Hacking my way as a live pro in 2014

[Matt Vaughan]

No JT wasn't a joke. 9x is heavily in our opponents range, so I'm saying it's one part of the reason it's not a good bluff.

My statement about checking the turn was suppose to be a contradiction. The initial logic doesn't make sense, so I'm point that out. Why would we assume villain is checking the turn with 2 pair, and sets? And thus we can bluff him off that range? We can't assume that. So then what really is his range, and what will he fold? I thought I was pointing out the obvious.

Yeah, bold statement was really necessary.

Condescension aside, it seemed like you said "his range is mostly JT," and then you said "he has a lot of 9x," which I was interpreting as mutually exclusive. But I guess I misinterpreted what you said. To try to re-iterate it differently, you think his range consists of JT, T9, discounted 87? And if he checks turn with sets you think he also checks turn with flushes, and isn't checking the turn to fold the river, therefore he only folds the hands we're ahead of?

 

[hackmeplz]

fwiw I'm not convinced it's a good play, just a play I made, I'm definitely open for criticism.

That said, we're not playing against a good balanced player pool, we're playing against a field that is mostly nits who are terrified of putting their stack at risk without the nuts. I think sets and 2 pairs are checking the turn a lot more than you think, as they perceive my range to be stuff that would give up to a barrel or a FD that just made a flush. But yeah especially with that sizing I think my bluff's bad just because he can have 9x (plus sets/2pair that call and the occasional flush) as much as he has sets/2pair that folds. It's not that he has 9x a lot but sets are hard to make. I think in game I was trying to fold out straights too but I don't think many people are folding a straight there.

 

[John A]

Yeah, bold statement was really necessary.

Condescension aside, it seemed like you said "his range is mostly JT," and then you said "he has a lot of 9x," which I was interpreting as mutually exclusive. But I guess I misinterpreted what you said. To try to re-iterate it differently, you think his range consists of JT, T9, discounted 87? And if he checks turn with sets you think he also checks turn with flushes, and isn't checking the turn to fold the river, therefore he only folds the hands we're ahead of?

Pretty much correcto.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Pretty much correcto.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

fwiw I'm not convinced it's a good play, just a play I made, I'm definitely open for criticism.

That said, we're not playing against a good balanced player pool, we're playing against a field that is mostly nits who are terrified of putting their stack at risk without the nuts. I think sets and 2 pairs are checking the turn a lot more than you think, as they perceive my range to be stuff that would give up to a barrel or a FD that just made a flush. But yeah especially with that sizing I think my bluff's bad just because he can have 9x (plus sets/2pair that call and the occasional flush) as much as he has sets/2pair that folds. It's not that he has 9x a lot but sets are hard to make. I think in game I was trying to fold out straights too but I don't think many people are folding a straight there.

Makes sense. As I said before, I don't play anywhere resembling this player pool in the slightest, but it's hard for me to think of the average player at most places folding straights there. Two pairs, much more likely. Even if they are approximately equivalent in terms of relative hand strength (I think).

 

[hackmeplz]

ok John I've been thinking about this hand a bit. Say we're playing a tough reg here and we want to be somewhat balanced thus have some bluffs in this spot. What do you think the best types of hands to start bluffing with are? Do you at least agree I have pretty much the nut bluffing hand in my spot? It's near the bottom of my range and has the nut blocker to him slowplaying flushes (people will slowplay nut flushes I feel like but not so much worse flushes). Obviously that doesn't make it a good bluff, because this is 200nl zoom not 5knl 6m, but I do think that at least if I'm going to have a bluff range at all in this spot that my particular hand pretty much has to be in it.

 

[hackmeplz]

ok haven't updated in awhile. I'm currently in the US and for the time being am a live pro. I'm currently living ~10 minutes away from MD live and have been playing ~30 hours/week of live 5/10nl. For now I'm just full-time grinding that but there's also a 10/25nl that runs most weekends and some weekdays (and it's always good when it runs, regs here are huge bumhunters) and if I continue to win like I am at 5/10nl I will start to shot-take that. I'm also looking at getting some money on Bovada for the inevitable time when I start to hate live poker again, but for now I'm actually finding live pretty enjoyable, but that's probably because I'm running ok at it and am up ~10k in the ~3 weeks I've been playing it regularly. I think there's an ok chance that's close to my true winrate (I mean it's like 4 fish and 2 regfish per average table) but there's only one way to find out.

I'll also say for those who care about my rl shit I'm currently taking my last 2 classes required to graduate as well, and in a bit over a month, assuming I pass both classes, I'll have a degree with a computer science major and a math minor. I just finished up my resume and am going to be looking at my options for full-time employment after graduation in the coming weeks. I don't know what's out there but if I can't find anything decent I still have a decent cushion set aside and know I can make far more than expenses playing live, and I know if I start to run bad and money gets tight there's a guy I play with who would stake me.

I'll probably be out in Vegas for at least a little bit this summer, doubt I'll be able to pass up playing the main (and be selling pieces soon, probably at ~1.3, let me know if interested) and mid-high FR on 2p2 is doing a dinner then a drink/spew session (aka 1/3nl uncapped last year we were doing $100/flop red/black and several people were 5k+ deep) 2 days before my birthday so probably go out for that and get to spend my birthday in Vegas again.

