Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash Discussion of no-limit hold’em live cash games of all stakes.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-07-2013, 01:36 PM   #3451
The Rumor
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
The Rumor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wherever my loanshark isn't
Posts: 9,559
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I think some of what we're missing in the deep vs. short stack discussion is we're acting like it's about buying in at 60 bb or 150 bb at the same blinds/stakes. But, it's not for many of us. 150 bb at 1/2 is the same as 60 bb at 2/5. It can also be a question of how to invest your $300 starting buy-in.
The Rumor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 01:59 PM   #3452
LolPony
Pooh-Bah
 
LolPony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: @DeTalores
Posts: 4,124
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
Yep. It's why I usually think buying in deep to cover fish is an overstated concern. The type of coolers where you'll get 150bb stacks in are quite rare, and if you buy in for 100bb, you'll often have 150bb when they come up, anyway.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this post but...
It seems to me like you're overestimating the fish, thinking you have to cooler someone to get in more than 150bbs.
Definitely not from my experience.

I've gotten 200bb in with 2nd nut flush against a big fish against top and bottom pair.

I've gotten 180bb in with middle set against OESD against a big fish.

I've gotten in 150bb with TPTK against TPGK against fish.

The list goes on. (this is just off the top of my head from my experience for the last 2 months or so)

The fish play bad enough at 100bb stacks and even worse as their stack increases (which is why often times you'll see a fish be playing for hours only losing maybe $50-$100 then they win a huge pot and have $600 in front of them, then they lose ALL of it within the next hour).
I think not having the worst players covered at the table is a huge leak for anyone that has a big edge over the rest of the table.

Leaving the fish with an extra $100 when that $100 could be yours is a big mistake.
LolPony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 02:04 PM   #3453
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,373
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by LolPony View Post
I think not having the worst players covered at the table is a huge leak for anyone that has a big edge over the rest of the table.

Leaving the fish with an extra $100 when that $100 could be yours is a big mistake.
+1

Especially when making nutting hands and estimating ourselves as a 98%+ favourite, leaving $100 on the table in our two nuttish hands of the night simply ain't going to be able to be made up.
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 02:12 PM   #3454
Johnny 99
grinder
 
Johnny 99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 610
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post
Do you play in the worst 1/3 games in the world? 1/3 is the lowest NL game in my casino so it's the "entry" level game in my room (maybe it isn't in yours). Admittedly, the next stake of 2/5 hardly ever goes, so you get a wide range of players.

But if you have even half a clue of how to play, sitting down with 33bbs in a typical 1/3 NL seems, you know, flat out horrible.

ETA: And the best way to beat a great 1/3 game is by playing loose (see a flop for cheap, flop a monster, stack a moron), a strategy we can't employ with 33bbs.
For me having excellent control over my own play is likely the single most important factor determining my results. I want to be conscious of the gambles I am involved in by having an idea of my opponent's ranges.

Sometimes my games are terrible (1-3 is the only consistent game, btw,) sometimes quite good. Much of the time, it is old regs who hate to play for stacks. I like to know where the easy and hard money is before I bring my stack up to full.

I suspect I am not giving up much EV waiting for my second button to go full.
Johnny 99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 02:34 PM   #3455
DreamIsDestiny
grinder
 
DreamIsDestiny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: The level above yours
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFarha View Post
It cuts losses but not winnings apparently.

The sentiment you expressed in your statement about starting off with an easy double-up leads me to believe I was right in thinking it's crazy that your buying in short could potentially be more beneficial then just max-buying.

If your getting it in so light your going to be very swingy at the onset of your sessions.

If you have people calling off all-ins with JTss for 200$ in a 2/5 game, their postflop mistakes are going to be that bad as well and your limiting yourself by not playing postflop.

Also it doesn't seem like it's that bad of a mistake for a fish to call with J10sooted if your shoving 88+, Ax suited, and "high cards" as soon as the pot gets bloated.

Your preventing fish from making mistakes post-flop where their equity is a lot more diminished and oftentimes 0 (the river).

This is the same reason so many terrible, terrible players can go deep in tournaments. A pre-flop shove fest is best case scenario for fish, there is little edge for good players to have because both ranges are wide. Not to mention incredibly swingy.
QFT

This post is gold.

By definition, a good player capitalizes on weaker players' mistakes. The deeper you are and the farther you are into a hand (i.e. turn and river), the more profitable their mistakes become for the good player because their equity will usually be less and the pot will be bigger.

