[RyanCMU]

Taking this thread in a different direction because it has basically turned into a NL100 gossip ground [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

What do you think separates a lot of the winning NL100 regulars from being able to take the next step and become winning regulars at NL200? I know a lot have tried and ended up back at NL100. Please don't answer "they suck."

Some of the reasons I think is that at NL100, I think a lot of us fall into sort of a trap. It's the first level where you can really make significant money multi tabling and the competition for the most part is relatively horrible. So we develop a style that works well multi tabling NL100, however, this style becomes very exploitable as we play better competition.

One thing I have noticed is that a lot of NL100 players, our ranges become heavily weighted towards a specific spectrum in certain situations. And vs observant opponents its very easy for them to take advantage of that and continuously own us. I really won't go into more about this specific topic here, because I think this is one of the things that allows someone who isn't on autopilot at NL100 to really take advantage of all the other TAG regulars and exploit them heavily. SABR42 indirectly touched on this when he earlier int his thread talked about how easy it is to pick on other players at this level and why you are leaving money on the table by not doing so.

Another, thing I have noticed and this goes hand in hand with what I said above, is that lots of regulars at NL100 still practice avoidance, and for a lot of them this is the best thing, since, well they play horrible. However, this is allowing the better players at the level to just bleed them dry by constantly abusing them and they never adjust and play back. Prodigy's comments about avoidance, I think are spot on for the weaker players who can't adjust, yet, still are able to make $$ vs the donks. But again agreeing w/ SABR42, avoidance isn't nessecary since its so easy to just relentlessly pick on and exploit the other regulars.

I know a lot of people are going to read this and say "blah blah blah, I win at 4ptbb/100 and I don't do any of this." Well, think of how much money you are leaving on the table? Why should your WR be satisfactory, when you are leaving so much on the table?

This brings me full circle to my original point about what is separating winning NL100 regs from being winning Nl200 regs...Everyone can play good vs horrible players. It's not hard to learn to extract the maximum vs bad players. You need to learn how to play the other 70% of the game, most of you just play bad, and thats why you will always marginal NL100 winners.

Hopefully, this will get the thread back on track and we can focus more on what certain players are doing well and learning from that to help improve our own games. Instead of just bashing everyone and gossiping like HS girls.

Disclaimer: Yes, I am a NL100 regular. No I am not good at NL Hold em'. However, I do feel as if I am better then every other regular at NL100 on stars. I haven't moved up because my poker situation is unique and my playing style and routine is also very unique and NL hold em' is probably my 3rd best game, however, I am constantly trying to work and improve it.

Also, the two points I touched on, are two very small points in what makes and allows a player to be a winning player at higher levels then NL100, however, I feel as if from reading this thread and from my experience playing, that these two things are two of the biggest things hindering the progress of lots of NL100 players.