rude :[

(I also have 1k+ sample of 20bb/hour at 1/2 I've posted like half a dozen times, as GG well knows, but I guess it's not a big enough sample)

Look, almost nobody good enough to have those results are likely to keep playing 1/2 for 3k hours, that doesn't mean it can't be done. You keep asking for evidence that no one would have any incentive to create, then use the lack of such evidence as proof of your position. Doesn't work that way.

(I also knew 3 other players with 20+bb/hour sample each at 1-2k hour sample, and were all in a strat group together, so, yeah maybe we just all run hot, but combined we have a sick sample at very similar winratess over 3-5 year span (we all played higher on top of playing 1/2), so, to me, that's about as close as it gets).

I have to admit you are an animal when you can handle losing that kind of money and still keep going and keep going without losing your shyt. Impressive for sure.

Yup, pretty much this, and that is the main reason GG is grasping after that argument consistently in this debate. +1

I also want to make it clear though we disagree on a lot of poker related topics, GG I have no will will towards you, so I keep this disagreement purely on a poker level.

But like, it's no surprise you feel this way. You think the correct way to play poker is this ultra nitty style. In your mind, a style that is much looser than yours is not optimal, or losing. Now obviously I don't agree with that assessment, but that's a different topic right? But anyway, assuming that we adopted the view that the highest EV way of playing poker is your nitty style, then yeah, absolutely it's not possible to make 10+bb/hour consistently, because it's not possible to win that much with that nitty style.

In order for you to accept that one can have a high EV, you must first believe that it's possible to win more with a style much looser than yours. Those two come hand in hand, because no matter how disciplined you play, you just cannot win 20bb/hour playing as tight as you do preflop, at least in the current climate.

(Obv in like 2009 games or like really crazy drunk deep straddle games it's possible, but not over a large sample in normal games)

Speaking of cherry picking results....

S. Florida is very seasonal. I dont think people appreciate how much of a big deal that is. The games are super soft during snowbord season but super tough (nitty reg filled) during off season.

If I split my win rate into snowbird season (5 months of Nov-March) and off season (7 months of Apr-Oct), my win rate is 56% higher during snowbird season. This is over 3 years now and its pretty steady each year

If I only played during snowbird season, I would look like an absolute killer. If I was a single young pro, I would play here during snowbird season and go up north to Maryland or a couple other places the rest of the year and may be able to sustain $60+hr at 2/5.

being one of those snowbirds who lingers on occasion
I can confirm this in the northern Fl locations as well.


?????? for you guys
Do you count HH promos, cracked aces promos , random seat draws and any other crazy give away they come up with in your hourly ??????

since the explosion of HH promo's my hourly has dropped big time
but if I add in all the promos I have collected I'm crushing over 40BB per hour
and if I include the BB jackpots even higher

I generally agree with GG about a lot of things here, but the large sample + 10bb/hr discussion is really un-winnable for many of the reasons already discussed to death. Sol makes some really good points about it.

HH promos are an interesting discussion for WR.

The big $100k score for a BBJ really shouldn't be included in your WR IMO. Even though you're paying that drop money all the time. Too hard to reach a "long run".

But HH stuff where they're giving away $100 here and $200 there and you can reasonably expect to get one every 50 hours or whatever could be reasonable to just include in your WR. Again, you're paying the drop for it every hand. I don't play in rooms that have them very often, but I *THINK* I just included the small $100 scores in my session results with a note. If I was playing there more often I think I'd record them as a separate game so I could filter them in and out. Which seems like the most reasonable way to do it.

Did they change the rake to pay for the HH? We often have discussions about how much the rake impacts WR, and this would be a really easy comparison under what should be almost identical conditions otherwise. How much did each change?

Overall I think the HH stuff is good for us as it brings more gambly players into the poker room, and it can get players into spots they're bad at with deep stacks. Also makes players stick around and draw with ****ty hands, especially preflop. Which we can exploit.

If you stopped using the word "tough" i would +1 everything you say on this subject.

It really is night and day...and i agree that if i were a pro I'd play the seasons.

Trust me I've "lost my shyt" plenty of times from losing, but I've been through a lot and now I'm just dead inside so I handle losses much better.

I think it's an advantage that I'm able to not care about money while playing.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said "deepstack is overrated" and more perhaps went with "doing a good shortstack strategy is underrated". And if you're a solid deepstack player, then the sky is likely the limit.

FWIW, I used to auto-top up to 100bbs after every hand, for many of the reasons you stated. I was especially concerned about missing value in the nut-over-~second-nut cases; M tried to convince me long ago that these cases don't occur enough for us to be altering our whole strategy (i.e. such as having a very solid grasp on a shortstack strategy but sacrificing it for a not-as-solid grasp on a deeperstack strategy just for these once-in-a-blue-moon cases), and in the end I now believe he was correct. Also, the game has become much less payoffy postflop, so much less reason to sit deep. I mean, if you're playing in a game where people are handing people 300bb stacks with AA or stacking off with the understraight this deep, then fine; but that doesn't happen any more, at least in my game (so I really disagree that opponents are treating hand values the same 100bb vs 300bb vs 500bb, they absolutely are not, imo).

