Absolutely not. I just think people raise far too wide from far too many positions.

I did 10 1-hour samples in 2017 at my table (I just picked run of the mill tables mid-session). Lol sample size obviously, but 2/3rds of hands were raised, and that seems pretty on-point with just eyeballing my typical tables.

None of them were maniacal (I purposely didn't include maniac tables in the samples so it didn't skew things), it's just that a lot of people like to raise a lotta stuff from anywhere under the misguided notion that preflop aggression is the path to profits.

Basically, almost everyone else at the table is more aggressive than me (especially with regards to preflop), and yet I highly doubt hardly any of them are winners (let alone winning remotely close to what I'm winning, with likely some exceptions that I stay away from).

GcluelessNLnoobG

Really depends on the table. I also used to limp a large percentage of hands from a lotta spots, with the idea being that I simply wanted to get into a pot for cheap (which at passive tables you could often do), hit a hand, and then get paid off by a moron postflop. But things have changed such that (a) it's not as likely I'll be able to get into a cheap hand any more and (b) it's not as likely I'm (or anyone else for that matter) going to get payed off as much postflop, especially OOP. So at my tables, I would mostly think someone limping a lot of marginal hands from a lotta spots is going to have a tough time being profitable (or at the very least wouldn't be as profitable had they just folded marginal hands OOP). Because of this, I mostly just limp marginal hands only in LP now, and no one has yet figured out that my EP/MP limping/overlimping range is weighted towards very strong hands.

Eventually the pendulum will start swinging back the other way and further adjustments will likely have to be made again.

Gpokerisalwaysaworkinprogress,imoG

GG, what's your EP/MP limping range?

Let's say UTG+2 through MP3 (so 4 seats). Obviously table/player dependent bla bla etc, but let's say you just sat down.

AA-77/AK/AQ/ATs+/KQs. That's pretty much all I ever have here, and I'm limping (as opposed to raising) a big percentage of the time. It's nit tight and highly exploitable.

ETA: I misread your post and thought you said first 4 seats (which would be UTG, UTG1, UTG2 and MP1). MP3 is the HJ, so by that time I'm obviously loosening up a bit especially if bad players have entered the pot; still tight, although not as tight as that range above.

Gnotbeingexploited,yetG

Above and beyond the obvious sample size that you correctly question, I'm just not sure what any of this proves or disproves. So 2/3 of hands are raised...so what? Where are they raised from or is that assumed to be normally distributed? Did these raises lead to more profit for the raiser?

I just have no idea what recording the number of open raises would ever prove

Could maybe be correlated against an average game to determine aggression level. If we had that data.

Furthermore, my guess is that at a 9-10 handed table the distribution works out that we should have a raising hand somewhere at least 70% of the time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well ofc. Obv as we move closer to the BTN the raise percentage should go up. But if we are just calculating the % of hands brought in for a raise...I have no idea how that is useful or proves anything at all.

Seems like a MikeStarr stat IMO

@ Slim.

The response was simply to the question of whether I feel I play with a lot of maniacs. I don't feel I play with a lot of maniacs (I've played with lots, I know what they are), and yet I also know there is going to be a raise a high percentage of the time (doesn't mean anyone is being maniacal, although most are raising too loosely, imo).

As for the usefulness of knowing whether your table is raisey, I'm not even sure how you can question that? If the hand is getting raised preflop far more often than it is being limped (a) you're not going to see a cheap flop with a speculative hand (in response to the other question regarding limping marginal hands) and (b) having a limp/raise strategy at these tables is not a bad strategy.

If, for example, you "knew" (not that you ever could) that your table was seeing 90% limped pots as opposed to 90% raised ones, you don't change your strat?

GcluelessNLnoobG

Right I prob didn't articulate what I meant well. My point was is the aggression only if unopened? Is it isolating on limpers? Is it only from LP? Etc. A raw number with no context really doesn't mean too much imo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would probably be more helpful if I knew when / where / how often / after how many limpers / etc., but I don't have the energy to track that and figure that out. I barely had the energy to do my 10 hour sample size last year, and mostly that was just to get a ballpark answer to "huh, I wonder, are a lot of pots raised or limped nowadays?". For me the bottom line of "well, about 2/3rds of pots are raised preflop nowadays" is useful enough information for me.

GcluelessNLnoobG

If we're playing 9-handed and 2/3 hands are being raised, then the average V's raising range should be ~11% (+- for position)

For 10-handed, it's ~10%

Which means V's generally aren't as loose as we'd like them to be (or at least as your average LSL poster thinks they are), and in order to have an appreciable range advantage to at least beat rake, we should be playing at least 2-2.5% tighter than the average range (with positional adjustments, obviously)

So I think in many cases where GG posts his advice and people call him a nit, it's really unjustified.

You did read upthread that he plays a 7% range in the LJ if the pot is unraised... Mostly as a limp?

Confused by these exceptions. If passive is optimal and these exceptions can't even work that out, why would we need to avoid them?

Did you also read the part where he corrected himself and said that's his UTG 1-3 range and not his LJ range?

