A clueless noob reaches 1000 hours of live 1/3 NL

Move up in stakes.

FW suggests that boobies & blow are unlikely

I can see some value to this, especially when there are aggressive players yet to act. But in a game where your opponents are all wet noodles (i.e. only raising KK+ and occasionally JJ or AK) would you consider raising the pot yourself? I.e if poker is situational, would there be situations where a different strategy makes sense?
If not, then does limping pre help you get paid off more postflop?

Thanks Squiddy!

Although, not really that sick of a giraffe in terms of bb/hr... but perhaps in terms of low variance? Also, my overall $20+/hr is still very much being helped out by my 2012/2013 sunrun... it will be interesting to see how long I can maintain that. Only when I recently posted my giraffe at 1000 sessions did I notice a fairly recent 440 hour stretch at 2.73 bb/hr, one that I didn't really notice in real time thanks to it straddling the end of a solid year and the beginning of a meh-but-acceptably-within-variance year.

Honestly, the winnings are simply added to my existing piles of money. Only works out to about ~$10K a year, so just an entertaining modest side hustle. Although I will admit, in 2013 we bought the wife a car for the same amount I won that year, and I couldn't help but think to myself, "wow, I just won enough in lol rec pokr this year to buy a ****ing car, that's kinda crazy".

GcluelessrecpokrnoobG

For the most part since I've started playing 1/3 NL, our room has only sporadically offered bigger games.

Although, I will say that over the last year or two that a semi-regular 1/3/6 (which also often plays with a $20 double straddle) has been running, oddly typically during daytime week hours (some stay-at-home-dad's inbetween picking up their kids at school). Lol $200 - $1000 BI, which seems weird. I have no idea what the strategy should be in a 1/3/6/20 9 handed game or even if that is a good game at $1000. But if I was to shortstack (which is what I feel most comfortable at) then I don't think it makes any sense to shortstack a 1/3/6/20 game for the same BI as a 1/3 game.

On top of that, I fully realize I'm very uncomfortable deep, so I don't think my skillset would translate very well at all to a deeper game (even if one was regularly available in my room).

My guess a couple of years ago was that our 1/3 game would have been replaced by a 2/5 game by now. But it seems instead the more common thing nowadays is to keep the blinds the same but increase the maximum BI. So I might just make 10K hours at the 1/3 steaks after all, we'll see.

GcluelessfindingmysweetspotnoobG

As usual, your reads are solid.

GcluelesletthegoodtimesrollnoobG

I'll admit I sometimes do find myself in games where there's tighter raising opponents and the LRR method from the HJ- might not be as awesum (like, I've just limped JJ and I'm actually almost praying no one raises cuz then it might be actually be a fold, lol). Plus there typically isn't as much dead money in play when doing the LRR squeeze. But obviously I'll have my name on the table change list if this is the case.

Not necessarily getting paid off huge by any means, but likely getting paid more than had I raised. At tables like these, tighter players are good enough to fold all their crap to preflop raises (and thus lose no money). But they are poor enough when seeing a flop with their more meh hands against a disguised big hand to lose at least some money (not gobs, but some) postflop. Meanwhile it's not as if I can get too out-of-line preflop at a 9 handed table (especially in non-LP, especially with shorter stacks). But obviously unless there's at least one decent donator at the table, these ain't the greatest tables (so I try to sit at a better one).

ETA: I will admit, as a the-sky-is-falling kinda guy, that I'm still a little shocked at how many losing players (ranging from huge donators to horrendous to very bad to just bad to simply poor) there always seems to be in the pool. I always thought there was a great danger in our game drying up by now as it is so trivially easy for any moran to figure out how to book a positive winrate at LLSNL (if even the smallest and most insignificant of ones). But it just doesn't seem to be the case, as there seems to be this never ending stream of losing players of varying horrendousness that rotate in and out of the pool. And while there are obviously winning and solid players in the mix, the number of tables running plus the loser heavy pool means I can often sit at a table with like just one other winning player (and even sometimes be the only winning player at the under-the-radar table).

