10NL easier than 2&5 NL

[Cafeman]

According to HEM (which isn't entirely correct) rake in 5NL comes to 5.7 bb/100, and I am aware it is eating into everybody's win rate. It is not accidental that even the best winners I see are barely above break even when EV adjusted (most winners are running above EV).

I pay ~10bb/100 rake at 50NL (lolFrance).

I agree it's a good idea to feel as though you're capable of beating the game before you move up. It doesn't even matter if your BR is $1k if you are simply going to lose it all in the long run.

I think as long as you carry on trying to improve, you'll get there.

 

[LD1977]

You have extra taxes there or what? I am fairly certain it should be less

Yeah I have no desire to get owned by better players while being an obvious fish it is much better to be owned by fish while thinking I am not playing so horrible

 

[Cafeman]

You have extra taxes there or what?

Basically, yes.

 

[rocket316]

Win rate of course isn't everything. Playing 100K hands at the micros and breaking even is alright as long as you are learning along the way. The experience earned will help massively when you are finally ready to take a shot at a higher limit

 

[Aleksei]

well, maybe i am wrong, but i think that the low cash games, are not so easy as people may think, because there are many players that do not care to loose that small amount, and then they play poker as if they were playing bingo, with any hand go allin and wait for the luck to strike.

That makes the game easier, not harder; just stay ahead of their range and print money. You just have to come to terms with the fact no hand is bulletproof, and that (my own personal downfall), the 2/3 of the time you miss the board YOU HAVE TO FOLD!!! I can't tell you how many times I've lost 3/4 of a buy-in on a hopeless 3-barrel bluff against a shitty station, just because I can't stand the thought of waiting for a good hand pre just to fold it post (plus there's loads of scared nits at 2NL you actually can muscle out of pots, so that gives you hope that tricky play is profitable in general at those levels -- it's not).

 

[Aleksei]

Its all a donk fest.....very hard to make money

See above. Donkfests are EASY to make money from. Just play straightforward ABC tag (or even a merged thin-value range) and print money.

 

[vinylspiros]

See above. Donkfests are EASY to make money from. Just play straightforward ABC tag (or even a merged thin-value range) and print money.

This is a good point your making.

 

[LD1977]

Coolerfests is much more appropriate name in my experience and no it isn't easy to print money there. In fact most people who have positive win rates are not TAGs but nits who are on a good run of sets and big pairs.

So says my 90k hands database.

 

[DunningKruger]

Poker must be the only game in the world where (some) people would rather not play bad players and instead prefer better ones. I've always found this phenomenon interesting at least, and amusing as well. I do think that anyone unable to consistently beat bad players rather handily should be honest with themselves that they too are bad.

5NL in a sense is I suppose no easier or harder than any other limit. Poker is a zero sum game and every limit will have a bunch of losing players out of necessity to go along with a handful of winners. Make no mistake, 5NL ~is~ undoubtedly very easy for the majority of online players who play higher, but any limit is a relative stroll in the park (with a gentle summer breeze ofc) to someone skilled enough to play much higher stakes.

Anyway, learning how to beat people who don't know what they're doing is one of the most crucial things any poker player will ever learn how to do. It's much simpler than learning how to beat capable opponents, (believe me it is), but poker can be a rather complicated game at the best of times.

Any play style can be exploited (nobody plays GTO poker). We all have tendencies. The less players are able to correctly adjust to you and what you're doing to take advantage of them, the simpler it becomes to print monies. Just be clear on how different players tend to play and what specifically you'd do yourself to abuse them; against which players do you want to value bet larger, and thinner; against whom would you bluff more, fold more, etc. Things like that.

I'll share right now one of my personal tricks at 5NL that adds quite a lot of profit against many players at this limit. There are people who, once they raise pre or even sometimes if they limp, are almost hellbent on seeing a flop. When I'm dealt premium preflop hands there will often be situations and opportunities where I can get a ton of money (relative to stack sizes) in the middle as a substantial favourite to win. I don't mean adding 2 or 3 blinds to an average sized 3 bet, I'm talking more like adding 10, or 20, or even more. Works great playing small stakes live games too where you can verbally reinforce with friendly table banter how any two cards can win in this game lol.

Think about what it is that makes bad players "bad", and then consider how to correctly exploit them for it.

 

[LD1977]

I guess that is kind of the point, for someone going up for the 1st time it is not a trivial exercise to crush a level especially while running like crap since there is only a weak correlation (short term) between quality of play and actual results, meaning it can take few hundred thousand hands before things click into place. That makes learning process difficult since theoretically profitable lines can be practically horrible for quite a long time.

