I think I am basically an edward and have won some manies at 2/4 and 3/6

and based on aim conversations, I know multiple edwards that make tons of money at 2/4 and 3/6

and worrying about becoming a 5/10 or 10/20 reg online is lol. Let's be honest, it is a very, very tiny percentile that is skilled enough to be regs that spend 90+% of their times at those games (as opposed to 2/4 3/6 regs sitting in a good game). It's like re-working a kid's jump shot because he won't make the NBA with the one he has

+one mirrion

Being realistic about poker goals is going to help your game a ton, generally speaking. I don't think this is the best business to "dream big" in. Go ahead and do what's working and worry about making something else work if there comes a time and need for it.

Worrying about it probably isn't a good thing. Striving to be a 10/20 reg is healthy, and certainly attainable for those few people dedicated enough. I disagree completely with the notion that becoming a winning player at the highest stakes requires some vague, abstract talent. Hard work is always what wins the most money.

i'd like to point out that I've got half of SSNL talking in terms of edwards and jacobs.

i don't care where this thread goes. i've ****ing won.

Agree with previous post. ESPECIALLY if you are winning at 3/6 and IF you are willing to learn how to play IMAGINATIVE, 5/10 or 10/20 is not at all a bad dream and goal. Of course, if they stick to nit-poker they will never make it.

I actually think playing SSNL poker without the intent of getting good enough to play higher stakes is sort of a waste of time. Games will get tougher and tougher and the nits winrate decrease and decrease. Its setting yourself up for failure. I mean, just get urself a university degree and do something better with your time.

Try to become great, and if that doesnt work, stop playing.
At least thats how I see it

Probably not going to get that much into it because I'm just going to be a broken record, but I can show you tons of examples of "nits" with very substantial earnings from 50-5000nl.

At 1/2 and below, for every very LAG-gy player with a decent winrate, I can show you probably three substantially tighter players with equally good winrates.

Here's the honest truth: 95% of players couldn't be very solid players if they tried. That's where the money is coming from. A bunch of Edwards sit down, and some of them have tilt-tourettes and spew. Everyone else profits.

The Highest VPIP/W$WSF correlation is what wins the most monies.

on some tables, i play 40/35 or something ridiculous just because i have 3 nits behind me. on some tables, i play 18/14 (or tighter!) just because people 3-bet me almost every hand i open.

im not saying its impossible for an edward to win at 2/4 or 3/6, but edward will never get higher than that (or even at 2/4+) unless he table selects HARD

yeah i understand most people wont get to that level but to refuse to try is sad (obv people have different goals, you can definitely make a fine living at 1/2 and selecting at 2/4 or 3/6)

Citizenwind>>> Very, very solid post. Agree with most of what you say, but....

...I have to say....

Sharksandwich for president, your posts is 100% awesome 100% of the time! You have to balance your postingranges man!

And yeah... Clownfish for vicepresident!!!

I disagree with you on this. Your goal should be to make poker fit your lifestyle.

If your goal is to make a relatively stress-free $100,000 - $150,000 per year, then you don't need to play higher than 1/2. Just because you don't have any desire to move up doesn't mean that you aren't constantly learning and tweaking your game.

Oh ... and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaTq95CYqCw

Problem is the nits will prolly have to move down from say 1/2 to 0.25/0.5 in a few years because of better opposition. The good LAGs will (well, some of them) have the possibility to adapt to new circumstances and some of them may be able to stay at the same level, and some may even progress.

Good LAG >>>> ultra-nit >>>>> Bad LAG

Often times Jacob will become Eddie's as they move up a la leatherass.

QTip posted a while back (may have been on the defunct stox forums, don't really recall) that people forget that tight, solid play wins and should be the basis for anyone's game. I agree with this a lot.

I also think that there is a decision point somewhere along the line. Do you want to be a lifelong small stakes grinder? Perfectly reasonable proposition. Ross (Milwaukee2) Hartung and the aforementioned nanoko have made really nice livings grinding it out at small stakes for a long time. If you really want to play high, taking some time to step out of the ABC shell can give you a lot of insight into what stronger players are doing when ranges are wide. It's a lot easier to step out for a while and step back in when the money is cheap and there aren't as many seats that contain strong players.

There are a couple of things I think get missed in posts like this.

One, playing tight, solid poker isn't actually all that easy. There are a lot of 22/20's that are breakeven rakeback grinders because they have classes of mistakes that they never get over. Just saying play tight isn't really enough or we'd all be getting rich. It's all about the mistakes no matter what style you play.

