Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Post)
 

This is only in regards to 400NL - 2000NL 6max.

By "win the most" I am referring to the largest overall sum of money, not the highest PTBB's. I am not referring the "best" players on 2 or 3 tables who make killer reads and outplay you. I am talking about the players who take the most money off of Party.

Almost everyone of the top winning players, at every level from 400NL and up, play fairly straightforward.

They all tend to have a few things in common:

They multi table (at least 4, but usually 6-10).
They make very few mistakes.
They seem to know most +EV spots and take advantage of them.
They are aggressive, but not overly aggressive.
They do very well in the blinds.

I have no real point, the thought just came to me after reading the recent post about player's leaks. A lot of it has to do with making reads and outplaying your opponents. And while that is all well and good, it still seems that the top winners are worrying less about making plays, and more about playing as many hands of mistake free poker while exploiting +EV situations.

If you disagree, please explain why.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

bump/discuss

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

I'd like to hear a little about how he decided what "straightforward" play means.

[ QUOTE ]
And while that is all well and good, it still seems that the top winners are worrying less about making plays, and more about playing as many hands of mistake free poker while exploiting +EV situations.

[/ QUOTE ]
A large part of mistake free poker is making plays. Of course, "making plays" is very very broadly defined.

Unless OP is specifically talking about bluffing, in which case, he, of course, obviously has no real sense, since so many hands are never shown down.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

I think straightforward means no FPS.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

well, by 10 tabling avging 5bb/100 vs 5 tabling getting 8bb/100.. you will obv make more overall.. it takes more effort to constantly be making solid reads and making plays at pots that can be picked up easily.. when playing more tables its harder to do that so win rate goes down.. but all that really matters is $/hr.. so it breaks down to finding that perfect number of tables where you will achieve the highest $/hr.. im not really sure what yer getting at. holla

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Post)
 

Well I agree, but mostly because its hard to 6 table while not playing 'straight-forward' and I'll take 6-tabling abc TAG over 2-tabling FPS anyday.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

FPS = ?

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

to say that you don't want to talk about ptbb/100 when you're talking about "winning the most" makes no sense. your winrate is a direct indicator of how much you have won over x # of hands.

as for talking about straightforward play - TAGs win, LAGs win. a TAG can have the same winrate as a LAG, with each of them playing their own "straightforward game." so what in the world does straightforward mean? i'm assuming OP is talking about playing nitty TAG - waiting for hands and making no moves.

that strategy will not nearly win as much as a player who can change gears at will and correctly apply reads/adapt to table conditions. ever.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

It's a common perception to think that these players are str8 forward when in reality are the BIGGEST theives on the table.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

fancy play syndrome

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

low limits straightfoward play wins...high limits you need to put more thought into the game...for some of the people who came up playing online, you should go out and play live and see what a world of difference it is.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

Someone at 10/20 can be playing a ton of tables and playing 30/20 very profitably. To them, the majority of what they do and a lot of the marginal situations//basic moves are going to be "straightforward". Theres going to be a lot of "making plays" going into that straightforward play, though. Straightforward is relative.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

What strategy do you think would win the most at Party NL200 6max?

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

[ QUOTE ]
low limits straightfoward play wins...high limits you need to put more thought into the game...for some of the people who came up playing online, you should go out and play live and see what a world of difference it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

When playing live are saying you should play more straight forward or less? Cuz any time I've played high stakes live (5/10 and 10/20) most of the table sucks monkey balls, and tight, extremely aggressive play is best, and its easy to make loads of cash cuz players HATE folding. You can only make a plays at 2 or 3 people at the table. But this is only from my Turning Stone and Casino Windsor experience.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

When I've played live I've found that most players hate putting money in the pot (they are very risk averse). But there aren't many games bigger than 2/5 around here.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

30/20 for the win

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

[ QUOTE ]
When I've played live I've found that most players hate putting money in the pot (they are very risk averse). But there aren't many games bigger than 2/5 around here.

[/ QUOTE ]

At Casino Windsor I would usually make it 200 to go (at 10/20) and would still get 2 or 3 callers(usually from the same 3 or 4 people) And if you had an overpair or TPTK you could get a decent chunk of their stack, assuming they caught a decent piece of the flop. Just don't bluff em.

When I had KK I reraised and made it 400 to go, got 2 callers, flop was rags, I bet 800, dude goes all in, I call and he flips up AK. Thanks for the $2,700 dude.(He said he put me on AK)

I also limp reraised with AA, some guy thought I was full of shi.t and went all in. He spiked his set of eights on the river though. But it was like they were trying to give their money away!

