View: The way to crush live nitfests nowadays games is being a good LAG or maniac
There is a player at my local casino who’s been nicknamed the Phil Ivey of our hometown. He is not a pro. He has his own business and a massive bankroll but I believe he is the biggest winner here. He doesn’t study solvers. He’s a really good “feel” player who is fearless and goes off his reads and punishes all the nit TAG pros who rely on solvers. None of the pros know what to input for his range for their solvers so they don’t know how to play against him. They tend to fold and let him take down pot after pot. Sure, occasionally they’ll lay a trap for Phil to walk into but the amount of pots Phil takes down uncontested and the times he gets paid off on an over bet shove more than makes up for it.
Some regs like playing with Phil when they can short stack and think he is a spewtard. But they always run once they chip up because they know Phil will put them to the test.
I would advocate aspiring pro poker players to learn to be like Phil instead of being a nit who relies on solvers. Study people, grow a bankroll and some balls.
Do you have a Phil in your home casino too?
Their exploits suck or are basic. These **** "LAGs" can't exploit better than me. If they could exploit that well they would win 25bb/hr. How long do you think a player would stay at 1/3 if they made that much?
No offense, but I think it could be possible, that a LAG has a higher winrate than you, or me in certain line ups.
Their exploits suck or are basic. These **** "LAGs" can't exploit better than me. If they could exploit that well they would win 25bb/hr. How long do you think a player would stay at 1/3 if they made that much?
How in the **** would even the best player in the world make 75 dollars an hour in 1/3 nl. That's some hilarious ****.
And I mean an actual 1/3 nl game with typical 1/3 stacks not some Texas gave with 3 straddles that's 1/3 in name only.
He alleged their are better exploitative players that make more than well studied theory players. I make between 16-17bb/hr at standard 2/5 live games and would probably make 20bb/hr at 1/3. So these players who he is alleging are so gifted exploitatively but for some reason don't move up would presumably make more than that
He alleged their are better exploitative players that make more than well studied theory players. I make between 16-17bb/hr at standard 2/5 live games and would probably make 20bb/hr at 1/3. So these players who he is alleging are so gifted exploitatively but for some reason don't move up would presumably make more than that
16-17bb per hour live is like 30-35 hand right? So that’s roughly 48-51BB per 100 hand pretty unbelievable if we compare it to online where we call crushers who beat the game 5+BB per 100hand hmmm
He alleged their are better exploitative players that make more than well studied theory players. I make between 16-17bb/hr at standard 2/5 live games and would probably make 20bb/hr at 1/3. So these players who he is alleging are so gifted exploitatively but for some reason don't move up would presumably make more than that
Standard being 2/5 nl with no straddle?
16-17bb per hour live is like 30-35 hand right? So that’s roughly 48-51BB per 100 hand pretty unbelievable if we compare it to online where we call crushers who beat the game 5+BB per 100hand hmmm
If its a legit 16 bb in games with no straddle it seems high but not that absurd especially if it's over a few thousand hours max in really juicy games where people sit deep.
If he puts in a lot of hours short handed his edge can be massive.
If it normally plays 5/5/10 then it's extremely believable.
Live is so much softer than online.
Solvers play like the most gangster balls to the walls madman you can imagine. Oh and it's gonna fold the nut flush to your straight flush 100bb deep because **** your range you don't have enough bluffs in that node and it knows it.
Well, ho ho Solver 0 me 1, I only call with straight flushes because, nitroll.
LeVeLs_^
He alleged their are better exploitative players that make more than well studied theory players. I make between 16-17bb/hr at standard 2/5 live games and would probably make 20bb/hr at 1/3. So these players who he is alleging are so gifted exploitatively but for some reason don't move up would presumably make more than that
How many pros/grinders are in your typical 2/5 game? Home game or casino game? Who’s losing to give you a 16-17bb hr winrate? Many 2/5 and higher casino games I see nowadays are literally filled with nits and grinders who will not gift you multiple bb per hour.
If its a legit 16 bb in games with no straddle it seems high but not that absurd especially if it's over a few thousand hours max in really juicy games where people sit deep.
