I am new to playing poker. I know all the basic things such as pot odds, ranges, betting for thin value, and enough to play ABC poker. The only problem is that I am a losing player at NL2 on Americas Cardroom. I want to know if it is the site or if I'm simply not good enough.

Total Hand,Net Won USD,bb/100 ,VPIP,PFR,3Bet,WTSD%,W$SD%,Agg,Agg%

13282 $-56.35 -21.21 26.55 19.51 6.09 33.82 40.38 1.78 37.00

These are my stats so far. My stats don't look so crazy, but yet im bleeding money at the poker tables. I want to know if I should change sites? Is online poker even worth it to pursue in 2018?

Don't bet for thin value at 2NL. Rarely bluff at 2NL.

Your targets should be the players who can't fold TPTK or an over pair on the river. Go for fat value against them.

Post some hands.

It's the site and your play. I can beat 2-10NL on that site, but get screwed at 25NL+ on ACR, and quit the site for now for that reason.

Your VPIP is a bit too high, PFR is a tick or two too low, 3Bet% is a couple ticks too low, WTSD% is at least a few ticks too high, W$SD is too low Agg is a bit too low. Fixing VPIP/PFR/3Bet pre and calling down slightly less should fix things a lot. So flat raises less from the button, and almost never from the sb, and 3bet more from those positions if you are going to play vs open raises. Sample size is pretty small for analyzing stats though.

FWIW, you would probably be at least a slight winner on most other sites that are softer if those stats were accurate.

readability

If there's a game going between you and two other players or more online, you're in second place at best, which may be ok in soft games sitting directly across from the best player and having really bad players to your right. Usually, I would expect an abc tag to be a slight loser in most online games, no matter the stakes, period.

That's ok because nobody beats this game right out of the gate(first 100k hands imo) without some serious luck on their side. Those that survive the first 100k hands typically are those that ran well(those that don't run well tend to quit), creating a survivorship bias. Winning naturally creates a player pool with established regulars that either ran well out of the gate, and or have some interest in studying the game, and or have income and love to gamble. Throw in a new kid that has been reading poker books since he was 14 years old who just turned 21 looking for action and your abc poker is going to get crushed.

How do we fix this? You need to ask yourself how much time you're willing to invest to take your game to the next level.

1 week of intensive study?

a month?

a year of casual study?

a decade?

more?

see where this is going? You can learn a lot about a game in ten minutes, or you can continue to learn for a long time. You decide your own level of involvement.

At a higher, less technical level, to answer your question 'Is it worth it??', we have to know 'What are you trying to get out of poker?' If your answer is to have a fun, mentally stimulating game that requires a wide set of ever evolving analytical and strategic skills, yes, online poker is certainly worth it.

If you objective is to make meaningful money, you have to understand how difficult that is to do online with all the grinders using HUDs(and worse, ACR has been criticized in the past for being bot infested...don't know if that is still the case). Remember, everyone else is trying to make money too, and a lot of them are pretty sophisticated.

Are you near a place where you can play live as well? Live games tend to be easier to exploit. And, in my opinion, more enjoyable.

whats your ev bb/100?

Can you post stats by position?

The days of easily crushing low stakes online are long gone. At least until the next bump in poker when it becomes "legal". So if your goal is to be a pro or semi-pro or even earn significant beer money, then yes you are wasting your time unless you seriously want to study the online game (which frankly I think becomes rather robotic and boring.) You're better off playing live to make money and playing online to test ideas or just goof around. $1/2 live poker is so much easier than .01/.02 online. Although being the micros you will meet the occasional true donkey, or someone who is playing like one temporarily.

Thin Value is not ABC Poker ... It's 'hard', but you should play what is essentially an exploitable style of play when you first get going. Then as you observe and start to recognize other player/hand spots you can stretch a bit. But yes, as others have noted, thin value and bluffing IS a well traveled road in poker ... but it's not a very long road. GL

@OP the number of hands played at 13 k is a very small sample size.
But even at That a bb/100 in the Minus DOUBLE DIGIT Range (- 21) is screaming
a Very Bad Player.
I mean at minus 1 or even minus 2 you could say ok maybe the guy had some bad variance/ was not running good. But at minus 21 ? Not the Case.

@OP In addition to what I already wrote going to show down over 30% of the time is way to loose.
The Better plays go to show down something like 8 to 10% of the time.
AND WHEN they do get there they will win over 50% of the time.
You numbers indicate you need to step back PARK THE EGO and read a few good poker books. You probably also need to spend several hours a week on some practice software.
If you are not very serious about your poker there are many less frustrating hobbies.

How is this not a contradiction?

The fat value idea is good but as you said, but then they also call too often (they should e.g. fold tp e.g. half the time if they are just bluff catching), so betting for "thin" value should be more profitable than usual, and generally purely bluffing less often.

Learning the correct preflop strategy and overall correct GTO strategy and then hitting the tables and learn to adjust it there. Any time you adjust it, you make money. So, that's about it if it is beatable or not and what knowledge you need.

Is poker worth the time? The answer is that if your time is worth more, it isn't. I play it out of a need, so it is worth it for me.

One can also play recreationally if and when one feels like it. NLH has the best tourney expansion possibilities (it needs the cash technique also) both online and live, that can be some fun if one can put the time in up to such long stretches of time.

If I would be playing recreationally, I would play the tourneys and mixed games. This is because of excitement (including the long shot big prizes) and the variety in my case; rather than grind the more monotone cash games of NLH/PLO (against its experts), in case they are so for the recreational players also at some point, that may not be the case for an occasional player.

Heads up is also worth to consider, that runs e.g. at Stars pools, even if it is not as recreationally friendly. The case is to pick whatever one wants, rather than what makes the most sense if one is playing for the money only.

I think you may be assuming too much skill for 2NL opponents, but I'll admit I play very little cash online and haven't played 2NL in about 8 years, so I could be wrong.

That said, if they "call too often", that's exactly why you play for fat value.

If you're enjoying your time playing and can afford any losses then it can't really be regarded as a waste of time

Took 15 posts to get to heart of the matter.

I am closing this thread since Original Poster has not contributed since starting the thread. OP may PM me to request a reopen.