RYANCMU teaches struggling NL50 and NL100 players

[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)

[effang]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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)

[/ QUOTE ]

ok...let's not ignore everything i said, but moving on to your example.

4-betting A6ss and calling a shove, produces a very similar problem. When a tag reg is 5-betting you and you are calling, you are always behind, and very likely to be dominated. However, you're still calling because you already put in 1/2 your stack PF. So, which is the bigger error, 4/betting light? or calling a 5/bet light?

i guess in the nl200 games this probably works a lot better, but i've tried this move a few times, and i can't remember the last time i won/sucked out.

a bigger concern is...what if your hand isn't as strong as A6ss? How about QTss+ KTss+ 67ss+? Would you still pull these same moves without a suited ace? I think you can with 67ss because you're rarely dominated, but the other two you've gotta dump almost all the time right?

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
4-betting A6ss and calling a shove, produces a very similar problem. When a tag reg is 5-betting you and you are calling, you are always behind, and very likely to be dominated. However, you're still calling because you already put in 1/2 your stack PF. So, which is the bigger error, 4/betting light? or calling a 5/bet light?

i guess in the nl200 games this probably works a lot better, but i've tried this move a few times, and i can't remember the last time i won/sucked out.

a bigger concern is...what if your hand isn't as strong as A6ss? How about QTss+ KTss+ 67ss+? Would you still pull these same moves without a suited ace? I think you can with 67ss because you're rarely dominated, but the other two you've gotta dump almost all the time right?

[/ QUOTE ]

you 4bet because his squeezing range is wide, and there will be a ton of money in there for the taking, though very very few .5/1 players have wide squeeze ranges, same goes for 1/2 for the most part

if the squeezing range is really small, doing anything other than folding is burning money, unless he really really likes folding overpairs in RR pots

if you think their calling range is AK, QQ+

have the following equity vs that range

A6s-A2s 28.8-30.1(A5s is the best, then 4, 3, 2,6 all pretty close)
KQs 25.1
KJs 25.7
KTs 26.1
QJs 28.4
QTs 28.8
76s 31
65s 31.1(43s-JTs all outperform the broadway hands, and a few more outperform Ax hands)
86s 29.8 1gappers work pretty well too it seems

the next best hand calling range hands are JJ, AQs adding them to the range changes the equity

A2-6s 30
KQs 29.3
KJs 28.0
KTs 28.4
QJs 29.3
QTs 29.5
76s 30.5
65s 30.6
86s 29.3

wide variety of hands run basically equal here vs that range(weird sidenote, if you add AQo, TT, KJs becomes the best hand vs the range)

increased calling range helps all the hands, KQs gaining the most, but also tends to go with a smaller folding range, which is essential for re-squeezing

it looks more like personal preference on which hands you mix in to balance vs overaggro squeezers

[Landlord79]

Ryan,
I recently added Axs to my iso-raising range from LP and would like to know if there is a certain number of pf-limpers that you stop isoing at w/ these hands.

Same for SPP's from LP.

Similarly, One SPR adjustment that I recently made (experimenting w/) is to raise to 3x+1 w/ Axs and <MPP's in MWLP's. I have also mixed in some premium hands with this raise when I think I can get it heads up at a tight table or w/ fewer pf-limpers already acting ahead of me. I keep the 4x+1 in stronger spots where I really want a lower SPR or I want the most FE w/ my hands. Good strategy or should I abandone it?

[KurtSF]

Hey Ryan, nice thread. I'm going to tell a little story and then ask a few questions, so if you don't like tl;dr posts just skip the next paragraph of backstory and move on to the meat below.

I am the struggling 50NL player you're talking about. I was solidly beating 50NL and having good results taking a shot at 100NL when (for various reasons) I took a 6 month hiatus from online poker. My game was [censored] when I returned, so I started out at 25NL and it took a good two weeks to put my game back together. But I did put it back together and after a month I was winning a lot and confident again, so I moved to 50NL where I wanted to grind out a roll to move back to 100NL. It wasn't to be though. I got absolutely obliterated at 50NL. (It was so bad I downloaded a poker EV calculator and found out I was $1500 below expectation in all-in situations (yes, 30 buyins!) so whatever leaks there are, and rest assured there are many, I was also running sick cold.) So I "tightened up" to "get it back together" and just play for straight value. The thing is, by narrowing my range I fell right into the pit you are describing - I became one of the robotic 12-tabling TAGs that are so easy to exploit. It really felt like my hand was face up all the time, and reading your posts I realize that essentially it *was* face up to my opponents. I dropped back down to 25NL and things are going swimmingly there. Its like printing money (albeit twenty-five cents at a time), so I'll soon be rolled for 50NL again and will be back taking shots. This time I have promised myself to do it "right" - not just opening 50NL tables instead of 25NL and grinding my style, but reading and re-reading some books, reducing my tables, studying like mad, and basically giving my game a complete overhaul in the move up.




Anyway, your posts struck a chord with something I've been thinking about lately which is range balancing in a 100BB game. Basically, 100BB seems so small or awkward to me right now. You mention getting 3 streets of value, but 3-streets of value is at least half my stack (often more if the pot is multi-way or 3-bet), which means that any playback at me results in playing for stacks. I already stack off light too much (one of the afore mentioned leaks), and if I don't have a "get the stacks in hand" I have to fold. So this opens me up to being exploited by floating and, well, any random aggression. But if I tighten up then my perceived range in a given hand is small and opens me up to being exploited by anyone paying attention (basically they can get away whenever I have a hand and I never get paid).

Now if I had a shorter stack I could just play a game of entering pots when my 2 cards beat the villain's range and just play 2-street poker. If I had a deeper stack (>200BBs) I could manipulate pot equity and fold equity and keep my play +EV. But recently 100BB stacks have me feeling "in between", unable to put anything together, and open to exploitation from all sides.

Do you have any advice about finding the balance? Reading these forums I know there's a solid tight-aggressive style for 100BB stacks, but I'm oscillating between nit and spewtard and can't find it. Sorry about the ridiculously open-ended question, but rambling stream-of-consciousness responses are cool.

For context, I usually play a 15/12 highly positional preflop game which is 10/10 UTG, takes a turn at the highjack and leaves me at 25/23 OTB. My flop play is decent, but I'm a fish on the turn and river, with my AF wavering, but around 1-1.5 on those streets. Yeah, I need help with that too.

[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?