***uNL Microbrew Thread*** NOV 2007 (ot)

[thing85]

[ QUOTE ]
it´s negelgible compared to the benifit of playing 2 as many tables (slightly lower winrate/2 as much rb)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100%. The difference in winrates is absolutely compensated for by playing more tables and winning more $/hour. But, if you take some time to improve your play and style, when you step back up to 8 tables you will be a better player and can win even more than you did if you never lowered your tables to improve your play. 8 tables after adjusting your play >> Moving up limits and immediately playing 8 tables.

If the low # of tables is really boring you and affecting your play negatively, mix in a couple low-limit SnGs or something to keep you occupied while you have nothing to do on your cash tables.

[monkover]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
thing really good post imo. the only point i don´t agree on with you is that limiting the number of tables imo is no a good idea. I did that every time i tried to move up to 200nl and i started doing fancy stuff and consequently lost money. last time i tried to move up to 200nl (this weekend) is just continued 8 tableing played my solid TAG game and beat the games at imo a very good rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you're right if you assume people get too fancy when they play less tables. If you need more tables to force you to play nitty/TAG, then that may work for you. My point was that you can't really focus on the nuances of the new limit if you're just focused on folding and playing the same nitty way you played at your previous limit. I'm not saying you won't be a winner - you probably will be. However, you're become much more vulnerable to aggression because you haven't taken the time to adjust your play. You'll probably fold to most 3bets, and not 4bet in spots where it's warranted. You also don't get as good of reads, so when someone is constantly 2-barreling you with air and you're folding turns that you should be raising, you're missing value. I'm not saying you should stay at a low # of tables. Maybe you only need 5k hands to adjust instead of 10k. I just think you need some amount of adjustment time where you really focus and think about your every move before getting back to playing more of an autopilot style.

[/ QUOTE ]

I´m still 4beting light and calling down with w/e if i think it is warranted. there are other players at ssnl that 12table 200nl and win at 12ptbb/100

[thing85]

12 tabling and winning 12ptbb/100 is not even remotely near sustainable play.

[monkover]

[ QUOTE ]
12 tabling and winning 12ptbb/100 is not even remotely near sustainable play.

[/ QUOTE ]

really? ask thac i was chatting with him a couple of days ago about a LAG he´s 2p2 but forgot his name brad or osomething and he´s running at that rate. and imo it is sustainable if you are good enough

[thing85]

Maybe it's possible for a small handful of exceptional players (although I still don't believe it can be done over a large enough sample), but we're discussing something to try and apply it to the majority of players here.

[Spurious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
12 tabling and winning 12ptbb/100 is not even remotely near sustainable play.

[/ QUOTE ]

really? ask thac i was chatting with him a couple of days ago about a LAG he´s 2p2 but forgot his name brad or osomething and he´s running at that rate. and imo it is sustainable if you are good enough

[/ QUOTE ]

the LAG isnt 12 tabling i guess
there is a big difference

[Wilpro]

Just looked through the SSNL FT regs thread, only a few players are getting close to 5ptbb/100 over a 10k+ sample size. Really can't believe people are beating it for 12ptbb/100 12 tabling.



Stole that from in there for biggest winners

[hennnerz]

Pretty sure those numbers are in bb/100 yeah?

[LT22]

those are definitely ptbb/100

[Wilpro]

PTBB isnt it?

56344 hands at 2x ($4.86/100) = 5477 from first example