What are all these posts about good regs at 1/3
There was some post I couldn't respond to because of the format that said a 1/3 table was all good regs. Then it said there was a straddle to 11 and the whole table called. Most players at 1/3 are not regs, and by definition most of the regs are not "good regs". I see other posts like this and it is ridiculous. Sure a lot of the players are competent and won't go through 3 buyins in an hour like some newbies do.
Great post. Agree on the observation that a lot of players may have experience, but their experience is simply repeating what they first learned, ad infinitum. 20 years of doing the same thing they learned in the first few months, basically.
Replying to ask, "Why are they outdated, and what would you replace them with?"
They are too vague. Solver likes to 3b A3s on the button a lot vs an LJ open, K6s on the button vs a CO open, A2o in the bb vs a sb open. None of these things are LAG, they are part of things players should be doing in a lot of circumstances. Recently someone described someone as LAG when they cold called KJs on the btn after EP opened and someone cold called when solver is almost always squeezing KJs.
Better descriptors tell us more about whether villains are tighter, looser, more aggressive, more passive, more linear, or more polar than solver. For example:
-villain is a reg who over 3b, always 3b KQo and AJo facing an EP open. In other words, villain over 3bets a linear range.
-villain is a rec who has cold called on button vs a HJ open. His 3b have been JJ+ and AQo+. In other words, villain under 3bets with a linear range.
-villain is a reg who always 3bets suited connectors like 87s when solver mixes. In other words, villain over 3bets with a polar range.
Another thing worth noting is that if you look at the high quality poker coaching and play and explain content out there, they use reg/rec the way I use it. In that sense regular has never meant regular the way Norm and Cliff are regulars at Cheers . It means their play is regular. There are HUDs that will automatically categorize players as regs or fish based on how much calling/raising they do pre. Generally the distinction is going to be pretty clear cut.
Another thing worth noting is that if you look at the high quality poker coaching and play and explain content out there, they use reg/rec the way I use it. In that sense regular has never meant regular the way Norm and Cliff are regulars at Cheers . It means their play is regular. There are HUDs that will automatically categorize players as regs or fish based on how much calling/raising they do pre. Generally the distinction is going to be pretty clear cut.
Apologies for another semantic point. But "regular" typically means "recurring at uniform intervals" as in a regular dental appointment or Norm and Cliff sitting on the same stools at the same time every Tuesday to Saturday. It can also mean a constant or definite pattern, which is closer to to what you mean about frequencies of betting/folding actions in poker, although I believe "standard" is a better term for a general summary of player stats. While you or I and many others on this forum may take "reg" as having this latter meaning, the former meaning will generally prevail and continue to cause confusion.
