I have just been getting coolered so much recently. Mainly counterfit two pairs, bad beats, and the occasional pp pair cooler, people calling down on me with garbage and getting there etc.

Anyway, it's starting to pull me into degen mode and this is often where I've just pissed everything away so have decided to take another study break. There are still a lot of fundamental concepts I am not too aware of in cash, mainly being recognizing the essential dynamics of flop play (like which are best for H or V, when to bet small at high freq vs big at low, when to bet 100% range, when to check OOP etc).

I still don't have quite enough grounding to confidently analyse my plays to a mathematical conclusion to begin to make some significant specific progress, and am thinking of just reading a little more, analyzing some hands and then starting the grind again. I will still inevitably enter into a couple of tournaments, but I don't want to focus on MTT just yet anyway.

I have access to a couple of resources, namely Mathematics of poker, APPLICATIONS, Janda's 2017 book, sklansy's one for advanced players (pretty dated Id have thought), and low stakes I think. I have NLHE theory and practice as well.

I have copies of Brokos' book and modern poker theory and am able to get my hands on sklansky's new one too. I feel these may be quite a bit too advanced for me at the moment though and I was waiting to finish a couple of the aforementioned. I was reading through APPLICATIONS and it seems very solid, but it began to reference the mathematics of poker and thus I am now 20% through that. It seems relatively basic so far, although I have refined a few things here or there as to how I approach the analytical side. I plan to smash that one out, get through applications and then read through Jandas other book while back on the grind. I'm hoping I can use some GTO+ analysis to help me through constructing a flop c-bet plan to start me back up. After I've made progress here, I feel like I might have a bit more of a grounded understanding, and at least be able to say to myself that I am making progress if not to be able to irrefutably prove myself to have the winning play.

Anyway, do you think this seems reasonable? Mathematics of poker is very theoretical, and APPLICATIONS is pretty theoretical as well so I am not too sure. What do you fellas think? Tbh I was happy just with the prospect of reading through all of this material before even attempting to play again hahaha

i read mathematics before i even finished 8th grade math if i recall... just read it, some of the proofs might go over ur head but the conclusions they form, and how they analyze spots as a toygame can b easily understood. that being said, you could probably springboard ur learning by just reading a wikipedia article on nash equilibrium, getting a trainer/solver and going to TOWN on it like its yer new celly
also highly HIGHLY recommend quantom poker, if its a read ur looking for. its beginner friendly but gives tangible things to implement

i thought Jonathan littles hand of the day (free) podcast was really good too,

best bang for ur buck is gonna be a gto trainer, lil hoss

You are just getting hit with variance and probably aren't doing anything really wrong.

Reading mathematics sub 8th grade sounds... either impressive or silly I guess.

@ OP, people have said good things regarding "The grinder's manual" for newer players, maybe try that one. I don't think the more theoretical books will be of much use to most people and are probably more of an intellectual exercise with just a poker substrate.

Source: have read both applications and mathematics of poker, would not recommend to anyone new.

How do you know you've been coolered if you can't analyze your play?

Yeah that's what I tell myself when I go to sleep.

I've been working through Red Chip poker's core course. It's going to hit everything you're looking for in a structured manner. I've found it personally quite helpful for $5/week. You could easily work through it quickly in two weeks or take your time over a month and it's still going to be less expensive than a poker book.

I mean, I'm not quite a beginner, maybe should be in another thread.... I've read the theory of poker, played a fair bit, have read a lot of the grinder's manual as well. I pretty easily grasp the concepts.

Also, the mathematics of poker hasn't seemed particularly difficult if at all so far, seems a rather intuitive read for me...

Yeah, I mean I've read a bit of grinder's manual. I think I'll read through that soon actually, probably what I was looking for tbh.

I didn't like it because it seemed too rope-learnt, and was looking for something a little more rigorous, but maybe that's just what I need for the time being.

Idk, I think I'll just finish maths first, then maybe see how much is left of applications, do some minor theory/ solver work and look through the grinder's manual. After I've punted a bit more off on MTTs I'll get down to the grit of actually applying what I've learnt to developing some type of basic strategy and a system of such to analyse my hands with.

Yeah, well I mean I feel the same way. The thing is that it sucks, and rather than assume I'm winning I'd rather try and prove that I am beating the players I seem to lose to. After all, I don't want to be the sucker that happens to just be losing to weaker players by chance (i.e. playing LAG against calling stations just sucks, playing TAG vs rocks is dumb). I don't want to pray that I'm playing well in stead of realizing my FCB is too low, bet sizing is too high etc...

I'd rather use this time to develop my theory as opposed to gambling harder hahahaa

If you are reading Applications of No Limit Hold Em (great book finished it a few weeks ago) to play the micros then I hope I run in to you at the tables.

Seriously though you shouldn’t he studying to play 50/100 while playing 0.01/0.02 or whatever stakes you are playing.

