Moved from NL400 to NL100, Some observations

[PartySNGer]

I guess this will kind of be a general strategy post based on some differences I've observed between NL400 (played about 150k hands at this level at ~$150/hour) and the first 25k hands of NL100 I've played. The reason for me moving to NL100 was a recent large purchase which decimated my BR, plus I thought it'd be fun to work my way up from NL100 back to NL400 or NL600.

First off, at NL400 I played a pretty common TAG style. Ran about 19/13 or so with a decent amount of 3-bets with suited connectors and such and continuation betting most of the pots I raised pre. What I've noticed at NL100 is that I've had to make some fairly significant adjustments. First off, I find myself more unwilling to push slight edges, for example if I flop a pair and flush draw vs. an aggro player in NL400 my default line would be to try and check-raise all in. I would often have a decent amount of Fold Equity and be a likely coinflip if called. In NL100, there is little reason for me to take a slight edge here when I can wait and usually find a much better spot fairly quickly. There players just love to stack off with TPMK even when I've shown great strength. B/c these players have much greater calling station tendencies I find myself wanting to play a lot fewer pots OOP and raise more holdings than usual from LP. I also continuation bet a great deal less when I raise pre-flop. My continuation bet success rate is a great deal higher at NL400 than NL100. Although I rarely slowplay in NL400, there is virtually no reason to slowplay at NL100 unless you have the deck absolutely crippled. B/c of these changes my stats have gone from something like 19/13/4 at NL400 to 21/9/2.5 at NL100. I am playing a lot more of an ABC style of poker b/c fancy plays and 3-bets out of position with junk are much less effective.

Just wondering if these observations coincide with what others have witnessed, specifically those who have played a lot of MSNL and NL100 recently.

[Rotterdaum]

interesting observations. You seem to have a very intuitive, unorthodox playing style. At least it's not very popular. Most good players at any level have their VPIP and PFR very close, hoewver there are players that are successfl with just about any style.

I'v played a ton of 400 NL and now playing 200 NL, due to downswings, expenses, lack of confidence blah blah.

I'm just bumping this thread cause I think it's interesting, but I'm not actually going to contribute any worthwhile analysis right now because I don't have time.

In short, in my experience at 200 NL, the players respond more predictably to strong bets, and are less aggessive in general. Also a lot more players randomly go haywire and donate. A good environment in all. What I like about 200 NL right now is that while players are not exactly world class, they are not nits .... that is a big topic

[tedtodd]

Good insight.

[SEABEAST]

[ QUOTE ]
In NL100, there is little reason for me to take a slight edge here when I can wait and usually find a much better spot fairly quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense... If you had said "because vs weak opponents I can probably still get value from my hand on later streets if I make my draw anyway" then fine, but find a better spot? It's a cashgame dude.

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In NL100, there is little reason for me to take a slight edge here when I can wait and usually find a much better spot fairly quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense... If you had said "because vs weak opponents I can probably still get value from my hand on later streets if I make my draw anyway" then fine, but find a better spot? It's a cashgame dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the same thing. Unless of course, you are both significantly deeper than the max buy-in. Then, maybe there is an argument for 'finding a better spot'.

[PBJaxx]

I would really like to hear more on this topic. Maybe that baller True can chime in now that he is running around the $1000NL games!

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In NL100, there is little reason for me to take a slight edge here when I can wait and usually find a much better spot fairly quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense... If you had said "because vs weak opponents I can probably still get value from my hand on later streets if I make my draw anyway" then fine, but find a better spot? It's a cashgame dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what you mean and I'm pretty sure I understand what he means, and I sort of agree with him in a way but not totally. There are times when playing against really bad players, where you can make a high variance slightly +EV shove with a combo draw into their certain overpair and get your money in as a small favorite or underdog (but still +EV with the dead money), but at the same time you could just peel off with a draw and win their stack if you hit. Both are +EV, but the latter is clearly the most +EV play if you know you're just going to break the guy (and leave him drawing dead no less) if you hit your hand. This also directly correlates to the stakes you're playing. The higher you're playing the more aggressive the game plays and the better the players get. Calling with a draw against a certain player might not be the best play because he won't have a hand to pay you off with or is good enough to get away from his hand, there are almost no players like this at 100nl but plenty at 400nl and above. Therefore shoving with a draw is better because you actually have a lot of fold equity and obviously if you get called no big deal.