Also, by playing deep, you don't get committed with stupid hands that you would otherwise not commit with if you were deep. With a 50bb stack, you almost always have to stack off with hands like TPTK and this generally creates high variance situations while diminishing the skill advantage.
DreamIsDestiny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 02:37 PM   #3456
SeaUlater
banned
 
SeaUlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,797
You guys are discussing as if buying in 60bb is permanently stuck at 60bb.

It is really only one hand away from 100bb.
SeaUlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 02:45 PM   #3457
SeaUlater
banned
 
SeaUlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamIsDestiny View Post
Also, by playing deep, you don't get committed with stupid hands that you would otherwise not commit with if you were deep. With a 50bb stack, you almost always have to stack off with hands like TPTK and this generally creates high variance situations while diminishing the skill advantage.
This post actually highlights the benefit of playing less than full stack against full stack players. They feel obligated to play a certain way, such as stacking off light against 60bb, whereas 60bb can take advantage of full stack's inability to adjust.
SeaUlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 02:58 PM   #3458
The Rumor
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
The Rumor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wherever my loanshark isn't
Posts: 9,559
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

LOL and gg - I think it depends on the kind of fish. If he's going to bet/bet/bet all-in with air or call off absurd amounts, then sure being as deep as possible is great. But if he's a fish because he calls anything pre and folds on the flop to almost any c-bet, then it doesn't really matter if you're only 70 bb deep.
The Rumor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 03:07 PM   #3459
SeaUlater
banned
 
SeaUlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,797
One thing I must say about 60bb is that it's much more SD prone, and a lot of our edge on turn and river is lost.
SeaUlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 03:08 PM   #3460
LolPony
Pooh-Bah
 
LolPony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: @DeTalores
Posts: 4,124
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rumor View Post
LOL and gg - I think it depends on the kind of fish. If he's going to bet/bet/bet all-in with air or call off absurd amounts, then sure being as deep as possible is great. But if he's a fish because he calls anything pre and folds on the flop to almost any c-bet, then it doesn't really matter if you're only 70 bb deep.
So then why take the chance of not being deep and getting involved with a fish that will stack off 200bb deep?
This concept just doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how being short stack could ever be more profitable than being deep stack. Assuming we're miles ahead of our opponents in terms of skill.
Like if we have just a tiny advantage or there are some players that are better then us, then yeah, playing a shorter stack might have its advantages.
LolPony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 03:10 PM   #3461
SeaUlater
banned
 
SeaUlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,797
We are not miles ahead of our competition...that's the thing.
SeaUlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 03:12 PM   #3462
LolPony
Pooh-Bah
 
LolPony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: @DeTalores
Posts: 4,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaUlater View Post
We are not miles ahead of our competition...that's the thing.
We aren't? Pretty sure even winning $10/hr is miles ahead of a majority of 1/2ers who lose 20/hr(more or less w/e. point is a long term winner even if it is small is going to be miles ahead of someone who is losing long term).

When I say we are miles ahead I'm assuming we're better than the average llsnler just because we are on 2p2 and at least thinking about the game.
LolPony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 03:14 PM   #3463
bwslim69
I'm a Diva, Bruh
 
bwslim69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: TPS reports
Posts: 24,038
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by LolPony View Post
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this post but...
It seems to me like you're overestimating the fish, thinking you have to cooler someone to get in more than 150bbs.
Definitely not from my experience.

I've gotten 200bb in with 2nd nut flush against a big fish against top and bottom pair.

I've gotten 180bb in with middle set against OESD against a big fish.

I've gotten in 150bb with TPTK against TPGK against fish.

The list goes on. (this is just off the top of my head from my experience for the last 2 months or so)

The fish play bad enough at 100bb stacks and even worse as their stack increases (which is why often times you'll see a fish be playing for hours only losing maybe $50-$100 then they win a huge pot and have $600 in front of them, then they lose ALL of it within the next hour).
I think not having the worst players covered at the table is a huge leak for anyone that has a big edge over the rest of the table.

Leaving the fish with an extra $100 when that $100 could be yours is a big mistake.
I agree with Pony here. The assumption that fish will only play WTF poker with 40-60bb is a fallacy IMO. Fish play really bad with big stacks, medium stacks and short stacks.

If I may illustrate a 200 BB 2/5 effective stack hand I recently played:

Hero $1200
Meh reg $500
Fish Little over $1k

6-7 Limps to Hero in BB who checks option with 55. Flop is 45Jhh. Hero leads 35 into 40ish. Meh reg calls, fish calls (Pot $145ish). Their ranges are essentially A, KJ, few combo draws, virtually never JJ

Turn K Hero leads $125; Meh reg shoves; fish now flats; Hero shoves fish tanks and calls.

