I'm a winning player above 50nl but a losing player below!?

W

WinglessSoldier

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Total posts
60
Chips
0
I've been looking at my wins and losses in Hold'em Manager 2, and saw -450 losses in stakes below 50nl and +700 above 50nl. I'm still a losing player, usually playing 10nl or 20nl but now I'm considering just going back to 50 or 100nl. I'm not good at analyzing hands, but does anyone have an idea why I'm a losing player below 50nl and a winning player above? Also I'm a loose-aggressive player at 50nl and more tight below.
 
T

trent32la

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Total posts
2,852
Awards
1
Chips
0
From what your saying theres one of two things.
1. your mindset is too high for the lower stakes and you have trouble adjusting however at higher stakes your more comfortable there as your not thinking at too high of a level.
2. (which is what is probably the case) Your hand sample size at 50nl and 100nl is very small and you are winning short term which could just mean your running pure over a short time. Overrall 7-14 buyins at 50 and 100nl is not a lot and as stated above, you likely have a VERY small sample size in those games. Until you can beat the lower stakes I would not even consider playing 50/100nl since over a longer period of time your bound to go busto. If you need help with 10/20nl feel free to post hands here.
 
Jblocher1

Jblocher1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Total posts
2,645
Chips
0
From what your saying theres one of two things.
1. your mindset is too high for the lower stakes and you have trouble adjusting however at higher stakes your more comfortable there as your not thinking at too high of a level.
2. (which is what is probably the case) Your hand sample size at 50nl and 100nl is very small and you are winning short term which could just mean your running pure over a short time. Overrall 7-14 buyins at 50 and 100nl is not a lot and as stated above, you likely have a VERY small sample size in those games. Until you can beat the lower stakes I would not even consider playing 50/100nl since over a longer period of time your bound to go busto. If you need help with 10/20nl feel free to post hands here.


This sums it up nicely.


Sent from my iphone using Tapatalk
 
DrazaFFT

DrazaFFT

public static void
Bronze Level
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Total posts
6,188
Chips
0
You again!!! I dont have anything to add because Trent covered it nicely.

Thou i would love to see some screenshots of your micro stake reports and 50/100nl reports...
 
T

tomnovember

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Total posts
598
Chips
0
Actually... How many hands have you played in these levels that make you so certain that your are a winning player but not just meet a upper swing.
 
R

RamdeeBen

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Total posts
7,745
Chips
0
Must be sample size or run good, it's pretty much impossible to be able to beat better players but lose to bad players.
 
J

joe777

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 3, 2014
Total posts
2,694
Chips
0
You got to play at least 30k hand to determined the significant sample size with a 5BB/100 win rate at any stake.Maybe your current sample size is just not big enough to determine whether you are winning or losing.
 
S3mper

S3mper

Poker Not Checkers
Loyaler
Joined
May 13, 2013
Total posts
8,355
Awards
2
US
Chips
123
No one even considering the possibility that he plays better at 50NL because he is playing for $$$ and not pennies?

There probably right though sample size and run good...

I just don't like to go with the flow
 
C

Cymro

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Total posts
53
Chips
0
I imagine you can do better as a LAG or a donkey at 50 in the short term because the other players will be playing more sane. The LAG style simply will not work at lower stakes because half the players will call you down with bottom pair regardless of what you're representing.
 
J

JamaicanKid

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
May 25, 2013
Total posts
515
Awards
1
Chips
0
No one even considering the possibility that he plays better at 50NL because he is playing for $$$ and not pennies?

This made me laugh....rofl
 
W

WinglessSoldier

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Total posts
60
Chips
0
No one even considering the possibility that he plays better at 50NL because he is playing for $$$ and not pennies?

There probably right though sample size and run good...

I just don't like to go with the flow

I'm more careful with pennies then $$$.
 
C

cotta777

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Total posts
868
Chips
0
I have this problem.

Everything I have ever read as been aimed at High stakes poker advanced strategy books, like wsop learning what the best players are talking about and what sort of process they go day to day hand to hand.

I'm so much more comfortable dealing with players who are at the higher levels because I know exactly what they are doing, trying to do and what they are thinking.
And I can get tactical with them

where as playing low stakes It's a mixed barrel some are thinkers alot aren't.
I have alot of trouble respecting low stake players
and too often think they are donking or they are just cluelessly playing out of position, Chasing a 4 outer. And so on.
There are actually alot of solid players , but the value of the win is just hard for me to stay disciplined for
 
LD1977

LD1977

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Total posts
3,091
Chips
0
... Everything I have ever read as been aimed at High stakes poker advanced strategy books...

I have noticed this too lately. I have been reading a lot and some things that proven winners say are completely incorrect for 25-50NL Zoom, which is the game I play.
 
JPoling

JPoling

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
May 13, 2014
Total posts
756
Chips
0
This just seems wrong. I mean I don't know what your sample size you are basing it on. Yet, I can't figure out how you can be winning at highers but losing at lower. Really though, I have no idea what could be causing it. Maybe you are thinking to hard in the lower stakes? Maybe had really good run in higher stakes?
 
