A bit of background: In the last year or so I’ve been playing at Full Tilt, mostly SNGs, but having little relative success, I decided to give cash games another try. Before my journey into SNGland I had tried cash games but was a marginally losing player. Since then, I have read some books, looking at forums and such, so I'm hoping to fare better this time around.

So, I decided to start at the lowest buy in possible (2nl) to give myself a bit of practice without risking my bankroll, thinking that the level of play there would be very bad. After playing around 9k hands, I have noticed that there are a surprisingly large number of grinders there. At a typical table, I’ll usually see 2-3 players who are 10-16 tabling, another 2-3 who are 3-9 tabling, and the rest is made up of the usual bad players (LAGs or uber-nits, etc). I would’ve expected to see maybe 1 or 2 regulars per table, not two-thirds of the table.

Is it the same on other sites? Are there sites where it's easier to build a bankroll? I have played a little bit on Party Poker and found players there a bit softer, but the interface is a bit clunky. I’m really puzzled as to why there would be so many people grinding away at this level. Even if you can be a consistent winner 16 tabling, it’s still not enough money to live off from, unless you live in a really poor country.

it's always tough bro. just gotta cop it sweet

no money at 2nl, everyone's a multi-tabling nit

The regs are bad and exploitable just because someone has "good" TAG stats doesn't make them good.

2nl at ft is significantly harder than on stars (I have no idea why stars 2nl is so soft). That being said, it is still definitely beatable for 5ptbb (if you're very good) so its ok if you play 2nl with rakeback. That works out to about 7.5ptbb/100.

thought bots are exploitable?

its def beatable for much more than 5 pt

As far as I know the way the rake structure is at FTP makes it a lot harder to beat then at PokerStars. Think even with rakeback FT doesn't work out cheaper until you hit 25nl (This was the case last year anyway).

2NL is softer on Stars because you can buy in for 250bbs. So you'll often get deep with bad players who aren't adjusting to effective stacks ie stacking off with TPGK 250bbs deep.

People mock, but there is no level of ring game poker now that is an absolute joke. Games are crowded out with grinders from second and third world countries who stand to make a good relative income mass-tabling 25NL for 1bb/100. I guess a lot of these guys start out building their rolls and getting experience at nanostakes.

Never experienced 2NL as I skipped the nano stakes (subtle brag) but I'm fairly sure you cant really class 2NL 'regs' as regs

The fact that rake is higher at full tilt at microstakes is a fairly large impact, and rakeback does not make up for it.

unless you have supernova at 2nl

play at stars man it is really soft, beatable for 5ptbb+++++ for sure.

just dont pay off fish and fold to nits 2 barrels. ez game

going for SNE @ 2NL wish me luck

Over 40million hands, could be tough. Maybe ~4 million for Supernova would be a more realistic goal.

Wow, this makes me sad. When I played it, I beat it at like 30bb/100. Can't believe the games are so tough now.

I've played on FT, IPoker ans Stars. always found FT to be toughest overall.
2NL still is fishy and beatable though
at 5NL you'll find tons of nits. everyone is 10/8 multitabling
10NL looks more profitable to me, so far.

anyway Ipoker is way much softer up to 20NL. i suspect other sites are softer as well.

Did Chipstar1 or w/e his name is hit SN at 2NL?

Nah. I think his biggest month was like 300k which is close to the pace, but that was a one off. I think he only (!) played about a million hands at 2NL overall - it was just back in the day before PTR tracked the micros and nobody really knew what went on then down there, so people were shocked to see someone playing a serious amount of 2NL hands.

It's old hat now, loads of players have played a sick amount of hands at 2NL

Rake is like 7% at these levels right? Soooooo thats like what half ur profit if you played at stars being raked up by ftp. GL with that sweet sweet RB setup that FTP hooked you up with.

I would consider anyone playing 8 tables or more as a reg, no matter the stakes. Out of curiosity, what would you consider a reg?

Yeah I guess your right, but i tend to think of guys with 100k+ at a stake and being greater than breakeven, a loosing 'reg' may aswell be tagged as a fish.

Jesus those guys are insane, I guess 5NL is just too tough for them

What would be your general approach to beating multitabling nits? I usually try to loosen up and get more aggressive, raising and stealing blinds very liberally. It works for a while, but eventually some of them play back at me, and then I either get caught in a big bluff, or I tighten up a bit, but either way I rarely get payed off for my big hands.

So I guess I should just move up to 10NL (or 5NL) instead. Is there a noticeable difference between PS and FT at 10NL? I might give Ipoker a try...

at 2NL and 5NL i never managed to really crush the level (4bb/100 no rakeback) but i just started to play. so i'm not the right person to give good advices but i'm sure some people did crush them.
you still stack off people easily at 2NL, I wouldn't say it's hard to beat.
you need to table select well, especially at 5NL.
advices good players gave to me: "remember people don't play back at you", especially multitabling regs. identify regs from recreational players. identify good SS from bad SS. don't bluff too much and fold when they tell you to. vs. nits i tend to steal a lot even from EP, MP. they don't 3bet light. few steal light. it's incredible how many times it's folded to the BB.
the difference from the past, is probably that a lot of players use PT3 or HEM now, their stats look good, but doesn't mean they're good players.

FT is overall more aggressive imho.
Ipoker software's slow, but lots of happy limping players.
My WR on Ipoker's always been higher than on other's poker rooms.

I would start from 2NL anyway, I mean, if we can't beat it we'll hardly beat higher stakes.

gl

If I cna say one thing... I've jsut beat NL2, and now playing NL5. Table selectiion is must. I'm not playing on tables with 2 or more shortstacks, and with less then 10bb avarage pot.