The point regarding rake is a very good one; one of the big downsides to playing shortstacked is the rake makes up such a huge percentage of your pots. But mostly you have to avoid the small pots altogether and just concentrate on the all-in pots (where even shortstacked the rake can be outrun at a decent clip if the all-ins aren't microstacked).

GcluelessNLnoobG

If all the consistent money is made in 20-130bb total pots (which I totally agree with, FWIW, as well as your comments regarding how rarely big stacks actually go in), then why would shorstacking (ex. I sit with 66bbs) be "the worst" considering it makes for the top end of the range of pots you admit are being won?

It's funny how similar your rates / thoughts are with mine, with the only other exception being I have a very bleak outlook on my winrate moving forward (but that fits in line with my personality).

Ggoodluckonthenext4000hours,imoG

Ha, didn't mean to ignore you Sol! My bad, but my memory sucks.

I'm not sure I knew you had the crushing of a winrate for that many of hours? Or perhaps was it in a bigger BI game (i.e. I'm guessing a 100bb BI game doesn't play nearly the same as an unlimited BI game)?

I kinda wish we had a thread that simply collected winrates from everyone who wanted to contribute them, sorted by steaks / BI. It's pretty much impossible to glean that type of information from this thread as it's too large.

Gnotignoring,didn'tremember,mybadG

GG your game conditions sound awful.

It's rare to see someone stacking off AA for 300bb postflop, but I see plenty of 100-200bb stack offs with draws and other garbage. (And 500bb preflop stack offs in PLO, wheeeee!) And then the nut/2nd nut situations become even more valuable. It's really not that all opponents are completely and totally depth blind. No one is claiming that. But *some* are. And many adjust poorly, even though they're *trying* to adjust. Hell, some become TOO TIGHT instead.

Shortstacking is a problem because you drop out of that sweet spot range too quickly. Call one preflop bet and miss? Your 66bbs becomes 50 or 40 and you're back in the rake trap you hate. It also impacts your ability to leverage a threat of a larger bet. That limits your options, kills your FE in some spots and your opponent's IO in others. A lot of those 20-130bb pots are pushed to someone that just *bet* 100bb OTT/R and got a fold.

So you're losing the ability to make a giant hand that'll move your 500 hour sample a whole BB on it's own, removing your flexibility and options postflop (negating your skill advantage) and also hurting the meta game environment that attracts gambly fish by short stacking.

I'd collect and analyze session logs if I could get them from people. It would be really interesting data to dig into. And it would look exactly like work too

I've always admitted "I suck at deepstack" (I preface almost every deeper stack HH thread with this) plus I've also stated the sky might be the limit for those good deepstack players playing in deepstack games.

My argument has always been with regards to a very specific game type, which is the game my room (and all the rooms in my area) offers: namely, a lowstakes (in my case 1/3 NL) game with a pretty big rake ($7 + $1 + $1) with a maximum 100bb BI ($300), where a lot of people are sitting with ~$200 stacks (although admittedly some tables do get more into deeper stacked play as the session goes on). I'll admit: I'd be surprised if a non-nit style did well in that type of environment, but I could be wrong. But I don't really want to open up this can of worms again here, so I'll just leave it at: if you're playing a different environment than this, then I absolutely agree that good players could do a lot better using a non-nit method.

Genvironmentdependent,imoG

I think my game conditions are quite good (it's why I can still win), although they aren't nearly as good as they were before (which were flat out awesome which is why I crushed at one time).

To be honest, I have hard time believing they are much different from anywhere else where NL poker has been running for 15+ years, and the HHs I see posted in this forum more-or-less back that up on a regular basis.

It is my feeling there is a strong disconnect between what people think games are and what they actually are.

Gbut,maybeit'sjustmeG

If, for arguments sake, we compared a 7 bb/hr at 1/3 NL over 500 hours = $10500 versus a 8 bb/hr = $12000, that means that single big hand you're looking for won $1500, such as getting in $1500 vs another player.

In my ~just shy of 4000 hours at my 1/3 NL game, I've seen exactly 2 hands that would qualify for that (and one of them I'm pretty sure was a fake hand for show between two friends).

Gitdoesn'thappeninmostlowlylowstakes100bbgames,imo G

I had told myself to let this debate rest too, but now i cant help myself.

So what you are really doing is creating your argument around defending yourself+ the nit of the century playingstyle you are employing, and going into defense mode: because you refuse to admit that anybody could do better than you, just because they dont play in your games. The only step you want to take, is to admit that good players who is willing to open up their game more than you do would do alot better- IF they play in other games as you do. Thats the classic premise you always comes back to in order to defend yourself.