I actually look up winners from my database and see what kind of lines they take. In most cases I find that they take similar lines to me except without all the coolers there might be nuances with bet sizing though, I am working on that. I did learn a few things this way though (BTW this is a typical chess player's approach to studying).

As for this: "Poker must be the only game in the world where (some) people would rather not play bad players and instead prefer better ones."
- Actually it depends on the system in which a game is played.
- Example: In chess everything is mathematically related to something called expected result, so when playing weaker players you must force the issue more than when playing stronger ones, which is risky. There are many strategic advantages in playing slightly better players (those that have around 65% expectancy against you) rather than slightly worse ones (those have 35% expectancy).
- At my strength level (candidate master) I find it psychologically easier to take on a master (1 level above me) than a 1st category player (1 level below) simply because especially with Black it is hard to consistently defeat a decent player who is playing for a draw from the start but is ready and capable to nail me if I force too much. Same goes for masters against me, I am really messing with them in the last few years (2 wins, 6 draws, 0 losses).
- These days similar thing tends to happen in online games that took over chess rating system. I suppose any other sport/game where this system is used same thing happens because usually defense has some inherent advantages and at a certain skill level it becomes harder to win than to draw.

As for overbetting before the flop, it doesn't work unless you are lucky enough to come across occasional aggro donk (even in that case most often they do it and get caught). Simply not viable mathematically and if you do it only with premiums then regs will take notes on it (we are not all complete retards). I actually do call larger preflop bets if there are odds for set mining since if I hit I am stacking the guy like 100% of the time simply by calling him down and maybe raising river.

 

[rocket316]

Anyway, learning how to beat people who don't know what they're doing is one of the most crucial things any poker player will ever learn how to do. It's much simpler than learning how to beat capable opponents, (believe me it is), but poker can be a rather complicated game at the best of times.

Excellent point - couldn't agree more. This is the exact reason why people get frustrated playing the micros. In my experience, when playing anything below 50NL you are basically playing SHOWDOWN poker because no one ever folds.

 

[Aleksei]

Coolerfests is much more appropriate name in my experience and no it isn't easy to print money there. In fact most people who have positive win rates are not TAGs but nits who are on a good run of sets and big pairs.

So says my 90k hands database.

Does your database include attempts to win the hand with non-premiums?

But seriously man, it's all variance. Lately I've been playing 6max hypers where it's literally all shove/fold from the beginning, and I once caught this epic heater where I could not seem to lose a shove, even when I was dominated (which was relatively rare but happened). I won like 10 hypers almost in a row. It happens. NO hand is bulletproof. The best you can do is to get fat value from your shitty opponent's too-wide range.

 

[LD1977]

Obviously I can only see hands that went to showdowns. What is your point?

Not that I don't appreciate quality advice I am receiving here (especially you two DK and Aleksei), but I feel that there is an underlying assumption that everybody is mentally retarded in 5NL and anybody with a brain should annihilate them easily and I don't find that that is the case even though I am considered to be above average as far as brains go...

Also I do appreciate that poker is not so simple but it is not even remotely close to chess as far as complexity goes, just that I have been playing chess for 30 years (15 in tournament chess) and I have been playing poker for 6 months. Main issue is that it is much more experimentative and harder to learn due to variance and correlation issues and of course human psychological makeup (we learn by experience mostly).

There are quite a few players who are actively thinking about ranges etc. and my guess is that many of them are simply inexperienced or lacked discipline to succeed in higher levels.

 

[Aleksei]

Obviously I can only see hands that went to showdowns. What is your point?

That if you try to bluff too much your range at showdown might be weaker relatively speaking than you think (I have that problem -- my SD range is pretty spectacularly weak, and I've had trouble making money in positions earlier than the button because of it). Also the stronger you bet the stronger a part of their range you force your villain to show. Most of the time when I see a station's hand at showdown at 2NL/4NL it's usually like some ragged top pair or whatever. Sometimes they have a draw that miraculously hit.

Also that 1) every starting hand, including dominated ones, has an expectation to win showdown a substantial minority of the time, 2) if you see a very large sample of hands you will see that happening very very frequently, and 3) you will remember that much more sharply than when those same hands held up -- it's human nature to consider good results "normal" and bad results painful. The reason I'm so easily capable of playing hyper turbos is that I think mathematically and know better than to let bad beats and coolers get to me.

 

[DunningKruger]

I guess that is kind of the point, for someone going up for the 1st time it is not a trivial exercise to crush a level especially while running like crap since there is only a weak correlation (short term) between quality of play and actual results, meaning it can take few hundred thousand hands before things click into place. That makes learning process difficult since theoretically profitable lines can be practically horrible for quite a long time.

