Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurich_1
Please share your opinion and experience about this site. It seems player pool is soft but software is questionable (at least in my experience).
I can beat the games in PS with tougher player pool but seem to be losing to the fish on this network.
Is it my bad run or something fishy about this site?
I am not sure the NLH games are fishy. The rest depends on skill level vs. the sample size of how usual or unusual it is. Out of hundreds who play there and might visit here, it hasn't got many enough negative reviews (or you can try the Rig thread if you can find stuff from there but it is all in one pack and mostly nonsense) for me to think the runs are any different but when it comes to the variance of looser games that additionally should not be played all the same as the regular tighter games, though I had fewer problems with that here than at some Stars' PLO fish tables.
If you play at Stars and the pots are so often heads up and there are fish spots also, one doesn't experience as much variance before one moves up where there are fewer fish spots to cover the -EV runs.
IMO, one runs worse at the looser regular tables at stars also but having tracked the results of others, the best players can expect to score 5 to 10 bb/100 during most months with maybe two months being losing months but if they are Russian micro players, in case no losing months and the winrate is 20 bb/100.
If the 10 limit isn't too high for you, and you are willing to play in a fishier game than you would like to, in case it is PLO, you could play the 25-limit only with winnings and stick to the 10 otherwise, that's my general strategy everywhere.
NLH at GG had many nits when I was playing and it isn't unusual to expect them to open raise early like AK/JJ+, so one needs to refer to math when thinking about their ranges and actions post-flop also. At micro stars' zoom (.com and .es) the 3-bets might be that level, that's still too tight as not enough bluff range. But NLH generally is so nitty (usually counting out the open raise perhaps) and any 3-barrel may be an overpair or better even (stars' micro zoom). But one can adjust.
The GG "zoom" tables have the lowest like 4$ stacks and the next is 40$, or so I figured, and only for NLH. Didn't play the 40 but the 4$ was loose and I had my good and bad run just like at PLO10 and 25.
Playing at Stars' zoom currently as I don't want to waste time and my shot higher at GG didn't instantly succeed, that I planned it for, so now back at developing skill at Stars, that for me is a better investment of my time than grinding GG PLO10 and see if I can win and then PLO25 (any time up) before I get to make my move up to PLO50. I am constantly improving at Stars' zoom and don't have time for that. But the path at GG PLO exists if you haven't already played enough at that type of games.
I had a small positive score at NLH4z, NLH10, PLO10, PLO25 and MTTs, or at MTTs I scored more as there was a new player freeroll (30 active players, $1k freeroll). I had the same ups (1st) and downs (2nd) at Stars right after GG and since then grinding up at Star's zoom as usual with nothing much to mention.
One needs more volume to say anything more about GG.