Great read

If you are mentally capable of typing up the guide you did on page 1 then you are so far ahead of 99% of the players at the stakes you play and it's not just run good you are going to kill it for a long time.

Had my first winning session in a week after reading your first few posts. We already played similarly but your guide really helped me be discipline and refine my play. Looking forward to keeping this new momentum going.

Congrats on putting out the best thing Ive read so far regarding low stakes live NLH.

Love your posts; you always give some of the best feedback. As good a guide as most books I have read also. Great work.

GG: Gr8 posts; just wonder what you would think of Let there be range; or Easy Game; as it really seems you are getting good value playing poor players; which is the number one way to win in poker; but you have the ability to switch gears and play an aggresive g; and you would need to do this if you want to move up..>> I love your balance of life,.>>probably number one problem of many players is:"Going for it; getting super frustrated; tilting out." gl

Good read. Its interesting to see your thought processes on passive (and successfully passive) moves in low limit live games. In an age where everyone is so AGGRESSIVE AGGRESSIVE AGGRESSIVE. Which wins, but entry level cash games are SUCH a different game. Like a home game with respectable players sprinkled about. You are clearly a thinking player and I look forward to applying a few of these thought processes to my local casino game. Thanks Gob

Congrats on the 1000 hours!

Here is the thing, this more passive play may become the correct way to beat some games as the games get tougher. Poker may very well become a game where you need to sit down at the table and adjust your strategy to beat the table at all levels. Therefore you may need to employ a passive strategy for optimal play at some tables and a more aggressive strategy for optimal play at others. We may actually need to start playing poker at levels more intricate than we have previously seen in order to win.

That being said I have read your thread in full and I really appreciate the insight you have shared. I think that it is very spot on. Could you employ a more aggressive style if you chose to? YES Is this required to be a winner? NO The people that say you should never consider limping are grossly incorrect. At the end of the day poker is a game a of people. If you know your people you will win the money. Keep in mind this is coming from a currently more aggressive player who currently employs a never limp style. However, I have experimented with many different styles in the past and this is certainly one of them. I am only now realizing the benefits of mixing them both together to beat the current table as there are certainly many downfalls of playing the more aggressive style used by many 2+2 contributors in certain games.

I wish you the best going forward.

GG,

I know this thread is old but I have a few questions if you have the time. Obviously, the more the merrier when we are playing these speculative hands, but what do you consider very multi-way? 4+? Also, and I don't mean to come across as an idiot because I am not, do you really feel so strongly about the importance of pot control? I have played this game for about 10 years now. I have basically experimented with every style you can imagine. I used to be big on pot control and it worked well for me. I recently got away from it and just tried to rely on building the pot with a low SPR, embracing the tough decisions, and trying my best to make the right decisions. However, this style was good at first but has recently proved to be very high variance and likely a losing style. The way I have been playing likely pads your bankroll. I would appreciate your opinions. GLGL on your session this weekend!

I wouldn't consider 4way "very" multiway, but as soon as it becomes 4way, we can no longer cbet the flop with air profitably (imo), and even 3way we're probably looking for okish flops before cbetting (or, at the very least, we're not cbetting as much as we are HU). The table I play at routinely sees 6/7 way limped pots (it's a 10 handed table), and can easily see 5way raised pots (if the raise isn't too large), so I would consider 6 (maybe 5)+ "very" multiway (i.e. a very good chance that if we flop a monster with our speculative hand that someone else has made enough of a hand to pay off a decent portion of their stack).

I'm big on pot control and all the pleasant side effects that go along with it (i.e. inducing bluffcatching against aggro opponents, inducing two streets of value from mediocre hands against tighter opponents, small hand small pot, etc.). With TP type hands I'm pretty happy with setting things up to stack off by the turn with SPR = ~4 (maybe slightly higher with overpairs against weaker opponents), especially in HU cases, but otherwise I'm typically in the pot control camp (as opposed to the bet-until-raised camp).

GcluelessNLnoobG

Hi GG -

I've played mostly live limit poker in my area casinos since 2005. For the past three years or so, I've always wanted to sit in the spread limit games (when the bet limits were increased to mimic no-limit), but always was too chicken to do so.

I read books (most of what everyone has read), I tried applying the concepts to the online game (because I could experiment without being financially crushed), tried to lurk here, but I kept going away from NL poker and back to limit (and there were many times that I left poker altogether).

Anyway, after a year break from playing poker of any kind, I finally sat in a $1/$2 spread limit game last night. I realized one important thing:

I was one of the fish.

It might have been my time away, first time sitting in an unfamiliar game, not having enough experience with the NL/SL game (online or live), or a combination of all three, but feeling that I was the chump (and listening to the table talk by the "pros" down at the other end evaluate my play) was very...unnerving...it was something I never did as a limit player when I knew there was a weaker player around me (or across from me). I've wrestled with posting that experience in another thread but I've talked myself out of it each time. For the context of this thread, and your starting of it, I don't mind sharing what I have about what happened.

