No. My time is also very important to me.

This said, because I opened up this spot for discussion... It is close in between calling and set mining/seeing how villain reacts postflop (he will give you credit for a monster and play pretty transparent post) or 4bet-folding 2.3x

I can't recommend watching videos enough and study. Study. STUDY.

Yet you spend 3-4 hours most days glued to your keyboard, wiring in to 2+2. Go figure.

Here's a no brainer. Swap out the hours you spend on 2+2 hours for dubnjoy's suggestion above and spend all that time and intellectual energy studying videos instead.

Become the player you want to be.

Basically...

You have all these people handing you the answers to the exam but you don't have time to look because you need to study for it.

Yeah that's cute. Try setting it to 200-250 instead to account for the huge opening sizes, generally 100bb+ stacks, multiple players per flop and generally much much much bigger pots than the equivalent online game.

Try accounting for the fact that live players are significantly more passive than online players.

Try accounting for the fact that you spaz out every other hand.

you are onto something. Gotta agree to other posters that thread is delivering top notch again.

Try accounting for the fact that you're not as good as you think you are, so your projected win rate based on a tiny sample of you running hot is wrong.

No you would not, unless you're opening like 5% utg, in which case you're missing out elsewhere. Super standard 3b.

Is it super standard? Surely when 3 betting this hand you are going to be dominated a lot by stronger broadways when called or 4 bet off your equity. Sure, you have blockers but is this enough of a reason?

Their passivity probably increases variance. They don't fold so pot sizes are huge, and their passivity means you often value own yourself when they just call down with the effective nuts.

Variance is just the square of the average difference between your sample mean and individual sessions. Very large wins also increase variance.

Kelvis is the 200+ BB/100 SD a guess or what? I've often thought the quoted 100BB/100 seems too low especially for LAGGY players like OP. My recorded SD is 111BB/100 and my games are pretty nitty so there aren't a lot of big wins or losses. My graph is also extremely linear in comparison to most of what I've seen. I'm not saying that's any kind of accomplishment but it has made me wonder if my linear graph is 111BB/100 then what is the real SD of players with good winrates but super jagged graphs? Gotta be significantly higher than 100BB/100.

Yes it is a guess. It's just based on the fact open sizes are huge, players don't fold so you create huge pots and people also straddle.

I mean just looking at my own sessions I can often 10x+ it and still get 3 callers. Now I have a 40bb pot with AQ which has quite an edge over my opponents but compare that to a 3x and a single call online. People also tend to fold a lot less to 3bets and multiway 3bet pots are not uncommon. And I play relatively nitty but I still play mostly big pots.

Now take someone like OP that frequently plays huge pots out of position and loves to bluff postflop. His SD is going to get through the roof. I'm not even arguing the 17bb/100, in fact a great player gets a heck of a lot more than that in a good live game, but given how he plays he is a smaller winner than he could be. I do think he can get $15/h or ~15bb/100 though (assuming 33 h/h)

Now do that variance calculation again and let's take the sample OP played, 100 hours, with a SD of 200.

So that's pretty meaningless. Notice the ~$4k or 1300bb is well within the confidence interval. Let's say OP cranks up volume and plays 60k hands per year. You get about a 3% chance of loss for the year.

But Kelvis, that doesn't sound so bad. That almost never happens. No, you're right. What will happen is 15+ BI downswings though, more frequent than you'd like. And OP said his biggest downswing was 6 buy ins, so imagine the raging tilt monkey when his entitled ass gets in one of those. I'm sure he will keep playing solid.

It is super standard in 6max. You still have domination vs suited hands that utg will continue and vs your range as a whole utg cant really continue KQo or AJo at high freq because your offsuit hands/pairs dominate them. AKo is really only hand KJ is heavily dominated by but on K high boards we have AA and all combos of AK so it's not like we are forced to stack off with KJ everytime we flop a K or J.

Being able to have high equity semibluffs on all double broadway lineups is good aswell

Regarding downswings, it's not even that you have to go on a year long one to destroy you if you have a limited BR that you're also using for life. I mean, what's the largest downswing OP can go on before he's crippled?

In my ~4100 hours of live 1/3 NL, I've had two downswings of approx -$2850 (still rocking a 7 bb/hr winrate overall). And yet I'm using the nittiest-of-the-nits method (ex. I think Shai's opening range is near maniac and yet it is tighter than OPs and OP doesn't have Shai's postflop skillz), so I'm guessing the downswings looser/aggro methods can go into are both *far* bigger and more frequent (and yet OP's BR likely couldn't even sustain a nitty method downswing).

GImean,goodluckG

What's likely to happen is that OP will have 1 or 2 big losing sessions where all of his aggro, ego-driven, "high variance" plays don't work out and he will blow his entire bankroll. That's what usually happens with these aggro players who think they're gods gift to poker. Their aggressive plays work out, they keep on doing it, until 1 session they lose their whole roll and wonder what on earth just happened. Hansen and Blom are some high profile examples of this.

They either learn and grow from the experience, or repeat it again with another bankroll. This has already happened once to OP a few months ago (when he took that long break from poker) and it seems like he hasn't learned from those mistakes.

OP thinks his issues are just because of over-spending and not his poker game. When in reality, both are a problem. He just doesn't address the latter and has only partly addressed the former (going from $1600/month food budget to $750/month).

Out of your curiosity, can we get your opening ranges please GG? UTG and BTN maybe so you're not there all day?

UTG: Raise KK-AA, limp TT+, AK/AQs

Button: 66+, all suited broadways, A10o+, A2-A5s, maybe T9s if he's feeling crazy

close?

He limps KK+ to limpraise though.

Way to wide of an opening range when it comes to GG, even from the button. He limps 66 and 10-9s probably 100 percent of the time.

From early pos he basically have a zero opening range. He open limps every hand he plays, the premiums to limp/reraise, and the rest to see a cheap flop and cause he dont like to "inflate the pot with mediocre hands OOP".

damnit, I knew I could've nitted it up even more. didn't want to seem too trolly though

Lol @ comparison between Gus Hansen and Isildur.

Yeah, all fairly close guesses. The point of course being that if someone with this nitty of a range playing this extremely low variance style can go on ~950bb downswings (while still maintaining an ok winrate) then what sort of downswings is a wider/aggro-ier (and tiltier) range playing an extremely high variance style likely going to encounter?

If OP had an unlimited BR then playing a lower variance style that (perhaps) sacrifices EV wouldn't make nearly as much sense. But a (theoretically) higher EV style is absolutely useless to someone if they go busto.

GgoodluckG

Yep, 100% agree. Playing LAG 20 buyin swings are gunna happen, and calling OP a LAG player is being pretty nice.

I actually think OP could print with much lower variance using a slightly more aggressive version of your strategy in his games, but we all know that's not gunna happen. Not that I blame him - there's no way I could sit around all day at a table not playing poker. I don't know how you do it man. You must have insane patience.

Patience could easily be the number one factor separating the losers from the winners, no?

My guess is that most losing players are capable of coming up with / knowing a strategy that is likely profitable (although admittedly few would know enough to make it crushing) but simply lack the discipline / patience / tilt control to implement what they know is correct.

GactuallycametothecasinotofoldG

Live poker? yeah. that's why I can't play live for a living