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

10 tables of 12/3/1 nit at NL200.

Full ring of course.


Actually lets not play poker. Lets just pay blinds and set mine people.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I've played live I've found that most players hate putting money in the pot (they are very risk averse). But there aren't many games bigger than 2/5 around here.

[/ QUOTE ]

At Casino Windsor I would usually make it 200 to go (at 10/20) and would still get 2 or 3 callers(usually from the same 3 or 4 people) And if you had an overpair or TPTK you could get a decent chunk of their stack, assuming they caught a decent piece of the flop. Just don't bluff em.

When I had KK I reraised and made it 400 to go, got 2 callers, flop was rags, I bet 800, dude goes all in, I call and he flips up AK. Thanks for the $2,700 dude.(He said he put me on AK)

I also limp reraised with AA, some guy thought I was full of shi.t and went all in. He spiked his set of eights on the river though. But it was like they were trying to give their money away!

[/ QUOTE ]

They have 10/20 NL at Windsor?? THe biggest game I've played there is the 5/10 uncapped.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

Straightforward isnt easily defined as others have said. Contolled FPS is fine, but most FPS is induced by tilt I think.

Keeping tilting to a minimum by being much more tolerant to variance by being very well bankrolled goes a long way. I've been grinding the 400nl/600nl on party 6max for 6 months now so i cant speak for the higher limits but there definitely the vast majority of the pool play scared and are doubtless under-rolled. When you stack someone for 100bb they typically insta leave the table which says it all.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

I don't think instantly leaving the table is a bad strategy.

Obviously if there is someone there who is absolutely terrrrrible then leaving is extremely weak.

If it is just a standard table i don't see any problem with leaving. I wish i left and opened up a new table more often than i do.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to hear a little about how he decided what "straightforward" play means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe "systematic" is a better term, but that implies rigidity, which is not good. They are definitely flexible and they do make reads. But their overall strategy is systematic, similar to your guidelines for hand raising ranges. They have simply expanded it to almost the entire level of play.

A lot of it has to do with the fact that they seem know most of the +EV spots and exploit them.

For example, if you raise in LP and get one caller and they check to you, with a 70% of pot cbet, you will win roughly x% of the time, depending on the board texture. This is a +EV sit, and they bet it almost every time, certain scary boards being the exceptions.

There are many of these +EV sits, and they seem to have identified almost everyone and exploit them without fail. This also falls under my comment of mistake free poker. If you check in a +EV sit without a read, it is a mistake, which they rarely do.

In regards to the question of bluffing, that simply falls under the defiinition of +EV sits. However, they don't tend to bluff everywhere you would by playing FPS. They tend to bluff in the most +EV sits, so again, somewhat systematic.

[ QUOTE ]
A large part of mistake free poker is making plays. Of course, "making plays" is very very broadly defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I say "making plays", I mean that they rarely make bluffs outside of the defined +EV situations. They make plays, but rarely in -EV situations.

However, someone who is playing just a few tables, and has a very good read on an opponent, can make that same play in an otherwise -EV situation, and it be +EV because of their read.

[ QUOTE ]
so it breaks down to finding that perfect number of tables where you will achieve the highest $/hr.. im not really sure what yer getting at. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

What I am getting at is most of the focus of the forums tends to be on reads, not a systematic approach to winning on as many tables as possible. Yet the players who pull the most do the latter...

[ QUOTE ]
to say that you don't want to talk about ptbb/100 when you're talking about "winning the most" makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am saying that the player with the highest PTBB is no where near the largest money winner. It is the players with the most hands and a decent PTBB who are winning the most.

So my comment meant that I am not looking for the person who can extract the most from a few tables, rather the player who can extract the most overall. And with the exception of a single player, it is always those who play as many hands as possible while maintaining a decent PTBB that win the most. And of them, most seem to run a fairly systematic approach.

It is really just common sense, the more tables, the less your reads, so you need to compensate somewhere if you are still going to win. And I think they are accomplishing that by identifying as many +EV sits as possible and exploiting every one while playing as close to mistake free poker as possible.

If this is true, then I am just curious why there is very little to no focus or discussion on this approach.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

[ QUOTE ]
If this is true, then I am just curious why there is very little to no focus or discussion on this approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is.

Analyzing all the hands with no reads is directly akin to this.