I guess this should have gone into a PM or something, but I just wanted to write, thanks for posting your experience(s). They have helped me with perspective regarding strategy so that I can return and play better.

Those players are likely idiots. Actually, the fact that they talked about your play in your hearing proves that they were idiots. GG can attest that limit is a good warm up for NL, but you can still expect there to be quite a learning curve and the mistakes don't cost you $30, they cost you $300. The good news is that with experience and work you can start turning those mistakes around. Don't worry about the other players. Most of them are GcluelessnoobsG.

Very nice OP, thanks to whoever bumped it, otherwise I wouldn't have stumbled upon it.

About the quoted part: I am actually a LHE player (mid/high stakes fwiw) coming to play NL as LHE is dying. I am surprised to hear you believe that LHE is more aggressive. I think NL rewards aggressive play more as more people are inclined to fold hands, compared to LHE, due to the fact it is a big bet game. I may agree about preflop aggression (meaning, it should be toned down compared to LHE and that cold calling is not a cardinal no-no). But postflop, I am still convinced that aggression is even more important in NL than LHE. Of course, this is a very general statement and blind/dumb aggression is bad, but I hope you get my point.

I think we all feel like chumps when we sit in a different game / stake. I started out at 2/4 limit in casino poker and thought, wow, here I am playing in the casino with all these pros at the 2/4 limit game, everyone is obviously better than me, lol. I still remember eventually jumping into the huge 4/8 limit (with kill!) game and how out-of-sorts I felt when the kill made it an 8/16 game, omg. But then I simply played it more and more and more and eventually became very comfortable with it and then over time realized I was one of the best players in my pool at that particular game.

Ditto for playing 1/2 NL for the first time. I remember flopping TPnoK an hour into my session, and going bet flop / bet turn, omg my opponent has just went all-in, I guess I gotta call, oh, he's got a set, wow, I'm going to lose my stack in one hand, oh, ok, I sucked out with a flush on the river, ouch, I'm a fish. Ditto for when my 1/2 NL game was changed into a 1/3 NL game, and I kinda felt mad about that cuz no one asked me about wanting to change the stakes and I certainly didn't want to be playing for higher ones. But eventually, with experience, you start becoming more and more comfortable at the table and more comfortable with your play and you take all the knowledge you've read/seen/heard and weed out the good ideas from the bad ones based on the table you're playing at, and before you now it: you're an ok 1/3 NL player. Not a world beater, just, you're comfortable than you can hold your own at most of the 1/3 NL tables you sit down at. But obviously it'll take time, it's simply a matter of putting in the hours.

As spike says above, those other players critiquing your play at the table are idiots for making the fish feel uncomfortable. Ignore them, and don't emulate them.

One of the other keys to eventually finding it very comfortable to sit in a game: make sure the money doesn't mean that much to you. If you're playing with this month's rent on the table and this month's food in your pocket, you're obviously never going to feel comfortable (i.e. never do that). If you can laugh off your losses as easily paid for monthly entertainment, this will help you play better and not worry about session-to-session results as much.

GgoodluckatthetablesG

My strategy is based on the smallest stakes version of live NL and Limit, and I don't contend for a second that it is the proper strategy for higher stakes. In small stakes limit, we often see the flop/turn with eleventeen players, so by aggression I simply mean pump our hand when we have the best of it equity-wise (cuz we can't make up for it on later streets by slowplaying). In small stakes NL, our FE is typically low (I'm rarely attempting to get people to fold), so I'm playing my hand passively until I actually make one where I'll then go about getting chips in as a huge favourite (due to the fact, again, that people don't like to fold at this level).

Glowstakesforlife,imoG

GG dropping truth bombs.

The first time you move to a different stake or format game, it feels odd to be betting an unusual amount. Getting a feel for standard opening sizes and c-bet % is uncomfortable, particularly live where you have the chips in your hands and you can feel the difference between your $20 c-bet (one stack of 4 chips, casually splayed on the felt) in 1/2 and your $45 c-bet (2 stacks of 4, only one knocked forward) in 2/5. Eventually you will adjust to the differences and there will come a hand when you bet (or bluff!) an amount you used to buy into your normal game for and after the hand, it will seem kind of surreal that it either didn't feel like a big bet to you or that you're not that upset it got snapped off and you lost. As GG said, finding a way to become detached from the money is very important to being able to play well, particularly in NL.

Obviously, there are a ton of nuances to the game you need to learn, but those will come in time. Expecting to step into a new game and instantly win or in a lot of cases, keep your head above water is unrealistic/abnormal. You will be able to turn it around though.

Again, love this thread GG. Don't always see eye to eye with you on strat stuff, but love hearing your input as I think you have a very clear head about the game.

nah bro your legit congrats on success keep crushing, i appreciate your posts.

arent friday/sat the real money days? they are here ^^ your win rate would have big boost if you added those days right couldnt imagine not playing fri/sat

At a reg invested casino poker room which gets very little clueless fish noob drunk passerby traffic, my guess is that day-of-week is pretty overrated and there isn't much difference between Fri/Sat nights and any other night. Your poker room may differ.

