RYANCMU teaches struggling NL50 and NL100 players

[CaptVimes]

A general question, not related specifically to ssnl. When you make a change in your game, such amping up aggression or adding more hands how many hands did it take before you feel comfortable postflop with your game?

Edit: Thanks for the thread. Soo much good stuff.

[RyanCMU]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Ryan, great thread and thanks for taking the time.

Just a question following on from the AQo discussion earlier. I was pretty surprised you 3bet this so often, I usually do the opposite and 3bet about 15% of the time, fold the rest. Here's why, maybe you can tell me where I'¨m going wrong.

You're assigning a hand range of ATo+, 98s+,22+. I assume you're also including at least A9s+ for the complete range, tho maybe not KJs.

That's about a 13% pfr range, against which AQo is a very slight favourite, around 50.5%. So, I can see why it makes sense to 3bet that range with these cards. But I just wonder whether you're being a bit optimistic with your ranging.

I've been doing some work on my own 3 bet range recently. I play Ongame 50NL, which is 10 handed.

The average stats for all players over about 60k hands is about 18/7. Average for regulars with 500 hands or more is about 15/7. It's very unusual to see a pfr of more than 10, in fact I am one of the most aggressive with an average PFR of just under 11.

Adjusting for position, my pfr never really goes over 10 earlier than CO and I am unusually aggressive. I would say the typical range is probably about 8% at most, which is more like 88+, AJs+, QJs+, KQo+. Against that range, AQo is a 48% dog.

So, my 3bet range here is really just AA-QQ, AKo, AQs+.

Are we comparing apples and pears, am I being too conservative, what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to think about it this way...

If they are opening lets just hypothetically for arguments sake 10%, yet, are only calling my 3bet w/ 4.5% of their range. We have shown a profit the times they have folded that 5.5% that is in their opening and then folding range.

Ok, but, wait, the hands they are calling w/ have my AQo crushed from an equity standpoint? Yes, this is true. However, lets now move onto the flop.

Think about how often post flop they will be folding to a c bet from us? It's very hard for them to play their limited range post flop vs us, they basically have to make a strong hand to continue or have their premium/upper end pair still be feeling comfortable. How many times are they forced to fold AKhi to our cbets, what about JJ on a Khi board? See what I'm getting at?

And now back to ranges, if we have a wide 3betting range, and they have a narrow 3bet calling range. It's going to be very hard for them to know where they stand post flop vs us.

If they do have a hand and they play back at us, it's easy for us to know where we stand vs their range, since so many regulars and TAGs play so honestly post flop.

Notice how our hand strength has not even been relevant yet? 3betting and aggression is about more then just how your range stacks up vs theirs.

[RyanCMU]

[ QUOTE ]
A common situation I found troubling when I first started at 100NL was holding an overpair or like an AK that hits and then having my c-bet min raised. especially when I'm out of position. Obviously, there are a lot of variables that go into a situation like this, but maybe you could talk about some of the things you analyze in such a situation.

For example lets say its folded to you in MP and you raise with QcQs (you have a solid tag image), you are called by the button (100bb deep, same as you and you have his stats at 12/10/2.5 and no other reads) and everyone else folds. Flop comes 4c8cTd, you lead for 3/4 on the pot and he min-raises you. It isn't uncommon at SSNL for a player to min-raise a set like this, it's also not uncommon for a player to be 'feeler' raising you with like AT, JJ or 99, additionally they could be raising with a flush or straight draw trying to slow you down/maybe pick up the pot here or at least get you to give them a free river. To me, these are the types of decisions on how to proceed that separate the better players from the good ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never seen a min raise from a competent player that wasn't an accident. The times I have seen seemingly competent players make min raises they have been horrible situations, and having seen them so, quickly changed my perspective of them from competent to donk.

If we assume he is 12/10/2.5 like you said, I think we also have to assume that he is a reasonable player.

If a reasonable player really going to miss out knowingly on possible FE, by min raising a draw on the flop? Certainly never w/ their strong combo draws.

Would they really minraise a set on a coordinated board like that? Thanks for pricing me in w/ a FD, with your meaningless raise?

