Any Full Tilt regulars on here? NL 200 and NL 100

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read my post and I guess it came out a little more harsh than I intended it to. I am not meaning to be rude which I guess is how it sounds. I just get sick of ppl on these forums and on the tables talking about "bots" and "nits" and basically looking down on players like me. I just dont get what the hating towards players like me is. Just because I'm not a 25/10 or something doesnt make me any less of a poker player, does it?

[/ QUOTE ]

When we talk about bots, we're talking about these guys. Bots are unethical scum and against the rules. Nits are simply people who play tight/passive poker. No one is accusing you of being a bot. Just because bots generally play like nits doesn't mean anyone thinks you're doing something wrong. Bots and nits are totally different topics.

I don't have a problem with you or any nits. If you want to make a living off of rakeback by playing a gazillion hands that's great. I couldn't do that, I would go insane. Most people can't do that.

The reason why we have a conflict is because the strategy forums here aren't for people who want to learn how to play a gazillion hands a day. Discussions about that are more for the internet gambling forum. This forum is for people who want to get better at full ring NL holdem in order to play higher stakes or increase their winrate. I try to discourage people from being nits because it creates complacency in your game and takes away from discussions of how to play the game better.

[Ron Burgundy]

AC,

Barry's book is written from a live game perspective. Online, people either like to play short or full. They don't really play short when they're losing and deep when they're winning. This is because people who like to play short online can simply switch tables in an instant if they win a big pot. And people who like to play deep can reload with one click of a button. Live, people tend to play with whatever they brought and their stack fluctuates according to how they've run.

There are fish who like to play deep, and fish who like to play short. For the fish who like to play short, you're advantage over them won't change according to your stack size, because the effective stack sizes are the same. But for the fish who like to play deep, you're simply giving up value in profitable spots when you're short.

If you can make 5.7bb/100 at 50NL shortstacking, I think you could make around 7bb/100 playing deep.

[jhill3535]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I buy in for 40bb. This is not shortstackng. Shortstacking is when you buy in min (20bb) and leave when you double. I don't do that. If I drop to 20bb I rebuy to 40bb.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is better than fullstacking because...

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm glad you asked. On page 175 of Greenstein's Ace on the River he lists the reason why I choose to buy in short.

"You probably play better when you are ahead and worse when you are stuck. Even if you won't admit that, you would agree that your opponents play better when they are ahead and worse when they are stuck. Therefore, you will have more money in front of you when you should, and be short of money when your opponents are at their best."


He lists many other reasons to buy in short and reasons to buy in full, but none of those reasons seemed as compelling to me as the one I quoted above. It was enough to help me beat 50 NL at 5.7bb/100 over my last 33k hands. The first 20k hands I was actually shortstacking though (I was a mtt sng convert) and I only ran at 2bb/100.

I'm not gonna start buying in full until this trend changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Barry's statement here, but I would point out that 100bb is not really all that deep IMO. I subscribe to this same line of thinking about wanting more money on the table when I am playing well and less on the table when I am not, but I don't really consider the money to be "deep" until you reach about 200bb where it is much more difficult to get all the money in without a substantial overbet. When a raise preflop and a pot sized bets on the flop turn and river get you allin without a 3-bet or a raise, I don't see how it really can be considered playing deepstacked.

I try to run up a huge stack of 400+bb on a table if I am playing well, and then I have no worries keeping that money on the table. If I am not running that well, then I will be hanging back always around 100bb.

And when you are playing well within your bankroll, losing 100bb shouldn't be that big of a deal. You shouldn't be doing it regularly, but the occassional lost stack is not devastating.

[Tofu_boy]

Guys please stop argue about your styles of others styles. Everyone have chose they own way to learn the game and their own way to play @ the tables. Overall we are here to be friend we all know that we here b/c we're FTP regs. I can assume that we all a winner here either small or big. I think it's better to know each other here and respect each other play @ the tables than argue about who style playing which is right and which is wrong.

Peace. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[MINETZ]

ofcourse it makes you less of a poker player, your an unimaginative nit that doesnt even think about playing poker because you just play the same way in every situation, what your doing isnt even playing poker.

[chicken10der]

bigkawik - 200nl - he seems like a total tard (26/6), yet he's constantly 10-12 tabling and he's actually +$ in my db. am i right or do i just keep catching him playing on tilt? i've twice seen him get all in pf with AK for a full stack vs tight regs, overcall a 3bet pf with KJ...what is going on here

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
giveusakiss (4.77 ptbb/100), 24.84 / 11.87 / 3.60 / 4,138 hands; very solid player



Not sure about this one... last night he was min raising at 100nl all over the place (opening for 2$ in ep etc), and also was hanging around with short stacks (60-70$) without topping off. He seemed to be 12 tabling, its amazing he can 12 table with a 25 vpip, or maybe he's in over his head and that is why he has dropped from 200nl to 100nl, to not capping off at 100nl.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just noticed that giveusakiss is one of the biggest losers in my db. I don't know how the hell anyone can call giveusakiss very solid, unless they have no idea how to play poker.

50NL: 463 hands, -$86
100: 5200 hands, -$176
200: 9500 hands, -$2963
400: 107 hands, -$522

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
bigkawik - 200nl - he seems like a total tard (26/6), yet he's constantly 10-12 tabling and he's actually +$ in my db. am i right or do i just keep catching him playing on tilt? i've twice seen him get all in pf with AK for a full stack vs tight regs, overcall a 3bet pf with KJ...what is going on here

[/ QUOTE ]

I have bigkawik breaking even after 4300 hands, playing at 20/5/2. I've seen him do some retarded [censored] but nothing really out of the ordinary for an average player. How many hands do you have on him?

[chicken10der]

4500 hands at +2.59ptbb/100

i just don't get it. AK's: he raised to 7 in mp3, got 3bet by an 18/6 CO to 24, then he just shoved for 200 and got called by KK. other hand, he limps AK UTG, UTG+1 (17/3) minraises, bk limprr's to 20, UTG+1 raises to 40, then bk shoves for 300+. up against KK again.

[BigBiceps]

[ QUOTE ]
bigkawik - 200nl - he seems like a total tard (26/6), yet he's constantly 10-12 tabling and he's actually +$ in my db. am i right or do i just keep catching him playing on tilt? i've twice seen him get all in pf with AK for a full stack vs tight regs, overcall a 3bet pf with KJ...what is going on here

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw bigkawik win $1200 yesterday. Didn't think he should be winning so much due to his semi passive post flop play, but i saw him double through someone with a $400 stack with 77 v TT on a 77T flop.