Obviously lol hour sample size, but here's what Poker Journal says for me for 1/3 NL (also keeping in mind that I almost always leave at 9:30pm):

Tuesday: $46.70/hr over ~166 hours
Thursday: $45.63/hr over ~106 hours
Sunday: $39.07/hr over ~343 hours
Friday: $34.39/hr over ~92 hours
Saturday: $23.99/hr over ~134 hours
Wednesday: $23.59 over ~138 hours
Monday: $15.09/hr over ~271 hours

Gtuesdaynight,ftwG

Did you asked permission from your wife to visit and post at 2+2?..., It seems to me that you are neglecting your family obligations and spend lots of time for poker. You should be restricted to be home by 8:00PM. I bet you that your wife have no clue how many hours are you into gambling. Did you told her you are a gambler with over 1000 hours playing cards?


AK

@octavian i found that if you buy them things they dont seem to mind.

and lol did you even read the OP he played 1k hours over 3 years. Plus he made a decent profit.

Sounds like your quoting what your wife/partner said to you loool

No man,
I'm not married and don't have any luck to maintain some kind of relationship. Very hard for myself to answer "what time are you coming home". So what I have is a poker lady friend. She's playing too. ...lol

AK

I love your approach to the game. I'm a fellow recreational player (who probably plays about 1/3 the hours annually you do of live 1-2, but also plays micro online a bit. BTW, the .5-.10/$10max online tables are generally much tougher than a 1-2 live, imho)). I'm a writer/creative director for large Web sites and applications, working at a big NYC ad agency, but for fun I've co authored two poker books -- the pocket idiot's guide to holdem (a primer, obv) and the ultimate guide to poker tells (a primer/fun book).

The one part of your philosophy I somewhat disagree with, or struggle with, is how much to table select. There is a big part of me (probably the biggest reason I play) that wants the challenge, so I will sometimes stay at tougher tables to take on the challenge. I'm a winning player, stopped keeping strict track awhile back but track annual profits (just add and subtract for each session and keep a running tally in my head, then restart the meter Jan. 1). Similarly, while I enjoy winning and a maniac can be challenging, the dynamic of just loose bad exploitable players sometimes feels a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. Of course, let me get stuck a couple hundo and I'll be searching for fish, lol. So it's a mix -- and I sense that in some of your posts as well -- wanting to win but also wanting to improve -- although it does sound like you are actually taking enough out of the game that it gives you a bit of meaningful vacation money, so that's a meta-game consideration I've generally avoided (I mentally track my poker b/r, but merge it with my life roll).

I guess it depends on what your goal is when playing poker. If it's the challenge of taking on better players, then by all means, sit at a tougher table.

I play poker for a lot of different reasons. One, it's fun. Two, it's a nice alternative to quite a lot of other things I could be doing; if I was at home (like the 6 out 7 other days of the week), I guess I'd feel compelled to get some boring/tasking chores done, so a poker session is a nice break from this. For me the challenge of this game is playing as best I can and the enjoyment / reward that often follows when reflected in my Poker Journal graph / winrate. But I have no illusions of where my winrate comes from: simply sitting at the best of the available tables most of the time. And winning also makes playing the game more fun, so it sorta comes full circle.

Gtableselectionisthenumberonefactorindecidingwinra te,andnothingelseisremotelyclose,imoG

I only read this thru once but I did remember only not agreeing with the comment about reads not bein important. I have made plenty of big light calls due to bad obvious players whom I get a solid feel and read on when they are weak. It may be worth it to you to get a feel for fishes tells just a thought.

Is more the challenge of improving my game, which means learning how to beat tougher players

I'm real interested to see where you play, I know you won't reveal, but it seems very loose?

Which is great for you!

But for most including myself (Reno, NV) most of the games are tighter (1/2nl). So I think its harder to crush the game like this. Maybe a few times a month will I sit at a game to find an Asian lady blow her wad on pocket 5's.

Have you played outside your local casino to compare?

Do you think your winrate would be the same somewhere else?

I have always felt you really need a loose table at lower stakes to make any money, I have tried Friday nights, Sat, Sun, WED night ect.... there seems to be no pattern to when the gamblers come?

I don't think it's semantics, but I consider reads versus tells two completely different things.

Overall reads of an opponent are quite important in the line we take against them, and I would consider reads as whether opponent is passiveness vs aggressiveness, whether they are capable of bluffing or not, whether they are aware of my image, whether they are insane vs sane, how they protects made hands on drawy boards with their bet sizing, how they play in multiway pots versus HU, etc., etc. I consider reads fairly important (although they aren't the be-all end-all, especially in shorter stack situations where commitment simply overrides everything).

Tells I would consider as something different, like facial motions, speech, body language, ticks, timing, etc. I think these, for the most part, are irrelevant. There are other very good players on here who think they are important and swear by them, so each to his own. The one thing I do know for sure (perhaps being a bit results oriented here) is that I've done perfectly fine totally ignoring tells, and therefore, so can you. Could I have done better learning to spot them? Meh. Very debatable, imo.

GnonbelieverG