If he puts in a lot of hours short handed his edge can be massive.
If it normally plays 5/5/10 then it's extremely believable.
Live is so much softer than online.
Yeah btw anyone can get really lucky if we take short sample size as an example, live games are slow so it takes way longer to play decent volume of hands compared to online not sure what sample size is he considering when he's saying 16bb WR
Their exploits suck or are basic. These **** "LAGs" can't exploit better than me. If they could exploit that well they would win 25bb/hr. How long do you think a player would stay at 1/3 if they made that much?
Maybe 1/3 is the only NLHE game that runs at their local casino except on Fridays and Saturdays and the player only plays the occasional weeknight because poker isn't their means of income anymore and they have a life outside of it.
there are absolutely 0 exceptions. every player who has ever played 1/3 live has sucked at the time of playing that table
Prob true now but there were some winning online players who immediately after Black Friday played 1/2 while their rolls were locked online, this only lasted for a short while as they moved up or moved abroad to play online.
I played 1/3 at the Wynn for about 2hrs last year. I made sure to let everyone know I usually play 5nl online.
All the crushers of today are more or less nitty. Some loose cannon looking like LAG crusher is just product of sunrun+perfect card distribution.
Pretty confident a winning $5NL player online is +ev in 5/10 live.
I disagree a little with you with you here. I've been experimenting with a more aggressive approach and it's working better than the last strategy i was using.
The reality is people don't defend enough in a lot of spots and this makes you a lot of money. The only way to lose big by playing this way is by bluffing all the calling stations, which is something easy to avoid.
It really depends on definitions of LAG/maniac.
Is a LAG/maniac something like 80/70/30 then firing 2x pot post flop? Then he's gonna lose.. a lot. Even low stakes droolers will make sort of correct adjustments.
Played against this stat line kind of guy. He punted $1400 at 1/2 in about 90 minutes buying in for $200 at a time.
If you mean moving from 25/20/10 to something like 40/30/20 then sure that can be a crusher.
He alleged their are better exploitative players that make more than well studied theory players. I make between 16-17bb/hr at standard 2/5 live games and would probably make 20bb/hr at 1/3. So these players who he is alleging are so gifted exploitatively but for some reason don't move up would presumably make more than that
Well very seldom does 2/5 go here. And why should it. Our 1/3 games are uncapped or match stack games. We don’t often get the double and triple straddles like the unregulated TX games. But it is not uncommon to have multiple st@cks of $2k each on a table. Most I recall seeing was little over $15K. And there are plenty with deep pockets but shallow minds.
Otoh, you don’t need to be exploitive. I am sure you are better than I. But these games you can sit back nut pedal. So maybe I don’t have the game to move up, though I have always held my own or better in 1/3 and 2/5 in LV, but I also don’t need to. Heck, even with the easy games here, I don’t play more than few hours per week max because I enjoy my retirement doing other activities.
Thread should be retitled, replacing the words ‘LAG or maniac’ with player.
He alleged their are better exploitative players that make more than well studied theory players. I make between 16-17bb/hr at standard 2/5 live games and would probably make 20bb/hr at 1/3. So these players who he is alleging are so gifted exploitatively but for some reason don't move up would presumably make more than that
LoL... seriously LOL.
Just going by the average Bellagio/Aria/Wynn game, the average best $1/$3 strategy has absolutely nothing to do with the best $2/$5 crusher strategy. Two totally different games.
At most of the $1/$3 games in question, no one three bets without QQ or better. Even AK is often limped/called. How do you adjust?
Limping 98s UTG is one of the ways. At lower limits, accurately reading players has a far more of a difference than any starting hand charts.
He alleged their are better exploitative players that make more than well studied theory players. I make between 16-17bb/hr at standard 2/5 live games and would probably make 20bb/hr at 1/3. So these players who he is alleging are so gifted exploitatively but for some reason don't move up would presumably make more than that
It should also be noted that to play at the highest EV at low limit games, there is a very large increase in variance. Huge. More often than not you are facing players who are looking to gamble regardless of the odds. Face a $500 shove into a $200 pot with a flush draw? Get it in. Sure it is good in the long run, but there is a drastic increase in short term variance.
