The Übernit

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]

For example at 10NL on a friday night where you have 2 or 3 players than are like 40 vpip or higher at your table playing a LAG stlye is like burning money IMO cause that lag stlye depends somewhat on FE and in this game you pretty much never have any FE

[/ QUOTE ]


Well that is not quite true imo, Lag actually relies on good hand reading more than FE, you enter a lot of pots and valuebet very thin (and not just only bluff like mad)

Imagine this, you are at a table with four nits and one fish (loose passive fella). Then you will play lag not to bluff the fish, but to isolate him and then play a lot of pots, you don't mind him stacking you, as you know that as long as he doesn't leave, he will make mistakes and you will profit.

At a saturday night 10NL table you are playing only fish, so everytime you raise, you are isolating a fish ... but that does not mean you can't play a wide range and just read postflop. Still the latter is difficult, and if you have that kind of skill, then you perhaps shouldn't be playing 10NL. (Unless you've moved down to experiment)

[Triggerle]

Regarding being a TAGfish, I play a different nit style with some overlapping concepts and when people look over my play the first thing they say is OMG you are <u>so</u> exploitable. I fixed quite a few leaks over the last months by not preemptively countering exploitative strategies with -EV/high variance balancing strategies. This is because almost none of my opponents actually apply exploitative strategies: It doesn't matter if you are exploitable if noone exploits you.

Of course it helps to be able to spot and counter exploitation once it comes up but IMO that happens very rarely at nl50 and below and possibly even at higher limits if you table select well.

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
preemptively countering exploitative strategies with -EV/high variance balancing strategies.


[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure what you are aiming at, but there is nothing in what I describe that is preemtive or -EV.


What is a float ... well, you call a raise with a wide range, then you pay a flop bet, because you know that the turn will not be bet without a hand.


Now the thing is, that when you have a very tight range, if you are playing against someone loose, then he can't stand to call several bets from you, especially the big bets on the end, simply because his range is behind yours. And it will still be if you add a couple of 3 barrel bluff


Off course if you add too many 3 barrel bluffs, then you'll end up spewing.


But there is nothing preemtive nor -EV here. You maximize profit by adjusting your bluffing ranges to gameconditions.


Easier said than done .. sure, but that is it.


It is also a healthy mental exercise .. a bluff was called, then the reaction is: Cool, He can't call everytime profitably, so valuetown here we come.


Instead of


Hyahcaychaychacya ... How can he call with that ... Hyachaycahdfy (Tiltville here we come)

[Triggerle]

Gelford,

This wasn't directed at you (at all).

It is a general observation I made. People who review my hands often say that I can't just check/fold flop after flop because then the opponents will know that I have it if I don't. Then I show them that after check/folding several flops people still pay me off 3 pot sized bets with TPGK because they only play their hands.

[AZplaya]

one thing I noticed with this style is it seems like it would be higher variance. My normal style is 23/17, and much of my profit comes from winning lots of small pots. Raising atc in LP and taking it down with a cbet, calling in pozz and steal the pot post flop, stealing blinds, etc. So I'm playing smaller hands in smaller pots and getting away when the pot gets bigger than my hand. With this style, I was running at about 14/11, and entering pots with only big hands. So most of the pots I played in I had a big hand and was usually betting 2 or 3 streets with it, and playing for stacks quite a bit. Just seemed a bit higher variance since I was playing mainly in 3 bet pots with big hands I was willing to felt with.

[Guthrie]

I also came to NL cash from SnGs, and just recently. I have 23K hands of NL25 6-max at 22.37/12.86 and 2.35 BB/100, and often feel somewhat lost, especially with the donks.

So I tried your ubernit stragegy for 1K hands at the nickel tables:

VPIP 6.21
VPSB 8.70
Folded SB to steal 100.00
Folded BB to steal 92.00
Att to steal 10.24
W$WSF 28.07
Went to SD 21.64
Won$ at SD 48.65
PF raise 4.75
BB/100 6.79

It felt rather odd, but seemed to work. I don't know how much of that was playing the much smaller limits, and how much was the strategy itself. I flopped a lot of sets, got paid on a lot of big hands, then toward the end of the sample started taking some terrible beats, so I guess it averaged out.

It took a lot of self restraint to not steal, not complete the SB, and not call minraises. I also tried to play the nit postflop, foregoing a lot of what I would have done as a LAG.

I can see where this strategy would work well for an absolute noob. Play it for a few thousand hands, then start stealing and adding some additional hands. Might be a reasonable substitute to the normal LAG strategy at 6-max until you develop good postflop skills.

I think somewhere between this and what I've been trying might be a workable strategy.

[Check_The_Nuts]

[ QUOTE ]
one thing I noticed with this style is it seems like it would be higher variance. My normal style is 23/17, and much of my profit comes from winning lots of small pots. Raising atc in LP and taking it down with a cbet, calling in pozz and steal the pot post flop, stealing blinds, etc. So I'm playing smaller hands in smaller pots and getting away when the pot gets bigger than my hand. With this style, I was running at about 14/11, and entering pots with only big hands. So most of the pots I played in I had a big hand and was usually betting 2 or 3 streets with it, and playing for stacks quite a bit. Just seemed a bit higher variance since I was playing mainly in 3 bet pots with big hands I was willing to felt with.

[/ QUOTE ]

so the cliff notes are, if you play really tight, you end up playing a lot of bigger pots therefore there is higher variance.

but you kinda ignored the fact your edge in these hands is probably much greater (in an equity sense). So this isn't necessarily true.

It's also obvious that you'll have to have bigger average pots when you play less hands.

[MicroDonk666]

[/ QUOTE ].. ... ... but there is no doubt that spending too much time here on these forums might give you an impression that pokerplayers are better than they in fact are.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT after years of reading 2+2 and not having a whole heap of time to play poker i assume the level of play even at microstakes to be much better. Now I'm playing more i realize most ppl are dumb. really dumb (at micros)

[bozzer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
one thing I noticed with this style is it seems like it would be higher variance. My normal style is 23/17, and much of my profit comes from winning lots of small pots. Raising atc in LP and taking it down with a cbet, calling in pozz and steal the pot post flop, stealing blinds, etc. So I'm playing smaller hands in smaller pots and getting away when the pot gets bigger than my hand. With this style, I was running at about 14/11, and entering pots with only big hands. So most of the pots I played in I had a big hand and was usually betting 2 or 3 streets with it, and playing for stacks quite a bit. Just seemed a bit higher variance since I was playing mainly in 3 bet pots with big hands I was willing to felt with.

[/ QUOTE ]

so the cliff notes are, if you play really tight, you end up playing a lot of bigger pots therefore there is higher variance.

but you kinda ignored the fact your edge in these hands is probably much greater (in an equity sense). So this isn't necessarily true.

It's also obvious that you'll have to have bigger average pots when you play less hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

for a good discussion on this topic see this thread.

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
Gelford,

This wasn't directed at you (at all).

[/ QUOTE ]


I didn't think it was, I just couldn't quite tell what you meant, so I and posted an answer in case, you disagreed [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]