GcluelessNLnoobG

Ok got it. It sounds like table changes are both available enough for you, and a big part of your overall meta strategy. I'll admit that I stay in suboptimal games too long sometimes, partly bc I want to get better at poker but also it's stubbornness and wanting to get even.

Other times tho there's only a couple tables so changing isn't an option. You adapt your strategy to the table.
That said, there is something to this idea of limping LJ- as even strong hands can be hard to play oop.

Nowadays when I arrive at the room when I do, there is typically ~3 games running, and at the peak during my stay there is typically ~5 games running, so decent table selection.

When you say "wanting to get even" do you mean at *this* table / against *these* opponents (i.e. getting your money back from the guys who have taken it)? If so, sounds like a bit of mental leak? Although I'll admit I always know exactly how much I'm up/down in a session, and obviously feel better about myself booking a winning session versus a losing session, but I always try to put myself at the table which is most likely to accomplish this.

I'll admit, since adopting my Super Nit method I simply don't deviate my preflop strategy at all, regardless of table, at least in regards to not raising in the LJ- (I simply *never* do) and needing very strict conditions to even *consider* a raise in the HJ (I need a Button straddle and the Button/CO to be of effective stacks where I can comfortably stack off postflop with TP). I find it's a decent enough baseline strategy that works well enough in every environment that I simply adhere to it 100% of the time. But, who's kidding who, I'm typically sitting on a shortstack of $200 in a 1/3 NL game, so I really should'nt be deviating much to begin with.

It's just a style I arrived at after many hours when I finally asked myself why am I doing the "normal" thing when it creates such shitty spots for me and my skill set. Playing a very small SPR with a big preflop hand is ez. I also find playing a very large SPR with any hand ~ok (even if I just lean to making the very small mistake of overfolding mediocre winners in small meaningless pots). But I find multiway small SPR pots extremely difficult to play, and those pots are created in smaller stack games by raising. So the LRR method just always gets me into a spot where I'm comfortable, and avoids the spot I think sucks. So I just leave all my raising to LP + blinds, where I'll have a much better handle on the situation (who's interested, stack sizes of interested, how many are interested, etc.) and can make better preflop decisions (raise sizing and even whether to raise at all), and meanwhile mostly be in position if we do go to postflop in a big pot.

Gplaytoyourstrengthsandawayfromyourweaknesses,imoG

I feel like I'm missing something very simple, but why would your winrate be tilting to people? Is it because you're winning period? Otherwise I genuinely don't get it lol.

Congratz on the results, hate your style but obviously mad respect for the consistency.

Dream Crusher!!??

how u been mang?

I've been thinking about this in relation to my games. At the stakes I'm playing, (5/5-10 & 5/10) almost all the players have a clue with the exceptions of the obvious donators who...in my games tend to be rich middle age Chinese 'Uncles'.

I typically rate the skills of other players (& under rate my own) but I generally assume that most of the young regs must be winners. They are aggressive, seem to know how the right spots to raise, apply pressure, have 'skills' in their arsenals etc. So it's always a surprise to me that I keep winning despite, in my mind being a very predictable & face up player. (I don't play enough to ever really have quantifiable win rates as you know & there's a chance I'm just on a giant heater) - particularly with rake now at an obscene 10% to $20. but I think of myself as a very standard tag-ish player & I almost always have it when chips go in.

by the law of averages....particularly with the rake....most of these guys must be losers but they seem 'good" & they keep coming back. And they are generally young guys who I'm guessing don't have big jobs/trust funds etc

puzzles me

as an aside.....I've given up trying to understand the MTT economy. That is BOOMING in Australia with huge tourney series with massive fields everywhere the entire time. Christ knows who is funding that

+1

Squid, what are your thoughts on the post above? Most of your hours were in Vegas which isn't a typical market but where do you think most of the $$ comes from outside of the mega whales? Is it bad regs, more bad recs than I assume...somewhere else?

1. When you move up in stakes, the competition is tougher and there are more winners, but that's because the rake is lower which allows more people to win. You also win less in terms of BB/100 but that can be more in terms of $/100.