V

Vazh93

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 11, 2014
Total posts
25
Chips
0
Maybe you're just over thinking yourself. You have a mindset that you're playing with pros, but in truth you're actually playing with fish. I know a lot of guys who win when playing with pros but lose when playing with fish because they can't adapt.
 
S

swingro

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Total posts
1,634
Chips
0
I have noticed this too lately. I have been reading a lot and some things that proven winners say are completely incorrect for 25-50NL Zoom, which is the game I play.
Yes they are. You just use them the wrong way.
 
S

swingro

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Total posts
1,634
Chips
0
Maybe you're just over thinking yourself. You have a mindset that you're playing with pros, but in truth you're actually playing with fish. I know a lot of guys who win when playing with pros but lose when playing with fish because they can't adapt.
This is a lie. You do not know anyone that wins with pros and looses to fish because such a person does not exist.
 
JPoling

JPoling

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
May 13, 2014
Total posts
756
Chips
0
This is a lie. You do not know anyone that wins with pros and looses to fish because such a person does not exist.
+1...correct me if I am wrong but don't even the pros look for fish? Heck, there are "pros" that are fish. ::cough:: Jamie Gold ::cough::
 
S3mper

S3mper

Poker Not Checkers
Loyaler
Joined
May 13, 2013
Total posts
8,355
Awards
2
US
Chips
123
I think Daniel Negreanu proved that if you are able to beat the big games you will destroy the micros..

He took $10-$100 (Can't remember now) Started at the bottom and made 100K in one year slowly moving up.

He quickly destroyed the micros
 
JPoling

JPoling

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
May 13, 2014
Total posts
756
Chips
0
I think Daniel Negreanu proved that if you are able to beat the big games you will destroy the micros..

He took $10-$100 (Can't remember now) Started at the bottom and made 100K in one year slowly moving up.

He quickly destroyed the micros
Or another prime example...Chris Ferguson when he did that $0-10K challenge. And he kept going until like $20K. Started on freerolls and built his way up.
 
R

RamdeeBen

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Total posts
7,745
Chips
0
I think it comes down to this a lot, people who plays the micros really do try get far to creative calling down to light vs the "regs" or just want to out play them when there actually is no need what so ever because there are so many fish to increase your win rate you don't even need to do battle with the regs in unnecessary spots who are kind of thinking about hand ranges. So when they shot take 50nl vs thinking players and have people folding a lot of hands because they can actually hand read they feel it's easier to win vs them because you can put a range of hands on them.


Point is though, if you can't adapt correctly to the people who play only their hand and you end up playing tons of hands OOP or IP trying to get creative or thinking you can just out play them in every spot with your marginal hands you're hurting your win rate massively and you end up doing stupid stuff vs them. Just play a solid literally no bluff game vs the absolute fish at micros and you will have a very good win rate then once you build your roll go play 50nl but it's nonsense if you feel you can beat the thinking players but can't even beat stations or the absolute donkeys then there's literally no chance you will have a long term win rate vs good thinking players at 50nl because after a decent hand sample they will just destroy you.
 
R

RamdeeBen

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Total posts
7,745
Chips
0
I think Daniel Negreanu proved that if you are able to beat the big games you will destroy the micros..

He took $10-$100 (Can't remember now) Started at the bottom and made 100K in one year slowly moving up.

He quickly destroyed the micros


I'm pretty sure Daniel failed in that challenge from what I remember and he was using really bad BR management. I'm sure he was only using like 10 buy-ins or something stupid and managed to go on a heater go to 25nl/50nl and bust it all?

He for sure didn't run it up to $100k though.
 
Jblocher1

Jblocher1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Total posts
2,645
Chips
0
I think it comes down to this a lot, people who plays the micros really do try get far to creative calling down to light vs the "regs" or just want to out play them when there actually is no need what so ever because there are so many fish to increase your win rate you don't even need to do battle with the regs in unnecessary spots who are kind of thinking about hand ranges. So when they shot take 50nl vs thinking players and have people folding a lot of hands because they can actually hand read they feel it's easier to win vs them because you can put a range of hands on them.


Point is though, if you can't adapt correctly to the people who play only their hand and you end up playing tons of hands OOP or IP trying to get creative or thinking you can just out play them in every spot with your marginal hands you're hurting your win rate massively and you end up doing stupid stuff vs them. Just play a solid literally no bluff game vs the absolute fish at micros and you will have a very good win rate then once you build your roll go play 50nl but it's nonsense if you feel you can beat the thinking players but can't even beat stations or the absolute donkeys then there's literally no chance you will have a long term win rate vs good thinking players at 50nl because after a decent hand sample they will just destroy you.


Sounds about right. +1. Just don't bluff at the micros. It costs you monies.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
S3mper

S3mper

Poker Not Checkers
Loyaler
Joined
May 13, 2013
Total posts
8,355
Awards
2
US
Chips
123
I'm pretty sure Daniel failed in that challenge from what I remember and he was using really bad BR management. I'm sure he was only using like 10 buy-ins or something stupid and managed to go on a heater go to 25nl/50nl and bust it all?

He for sure didn't run it up to $100k though.

I don't remember but he breezed through 4 NL lol
 
Top