Discussing "how to play multiple tables" isn't exactly an interesting discussion.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is.

Analyzing all the hands with no reads is directly akin to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no.

Yes it is because hands without reads are part of the equation.

No it isn't because discussing a specific hand does not define the overall equation.

[ QUOTE ]
Discussing "how to play multiple tables" isn't exactly an interesting discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. But with the right focus, the results of the discussion would carry far greater value than any single hand analysis.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is.

Analyzing all the hands with no reads is directly akin to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no.

Yes it is because hands without reads are part of the equation.

No it isn't because discussing a specific hand does not define the overall equation.

[ QUOTE ]
Discussing "how to play multiple tables" isn't exactly an interesting discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. But with the right focus, the results of the discussion would carry far greater value than any single hand analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we could come up with many common-ish scenarios and we could have a few threads talking about ABC poker, and we could come to some consensus about what the default plays in each spot would be...an "ABC Poker Playbook" of sorts. This seems to be what you're looking for, no ?

KoW

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is.

Analyzing all the hands with no reads is directly akin to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no.

Yes it is because hands without reads are part of the equation.

No it isn't because discussing a specific hand does not define the overall equation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Furthermore, I suppose it's silly to say that they have "no reads," since I'm sure they pick some up, even when 10 tabling.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Discussing "how to play multiple tables" isn't exactly an interesting discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. But with the right focus, the results of the discussion would carry far greater value than any single hand analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]
I just have a problem thinking about how to even begin said discussion. Just talk about overall style? Talk about focus?

If you've got any ideas, feel free to start the thread, or put them here so somebody else might start it.

I only play 4 tables, so I don't really know how much I would really be able to contribute.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we could come up with many common-ish scenarios and we could have a few threads talking about ABC poker, and we could come to some consensus about what the default plays in each spot would be...an "ABC Poker Playbook" of sorts. This seems to be what you're looking for, no ?

KoW

[/ QUOTE ]

God forbid the fish get their hands on such a playbook.

Although, if one were feeling ambitious (and had enough respect to get it published/distributed) a straightforward guidebook to playing SSNL-MSNL could probably make a lot of money these days. But as I depend on the fish for my income, I hope nobody does that anytime soon.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we could come up with many common-ish scenarios and we could have a few threads talking about ABC poker, and we could come to some consensus about what the default plays in each spot would be...an "ABC Poker Playbook" of sorts. This seems to be what you're looking for, no ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not looking for anything. I already know the scenarios.

My question was really just an observation that there is little to no discussion on general +EV sits, which I thought was peculiar.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

[ QUOTE ]
My question was really just an observation that there is little to no discussion on general +EV sits, which I thought was peculiar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to start some.

The MSNL playbook would be sweet, but would also require a LOT of effort, that I don't think many (any?) people have the time/drive to do.

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we could come up with many common-ish scenarios and we could have a few threads talking about ABC poker, and we could come to some consensus about what the default plays in each spot would be...an "ABC Poker Playbook" of sorts. This seems to be what you're looking for, no ?

KoW

[/ QUOTE ]

God forbid the fish get their hands on such a playbook.

Although, if one were feeling ambitious (and had enough respect to get it published/distributed) a straightforward guidebook to playing SSNL-MSNL could probably make a lot of money these days. But as I depend on the fish for my income, I hope nobody does that anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. It's all in here though. It's fairly common to see posters such as ameoba, soah, big jim, and many others who fully explain their thought processes to say: ... Against an unkown my default here is X, but in this situation I think Y is better because...

Perhaps it would be fun and insightful to catalog hands with responses such as this for a while and make your own personal playbook. I would hate for it to get published though!

Greg - I didn't mean to imply that you need of this info yourself :-)

Re: Players who win the most tend to play straightforward. (Theory Pos
 

[ QUOTE ]
God forbid the fish get their hands on such a playbook.

Although, if one were feeling ambitious (and had enough respect to get it published/distributed) a straightforward guidebook to playing SSNL-MSNL could probably make a lot of money these days. But as I depend on the fish for my income, I hope nobody does that anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

The +EV sits are fluid. What works when you write the book, might not work when it is published.

Also, they are game specific, not universal. A +EV sit at one limit is not +EV at another.

The fish would be better served to play low limits in the evening and simply tighten up. The +EV sits scenario is more applicable to higher limits where fold equity actually exists.

However, it would definitely toughen all games up a bit, just like the concept of cbetting did.