If we can start to make assumptions and generalizations about their play based on their stats, we can sort of narrow down what he would be min raising here. In your example vs. a seemingly resonably (stat wise) TAG, I think if he did min-raise here (which I don't think would ever happen) his range would be like you said AT/JJ/99 marginal 1pair type hands. And we can proceed accordingly.

I find though that really the only player type that is min raising us regularly (aside from horrible donks that populate the games) are the 10/3/1 nits who are on 24/7. And usually from them it's almost always a set or a slow played premium over pair.

Also, sometimes a c/mr is a lot different then a minraise when they have posistion. I find the horrible players are more likely to minraise in pos. w/ draws marginal hands, and when they c/mr its generally on the upper end of their range.

Again, in all my hands at SSNL, I really don't remember getting min raised very often by reasonable opponents.

[RyanCMU]

[ QUOTE ]
A general question, not related specifically to ssnl. When you make a change in your game, such amping up aggression or adding more hands how many hands did it take before you feel comfortable postflop with your game?

Edit: Thanks for the thread. Soo much good stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't think of it as if your making a huge change to your game and your suddenly "ramping up the aggression." That should be happening, because it implies that we are mindlessly just becoming more aggressive.

You don't just make changes to your game and start doing them, you learn something new and then apply it in situations where its applicable.

So many people just are like "I heard to be more aggressive" and they jump into games and just start spewing.

When you are making changes to your game you need to be confident why you are making these changes and know when its correct to implement them.

When I first learn a new concept or when I am experimenting w/ something. I will often cut down on my tables significantly and really look hard for situations where I can use what I am just learned or a spot where what I am experimenting w/ fits. By really putting forth the effort to reason out why we are making these changes to our game and then paying attention and recognizing the situations, you will become comfortable and acclimated to whatever you are integrating into your game very quickly.

Like for example, lets say you wanted to start 3betting lighter PF in pos vs other regulars. Some peoples thinking of how to apply this would be to slowly start widening your range and get comfortable. Start w/ like A9s then move gradually towards the more extremes ends of your light range as your grew comfortable in those situations. Thats fine for some people and I guess it works, however, its not what I do.

If I am integrating a concept into my play or chancing up something, I'm doing so because I have a real reason too not just because I was told to do so. So because I already know why I am making these changes, I don't need to ease my way into being comfortable, since I will always be able to defend my plays w/ sound reasoning, it becomes easy to just kind of jump right in so to speak.

If you understand why you are making changes to your game, I mean truly understand, its very easy to just effortlessly meld them into your game.

[spainfull]

great post, Ryan. I was writing something similar in spanish (but much shorter) for people changing from NL50 to NL100, and about the stats and winnings ratios also. I would like to know if i can summarize and translate your thoughts for completing the article. Thanks for sharing it. By the way, nick in PS? The search in this forum is not very good and I'd prefer to avoid you (or sitting for learning) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Ctrl.Dominate]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to think about it this way...

If they are opening lets just hypothetically for arguments sake 10%, yet, are only calling my 3bet w/ 4.5% of their range. We have shown a profit the times they have folded that 5.5% that is in their opening and then folding range.

Ok, but, wait, the hands they are calling w/ have my AQo crushed from an equity standpoint? Yes, this is true. However, lets now move onto the flop.

Think about how often post flop they will be folding to a c bet from us? It's very hard for them to play their limited range post flop vs us, they basically have to make a strong hand to continue or have their premium/upper end pair still be feeling comfortable. How many times are they forced to fold AKhi to our cbets, what about JJ on a Khi board? See what I'm getting at?

And now back to ranges, if we have a wide 3betting range, and they have a narrow 3bet calling range. It's going to be very hard for them to know where they stand post flop vs us.

If they do have a hand and they play back at us, it's easy for us to know where we stand vs their range, since so many regulars and TAGs play so honestly post flop.

Notice how our hand strength has not even been relevant yet? 3betting and aggression is about more then just how your range stacks up vs theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very, very good post. I have been finding myself in tough spots post-flop after 3 betting regulars lately. This was very insightful, Thanks.
PS: Coach me plz. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ninjadanger]

[ QUOTE ]
I think an important part in a poker players progression, is when they learn that its ok to stop multi tabling and sacrifice the hourly for a short term, so that they can become a better player.

So many robotic TAG players that are just giving up money and hurting their games by never taking the time to cut down on the tables and improve.

