is 2.65bb/100 ..... & I was ***** terrible for a large percentage of that. I cant help but think some of these decent players going at 2bb/100 @ 10NL is probably explained by them playing their 100k hands over about 4 weeks & about 12tables at a time

damn your red lines good especially for 10nl.. what are your stats, like pre and post

also I spoke too soon. Since I've been 6-8 tabling and focusing harder I just recently caught a heater and Im now running at 6.3bb/100at 10nl over 18k which I played in about a week. Though the graph is still swingy as $h!t and the samples small but I'll try and reach 100k before moving up and then look at my wr and see if its better than before. Also I do really think variance played a big roll in my marginal 10nl wr. Ever since I can remember at 10nl every time I catch a heater its followed by a really sick cooler, so I'm not too happy about my current wr just yet lol

*5nl is just as swingy as 10 for me but only 40k there
my 2nl wr is pretty solid and steady like 12bb/100 or something i can't really remember

this is this past week as you can see still really swingy

Yeah, see I would do well to breakeven doing 6-8 tables. Just couldnt do it. 3 is my optimum - stops me getting bored but I can focus fully - but just 3 bores the hell out of some people. 18k hands is a very good month volume-wise for me

Your stats seem fine. Never really look at mine but since u asked I had a look. cant post em on here because its telling me to "export report"....? whatever. Like I say, never bothered before.

For those the latest 2 graphs I posted + plus some 50NL, I'm at;

VPIP: 32 PFR: 23
3bet; 7.65 Fold to 3bet; 61
My Cbet, Fold to cbet & WTSD are very similar to yours

Picking up dead money is one of my strengths. Regs are good at fighting for money preflop but dont tend to do it as liberally postflop, especially if the pot is multiway. Because I play fewer tables, I can do this more liberally. Although, tbh, some of that redline will be me shoving the nuts & not getting a call lol

3 tables? 3 reg tables? I would kill myself lol

lol my redlines always -. You got a Skype? and lol yea 3 reg tables would bore me to death, I think you could focus just as well at 6. It might just be one of those things you get used to and feel uncomfortable changing. Even playing 6 tables you only get involved in like 2 big hands at a time at the most, i don't think there's much of a difference tbh. Also if $ is your goal then 3 tabling is pretty counterproductive when you take sample and rake into account.

Also my 10nl zoom graph

nice, what are your stats?

hahaha. I knew 3 tables would be frowned upon. But when u consider I average 32/23 over 150k hands or whatever, u can imagine how loose I am playing over a small sample if there's a fish at the table. In that scenario, I wanna be paying attention

U have a point though. Downswings last much longer this way & it has definitely delayed me moving up. Far too much 3tabling, or often even 2tabling going on while I scroll twitter or watch Jason Somerville's twitch in background. Need to make sessions more intense

Tbh, I havent played more than a few hrs in 2015, & that was over the last few days. Having to withdraw so much money & stay at 25NL just kinda took the wind outta my sails.
Back involved now though. Never really used skype but registered a while back because theres a few people on this forum I wanna contact. Don't really wanna waste anybodys time when I'm barely playing & outta practice though

my stats are the bottom

oh true, i wanted to see what you're doing to get that redline lol
oh lmao I didn't see that, and whats your cbet, ftcb and those stats?

both are 50

if you really are a 2bb/100 winner at 50nl you should destroy 10nl, i cannot stretch that enough. its that simple

I'm tired of seeing people say this. Its not true, stakes are completely different. It may be true for some people but not all. That would be like me saying if you can beat 10nl you should destroy 2nl. I know for a FACT that using a 10nl tag style won't make you a "destroyer" 2nl. What stakes do you play jw? Cause most people I see saying stuff like this haven't even played 50nl and are quick to reference something they've heard someone else say.

It's true tho. If you can beat 50nl for 2b/100 over a decent sample you should be able to destroy 10nl. The difference in stakes shouldn't matter too much, because winning higher up means you can adapt a lot better, have a better grasp on a lot of concepts and you don't have a set strategy (for example just playing like a nit and bombing all value hands at 2nl).

I play 200nl, 100nl as well. On stars. So obsvly i dont consider very good someone who beats 50nl. That being said, whatever his playing style at any stake, someone who beats 50nl could crush 10nl very hard any day, playing his D game.

Im familiar with the online world, i know 10nl his not as soft as some people would say. But clearly you dont understand how 'good' someone beating 50nl is.

yea if you can adapt. Like i said I know for a fact that if you play the way you do at 10nl at 2nl you won't be a crusher same goes for 50nl-10nl. Maybe I'm just bad adapting to worse players. inb4 "so you're not good at poker"

also 100nl-200nl is different. Ive took shots at 100nl and the play isn't much different from 50, idk about 200. nanostakes the play is completely different then at 50

i mean yeah when playing a hand hopefully you dont treat 10nl fish same as 50nl reg

I think I'm starting to adapt better now but thats prob not one of my strong traits when it comes to "dumbing" myself down for lack of a better word. I've leveled myself many times vs other regs where I thought something like "okay this bluff looks so strong theres no way he's calling with xx, then get snapped off".

I've toned down my turn barreling range a lot and that seems to be helping but samples still small

The only reasons I can think for beating higher stakes and not lower ones are mental game reasons. I think it would be tough for me if I had to play 2nl and grind it out again because it be so frustrating to be set back that far, and respecting the $ amount is difficult when you're used to playing for more.

But when it comes to strategy, it should be so freaking simple for you and the fact you think it's so distinctly different makes me believe you just didn't play anywhere near enough hands higher up.

This whole "bad at adapting to worse players" thing is a bit silly. I have no idea how you could be a winning player at 50nl and above without being able to crush the fish as a matter of routine.

I play well against fish. It might sound dumb to you but I may have a problem relating to the "reg fish". I think the biggest difference is that at 50nl+ all the regs you see there are pretty good and there aren't too many regfish. Reason being that if your the avg reg you move up in accordance to your br and if thats the case the case the only reason you will see weak regs at those stakes is 1. they're on a heater 2. they deposited enough to play those stakes 3. they're playing outside their br (in which case they won't last long). At 10nl regfish are the large majority and can maintain a solid wr there even though they'd be eaten alive at higher stakes. My problem might be understanding their mindset. Their stats can be misleading, they appear to be a decent player but the ranges they have don't reflect the ranges I assume they have. During my last session I had a reg with solid stats who seemed decent enough flat a 4bet oop with 56s, which I would have never included in his range (just and example). When I lose to good regs its usually because they've outplayed and exploited me in some way. Whereas when I'm losing money to 10nl regs its due to mistakes I'm making. Another thing I noticed is regs really don't bluff a lot at these stakes. I'm used to calling light pretty regularly in a lot of spots and truth is regs at these stakes very rarely make big bluffs.

I think I should have a better win rate tbh cause I feel that I've always ran really bad at 10nl. Since I've cut back on the tables to focus harder I'm at 8bb/100 after 19k but still semi swingy and small sample. I've toned down my barreling range and that seems to be helping. I'll report back after 50k and see if my marginal wr may have been due to my lack of focus+motivation+ego. That said I still don't believe the whole "if you can beat so and so stakes for xbb/100 you should crush so and so stakes for at least xbb/100". It may be true for some people but not all.