I'm depressed and I haven't played a single hand yet

[Tryptamean]

Definitely don't jump straight in and try to make a run at SN. Assure yourself that you are still a winning player.

Don't get too hung up on not having SN either. You still earn fpps at a decent rate as long as you maintain platinum, which is easy at 2/4.

[detruncate]

[ QUOTE ]
Tight is right at 2/4, IMO... You're paying 2.5BB/100 in rake and the pots are huge due to your awful opponent. Few large pots - less rake taken > Many small pots - more rake taken. Or maybe you are sacrificing some, but I inevitably enter monkey tilt playing LAG, so it's definately more +EV for me to TAG it up. Add in rakeback and it's easy to be in the black.

[/ QUOTE ]

People keep saying 2.5 bb/100 in rake. I only seemed to pay 1.88 at 2/4 despite being pretty careful about table/seat selection.

But I agree with what people have been saying. It's my feeling that 24-26% is a good place to be until the rake takes a smaller bite + the games get more aggro. Especially if you make mistakes at anything approaching the rate that I seem to. And my rake figure might support the point if others actually are paying anywhere near 2.5 playing 30/20. .7 bb/100 is huge when most winning regulars seem to earn between 1 and 1.5 bb/100, even if a laggier style brings a slightly higher potential winrate with it. I say "potential" given that mistakes can end up costing a lot when you frequently find yourself in marginal spots, and increased variance might make it harder to minimize losses to tilt.

OP: Very few players seems to sustain a 2+ bb/100 winrate over any reasonably sample size in the 2/4 and 3/6 games as far as I can tell. One of the regular posters here compiled some data to support this, though it's always difficult to say for sure given that good players often try to move to mid stakes as quickly as possible.

And I'd look into relative merits of Stars vs FT some more before pulling all your money out. You might well be better off playing at FT with rakeback unless you're playing a lot of hands at Stars.

[Oink]

People should stop saying what stats they think are optimal preflop.

NOBODY KNOWS FOR [censored] SAKE!


@OP

Play whatever style you are comfortable with. Somewhere between 22/16'ish and 35/25'ish is prolly best depending on opposition and rake.

Dont make the assumption that a 40vpip guy equals money.
Dont make the assumption that a 22vpip guy is good.

Dont play at stars unless you can get it to SN rather fast

Dont play 3/6 and below if you have roll for higher. The rake is sick and those games are filled with TAGs.


If I was in your situation I would grind NL100 till I had the roll for 5/10. And then start taking shots while reading and posting here. Playing 3/6 LHE and below is just lame if you can crush NL.

[timoK]

the average rake taken out of the average game is the same at 2-4 & 3-6 & 5-10 at stars btw.

7 digit datamined figures show the lose per 100 hands is about 2.4 - 2.5 BB
this is the little red number at the PT summary tab, at the bottom in the middle of the tab.

I dont know if rake-rape is less horrible at higher stakes.
And I cant tell you something nice about 3-6 and seeing baronzeugs graph make me feel like a lil school boy but here is my september story (all happend in the beatiful september 2007 at the 3-6 6max tables at pokerstars):
beeing one of those LAG multitables I grinded through 45k hands and had a 500BB downswing in second half of the month. However with supernova benefits: milestone and 1500$ rewards I made a profit of 500BB (with 400BB coming of bonus kickback)...

I suck

[timoK]

@ op:

another funny this is the goals threat:

if you have a lot of free time fell free to brows those threats. there are a several respected posters who report a huge 4 figure lose just to come up with a 5 figure win in the next month... so these are swings.

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
the average rake taken out of the average game is the same at 2-4 & 3-6 & 5-10 at stars btw.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! That has to be a stars thing or what? You would imagine that the fact that so many more pots at 5/10 is substantially above $60 would mitigate the rake taken out of the game measured in BB's..?

That really surprises me since at party and AP that is far from the case.


This is just my 2 cents and take it FWIW. But IMO the most notable change in games the last 6-12 months has happened at low limits 1/2 to 5/10. These games have toughened up substantially. At midstakes you still need to look for fish. But its no problem finding them.

It is my firm view that most 1/2 to 5/10 regulars are grossly overestimating how tough the games are at higher stakes.

In my own experience there isnt much difference between 3/6 and 15/30. You need to table select well at both stakes and the regulars are somewhat better. However, the rake at 15/30 is so much lower which makes it easier to beat as long as you seat/table select. (Yes 15/30 is easier to beat than 3/6 IMO)

I will often find mid stakes tables in which I have position on 2 or 3 fish. And by fish I mean fish! Not strong 45/25 LAGs but bad 60/20 or 35/5 guys.


I have no idea why people like NinaWilliams, BrassMonkey, Absolution and others keep playing small stakes. There is no doubt in my mind that these guys and everyone else who posts here regularly can beat midstakes for +1BB/100 with good table selection.

[Stealthy]

Thanks for all the replies. One thing I have considered is that the reason we all moved to 6 max might not be so relevant in todays game. We all moved I think as that is where all the really terrible fish lived and full ring was just too nitty in comparison. Is this still the case?

With so many multi-tablers in 6 max it has become a lot more aggressive from what I can see with the money not being made from fish as much as it was but players who cap the flop with overcards and weak draws and then donk the turn and river into guys who aren't folding any pair. Because of this 6 max has become far higher variance than it ever was. Not had personal experience of this yet of course but now we seem to be at the stage where that turn check-raise no longer means that your top pair is toast, leading to more light call downs.

Oink
I am leaving NL as my abilty and patience (when running bad) ground to a halt and tended to spew too freely. Having said that I beleive that my hand reading is way better than it was and this will help with limit. I played a lot of HU in the month before quitting and this also helped hand reading a great deal. My main problem with NL is that I could not motivate myself enough to play and was getting in less than 20k hands a month, I expect to get around 50K+ hands in at limit once I get back to it.

Tryptamean
That is my intention. To focus on getting my game back into gear by playing few tables until I get used to it again.

[Absolution]

[ QUOTE ]

Dont play at stars unless you can get it to SN rather fast


[/ QUOTE ]

So, is it the rake and slightly better tables that make you like Party so much? Maybe you have some unmentionable deal there though and can't talk about it. Party seems like Stars with slightly better table selection, but not as many rewards.

[Wolfram]

[ QUOTE ]
If I was in your situation I would grind NL100 till I had the roll for 5/10. And then start taking shots while reading and posting here. Playing 3/6 LHE and below is just lame if you can crush NL.

[/ QUOTE ]
I could have used this info 3 months ago [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Dont play at stars unless you can get it to SN rather fast


[/ QUOTE ]

So, is it the rake and slightly better tables that make you like Party so much? Maybe you have some unmentionable deal there though and can't talk about it. Party seems like Stars with slightly better table selection, but not as many rewards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like party better cuz its taxfee here in Denmark and Stars isnt. (Some stupid EU law and pretty massive with the 50% income tax we have). If it wasnt like this I'd be playing stars. However I play midstakes. For small stakes I am convinced that both FT and AP are better than stars if you cant get SN.