Even though I used to be Durr and Dan Colman before they were even around, that style *obviously* has huge swings. In HUGE tournaments, I basically acted like Jamie Gold and talked my way into calls and folds as if it were magic (almost always) getting them to do what I wanted, even though mixing up saying I wanted one or the other. (Yeah, for you newbies, people used to actually TALK online while they played)
Then I "grew up" and decided that super-aggro was silly, but restrained aggression coupled with the ability to make the hero call was the way to go. Basically I was trying to be Esfandiari (who, oddly enough, is one of the top pros I never played with/against) and his logic of "it's hard to make a pair in holdem" and "they can't always have it, right?" meant you could have the courage to call down a river bet with 10 high when you were hoping to see a missed small straight.
This general attitude has carried over to this year with my return to online poker. Thing is, at all levels (literally played every single thing on ACR except for the 1k cage since I just recently got an understanding of how it worked) you'd see this crazy play. Sure, plenty of times they'd have it, since, generally speaking, players are better now and the lower the limit the less expectations for bluffs and bluffs to work. But even at higher limits, you can have 45 in the BB on an unraised pot and flop 456. You check and the guy jams like whatever ridiculous like 40x pot. You deduct that the only way this play makes sense is if he has 23 or MAYBE even 37 and is worried about higher straight draws. He could even have a set and, again, worried about the draws. But you decide to go with your gut and expect to see HIM with the straight draw. Sure enough, he flips over a7, and while you're happy to be ahead, you won't be satisfied until you TID. 8 outs to win with 2 to come is plenty on ACR. But that's not how it's going to go down. That would seem fair. Nope. Instead it is a 6 on the turn and an ace on the river to scoop all your money.
So I'd had enough, and was looking for a solution. For now, with no bankroll, I have to lower my variance somehow. So I'm taking the Negreanu approach that I learned in 3 short (2-3 hour) streaming sessions. (Interestingly enough, he didn't win in any, but I could envision how I COULD when applying it)
Thus far, I have opted to WWDD except in two cases. He always always always limps his SB. Sometimes even with limpers in position, but guaranteed if folded to him. He could have 27o or AA, he limps and checks the flop. I don't care for this. I don't think it is a problem/mistake or "leak" in his game. I just have a personal preference very much hating the SB and playing almost any hand in it. But yeah, if there are 9 players and it's folded to me, maybe I limp to see what comes. But, generally speaking, and especially with any action in position, I'm waiting for another spot and just folding my garbage that has no real equity other than miracles that might have next to no implied odds
The other exception I have taken is the real reason for the post and where I want YOUR input. Daniel has indicated that people who try to "perfect" their bet sizing to be like 233 instead of 200 are just silly and wasting their time. Maybe so. But I think he is basically just being lazy and prefers to hit the min raise button from whatever position he feels comfortable with a decent range of hands. But, as an example, he will min raise on the button with QQ, which will get either both blinds or just the BB to call most of the time. When the flop comes 459r and is checked to him, he'll lead out with 50% pot or more. BUT when he is called, almost no matter what the runout is, he is looking to check/call it down. If he hits running Qs for quads he'll bet small for value, but that doesn't happen often on the trusted Pokerstars
HIS rationale is that he is playing "small ball" and using "pot control" and that's all well and good. My contention is that he is making it cheap and easy to runout on him even when he has premium holdings. In the 459r example, you could float a call with an 8 and then get max value checking the 6 on the turn and getting checked back and then leading out on the river with 7 for the 2nd nuts.
So what's your view? Does this style work? Or are these a couple areas that might not need to be applied the way he does if you want to make your own "tweaks" for finding an optimal approach.
I mean, he is, after all, the money leader of all time, so he might have an idea on what to do. But I thought I WAS ALREADY playing like him because on TV it seems like he does, in fact, play small but that he's basically trying to see as many flops as possible thinking he can outplay his opponents post-flop. But watching a few example online it is clear that he insta-folds the vast majority of holdings preflop.