2. MTTs give everyone the best bang for their buck in terms of time of play play per dollars waged. There's also tons of variance that may allow mediocre/bad players to hit a score. In other words, it takes a while for winners to reach their true ROI and for losers to do the reverse. My guess is that this means it also gives people more time to replenish their losses and keep the games sustainable.

Since you 've also banned online poker, there might be more money floating around that would have gone that way.

I'm not really sure.

I've had posters literally call me out as lying about my stats / no way this method can possibly win / etc. and also get very unhinged at something as innocent as a response by me in a strat thread as to how I would have approached a hand (it's also my first day on the interwebz, ldo).

Oh, and if you happen to be the CRA:

Some of this might have to do with the sad realization that most poker players who are losing in their local LLSNL game that is similar to mine (i.e. typically smallish stacks and very high rake) would be far better off adapting a strategy that only had them play AA/KK (and LRRing them to boot), which is probably a lot closer to my strat than anyone else's (lol). And that's obviously not a very cool strat.

Some of this might be jealously over a consistent ~ok winrate using what they consider a lol method that can't possibly by +EV... although I'm not really sure how jealous one could get over a lol 7 bb/hr winrate?

Some of this might also be that a lot of people are very closeminded when it comes to approaching anything and feel there is only ever one way to do something "proper" or "best" or "optimal", feel one size fits all, and kinda get triggered when challenged on that (and I will most definitely challenge / call out posters who state there is anything -EV about approaches that I have shown most likely to be +EV). I'm self aware enough to know that I'm doing some things in a manner that might not necessarily be the "most EV" (although the "most EV" for who I would always ask), but it is a route that fits me / my skillset / my tolerance level / my mental health level / etc. well, so I'm happy enough with it. But I'm also fully aware that there are lottsa different ways to accomplish something and so if you've found you're own route then godspeed, good luck, and why would I have any hard feelings about that (as some others seem to have towards me)?

But probably mostly, is their anything more annoying than the nittiest guy at the table being the second biggest long term winner in the game and also the guy having the most fun?

GcluelesstiltinducingnoobG

Yes, this does puzzle me as well.

Part of it may have to do with me overvalueing how good some players do, and without seeing their long term stats I don't really know exactly how they are doing.

But I also know there are definitely winning players in my small 1/3 NL game, and even a handful of guys that do this as their only gig. How they make enough money at only this game is mind boggling to me, but then I don't know anyone's whole back story (are they sitting on an inheritance nest egg, living in Mom's basement, have an incredibly frugal single person / no dependents lifestyle living cheque-to-cheque with no real retirement savings, etc.).

Or are the small percentage of massive donators funding a lot larger percentage of the poker ecosystem than I realize? It's still my guess that 80% of the players at the table (i.e. the losing players) are funding the overall ecosystem, but maybe that 5% (i.e. the massive donator) is funding way more of the ecosystem than I think.

GcluelesspokerecosystemnoobG

I believe 2 things.

1. Most people are really lazy and desire the path of least resistance. When i was a road gambler I played countless hours of 21 around the world. The knowledge that there is a basic strategy and that by following it (with decent rules) will effectively eliminate the house edge is not a secret and is pretty common knowledge. In all of my travels I can count on 1 hand the number of non pro card counters (normies) that played actual basic. Many played a "close approximation" but I found that almost no one took the actual time to learn it cold. This includes the pit crew whose job it is to protect the games. I have had countless interactions with people who "know basic". It takes 1 question to shut them up. What do you do with A7? when do you hit? stand? double? response is "uhhhhhhhh". Poker has the exact same people doing the exact same thing. Firing $ with next to no study.

2. Most people suck ass at critical self evaluation. The whack pack over in LVL vloggers thread are pefect examples. They all think they are crushers or should be. None of them study (or win) yet they believe in their hearts that they are elite poker players.

I have played an absolute shitload of poker. After every session I did a review. I have played exactly zero perfect sessions. I always make some type of play i could have done more better. When people get knocked out of mtts I frequently hear how they played perfectly and blah blah blah. People will delude themselves for literally years (trewper of the wack pack perfect example) that they are just running bad.