River brick and I scoop $2,700 pot. Meh reg has KJ (cooler maybe but limped pot), Fish has J4 sooooted.

Mpethy I respect your opinions so I want to make sure I am understanding this correctly. You are inferring that most LLSNL players are not that much better than the fish as it relates to deep stack play??? I'll go back and read your posts again to make sure I am comprehending properly.

I don't disagree that a lot of regs don't adjust well to deeper stacks and play the same robotic style regardless of stack size. Actually most regs where I play 2/5 aren't particularly good with any stack size but that is a different story.
bwslim69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 03:17 PM   #3464
bwslim69
I'm a Diva, Bruh
 
bwslim69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: TPS reports
Posts: 24,038
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaUlater View Post
We are not miles ahead of our competition...that's the thing.
I'm not sure about this either. Maybe I'm lucky and play in Fantasy land (Charles Town) but the 2/5 games are full of very few competent players. Not sure it is quantifiable but if we hold a 65/35 edge on the fish...maybe more...I'd rather play deep pots with that edge against that fish all day.

Interesting discussion though.
bwslim69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 03:17 PM   #3465
SeaUlater
banned
 
SeaUlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,797
Not making silly mistakes and being awesome deep stack are not one of the same.

Some of us can benefit from deep stack, but most of us are probably better off playing shorter.
SeaUlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 03:19 PM   #3466
SeaUlater
banned
 
SeaUlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwslim69 View Post
I'm not sure about this either. Maybe I'm lucky and play in Fantasy land (Charles Town) but the 2/5 games are full of very few competent players. Not sure it is quantifiable but if we hold a 65/35 edge on the fish...maybe more...I'd rather play deep pots with that edge against that fish all day.

Interesting discussion though.
Alright I am just being modest, I think I am f-ing awesome.

I still don't think deep is always great.
SeaUlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 03:28 PM   #3467
RobFarha
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
RobFarha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: @robbyrobbb
Posts: 9,469
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaUlater View Post
We are not miles ahead of our competition...that's the thing.
If you can't beat LLSNL for a decent rate you need to get out of this thread and go work on your game.

Even the "good" players live tend to be terrible below 5/10.

How can you even say that?
RobFarha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 03:29 PM   #3468
LolPony
Pooh-Bah
 
LolPony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: @DeTalores
Posts: 4,124
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaUlater View Post
Not making silly mistakes and being awesome deep stack are not one of the same.

Some of us can benefit from deep stack, but most of us are probably better off playing shorter.
How are we ever going to make a big mistake against a fish in a big pot ott or otr?
I mean if we think this is at all possible then:
1). We are probably not very good
and
2). You're right we shouldn't be playing deep stack

Again this is assuming we're better than our competition, if someone at the table is really deep and going to crush us because we have a deep stack, then re-read #1 and #2.

Being good with a deep stack comes from experience. If we just stop playing any time we have a deep stack we're never going to get any experience. By not getting any experience playing deep we are losing money by not stacking fish in gigantor pots.
LolPony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 03:30 PM   #3469
DreamIsDestiny
grinder
 
DreamIsDestiny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: The level above yours
Posts: 500
This is how I analogically explain me playing poker for a living to someone that doesn't understand the game.

Let's say you and I play a game with a 6-sided die. With each roll, we will place a wager. If it hits 1-4, then you win. If 5 or 6 hits, then I win. Theoretically, to make the most profit, you should wager as much as you can affordably lose and roll that die as many times as possible before I stop playing.

The same principle applies to playing deep vs playing short.
DreamIsDestiny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 03:34 PM   #3470
SeaUlater
banned
 
SeaUlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by LolPony View Post
Being good with a deep stack comes from experience. If we just stop playing any time we have a deep stack we're never going to get any experience. By not getting any experience playing deep we are losing money by not stacking fish in gigantor pots.
Oh I agree, believe me that I do, just that most fish are rarely deep and thus effective is always low and practice is limited.

I don't think we differ in opinions, perhaps the context.
SeaUlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 04:54 PM   #3471
Tom Dwans Son
banned
 
Tom Dwans Son's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,004
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
The argument that a player can make more by buying in short is pretty interesting.

I don't think there's any question that it can be true, just as I think there's no question that buying in as deep as possible yields the highest theoretical win rate for a theoretical winning player.