Whether he's limping with it or not is a separate question and depends on his current stack sizes and what particular hand he has.

To give you a personal example - I would much rather limp/rr with KK from UTG than, say, do it with AA from UTG+1 or UTG+2

I guess if you're always coming in for a raise, and it forses limpers to fold or creates a heads up situation, in which you maintain the positional advantage, you should continue to raise, obviously.
But, if you're sitting at a table, where your raises result in multiple limpers to call, and you find yourself playing out of position in a multi way pot, that's obviously a negative ev situation. Maybe then you should reevaluate.
One of the most egregious errors i see people doing is when they limp and then call a raise. I mean, I've seen guys who limp and never fold to a raise.
That's when poker starts to become really expensive.

FWIW, I think it is completely justified in calling me a nit. I am a nit! I believe nit poker is a very good strategy to beat my game.

G100%nitG


I've never said passive is optimal, and I've never claimed my method is the best method. It's a method that works very well for me, especially since it plays to my strengths / my wheelhouse / fits well with my overall nature.

I'm sure there are also other-side-of-the-coin aggressive players who are also winners, perhaps even bigger winners than me in my game (hard to tell for sure, I've never compared long term sample sizes with any aggro players in my game).

My point was simply this: most players raise far too wide from far too many positions, and it doesn't make them automatic default winners just cuz they're aggressive.

GcluelessNLnoobG

GG, you've obviously been playing at your card room/casino, for a long time. How do you think other players there look at you? Perceive you?
Do they acknowledge you as a winning player?
Do they even know at all that you're a winning player?
Do they play differently against you as in the past?
Do any of them know about your thread on this forum?

Inquiring minds want to know

I have no doubt I'm perceived as a winning player, not just by long term players who I have a lotta history with but even very quickly by randoms I have zero history with. It's a perception I'd rather not have, but it is what it is. I likely don't exploit this perception as much as I should, although I try to keep my eyes open for spots. I'm pretty sure it's a he's-a-winner-in-an-OMC-rock-sort-of-way, never in a OMG-this-guy-is-so-good-and-I-fear-him.

I think most players who have survived over the years and are still managing to afford to play are playing differently against everyone in general, and I'm no exception to that.

I've only ever accidentally run into a 2+2er once in my ~9 years at the 1/3 NL table (lol, we posted the exact same hand one morning), but he no longer posts here (think I only played with him like 2 times after that). I'm not sure how I'd handle being outed (which is a small worry and something I have considered), pretty sure I'd just flat out deny it / lie / I made it all up.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Ha ha ha, that really had me laughing out loud!
Good one.

I recently bought and ordered that really old poker book from John Fox, titled "Play poker, Quit work and sleep till noon!"

After going through Limons thread, I was really curious to have a look at it. Of course, it's about Draw poker, but I don't regret having bought it, even if it's only for this one tidbit of wisdom it offers.
I'm paraphrasing, "If you're having a losing session, even if you're at really favorable table, Quit or table change. The players at your table now perceive you as a losing player and, losing all fear of you, will now play their best poker against you. You won't be able to make up your loses, even if you're the best player at the table" .
This made a lot of sense to me. Something I never really thought of in that way.

I'm the real noobie.

I've never heard of this book but getting up from a good game where you are the best player at the table cuz you are stuck with a poor, losing take image tells me this book is worthless. I can't even imagine someone writing that in a book


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like I said, it's about Draw poker, so it's pretty old. I'm not even sure when it was written.
I personally find that piece of advice worth considering.
But that's just my personal opinion.
I guess if you are a real crusher, which I'm not, never claimed to be, it is maybe silly. I wouldn't know

I wonder how many brick hits to the head it takes for someone to write this sentence in all seriousness and not consider even for a second that it's total nonsense.

Players who we make money from at a table don't have the concept of "best" or "worst" poker, and even if they did, the idea that someone is going to go from playing like a degen to the best poker of their life just because they saw someone else at the table lose a few hands at showdown or lose a few $100 is ludicrous.

God, I feel a little dumber just writing out the explanation about why it is dumb.

But hey, it was written in 1985 pre-internet times, so I shouldn't be too harsh, because if you wrote that today, you'd get called out on your bull**** immediately.

Limon himself called “image” one of the most overrated things in poker. If you know your image and are at a table full of (really, REALLY dumb)people who put a ton of stock into it, you will be able to crush them provided you can alter your strategy appropriately and find yourself in favorable situations to exploit your “image.”

He said, and I’m paraphrasing here from memory, that for every hour you spent worried about your image, if you just took 1/10th the time to table select to the best game instead, you would make a lot more return on your invested time.

I will have to concede up to , let's say, 80%. I'm not here to argue or insist that my ideas are better than anyone else's. After all, these aren't even my ideas!
I guess what I was trying to say to GG is, that it's better to be perceived as a winning poker player at your poker room, as opposed to a losing player.
If you think someone is a losing player, will you not try to iso raise him, to play heads up against him? If you're a good player, of course you wil Will.
You'll try to take advantage of that perceived weak player.
You'll play more aggressive against him, because of his perceived weak IMAGE!!

I rest my case.