Soooo i think it comes from bad regs who are recs that believe in their hearts they are winners but are running bad. Which brings us around to why GG has gotten sooo much hate over the years over his nit strat:

he plays a shorter stack - not coo bro
he plays a super tight range - what a pussay
frequently open limps - how can you possibly win doing that crap?
almost never isos - dood you gotta punish the fish

this really fcuks with the egos of guys tryin to play a more lag game like their heros when GG wins at a singnifacntly higher rate than they do. they know all the buzzwords but cant actually see the massive holes in their own game so they splash really loud but win minimally and badmouth someone who has taken the time to work on various strat and figure out a way to consistanly win at a good clip over an extended period

thats what i think

Also, why do we think that poster is DC?

GdoIgetaprizefordrawinghimoutofhiscave?G

Odd, I hate your pre-flop style, I'll never not hate it, I was raised in the ''limping is terrible'' era but you've never come across as someone who will make huge mistakes post-flop and to me it's always been obvious that tight is right.

You could be you, limp pre, be nitty and don't **** up a lot post-flop and win for 7bb/100 over 16 years OR you could be someone who uses a lot of jargon and posts hands, but who can't seem to play any street correctly and I'll take any bet he's not winning for 7bb/100 and I'd go as far as saying he's not winning period.

Keep doing what you're doing, we'll never be pre-flop best friends but it's obviously working.

@GG I think its DC cuz 1 of his many alts is tom dwans son and hes from Tejas

wanted to add. Fw in your thread in lvl some clown stated that he would never enter a seniors event even though hes a senior. What the actual Fcuck!? He doesnt want to play what is known to be a softer field than a non seniors event? His thought process is so silly it almost seems like a troll.

THESE PEOPLE ARE YOUR OPPONENTS

clownshoes emoji.

dunning krueger works both ways. when you are competent you assume every 1 else is too...they arent

I was also brought up in the cool "Raise to Punish the Limpers" era. Took me a while to figure out that (a) "Limp to Punish the Raisers" might be a more apt strategy in most LLSNL games (or, at the very least, one that I'm more comfortable with), and (b) overlimping limpers might end up punishing them more than raising them.

FWIW, if you want to look at the LRR method thru a more cool / hip / aggro / laggy lens, a huge part of it is simply attempting to setup more 3bet spots (you can't 3bet if you raise). And 3betting is cool, right?

Gcluelesship/totallywithit,man/groovynoobG

(I'm assuming you meant you overrate the skillz of some other players)

I also overrate the skillz of other players, and it typically takes me a lot longer than it probably should to realize they likely aren't nearly as good as I initially thought.

Played with this guy the other day. He's undoubtedly a winner. He's undoubtedly one of the better players in the room (although that isn't really saying much, lol). And I don't know for sure, but this might be his sole gig (but again, I don't know his back story). And I rarely play at the same table as him because then that's already 2 people sucking up money off the table plus he is capable (unlike a lot of of others) of putting me in difficult spots.

But I played with him a bit last session and twice he checked back a TP on a fairly innocent river, just like any other bad losing reg, missing massive value (at least, in my opinion). In one case, he even felt he had to follow that up with an explanation to the table of "I wasn't going to get called by worse", and all I could do is think to myself "WTF, you were literally up against the biggest calling station in the room, even 2nd pair + big kicker is a trivial value bet there!".

Poker is a lot of smoke and mirrors, even with winning players. Unless we're able to see someone's giraffe, we don't really know exactly how everyone is actually doing and our guesstimates might be fairly poor (at least in some cases). So there are probably some that aren't taking as much money off the table as we think, and even others that are surprisingly not even taking any money off the table at all.

GcluelessovervalueingnoobG

I think part of the reason your style works so well at 1/3 is that you pay very little rake, which obviously is a killer at LS. Part of that is, you're nitty. But it seems to me you are usually putting in 1bb or a many bbs, and avoiding a lot of "raise to 10. BB calls. C-bet 10 and take it down" where you've bet $20 to win 11 and the house takes like 30-40% of your profit.