I actually look up winners from my database and see what kind of lines they take. In most cases I find that they take similar lines to me except without all the coolers there might be nuances with bet sizing though, I am working on that. I did learn a few thing this way though (BTW this is a typical chess player's approach to studying).

This is all very true. I made a recent comment to you here about broadening your method of study beyond empirically derived strategy for this very reason.

Poker is tricky because copying what someone else does without getting into their head will fail every time. Any coach will tell you the question is never what to do but rather why to do it. Doesn't help that players frequently make the right play for the wrong reasons either.

As for this: "Poker must be the only game in the world where (some) people would rather not play bad players and instead prefer better ones."
- Actually it depends on the system in which a game is played.

Faring worse against bad players for psychological reasons would be much more the exception than the norm, but ok, anyone who wanted to argue that comment badly enough could probably find a way to try and do it I'm sure.

As for overbetting before the flop, it doesn't work unless you are lucky enough to come across occasional aggro donk (even in that case most often they do it and get caught).

I don't know what you're talking about because this has nothing at all to do with your opponent's aggression. Please clarify. I will say however that what you're telling me doesn't work absolutely works, so you're wrong there. I can prove it I suppose. I didn't say it works on everyone because that's silly obv, but there are undoubtedly more players this is effective against at 5NL than you'll have the benefit of playing when/if you make it to higher games. There is, in general, less regard to size (relative to the pot) when facing a bet at your limit than at higher ones.

 

[LD1977]

Aleksei - Ah yes, that is also my problem here.

It would be great if HEM would have some kind of EV calculation from turn -> river since I have a feeling that for quite a while I have been running rather badly as far as getting rivered goes. You can see what happened last night and it was for almost 2 buyins... that is a LOT of blind stealing and value betting that needs to hold up.

These are all showdown hands and many are for big pots (since I am pushing equity edge on all 2 streets, I am most of the time pretty good at estimating opponent's holding).

I do think I have a problem with losing many medium sized pots due to actually folding too much (!?), meaning I am giving up on the turn my 25-30% equity way too often. Can't prove it obviously and probably it is not my biggest problem but still.

 

[LD1977]

DK - Dunno, maybe it is the question of size of player pool, I find that quite often I am playing vs several semi-known players and even though there are horrible ones most of them fold to massive preflop opens (3bets are different, lot of players don't fold enough and some fold too much). You do see stackoffs QQ vs KK vs AA vs AK in some combination quite often but that is different.

I would love if I could get action with big hands regularly against bad holdings while overbetting but it doesn't seem to work much (exception is when someone really likes open shoving or 3betting AI a lot but when he gets action it is usually not so great ). Maybe it would be possible vs unknowns but then all the regs will take notes about my overbetting range and I am not sure that is worth it. Incredibly sometimes we talk on the tables and I am amazed at how many regs have HUDs and take notes on me (and I thought I am the only one who loves notes ).

I guess I could try doing it occasionally if there are many unknown fishy types around and see what happens.

 

[DunningKruger]

I'm referring to players who've already raised. Many of them have pretty bad leaks pertaining to calling large 3 bets with a wide range, playing bloated pots oop, etc. There are also predictable nit regs who are essentially the opposite. The former players are mono tablers in my experience.

I don't decide how I'm going to play poker. My opponents decide how I'm going to play poker, and they do so through their play. Decent regs will certainly make notes on and analyze the play of other regs, as you noted. This can be misleading and it goes back to what I said about seeing someone do something without knowing why they're doing it. You might merge your 3bet range and reraise pretty wide in position against one or two fish with relatively deep stacks for example, and other players will probably see you splashing around (especially if the fish play a lot of hands). If they don't see who you're doing it against and why (or they don't have the same knowledge about the players you're targeting that you do), their notes on you are going to cost them a lot of money making sense of them.

 

[LD1977]

Understood and agree.

I have gotten better about 3betting for value people who fold too little, it is those who fold a lot that I am unsure about when I have really premium stuff. Mostly I 3bet anyway.

I tried catching a guy who folds way too much once with KK with IP flatting (he had QQ) and succeeded since he barreled 3 times into me but I had loads on info on him and vice versa so I could deceive him. That was the only time I flatted a KK+.