Here is how I reconcile those two statements:

The reason it's theoretically more profitable to buy in as deep as possible is because it allows you to win more when opponents make really big deep stack mistakes. But every deep stack mistake that the hero makes cuts into the theoretical profit of playing as deep as possible. So if the hero makes enough deep stack mistakes, he can eliminate his theoretical advantage gained from playing deep.

An analogy: playing loose aggressive is theoretically more profitable than playing tight aggressive. But no LAg I have ever analyzed a database for has had a higher win rate than the best TAg players I have analyzed databases for. The explanation for this is that the theoretical advantages of playing LAg are being offset by mistakes the LAg players are making in real life.

This is not to say that the individual player cannot increase his WR by switching from TAg to LAg. It is only to say that I have never met a LAg whose win rate exceeds the theoretical max win rate for a TAg.

Now, I have coached some of the best players in the world. People you've seen on TV, sponsored pros, and guys you've never heard of that were crushing 5/10 and beating 10/20 online. If THOSE people were not able to exceed the theoretical max WR of playing TAg by playing LAg, then the theoretical advantage of playing LAg may as well not even exist.

Back to playing shortstacked: I can easily envision the same thing happening with stack size. The theoretical advantage of playing 200bb compared to 60bb disappears into the occasional 200bb mistake. It wouldn't even be very hard for it to happen. Say the max theoretical win rate for playing 60bb is 15bb/hr, and the max WR for playing 200bb is 20bb/hr. If you make 200bb worth of deep stack mistakes in a week, you've completely eliminated the theoretical advantage of playing a bigger stack.

So the bottom line is: I KNOW that the theoretical advantage of playing LAg doesn't overcome a player's own leaks until you reach skill levels no one in this forum is anywhere near. I could see the same thing happening with stack size.

So: is it theoretically more profitable to buy in 200bb deep than at 60bb? Yes.

Does this mean it is more profitable for any given winning 60bb player to start buying in deep? No.

Is it possible that many winners buying in at 200bb could increase their WR by buying in at 60bb? Yes.

What you have to understand is this: the reason it is more profitable for most players to play lag is not because Lag is more profitable. It is because they have leaks in their Tag game that they are compensating for by playing more hands, and that they could get the same increase in WR by plugging those leaks. The same thing could easily be true, and almost certainly is true, for most players who buy in deep. Their WR playing deep is almost certainly less than the theoretical max WR attainable with a 60bb buy in, but occasionally coolering somebody in a 400bb pot earns them a higher WR. but it's still just compensating for the leaks in their 60bb game.
Wow, great post. Playing TAG, it's easy to play relatively mistake-free poker, but with LAG it's easy to make mistakes and spew/tilt away chips.

I am shocked to hear you believe there is no theoretical advantage to playing LAG. I always thought there was an advantage which seemed to be confirmed by my perception of the best players in my room: the best 2/5 player is a LAG, and the best 5/10 players mix their game up between LAG and TAG... and also what i see on TV (thinking that many of the players that crush are LAGs).

Of course, the vast majority of good players are TAGs and most players I have seen try to play LAG at 2/5 have crashed and burned but I still had the view that in order to truly crush one would have to play LAG.
Tom Dwans Son is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 05:02 PM   #3472
The Rumor
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
The Rumor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wherever my loanshark isn't
Posts: 9,559
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I think mpethy has stated before he thinks there is a theoretical edge that doesn't seem to show up in practice.

Basically, no one plays the edge perfectly enough.
The Rumor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 05:19 PM   #3473
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

That's exactly it. I am 100% positive the theoretical edge exists, but no one I have ever analyzed who plays lag has ever had a WR that surpasses the max win rates of the best tags.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 05:22 PM   #3474
Tim Brice
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: @timjbrice
Posts: 2,961
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Put me in the camp where playing a deep stack is better for LLSNL games. I won a $1300 pot at $1/2 a few weeks ago when I got in with a set against AK that had made a K on the flop.

Granted, a lot had to happen in order to make this possible. The fish had to get lucky and hit a flush on the river to acquire that big stack. I had to win some big hands to get my sack that deep. And I had to survive a gutshot draw to win.

But when it happens and you rake in a huge pot, you realize that fish are capable of making huge mistakes and overvaluing their hands and paying you off.

Of course, I cut into my own win-rate by calling raises when I shouldn't have as well.
Tim Brice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 05:24 PM   #3475
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

You see the difference? If you have an edge in your game, you can potentially increase your personal win rate by playing lag compared to playing tag. But unless you surpass the theoretical earn for a tag, you're not really realizing the theoretical edge that a lag has over a tag. If your tag win rate was less than the theoretical maximum, you could also have increased your WR by plugging the leaks in your tag game.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive