Question to FP etc. re 'Nits Apology'

Thanks for the great insights FP and all, on the GA thread:

A Nit's Apology (why tight is right for me)

Being and 'uber-nit' myself (mostly, but changing), I agree w some posters that the style you describe is more TAG, but perhaps we could say nitty- TAG, which is somewhere I would like to be more often.

Numwise, I'm interested in percentages I should be aiming at. So FP, with the style you are describing, can you describe optimum range for various positions?

So, if VP/PFR are overall 18/6, what numbers might be optimal in various positions in your opinion?

UTG
Hijack (Angelo)
CO
Button
SB
BB

?

I think i can answer that one for FP: you should not be aiming at percentages. Ever. Try playing some poker instead...

I think he's going for more ranges by position than numbers. At least a base range and then how you go about expanding or constricting your range based upon table dynamics.

Makwa have you read Fee's 6max guide? Its pretty decent about how to go about changing your ranges based upon others at the table with you.

You can find it Here. Just scroll down and fill in your info to get mailed the link. you can find it other ways but this ensures you get the most updated version.

Sorry for Belgo's post Makwa, I assume you were looking to get some actual advice and not a smarmy comment.

I've read through FP's post myself and recently changed up my game a bit, specifically adapting it to Full Ring, but the *theory* is what's important.

Are you playing 6max or Full ring is the first question ... but seriously regardless, let's just say you are playing full ring. if you are in the first 3 positions you should be super tight. what that means is up to you but take a good look at pokerstove and explore what those percentages actually mean.

The top players at full ring play between a 11/9 and a 14/12 style (typically). As you get farther along in position you theoretically open up more and more and more.

Again these numbers are for theory because I know you need some tangible information to make the theory real.

"Technically Speaking" an 11% range includes AA-77, AKs-A9s, AKo-ATo, and hands like KQ-KTs, KQo, QJs, QTs.

Now, if you play an 11/9 game (super nit) does that mean if you are on UTG+1 you open up with KQo? Probably not, that's a hand you have to play in late position. To reiterate, you really should look at pokerstove if you are interested in what these percentages mean ... because it will REALLY help you gauge what is inside someone's range.

Well, I can say if your VPIP and PFR are 18/6 the problem looks like you are calling too much and raising preflop too little. If you do some data analysis you can see that top winners typically have the range I mentioned of 11/9 to 14/12 but usually the VPIP and PFR percentages are only 2-4% different. It's time to tighten the belt preflop a little and when you get in a hand, be the initiator and not the caller.

I wish I could be more specific but I wanted to put something up that would help you that wouldn't take 4.5 days to write. As I think of more or as people chew up my post, I'll post again.

Sorry about the tone of my comment. But i do stand by its content. And i'm pretty sure FP would too, although he's take a 1000 words to say so, and it would end up a lot more interesting than what i could ever write.

I think that both are important to consider. Obv Makwa is looking for specific ranges to shoot for, and general things like "limp less raise more" are very helpful if someone has the basic understanding.

However, I agree with belgo too. While percentages can be helpful, aiming for certain percentages CAN mess up your game, so be careful

The optimum range for all positions are going to be mostly dependent on the table dynamics. Table conditions can be vastly different, and you need to adjust your range to them in order to exploit the tendancies of the opponents at your table and to increase your expectation.

Well said all, but let me re-ask.

I am asking FP, based on numbers posted in the golden thread, what he thinks optimum numbers might be for various positions.

We are talking short table, 6 max here.

Just some ballpark numbers please sir.

Poker is not percentages? Please send me a case of truffles from your castle in France...

Dammit this is a discussion based on stats as explained in OP post and the originating Link... on never 010011100111 norbal -1--1

you really shouldnt be going for a magic number is what they are saying. look at the link i posted and read the small book. it will help clear out alot.

Delta, I dont need your links, I would like to hear from FP and other contributors to the golden thread, within the particular parameters having being discussed.. for their input and ideas. An answer to the question I posed.
No more generic answers or links pls. No magic, just a simple question to the OP of originating thread. Am asking here because thread has been sent to thread heaven without being teased out enuff and now cannot continue there...
Can we get back to my question and can anyone plug in any numbers? FP?

BTW **** ryan fee and his silly site .

lol, so you know that aiming for numbers is absolutely silly, yet you're adamant about getting ballpark figures anyway? Someone give him these figures so he can be a perfect poker player overnight

Makwa you're really not listening to the people trying to help you here. You should not be aiming for specific numbers; there are no optimal stats. FP will tell you the same. Both a loose and a tight style can yield positive results. FP simply made a case for the tighter side.

In general you want to see your opening range widen almost exponentially as you move from EP to LP. Then in the blinds you should tighten up again.

As a general example, since you seem to be so set on the numbers, here are the stats of someone I consider to be a decent 'nit', EP to BB:

12/12
15/15
23/21
24/20
17/12
11/5

As others have pointed out I don't like trying to achieve stats; I think in terms of ranges. And my opening ranges for the different positions were in that original thread.