So, you continue to live with this wall around you-implying that its not possible to do better in your games than what you achieve. That is what this whole debate is circling around: you having this obsessed need to tell yourself that its not possible to achieve a higher winrate in your games than what you do with your ultra nitty style.

I simply cant bring myself to understand why it is so hard to admit that more skilled postflopplayers than you, more aggro players than you, better players with a more complete toolbox than you,and better deepstackplayers would very likely achieve a higher winrate than you do in the same games.

Ive said it to you a million times: a very important reason why you have stagnated (and doesent get paid on your hands properly anymore compared to before) is because your opponents very likely have figured you out to a bigger degree, for example that you always have it when meaningful bets go in and that you are a true nut peddler. Getting paid on hands in poker is like + and - on the battery, they cant function without eachother. You have to create some kind of doubt in your opponents mind over time regarding what you are doing, or if you have it or not. If you never 3 bet anything but the mortal nutz, if you never semibluff for big bets or mix up your lines properly that simply means you are capping your ability to get paid on your big hands. You throw rock all the time close to 100 percent, so your opponents doesent have any insentive to give gamble to you with a call and give you the scissor, because they know what you have everytime so they stick with paper. They have simply adjusted correctly, because they are folding more second best hands to you.

It's funny, in my recent set tracking experiment, one of the few stats that oddly jumped out at me is that I got to table a set in what I would consider a "perhaps profitable but mostly just setmining spot preflop" 16% of the time over my 100 hour sample size. My fair share at a 10 handed table would only be 10%, and at a 9 handed table would be 11%, but me, the biggest nit at the table, got to table more than my fair share. Likely just lol sample size, but still.

Gil, I don't know what to tell you. I play in a game where a $15 raise with $200 stacks will often see 5+way (or more action). If you're not playing ultra nit tight in that type of game, plus mostly just aiming to take down all that dead money preflop, you're doing it wrong, imo. And from what I've seen of HHs in this forum, those aren't weird conditions, they're perfectly standard.

G/derailG

I still see plenty of crazy **** at the NL tables. HH's tend to focus on the "weird" spots that people don't understand how to deal with. Which will almost by definition be out of the ordinary for the overall game conditions.

Now maybe that's just Michigan, but based on the pushback you get about your game conditions from other people, it might just be you(r market).

Well, 1BB *swing* is only $750 each getting in the middle, *IF* it's heads up. $500/head 3-way.

And I pulled those numbers somewhat at random. Call it 0.75BB swing at 400 hours if it makes you feel better. But you should understand already just how big of an impact a couple of stack risking pots have on your winrate. Again, I see plenty of 150-200BB/each hands --> 400BB pot = 1 BB/hr difference over 400 hours

HHs are definitely not a fair representation of hands played at the tables and that greatly impacts the advice given in this form Imo

Is GG Phi Hellmuth? The greatest player to ever walk the earth?

I play fairly often in a small pool PLO home game with a lot of really crazy idiotic players. But there are a lot of people that also pay attention and know what they're doing. They think I'm an UBER nit because I'm not piling 200BB in preflop, or firing off with trash dominated hands postflop. They've adjusted. So I blush them a hell of a lot. Or bluff A high boards. Or check call them all in with the nuts when they GII against each other.

Funny enough, when that started happening my WR took a 60 degree turn upwards and I'm hitting them for 11BB/hr now. Much easier to manipulate people when you know what they think of you and how they're going to react.

I'd be shocked if GG's opponents haven't adjusted to him and stopped paying him off.

Sets are just LOL-sample size. You know that.

So you bet $15 and see a flop with $100 in the pot 5 way. Normal.

Then what? Are people betting $100 and taking it down? $30 and getting 4 calls? Betting 3 streets? Only the nuts bets and everyone folds?

There are a lot of ways to beat that game that do *not* involve being an uber-nit. I watch people do it all the time. Mostly by betting often postflop and either A) stealing the pot, or B) getting paid off by a worse hand. But that requires some good decision making post, and riding the variance roller coaster a little bit.

I did say "super tough (nitty reg filled)" this time. IMO if a game that I can beat for $55/hr turns into a game that I can only beat for $35/hr....that game is a hell of a lot tougher no matter the reason. Its a less profitable game. Its tougher.

I havent played in any other 2/5 games anywhere that I didnt think I could beat for more than the Isle summer daytime games. If that doesnt make them tough, I dont know what does. I think Ive explained my definition of "tough' pretty well.

Mike I don't think you could beat Parx/Sugar for a meaningful number. If you think it's profitable to limp 98s UTG (per your "unorthodox lines to success" thread) then you would get destroyed in those games (which you seemingly did on your recent trip).

Parx/Sugarhood $2/5 were always pretty soft imo but I didn't stay in them very long.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk