What yields you the most profit?

[CloserkinG]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to dig through my handhistories to explain how I play

[/ QUOTE ]

You are probably in the wrong place then. Thats what we do here. Seriously, the questions you ask are very broad. You are going to have to post hands in order for us to help you out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look if you read my original question it's pretty cut and dry. What games and how many do you play to make the most profit. Isn't that complicated. I wasn't asking for specific hand advice or I would post hand histories.

[CloserkinG]

[ QUOTE ]
Since nearly everyone here plays a TAG strategy, I would like to see and hear how you play a LAG strategy, so I can mix my game up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rarely cold call. I raise and I raise some more. I put people on the defensive. Most people play must hit the flop poker. I play you better hit the flop poker. It yields me a good profit. I usually get my mosters paid and rarely put too much at risk in a speculative play.

[Mike Kelley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since nearly everyone here plays a TAG strategy, I would like to see and hear how you play a LAG strategy, so I can mix my game up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rarely cold call. I raise and I raise some more. I put people on the defensive. Most people play must hit the flop poker. I play you better hit the flop poker. It yields me a good profit. I usually get my mosters paid and rarely put too much at risk in a speculative play.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a TAG strategy.

[flight2q]

[ QUOTE ]
Look if you read my original question it's pretty cut and dry.

[/ QUOTE ]

People aren't being overly helpful because your original post was silly and was saying like "hey, I played a few hours like this and if I can keep up this unsustainable win rate I'll be able to pay my rent with poker."

Okay. So now, seriously. futuredoc85 answered your question. I gave you an example. This is where the money comes from at these stakes. Play as many tables as you can while still "hand-reading and valuebetting, table selection"

[toymach776]

At 25NL it is clearly much more profitable to play a TAG strat at many tables than play a LAG strat at only a few. The exact answer as to how many tables to play is a tough question. Let us assume that your true winrate at 25NL playing TAG is ~5ptbb/100, which is reasonable. Let us also assume that playing LAG you can earn 7ptbb/100. (These numbers are totally off the top of my head). Lets say you play 2-3 tables with the LAG strat. but no more because playing LAG requires more attention to opponents tendencies, image, etc. 3 tables at a time playing LAG will yield ~7ptbb/100 per table. Assume that it takes 1.2 hours to play 100 hands per table so you will be earning ~21ptbb/1.2 hours.
Multitabling 25NL playing TAG earns 5ptbb/100 per table so playing 3 tables earns 15ptbb/1.2 hours. Also assume that adding one additional table past 3 playing TAG reduces your winrate linearly by 0.4ptbb/100. Every 1.2 hours you will be earning:

y=5x-0.4(x-3),

where x is # of tables

playing 6 tables e.g. yields: 28.8ptbb/1.2 hours, which as you can see is already higher than 3 tabling LAGgy.
You can even go further and use calculus to find what # of tables yields your max winrate using the above equation, but I wont go into that here.
If any of the math super nerds out there want to do so plaese do. Also if you could standardize the equation to ptbb/hour rather than 1.2 hours that would help.

[CloserkinG]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look if you read my original question it's pretty cut and dry.

[/ QUOTE ]

People aren't being overly helpful because your original post was silly and was saying like "hey, I played a few hours like this and if I can keep up this unsustainable win rate I'll be able to pay my rent with poker."

Okay. So now, seriously. futuredoc85 answered your question. I gave you an example. This is where the money comes from at these stakes. Play as many tables as you can while still "hand-reading and valuebetting, table selection"

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not to the letter specific but silly it is not. I have put any many hours on my game just asking for what other people do. I never played over 2 tables at once but now I'm venturing into it and wanted to see what others were doing. Asking for honest opinions is not silly. I'm not looking to be ridiculed for wanting to improve my game and profitability I'm just looking to go to the next level.

[CloserkinG]

[ QUOTE ]
At 25NL it is clearly much more profitable to play a TAG strat at many tables than play a LAG strat at only a few. The exact answer as to how many tables to play is a tough question. Let us assume that your true winrate at 25NL playing TAG is ~5ptbb/100, which is reasonable. Let us also assume that playing LAG you can earn 7ptbb/100. (These numbers are totally off the top of my head). Lets say you play 2-3 tables with the LAG strat. but no more because playing LAG requires more attention to opponents tendencies, image, etc. 3 tables at a time playing LAG will yield ~7ptbb/100 per table. Assume that it takes 1.2 hours to play 100 hands per table so you will be earning ~21ptbb/1.2 hours.
Multitabling 25NL playing TAG earns 5ptbb/100 per table so playing 3 tables earns 15ptbb/1.2 hours. Also assume that adding one additional table past 3 playing TAG reduces your winrate linearly by 0.4ptbb/100. Every 1.2 hours you will be earning:

y=5x-0.4(x-3),

where x is # of tables

playing 6 tables e.g. yields: 28.8ptbb/1.2 hours, which as you can see is already higher than 3 tabling LAGgy.
You can even go further and use calculus to find what # of tables yields your max winrate using the above equation, but I wont go into that here.
If any of the math super nerds out there want to do so plaese do. Also if you could standardize the equation to ptbb/hour rather than 1.2 hours that would help.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a great response thank you. I greatly appreciate it. I did notice I had to tighten up for 5 tables as 1 pot to the river takes my win rate down fairly quick so I have to be a lot more careful of the pots I enter which is definately going to be an adjustment to my usual 2 table strategy. Thanks for the calculation should help me get to where I'm wanting to be.

[toymach776]

No problem. I actually made a few mistakes in that post. Yout winrate should actually decrease quadratically rather than linearly e.g. -0.4x to the power 1.2. Then you can determine the # of tables that yield a max winrate. Anyway my post was only a brief summary of the math but it gives you an idea of how to think about this.