^ thanks MikeStarr, that's what I'm hoping is true for sure. Certainly my live game is softer than anything I can find online except the play money games, and that's a close one

What are the live adjustments that you think most people aren't making?

Also, if your game is that soft, that is prob a huge unforeseen part of your wr. A good two players could severely lower your rate and make it more volatile.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do we assume the game is soft just because I'm am able to beat it with low volatility? I play mostly during the day time and the games are much softer in the evening and on weekends (although variance is also higher at those times).

Based on the HHs I see here:

People raise preflop too much especially in EP. This is most always correct in online 6 max but not in full ring live games where you will get called by hands that dominate you too often.

People play too passively post flop stating "you'll never get called by worse". I find that to be completely untrue.

First sentence answered by last paragraph

OR, your game is a lot softer than you realize, even during the day. So the recommendations that apply *correctly* to other games aren't the optimal ones for your game.

I don't know, what's more likely?:

A) Everyone here is an idiot and wrong.

B) You're wrong and either you're just in an outlier of a game or otherwise running insanely well


People underestimate the effect of game conditions on their WR's and results all the time. I have two basic pools that I get to play in, a local home game / charity room circuit with a bunch of degenerate gambers, and a handful of casinos with more typical LLSNL players. When I look at the difference between the $1/2 NLHE in each pool, the correct adjustments, and my winrates, are night and day different. Lines that work in the casino and will work at almost any casino anywhere in the country get murdered in the home game and vice versa.

I have 1000+ hour samples interleaved of the two pools (as in, some days I played in one, some days in the other, so we're not comparing a new player to a veteran's results) and it's really obvious how differently they play. (I'll have to make a chart of that.)

I recently played at about 15 different rooms over a 6 week or so period. S. Florida, Naples, Tampa, Vegas, SF and Seattle. The games had subtle differences but the differences weren't big enough to make any difference in my game or my results.

Everyone here is not an idiot but they are very stubborn. But whatever.

Yes, very stubborn indeed.

This is another reason why I want to collect and compare a whole bunch of live data. Room/region/condition effects.

I certainly feel like my live game is softer than a lot of the games I read about on here. Then I'm UK based and we maybe haven't had as big a cash game scene thing for as long. Most Brits only know of poker tournaments, I always have to explain what it is I actually play!

I'd be cool with giving Angrist my data for a pooled analysis. Not sure how well it would work though since each players wr would be different. Probably some good inferences to be made though.

Here's some advice which goes against conventional wisdom. If you don't want to spend the rest of your life playing $2-5 take a shot. Especially with $2-5 win rates declining. The only way to keep up is to move up. Get someone to buy pieces. You may find the bigger game to be softer since the biggest game is often the only one with players who don't care about money, albeit the regs will be tougher.

Your advice to roll the dice and play as high as possible might have some merit if the questioner needs to make a lot of money at poker and doesn't care about busting his roll.

But is that really his priority? Or is busting his roll much toof big a risk for too little gain of potentially making more at poker?

There is nothing wrong with the occasional shot-taking at juicy bigger games, but playing the biggest game in the house at all times regardless of BRM is a very common way for otherwise solid poker pros to go busto.

Mike: trying to argue that your sample size is not too small by citing a tiny portion of that small sample size is a bit flawed and... stubborn.

Also pretty sure a lot of people with far larger samples at those games would disagree that they all play more or less the same.

MikeStarr,

I really don't think you can prove what you are saying about a certain achievable win rate below some standard deviation number with a measly 1100 hour sample.

I have said this earlier in this thread, but any sample size under 2k hours is not really worth discussing. Even a 2k hour sample size doesn't say that much.

As far as the other off topic stuff, go knock yourself out in the strat threadS if you want to prove that your lines are good. Or just talk strat with the one best players in your player pool and ignore the LLSNL strat forums altogether if you think that the LLSNL strat posters all suck.

For the record, Im not trying to play some ultra low variance strategy. Im just playing the best way I know how and my StdDev number is what it is. I wouldnt even know it was low if other people hadnt posted theirs.

So much truth to this statement.

Live afternoon game is all about being the alpha dog, because there is simply no game selection.

I don't know anyone with 1k of expenses in vegas. More like $1500-2k. I would say you have a bankroll of 4-6k. So you should play until you have a BR of 10k to play take $500 shots at 2:5

How do I live up to my "claims" other than to continue to win? When I was at 200 hours I was told I was on a heater and to wait until I had 500+ hours. When I was at 500 hours I was told my winning was good variance and to wait until I had 1000 hours. Now Im over 1100 hours and people still scoff and tell me to see where Im at after 2000 hours. I played over a million hands online at a nice win rate. Its laughable at this point. I've demonstrated plenty in the strat forums but because you dont believe my lines wont work (even though they work again and again) you think I havent demonstrated anything. Ive said it before and I will say it again. Its entirely possible that there is more than one cookie cutter way to win at poker.

It really doesnt matter what anyone thinks other than the fact that in general people like to be respected.

This is somewhat related to the point I made the other day about aggressive shot taking. If you are a player that has beaten 5/T in the past then perhaps aggressive shot taking is the best course. However, for most new players I would advise against this. I've known talented young 2/5 players who ran hot and moved up to T/20 (biggest games offered in that room). Then after months and months of running at breakeven (or worse) at 5/T+ they quit poker altogether. Fact was they weren't experienced enough to be profitable at these higher levels. They could have been making a killing at 2/5 during this time. After playing big games, 2/5 doesn't have the same allure, regardless of possible attainable winrates which is why they quit poker.

Not quite sure I understand this. There's no chance that these young hotshots can make as much at a real job as they can at 2/5 if they put in enough hours.

What do you mean by "citing a tiny portion of that sample size"?

It's hard to understand because it's not logical. They went breakeven for months and felt poker wasn't as profitable as they thought. Also, moving down from 10/20 to 2/5 hurts one's ego. It can be down right embarrassing to play the smaller game particularly when 10/20 is a small player pool and anytime one of those players sees you they will try to get you to play the bigger game and will take jabs at you for playing the kiddie game. Then of course when you aren't at the table players in the big game will be gossiping and talking all sorts of trash about how you couldn't hang with the big boys etc.

Not to mention that the 2/5 game will feel so small to a 10/20 player that they are far more apt to just gambol gambol than grind.

Yea, not saying you are wrong, just saying lol young hotshots.

Honestly I think it's hard for most people to move down in level..for instance say you have been playing 5/T everyday for the past year and today the game doesn't look that good but the 2/5 game looks like an easy lineup, it's tough to put your ego aside and play the smaller game. I know it was for me.

You are probably right. I pretty much only have 1/2 here, so never have to worry about that.

Although when I go to Vegas I'll play anything from 1/(2/3)-10/20. Then again, I don't have the long term social implications to worry about.

This is a pretty good point for those who haven't been in the situation before.

Now that I don't necessarily don't have to jump around, I'll notice that whenever somebody else does that there's always a bunch of gossip/**** talking etc.

It requires some thick skin to be able to handle the -socialEV for +$EV, primarily in smaller rooms/player pools