Sent from my IQ1388 using 2+2 Forums

Also what should your winrate be at one level before thinking about moving up?

Sent from my IQ1388 using 2+2 Forums

I'd move up with any winrate above 4bb/100 over 20-30k hands if my BRM allows me to do so.

If you're good It's definitely possible a 15bb/100 on 2nl,
10bb/100 on 5nl and I'd say the same on 10nl.All that zoom on PS.You gotta be good.
I'd say there isn't as much fish when compared to regular tables but bad regs make up for it.

I Haven't played 25nl yet to give my opinion.

Is it possible to beat 5nl zoom on stars for 10 bb?? Have you seen this over a large sample?

Definitely.

I think I myself could beat it by 6-7bb/100 (I'm going to start playing again soon,I'll let you updated if that happens)

I've been told that TDA was beating 25nl zoom for 8bb/100 over a good sample when he played at these stakes,I don't see why 5nl couldn't be crushed 10+ bb/100

What's your vpip/pfr/3b on average when you play zoom? If you don't mind sharing that is.

One of the top 500NL zoom regs played 10k hands at 2NL and got 55bb/100.

Where did you get that graph^ BTW?

With a standard deviation of 80bbs/100 that's a z value of less than 1. That is you could get a similar result about 20% of the time if you were actually breaking even in the long run.

That's ok, I don't see a reason not to move up given games won't change drastically (I'm talking about opponents skill) and I'm a winning player over the long run a fair % of time.(on previous stake)

Considering microstakes.

I think some guy on TiltBook posted that a while back

You must be playing like a god, and run like a god to get that graph I think.

God's name is Magorko.

I just took a year off playing online and played live instead. I had beat up to 200nl for large samples (millions of hands) before.

So I came back and started from the bottom and am moving up slowly. Not because my bankroll is small but because I never want to play in a game unless I feel certain I'm 100% a major favorite and on top of my game. So far no problem beating 2, 5, and 10nl in the 110k hands I've played. Looking forward to adding 16nl next weekend.

It's also fun to win every single day, even if the amounts are small. Come back from a year layoff and win 18 days in a row to start off? I want to see how far I can take that. Playing about 7500 hands per day.

75k hands of 2nl at 40bb/100. Running slightly below EV.

And I definitely make a fair number of mistakes. No suprise that the 500zoom guy beat it for 55 bb/100. It's about what I would've expected.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. O.o
So basically I'm a fish for beating it only for 5 bb.
You should be playing many hands preflop to get your winrate that high?
Are you table selecting?

Table selecting may be at it's highest importance at microstakes, because there are so many tables to choose from.

Doesn't seem possible, at least not without some kind of poker boom.

I don't play online and haven't followed it. Has some new market suddenly opened up?

No money in 2nl everybody is solid.

Well, I don't know this player so take it for what it's worth but if I played at those stakes, I'd be suspicious.

If those results are correct and I played at those stakes, I'd be going through my results vs that player. I'd also request HHs from the site to confirm I had actually been playing all of my own sessions in case someone had hacked a large db of passwords.

Edit to add: Maybe I'm overestimating that sample size. Anyone know the odds of a top player at 10-15 BBs/100 running that good for that sample size?

I hadn't played a single hand of online poker in almost a year. So I jumped back in at the lowest stakes. I've decided I'm going to play 300k hands of stakes 10nl and lower, and then "unlock" 16nl for the next 100k hands. If the next 100k hands are still going well and I am beating 16nl, I'll unlock 25nl, and so on, unlocking a higher stake after each 100k hands.

So here's what I did in the last 2+ weeks....about 95% full ring with occaisonal 6 max games mixed in. I've definitely had some run bad and even some tilt, I definitely believe I should IMPROVE on this. I don't even feel like I've played very well at all. Like I said, I hadn't played online in a year (had played about 1000 hours of live) and so I'm easing my way back up the stakes and building up my confidence and feel for online poker all over again.

If you think this isn't sustainable I can continue to repost this as I play more hands.

yep 500nl reg cheating at the micros.

definitely.

For the 55 BB/100 win-rate it seems well worth it if they were cheating to achieve those results as a true win-rate. Over 2 buyins at 500NL.

Also it's hard to imagine a 500NL reg to be the best candidate to be able to pull off an extreme win rate at 2NL just due to a lack of experience/stats and familiarity of the current thinking at that level as well as having having to have the extreme discipline to play the micros that optimally. In my experience, for someone playing that far below their normal level, the play
becomes more sloppy as opposed to more disciplined.

Again this is assuming the players were solid and not experiencing a ton of new players coming into the game.

For a player to run that good in the micros, even if they were playing at an EV of 15BB/100 it seems like it would have to be extremely unlikely but I'm not the one to actually calculate this which is why I'm asking someone who knows how to provide some examples for given expected win rates.

Finally, if it was a case of someone hacking a large cache of passwords, then the micros are the lowest risk to play since the number of players would mean that no single account would need to be exploited for that much and could easily be overlooked by a player.

Also those accounts would be the least likely to use extra security such as double validation and raise fewer flags if there were a sudden upswing of 2nd validation failures at the login.

Do you table select in the sense of closing bad tables, or use software to help out?

After looking at these results, I guess your implication of players at $2 NL being solid was sarcasm. I did originally misread the other post for the $2 buyin and didn't realize the actual stakes being played. Clearly there will always be a certain number who are playing to learn the game at that level or others who are just playing around.

Also my bad for not having any idea of what the current state of poker was at. FWIW, I could see play at lower stakes being tougher than one might think if the poker economy was shrinking since you would expect to see more players moving down in stakes and fewer new players coming in, but for stakes that low, I guess you'll always have plenty of new players coming in, even if they didn't know how to play.

Given your results for the VPIP I could see where a very good player could exploit the players at that level for 55bb/100 if they opened up a little wider.

Sorry for my overlooking the stakes and my previous posts. I guess my own experiences with hackers have made me a little too single minded these days.