No offense to anyone but poker is not that complicated up to 25nl from what I’ve experienced. You don’t need to read these high stakes books. Check our some simple exploitative stuff like anything by Nathan Williams aka Blackrain79. If you use Matthew Jwanda’s strategy at 10nl you will probably get smoked. Bluffing 1/3+ of the time is burning money in the micros. TPGK is the nuts at these stakes (to a lot of villains it costs a happy meal to call). Value is all that matters.

Yeah well this is why I'd rather use this time to learn to play solid. I'm reading most of these books primarily out of interest, but idk. I get that the micros are pretty soft, and you essentially just need to exploit the basic player types, but this is so boring for me I'd rather just break even/ lose with a strat that is attempting to be too much and solidify it with analysis than just grind out through the tables, simply betting when I think it's good and learning bad habits.

For example, (I think btw what you say about exploitation is extremelly solid, and up to 25NL is all about learning exploitative play. Exploitation I believe is also the most fundamental, GTO being merely an elaboration), but I'd prefer to learn complete reraise and c-bet strategies for all positions before I get back into grinding up to 100k hands.

I think I may need to figure out my exploitive play first though, I'm not sure. One thing I'd like to figure out (which maths has touched on) is how many hand examples you need to have a solid confidence interval to begin making significant exploits (say V has a FCB above 50% after x hands, then you can bet with any two, say old mate 3-bets 15% IP after x hands, then you can 4-bet light etc).

One of the big problems I have is adjusting to calling stations vs people who fold a lot. It has happened too many times where I triple barrel an 80VPIP player (not every hand) down to the river and he snap calls off a pot bet with 54o bottom pair no kicker on a deadly board. Other times I feel I bet too aggressively vs players who fold too much. It's hard for me to find a middle ground where I can irrefutably tell myself I'm correct anyway which is why I like the theoretical books. If I learn and practice these advanced concepts, I am going to switch it up as soon as I develop any kind of read of course. I'm not calling down at full frequency unless I know they bluff a lot, I'm not bluffing particularly dicey spots at full freq either, but I'd still like to be able to recognize these spots when they come...

Are they though?

According to LP you need GTO solver stuff to beat them. (I totally agree with him btw). If you go to some 5nl reg grinders in the PGC forum, you will see them using solvers.

I've read The Grinders Manual cover to cover and understand every word - as you say it is pretty easy going. I've read Janda and TMOP as well.

Yet I still find micro zoom on stars as tough as old boots.

Maybe that something to do with the near negligible rakeback, the fact that even the fish nut peddle on Zoom, and playing pool is predominantly nitty regs with a fair idea how to play a game of tiny edges that every man and his dog has been writing/producing videos about for the past 15 years.

Beating online is about relentless study, relentless volume & relentless search for soft sites, with the latter being by far the most important.

Play live if you can...much easier to play in soft pools and realise those tiny edges.

JMO

PS I'm talking global pool on Stars. That matters, but it will be lost on some.

PokerSnowie might do the job, and I think it´s better than a proper solver, at least for your first year or so. Don´t underestimate the amount of time it might take for you to learn proper solid poker, we´re talking about months, maybe even years.

Quickly moving up nowadays from the nanos, only if you´re a prodigy (lol reminded me of smth funny) or a genius.

Work on your mental game, do meditation, eat and exercise well, and try to live a normal life. Still need to be obssessed about improving, and love this game like a chess player like Bobby Fischer loved chess to the point of forgetting everything else, otherwise you´ll just quit. Do you like this game enough to do the sacrifice, considering the reward is pretty meh nowadays for most people?

Good news is that, at least in theory, once you´re fundamentally sound and able to beat the upper part of the micros, progress should be quicker IMHO. Just a matter of thinking about the game, using solvers, playing and developing your pattern recognition. But I´m still in the mid/lower part of uNL so who knows

EDIT: I´m mostly thinking about stars main pool, I´m pretty sure we still have softer poker games, either live or online, going on.

if youre learning exploitative play with plans to completely switch once its time, what alerts you to the fact that its time to switch? dwell on the answer for a bit, and you should come to the alarming realization that there is going to be a glass ceiling ur bound to keep obliviously ramming the top of ur head into. i think this is a huge hiccup most people take for granted.


if you learned well from the beginning, hopefully you would be able to identify vil deviations and adjust accordingly, as you work backwards or forwards, and peer down through the glass at the poor suckers below you.

Are we both playing 10NL Blitz from different parallel universes? Nothing you said corresponds even slightly from the reality that I observe. I'm pretty sure you are a troll although I'm not quite sure what your actual agenda is yet.

Yeah man, I was referring to the 2-25NL stakes. I can only play on ignition and they are definitely soft (just so many fish. Every now and again you run into a decent reg, but the good ones are always super tight so easier to play against). Ofc I'm not good enough to accurately rank the regs, but a lot of the time you see one, maybe two fish (VP 40-80, PR <10 or PR>25 with little positional awareness), then a couple ppl with VP<20, PR<15, and a couple of regs who are quite fit or fold, cbet close to 100% or are calling stations. I'd expect any decent reg to be playing TAG for the pool, so it can be kinda hard to identify them, but for the most part it is quite obviously soft, I just want to make sure I don't have too many leaks that might in fact be exacerbated by the leaks of their own...