What I agree with you about and disagree with him about, is if there was a situation where you were getting more than the right odds to make a call with say the nut flush draw on the flop and decided to fold and "look for a better spot." Assuming you're properly bankrolled, folding is a clear mistake.

[PartySNGer]

[ QUOTE ]
interesting observations. You seem to have a very intuitive, unorthodox playing style. At least it's not very popular. Most good players at any level have their VPIP and PFR very close, hoewver there are players that are successfl with just about any style.

I'v played a ton of 400 NL and now playing 200 NL, due to downswings, expenses, lack of confidence blah blah.

I'm just bumping this thread cause I think it's interesting, but I'm not actually going to contribute any worthwhile analysis right now because I don't have time.

In short, in my experience at 200 NL, the players respond more predictably to strong bets, and are less aggessive in general. Also a lot more players randomly go haywire and donate. A good environment in all. What I like about 200 NL right now is that while players are not exactly world class, they are not nits .... that is a big topic

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the main reason for the gap between my VPIP and PFR occurs b/c I tend to 3 bet a lot less from the blinds and even slightly less in position. When playing NL400+ it's important to throw in 3 bets with less than optimal hands if you want action on your monsters, but in NL100 the players are far less perceptive and won't notice near as much that you are only raising premium hands. Also, in NL400 I love to 3-bet hands like 75s from the blinds against an EP open-raiser, but I think this play isn't as useful in NL100 when you're dealing with a calling station type player who will rarely fold to your PF 3-bet or flop c-bet. This is what primarily accounts for the increased gap in my numbers at this level.

[PartySNGer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In NL100, there is little reason for me to take a slight edge here when I can wait and usually find a much better spot fairly quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense... If you had said "because vs weak opponents I can probably still get value from my hand on later streets if I make my draw anyway" then fine, but find a better spot? It's a cashgame dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what you mean and I'm pretty sure I understand what he means, and I sort of agree with him in a way but not totally. There are times when playing against really bad players, where you can make a high variance slightly +EV shove with a combo draw into their certain overpair and get your money in as a small favorite or underdog (but still +EV with the dead money), but at the same time you could just peel off with a draw and win their stack if you hit. Both are +EV, but the latter is clearly the most +EV play if you know you're just going to break the guy (and leave him drawing dead no less) if you hit your hand. This also directly correlates to the stakes you're playing. The higher you're playing the more aggressive the game plays and the better the players get. Calling with a draw against a certain player might not be the best play because he won't have a hand to pay you off with or is good enough to get away from his hand, there are almost no players like this at 100nl but plenty at 400nl and above. Therefore shoving with a draw is better because you actually have a lot of fold equity and obviously if you get called no big deal.

What I agree with you about and disagree with him about, is if there was a situation where you were getting more than the right odds to make a call with say the nut flush draw on the flop and decided to fold and "look for a better spot." Assuming you're properly bankrolled, folding is a clear mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct here. I didn't quite word it correctly in my original post. What I meant is in spots where I would push a small edge b/c I think I have a decent amount of FE (in NL400), I might elect to play a lot slower in NL100 and peel a card b/c I stand a good chance of stacking him anyway. With my adjusted style for NL100 I am still making about $110/hour (RB incl.) 12-tabling, but variance has been almost non-existant thru 30k hands. I think my biggest downswing has been 3 or 4 buyins, which isn't much at all.

[PartySNGer]

One other observation I might add: there's a frustratingly large amount of multi-playing TAGs in the NL100 level. Granted, these TAGs aren't near as tough as the NL400 ones, but it's frustrating to look around at a 6-max table and see 3-4 opponents in the 22/15 stat range, especially at such a low buy-in cash game.