Also, ost importantly, you are grossly (and dishonestly) misrepresenting what I said. I fully acknowledge that a fully skilled GTO player can adjust to exploitative play. Absolutely no doubt. None.
However, I will submit that someone who is fully engrossed in the world of GTO and even skilled in making exploitative adjustments cannot adjust enough to exploit most low limit ($1/$2 or $1/$3) games. The games are foreign to someone thinking in GTO terms.
A player is better off thinking in 100% exploitative play than anything having to do with GTO. Theory of Poker matters more than solvers at most low limit games. Don't get me wrong, a GTO player will win with even the most basic adjustments. Obviously. But more often than not, if they are not playing 100% exploitatively, they are doing it wrong.
Limping 98s UTG is perfectly fine in a low limit gane where a raise and reraise is so rare to be non existent. Again, it depends if you are smart enough to be able to play your hand well enough to avoid the obvious pitfalls.
Reads matter most in low limit.
It should be noted that one of the biggest mistakes I see GTO oriented players make at low limit games is that they overestimate their fold equity. They will shove into situations that they and solvers think they think have more fold equity than they actually do.
Low limit players do not fold as a great generalization. Period.
I know fold equity is an antiquated term that no one uses anymore, but it is one of the fundamentals that drive GTO theory. One of the reasons solvers suggest aggression in certain situations is that at higher limits, most people fold too much. That is the opposite at lower limits.
I know fold equity is an antiquated term that no one uses anymore, but it is one of the fundamentals that drive GTO theory. One of the reasons solvers suggest aggression in certain situations is that at higher limits, most people fold too much. That is the opposite at lower limits.
this is incorrect. solvers don't care about limits or how a player pool plays. solvers create a strategy for playing against another player who is playing an optimal strategy, or for playing against a player with a defined strategy that you input for the solver. but obviously the exploit for playing against players who rarely fold is just to pare down your bluffs massively and go for max value with good hands. a solver will tell you the same thing though if you tell it the opponent is a player who is calling 100% of the hands they continue with on the turn on 100% of all rivers.
this is incorrect. solvers don't care about limits or how a player pool plays. solvers create a strategy for playing against another player who is playing an optimal strategy, or for playing against a player with a defined strategy that you input for the solver. but obviously the exploit for playing against players who rarely fold is just to pare down your bluffs massively and go for max value with good hands. a solver will tell you the same thing though if you tell it the opponent is a play
Wow. That completely went over your head. You literally agreed with me without realizing why.
That is hilarious at the most fundamental level.
It should be noted that one of the biggest mistakes I see GTO oriented players make at low limit games is that they overestimate their fold equity. They will shove into situations that they and solvers think they think have more fold equity than they actually do.
Low limit players do not fold as a great generalization. Period.
I know fold equity is an antiquated term that no one uses anymore, but it is one of the fundamentals that drive GTO theory. One of the reasons solvers suggest aggression in
In games where there is hard to get value that’s where fold equity is king, that’s why people struggle to beat rush&cash poker online, because it’s nit fest and requires to profit through redline while live games are totally opposite where getting value is super easy since players actually give you action
I believe even in live games where players are sticky and call light can be profitable to play smart GTO style due to simple fact that players will miss flops most of the time and with correct betting strategy can get enough fold equity but shoving rivers i believe can’t be profitable because if 1/3 live player calls your 2 barrels he will most likely call your river shoves too but what is most optimal style to maximize winrate that’s the question
It should be noted that one of the biggest mistakes I see GTO oriented players make at low limit games is that they overestimate their fold equity. They will shove into situations that they and solvers think they think have more fold equity than they actually do.
Low limit players do not fold as a great generalization. Period.
I know fold equity is an antiquated term that no one uses anymore, but it is one of the fundamentals that drive GTO theory. One of the reasons solvers suggest aggression in
I mean that’s just not true, low stakes players overfold in many many nodes, hell it’s prob their biggest leak