Two, there is really something to be said for opening up your game and developing some skills while it's relatively cheap down in nl50 or nl100. There really isn't anything wrong with trying a few things out and making a few mistakes as long as you are spending the time working out why something does or doesn't work in a given situation.

this

Good solid players understand their perceived range pretty well and will occasionally get out of line because of that understanding. The classic example is Dan Harrington's 62o bluff at the final table in 2005. Solid player, rarely gets out of line, really understands what's going on. ABC players don't come out of the bunker because the bunker is what they are implementing.

Good players don't define themselves as LAGs or TAGs or nits. They play a style which best exploits the table at any given time. They don't think hey I'm a LAG so squeezing 58s is obligatory here, they think hmm I've been aggro recently and my image is shot so I'd better tone it down for a bit.

I guess it wouldn't be a horrible idea to mix in some HU play if you're a base-Edward and some FR play if you're a base-Jacob just to branch out into the other directions

Yeah. Good players are LAG/TAG/NIT etc. fully capable of mixing it up. But even still, the point the OP makes remains. People romanticize the lag style; thus use it too often or try too hard with it. There's a time and place for it and for everything, but there are a lot of regs who don't realize this.

For sure. Things that really make you ask a lot of questions about likely outcomes that are outside your comfort zone are great ways to grow as a player.

FYI, trying to nit it up and 15 table PLO100 at break even because the vpps are ridiculous is a great way to learn about aneurysm level tilt. Just sayin...

Really like OP, tyvm!

I quite like the idea of occasionally folding the best hand to save you money/stress/ opportunity to make mistakes on later streets/ later hands. Really cool way to put it

Great post OP!


I was thinking about this a couple of night's ago. After I'd lost about 4 buy-ins in a PITA session.

I have come back to full stack play recently and am currently pushing up my aggression and fancy plays (cold calling/3 and 4 bluff betting) etc. well beyond where they used to be. I've moved from maybe 19/15 to about 23/17.

And I'm just not convinced it's really working. I'm a little up this month and am getting more and more comfortable in tough spots but do find I need to play less tables and pay a lot of attention to play on the LAGier edge so to speak.

Maybe I should consciously play two styles. A taggier game when I want to grind 6-8 tables during peak fish hours and a LAGGier one on 4 tables when I want to really push the envelope and am feeling fresh enough to get in and out of more tricky spots..

I got a solid boner.

I kinda agree with most of OP and enjoy these more broad threads.

I think alot of people confuse making high variance +EV moves as not being solid, it just takes longer for 'results' to show.

Also I'm not vey good at explaining stuff but here goes with something I've been thinking of but not sure how to do mathematically yet...

Most people accept that you use a hand range and and not a pointwise
"LOL i pt him on AceKing" (tk u terp ) for villian yet through their decison process alot come up with whether a certain action is just +EV or not. Obviusly the final action bet/raise/call or buy/sell is limited.

Instead IMHO they should think of how it outputs a distribution of EV dependent on different perturbations of the hand range. It's this very difference in people's choice of hand range and hence EV that leads to arguments in close spots and c/f unanimous threads where the range is narrow or stable under addition/removal of hands.

So my definiton of a 'solid play' is one that is +EV and under perturbation of 'sensible' hand ranges is still +EV.

Hence marginal spots where the edge is small and slightly + EV a solid play would be where there's isn't much uncertainty in villian's range that impacts EV.

Conversely where there is sufficient uncertainty in villian's range e.g due to poor handreading for it to be -EV for some ranges then its an unsolid play.

Obviously eating well, exercise, playing tiltfree come into play but that's another discussion.



I believe verneer made a post about this idea -mainly how preflop mistakes compund later in his long moving up through micros thread.

Pretty Cool Thread by ImFromSweden

This could be a good read for some of you thinking about LAG vs. TAG, ImFromSweden is pretty insane and it gives you at least some perspective which could be relevant to this discussion.

Meh, there was zero mention of both styles at once..... who is at the table and where you are seated relative to them should be the #1 determinant of how you are playing in a given session.

I'm also with clowntable, your idea of solid doesn't encompass all solid play. My example is a little different, but similar. A reg opens 60% of buttons and 4B 8% of his range versus 3B, we know he calls AQ, 99, TT. We 3B 77 in the SB versus his open with the intention of shipping versus a 4B. Is this solid? By your criteria it's not. But not doing so is just lighting money on fire.