My advice to any struggling player, is to for the next few sessions you play cut down your tables to 4-6 and just focus on your play. The small $$ you sacrafice in short term hourly, will be worth it by the improvments you will make in your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

first of all this entire thread is nasty. one of my boys that plays NL100 on stars and I were actually talking about you the other day and how you are virtually the only reg at NL100 we respect... I don't remember how it came up but yea, big ups...

the quote above is possibly the best general advice in this thread. last month was a 40k hand breakeven stretch for me and it sucked balls. I was playing 16 tables and running like 12/10/5. way too nitty for my ability imo. my winrate had been sorta meh (~2ptbb/100) before October and once I went through that stretch I decided I needed to revamp the game.

I played 6 tables for about 10k hands running 19/14/4.5 and my winrate spiked. I actually kinda ran bad too during that sample with Won$SD ~49%, it was sick.

I doubt I'll be able to keep up this style of TAG playing more than 12 tables so I think I'm going to limit myself to that. like you I MUST toke before playing a session. it keeps my emotions in check and, ironically enough, helps me to focus. on the downs side herb does inhibit my ability to play more than 12 tables at a vpip greater than like 12 but as my little experiment proved to me I'm MUCH better off playing 12 well than auto piloting 16+.

[effang]

let's talk more about 3/b pots. Online poker doesn't really offer players as many options in 3/b pots since most times it is 100 bb stacks against 100 bb stacks. In those situations, any bet/call on any street almost commits us to the rest of the hand.

let's say that you PFR A6ss and get 3/b by a tag reg who likes to squeeze. You make a loose call looking to take it away. The board comes T62, and you are doubtful that it hit his range. (28 bb pot)

for whatever reason, you float him on the flop instead of raising the flop. (72 bb pot) he checks to you on the turn, and you bet out. He c/r AI (178, 22~ more for you to call), and now, you have bottom pair with little chance to improve, but purely given pot odds you have to be calling.

So, in these examples, you're floating with a weakish hand, but with only 100 bb stacks, you're forced to call the turn AI in the off chance you can catch...

so what's the worse play, floating the flop? or betting the turn...because folding on the turn to the AI when you already put so much money into the pot can't be good. (should have made your decision before).

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
let's say that you PFR A6ss and get 3/b by a tag reg who likes to squeeze. You make a loose call looking to take it away. The board comes T62, and you are doubtful that it hit his range. (28 bb pot)

for whatever reason, you float him on the flop instead of raising the flop. (72 bb pot) he checks to you on the turn, and you bet out. He c/r AI (178, 22~ more for you to call), and now, you have bottom pair with little chance to improve, but purely given pot odds you have to be calling.

So, in these examples, you're floating with a weakish hand, but with only 100 bb stacks, you're forced to call the turn AI in the off chance you can catch...

so what's the worse play, floating the flop? or betting the turn...because folding on the turn to the AI when you already put so much money into the pot can't be good. (should have made your decision before).

[/ QUOTE ]

4bet preflop is way better than calling with A6s, vs someone that squeezes a lot(obv call a shove)

shove flop is better than calling(you still have 25% equity vs most of his calling range, and there is a ton in the middle already)

[Specialwon]

Re the AQo example (I don't want to clutter the thread by repeating it all):

You are saying that 3betting forces your opponent to either turn his hand more or less face up or fold. He will fold more than half the time. (actually I expect to get a fold more like 2 in 3 but w/e).

In any case, the pf folds don't entirely fund this exercise. Sometimes he 4bets and we fold. Sometimes he flatcalls and we have to play a flop. I am thinking we likely lose at least as many flops as we win, particularly with AQo.

In your example, you suggest his calling range might be 4% -say AA-TT, AKo, AQs+. I guess there is a slight bias away from the ultrapremium end of that range bc most guys would 4bet at least half the time with AA/KK and maybe more.

Now, a large chunk of that range is AK. So with AQo, we have a pretty acute domination problem and can't safely play an A hi flop.

My point is, are we not better off substituting a bunch of suited aces or pocket pairs for AQo. That way we can maintain a similar 3bet frequency, we hit the flop less often but we get a lock when we do, and can take a whole stack. We can also still do the c-bets on boards that are likely to be dangerous to our opponents.

What do you think?