Hello, mate.

I saw a lot of threads you created, and I'm "feeling" that you are agonized/sad with your game.

Look: I'm one of the players who talks most about the impact of variance on the game. Variance is really a real thing... But don't fool yourself: on microstakes, players make huge deviations/errors from the equilibrium. Therefore, it is not difficult to achieve a high and stable winrate. If you just play the theory, without a HUD, you'll win with a solid and stable winrate. You'll win even if you still make a lot of mistakes, because the players make even more.

My suggestion is: rebuild your entire game. Forget everything you learnt and start to study the game again. We think we're not a beginner because we think we understood some concepts, but a lot of times this isn't true.

Anyway, in order to start I suggest pokersnowie. It's not true GTO, but if you really understand how it plays, you'll have an incredible basic strategy. In my opinion, it's a solid start.

I highlighted the "really" word because a lot of people play against the snowie to "warm up", upload some sessions here and there and think they understood it. I guarantee: this is not enough to understand it. It isn't even close to enough...

I'm talking about a serious effort: training thousands and thousands and thousands of hands in the program very often, using all the monthly scenarios that are available to you (in the intermediate version, 1,200 scenarios are available per month, for example, and a lot of people don't even use it), jotting down, summarizing, studying, reflecting. Anyway, I'm talking about a serious effort. I'm talking about months and maybe years of effort. No bullshit.

After a lot of work, you'll start to understand how your entire range should work. You'll understand which hands you'll x/c x/f, x/c x/c x/f, x/c x/c x/c, x/r, x/c x/r, b/f, b/c x/f, etc, etc. You'll also understand better why you should bet, why you should choose the A or B bet sizing, etc. So, when you know how to play your ranges fairly correctly, you'll just play it and make money when people deviate from equilibrium. On micros, this will happen almost every hand and every street.

Also, you need to understand how your "your fair share" is collected. For this, I suggest the mynameiskarl's youtube channel.

I don't suggest any book for now. In my opinion, you should stick to a more practical knowledge for now.

Anyway, that is my suggestion. I hope it helps you.

^^ I think this is about right...but the question is why would anyone do this? Surely anybody who has the IQ, mental strength, commitment and fortitude to commit to this sort of training program, would be equipped to conquer any number of far more rewarding and fulfilling careers.

In developed Western democracies anyway.

You're right, but motivation is a very private matter.

In my opinion, nowadays new players will learn from zero and be good at poker only if they do that because they really like the game, and not because of the money. In other words, I think the effort required to be good will only be achieved by new players if it is motivated by a sincere desire to understand the game, and not by an expectation of enrichment.

Cut it out. Any player with a fantastic grasp of Janda's two books would obliterate low stakes

Humans always have some irrational component when obssessively approaching no or low rewards games like poker. Don´t think chess would exist as a high level competition if ppl were 100% rational, as it requires so much gray matter and time commitment and, unless you´re on the very top (even there) you won´t make good money.

100% agree with you if we´re talking about the greedy guys that still think poker is a way to gain a lot of money. All the effort will be rewarded, if you reaaaaaaaally succeed in reaching midstakes, by a 5 fig anual income. So approaching poker from the standpoint of greed and expecting going from micros to mid highstakes nowadays without being a recluse for 3-5 years and giving up on real life is extremely unlikely.

Play poker bc you really like the game, and see where you can go. Not to replace your job.

For one 1% of people that read it will grasp it. That stuff is pretty complex once you get past the pot odds info. Most people will think they got it and mess it all up in game.

Two it says in the introduction or foreword section of the book this stuff doesn’t apply to lower limit games where people will call your bluffs more often. Human beings are curious. They pay off out of curiosity with A high sometimes when you are making the most perfect text book bluff and it only costs them $2, $5, $10. That’s the best thing about the micros. People will pay you off. That’s the whole secret to beating the micros. The more complicated you make it the lower your winrate will be.

I agree!

That's one of the reasons why I choose to not look to my results, because I want to connect to poker not thinking if I won or lost, but through the decision. My decision was right? My decision was wrong? Why? That's what matters to me. I want to see the game in a similar way as a chess player: thinking about math and decision, not whether I have won or lost the last 4 or 5 sessions. The variance is just a thing that happens, and we just have to follow a good BRM to deal with it.

And even having this good mindset, I'm a newbie that can't even beat znl10 with a solid winrate. Imagine if I was even worse and was a guy that tilts, that thinks only about money, that look to the session's results as it is the most important thing on earth... It would be impossible to beat anything thinking like that, in my opinion.

If people try to love the game instead of loving the money, as some players do with League of Legends, CS GO, soccer and stuff like that, I think a lot of people would play better after a while, because the interest in the game would be more sincere.

To fully grasp would be to understand that the rules change when facing a sub-optimal player. You could (should?) ignore the precision of the combinatorics modelling and between the two Janda books you'd have the blueprint for beating online poker.