As for which hands I'd flat a raise with preflop, that's obviously dependent on who's doing the raising but in general, I'm tighter than most people there, too.

as of now i've officially lost respect for you. I tried to help and you basically told me to **** off if i wasnt FP. maybe next time send a PM if you dont want other help.

gg sir. way to be a d1ck

This is a great answer, txs, for full ring tho. I was trying to follow up on FPs thread which is 6 max. Well said for full ring tho... Im not sure how to get pokerstove to show ranges...

Of course, but the original thread and my question was about numbers overall (i.e. PT3 or HEM stats, not table dynamics).

If you read FPs thread, it is largely about aiming at/examining numbers, and it is not something one can do overnight. This type of stats introspection can be quite time consuming and exhaustive actually. And no, I dont think the numbers are the be-all-and-end-all answer, but they are benchmarks that can be used to examine ones game. That is a lifetime process, not an overnight one.

Txs very much for the reply to the question. Yes, there are optimal stats within each style, and here we are talking nit/TAG, and yes I will note those numbers above. I find the BB of 11/5 to be quite the drop in percentages; was not expecting that. BTW above produces overall of 17/14, which is tighter than in FPs thread (ouch).

OK txs. I am not trying to achieve stats so much as see how mine compare to others', to see what 'experts' think might be best ranges. If I see any wide discrepancy with my figures then there may be a hole that needs fixin'.

Sorry Delta, went a bit over top there. Its frustrating when a whack of people all talk around a simple question rather than try to answer it. Anyway, I appreciate your input too, just not what I needed for this discussion. Again, sorry for the flame.

Soo... we have above some numbers from ChuckT, and yes there are some ranges explained by FP in original thread, if anyone has any favorite numbers/ranges to add please do.

Yes we know it gets tighter or looser as we go around the orbit. I am trying to get specific, because if we can say our opening range is 17-19/14-16 overall, we should be able to also produce the numbers for each position. Thats all.

lol dude I give up

^^^ There are countless strategy threads here where people show graphs and numbers for examination and comment. And peeps make suggestions based on what they think are leaky ranges (for instance super low PFR percentages), and OPs go "Aha! txs for the insights and suggestions," and correct their games. So I dont see why considering optimal ranges for various styles is such a waste of time...

Again, we are not talking range as in openers (cards) and position, we are looking at range of VPIP/PFR from various positions. What is wrong with that?

Well, they're numbers.

But I recall Fredrik saying that players overall aggression stats at Party are not the same as at similar levels Chuck was finding at Stars, and they won't be the same at different levels either. So the same stats won't work the same everywhere anyway.

But, it's a start, I guess.

Txs. Dont think we will go much further here. A lot of resistance from players (some of whom are avid graph and stat posters), stating that stats and ranges are not the point. Yet they compare stats and ranges across rooms, and these are fundamental to their thinking. Go figure...

Yes a very good point Lions, numbers are not universal across rooms or levels. But there ARE commonalities/differences that would be great to discuss.

But we need a baseline to work from. This thread was to cover nit-TAG short table. So far we have one from icemonkey (FR) and one from chuck, and some ranges from FPs most excellent originating thread...

Nothing wrong with numbers 0100111001

Makwa, I see what you're saying and I think I know what the difference is.

It's much easier and more productive when people post their stats, because that means they have already figured out a playing style and people are able to help them correct leaks in the game.

The reason people are so hesitant to post numbers is because we do NOT know your style. We don't want to put you in the position of playing more hands than you're used to.

So overall what I'm saying is that the reason you're not getting satisfactory answers is because we can only help you perfect your style of play, not create one for you that may not be good for you.

There are no optimal stats within each style. If your looking for some baseline stats by position to attain a certain vpip/pfr, that will have nothing to do with what is optimal. So perhaps it is how you phrased your question. Noone here is trying to be difficult or evasive with regards to your question.

Here is some stats from someone in my database with ~18/16 style or so
(maybe slightly looser than that)
sb-21/16
bb-12/9
ep-12/12
mp-14/13.5
co-20/18
Bu-30/28

Nah. I want to know what peeps think r best numbers for ring. Not post mine. They are forlorn and dismal. I want to hear what are optimal numbers, please read thread(s) carefully. BTW my style of play works fine for me, I really dont play HE, no need to change for now. I love to know what the pros put online tho, dont u?

BTW James u must read before posting. I am uber-nit as in OP opener100010000001010111

Such a super cool answer, with numbers we can think about and use, txs.

Dang I will have to start a database soon to collate. Txs cat.

There are always optimal stats, situations etc. There is a thing called a baseline. Txs for yr Data0200110010010000

How did 2 get in there? o 01001001

BTW buddy is playing fat and also needs to beef the CO a bit...

I don't think I understand why you post replies followed by random lines of text that consist of ones and zeros.

I am living proof that there is a flaw in at least part of the supposition here.

But no way am I posting my numbers. I dislike mockery. Though my bb/100, #busto, and a few other stats are hard to mock several others are not!

I did read the OP Makwa, but I'm just trying to explain why others might not want to share their numbers (also they might not want to broadcast how they play to the world).

I think the 2nd line was making fun of the first actually

I slip into binary sometimes because I have been absorbed by the Borg. Also can erupt in binary humor, txs James.

See threads Banned Welcomed Deleted and Looped, and I am BOT.