 

[DunningKruger]

Flatting KK+ is fine sometimes. I normally 3bet them to reduce spr and protect my range since I 3bet light a fair bit. (Playing around with numbers you'll find iirc that getting more than about 1/9th or so of effective stacks into the middle with AA means that you can't be exploited by players trying to out flop you as long as you're willing to get it in post.) Generally the adjustment I make against people who fold too much versus 3bets is to 3bet them much more often (with a polarized range at that) instead of flatting monsters. Sometimes doing both is okay but never the second without the first. People might tell you to be careful doing this or you'll make them adjust but I never bought into that fully. You'd be amazed how often these players can't actually adjust properly, or don't bother adjusting at all. so I put the onus on them to do so. You can always readjust and stay one step ahead. Players who seldom play a lot of 3bet pots are often pretty bad at playing 3bet pots, and players who are pretty bad at playing 3bet pots seldom play a lot of 3bet pots. Heh.

 

[LD1977]

--- Playing around with numbers you'll find iirc that getting more than about 1/9th or so of effective stacks into the middle with AA means that you can't be exploited by players trying to out flop you as long as you're willing to get it in post.---

I don't understand this. You mean shove every flop?

Also, how do they adjust? 4bet a lot? If low part of my range ("bluffs") is Axs it is not so bad for stackoffs (IIRC 40% equity against QQ+, AK) or is polarized range different than this?

 

[Aleksei]

In a tight dynamic, I think it might be a good idea to fast-play AA preflop (because it's the nuts pre but actually somewhat vulnerable post in very nitty dynamics), but flat KK to trap, because if you play KK fast preflop you force your villain to show an Ace-heavy range such that if the Ace comes down otf you need to assume you're dead and give up the board (and that's if you don't more or less force Villain to show a range that's mostly just AA, in which case you're dead anyway) -- whereas if you flat and the A comes down you could still peel down for marginal value against bluffs.

In a loose dynamic though I will play QQ+ very fast and then when they flop overpair I value-town them to oblivion because even reasonably good loose players will show TPTK a lot, and stations will obviously have a ton of worse.

 

[LD1977]

You mean when they flop top pair? Overpair can be KK+

 

[DunningKruger]

I don't understand this. You mean shove every flop?

Also, how do they adjust? 4bet a lot? If low part of my range ("bluffs") is Axs it is not so bad for stackoffs (IIRC 40% equity against QQ+, AK) or is polarized range different than this?

Shoving every flop is one way to do it, but nah. You'll end up betting the flop the majority of the time however. Anyway I just mean that if they get stacks in and enjoy a huge equity advantage over your big pair every single time they hit their 2p/set/flush/whatever, they're still bleeding more money chasing that miracle flop than they're winning when they get it.

That's not necessarily the most profitable way for you to play the hand ofc. Exploitable folds are the correct play to make lots of times during a poker game. The nice thing about 3bet pots, especially at 5NL, is that players often have a tendency to play fit or fold calling a reraise. You can safely let go of your hand in those cases if the player wants to stack off, but more often than not you're taking down a decent sized pot instead. As Aleksei likes to point out, players don't hit flops very often.

If you 3bet a polarized range you're only stacking off with the value portion, not the junk. When you 3bet you usually want your range to be such that you continue and fold at the appropriate ratio (now we're getting into game theory a bit if we start talking about that) versus 4bets and you can deviate somewhat in order to exploit specific players.

If your chips are in preflop and you turn over Axs then hopefully you were the one jamming and not the one calling off heh. Those hands make for decent 4bet/5bet bluffs against certain players for blocker reasons, equity versus calling ranges, etc. Whether it's a cash game, tourney, whatever, dead money puts the food on the table man.

For how they adjust, people try to do so different ways, and again they often make mistakes. If they adjust by calling every time you repop them - oop in particular - then this player is now your new best friend. Bear in mind that if they're calling a lot in response you want to 3bet a linear range and if they're instead 4betting a lot more you want to 3bet a polarized range instead. 3bet pots is a mammoth topic all its own that I didn't anticipate getting into, but it's one of the key differences in play between 5NL or 10NL and limits like 25, 50 and beyond. Novice players just don't play them very well.

 

[LD1977]

Hmm. Interesting stuff.

I first got into 3betting due to some MSS players that were doing it a lot... then I started actually 3betting light from the BTN and blinds especially people who open light or those who fold obscene amount of time. My light 3betting range was suited Aces and Kings mostly, but I mixed in some SCs too. Dunno if that was OK.

All this showed preflop profit (obviously, vs people who fold too much) but then I run into the problem of what to do post flop with semi-crappy hand that whiffed. I especially wanted to prevent showing down those hands so people don't see that I am 3bet bluffing and that was problematic (there is no way to avoid showing down vs. people whose play is "call bets, check checks" ).