Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek
So I find it satisfying that my Super Nit strategy at almost 1000 hours has so far improved my winrate by 50% over the one I produced the previous 1300 hours over an ever increasing rake (although admittedly lags way behind the one I produced over my first 2000 hours, but conditions are different, imo).
GcluelessNLnoobG
What stakes are these hours at if you dont mind?
Just wondering, because I play $1/3 every so often and anecdotally think that a nitty'ish strategy (mixing in some l/a stuff) is not just a lower variance strategy at these stacks, but also more profitable then a l/a strategy that mixes in creative bluffs and a aggressive preflop strategy.
In practice, I suppose I am more of a straightforward nit just because the players are so bad that it doesn't feel +EV to deviate. However, the inner me wants to be more creative and aggressive, which I do from time to time, but I always end up reverting to a nit machine at these stakes.
I watch the 'good' aggro lags (by good I just mean understands the game, not just betting to bet at random), unfold creative (semi)-bluffs that theoretically make a ton of sense (say Hero nut advantage and V capped range, or taking advantage of an exploit on V weakness), but given V's general lack of understanding makes a silly call that he/she should never make. Then I think, wow what a creative/good play by Hero, however, what are you thinking Hero?! This is 1/3 NL and you just 3 barreled a guy you knew had top pair!
Idk, maybe these players get paid off way more when that have good value hands to offset, but don't feel its necessary to do stuff like that and get paid, thus my thinking nit strategy, generally, +EV.
Thoughts? Experience/results to back up one or the other?