So yeah not quite where I hoped I'd be at this point in the year when I started this thread, but I'm hoping I finally found a game I can consistently win at and make decent money. But if I can't, it's ok too I have no regrets and soon I'll have a college degree which should open up my options. Who knows, maybe in a few months I'll be the reason 25/50nl starts to run because I'm making so much bank from my real job

 

[Weissr]

Solid update but shouldn't you maybe start another thread, you gave up on SNE like a month after starting. Best of luck tho with all your future play and career opportunities, sounds like you'll have a lot going on in the next few months.

 

[hackmeplz]

yeah idk maybe I can get the mods to just change the title? Otherwise probably get posts over the next few months wishing me luck in my sne quest lol.

 

[WVHillbilly]

Nice update and I changed the title. Let me know if you'd rather it be something else.

 

[LgBassMan]

Nice update and I changed the title. Let me know if you'd rather it be something else.

LOL +1 for the title, it's what brought me here.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Live pro ftw.

Would be really interested to hear your perspectives on live variance (is it greater or less than for online), how much you utilize live reads and how much it affects your otherwise close decisions, among other things. Excuse me while I geek out over here...

Also, super congrats on being so close to your degree - that's an awesome achievement and really exciting.

 

[stately7]

Going to be following this with interest, all the best! Largely to hear how 5/10 plays as well, guessing it's a bit like $50nl or $100nl online, and imagine some games/tables going to be fishier than others.

 

[dmorris68]

Would be really interested to hear your perspectives on live variance (is it greater or less than for online),

Well one could argue that assuming a fair deal both live and online, and the same style of play, that the statistical variance is no different -- it just comes faster with the higher volume of hands in online player.

Realistically though, if a given player's style changes between live and online (e.g. looser/high-variance style in one vs. tighter/low-variance style in the other) which isn't uncommon given the typical difference in play style of most live vs online players, then there very likely is a notable difference. And there's almost certainly a difference in *perception* of variance just due to so much less volume (and less tournament opportunities for MTTers) live vs online. Which is why so many live players new to online don't realize the variance speedup and blame it on rigging instead.

 

[stately7]

dmorris - broadly, do you favour one of those playing styles in live cash versus online? I lean toward tight/lower variance live but believe this is mostly due to having a less than optimal roll for live cash. Plus that's my natural tendency. Online, roll is best practice for the stakes I play, so it's much less of an issue.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

Variance in $ or in bb is probably similar live and online, but neither is a good measure of the way you experience variance. What matters is variance compared to your win rate, and since win rates are ridiculously higher live than online as the fish/reg ratio is much better, the perceived variance is much lower.

 

[duggs]

Variance in $ or in bb is probably similar live and online, but neither is a good measure of the way you experience variance. What matters is variance compared to your win rate, and since win rates are ridiculously higher live than online as the fish/reg ratio is much better, the perceived variance is much lower.

surely time is a relevant factor, given how much longer it takes to plays hands live

 

[duggs]

I going to assume that the games also play deep, which increases variance.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

I going to assume that the games also play deep, which increases variance.

Wasn't expecting like a million responses to that lol... but to duggs in particular. I think accounting for deep is tricky. If our edge is the same no matter how deep we are then yes, variance would be higher if deeper. But I don't think the consistency in edge is a good assumption. Most live players absolutely suck at playing deep, so if we can do so well, I would think our win-rate sky-rockets when deep.

 

[loafes]

I was always under the impression that variance was higher when playing short and that deep stacks lowered variance, mostly because if we have an edge over someone then the odds are our edge increases the deeper the stacks, but even against players of similar skill level the variance woulb be less because there would be less need to gamble or take flip spots.

 

[duggs]

thats not what happens tho, the average pot size goes up, hands that would normally end with 200bb in the middle can now end up with 500bb or more in the middle.

 

[loafes]

But at the same time stacks are less likely to go in the middle. Coolers should happen at about the same frequency, but having more room to maneuver post flop should allow us to get away from hands we otherwise wouldn't plus we can play a wider range of implied odds hands giving us more value overall.

 

[duggs]

Yea if you were playing with the same total buy in that would apply, ie choosing between double the stake 100bb deep or normal stake 200bb deep. But doubling the money on the table makes for bigger swings

 

[hackmeplz]

Live pro ftw.

Would be really interested to hear your perspectives on live variance (is it greater or less than for online), how much you utilize live reads and how much it affects your otherwise close decisions, among other things. Excuse me while I geek out over here...

There's a lot more comments below so I'll get into it answering those more, but the biggest thing for me is I've played a few 5k+ pots and I'm assuming that's going to be close to a month's worth of ev or at the very least 2 weeks worth.

Also, super congrats on being so close to your degree - that's an awesome achievement and really exciting.

Thanks! Although I always knew I was going back and didn't find the transition difficult at all, it is nice to finally be this close to having a degree. I remember all the people telling me I wouldn't go back or that "everyone says they're gonna go back", so after hearing that a bunch and seeing I was able to relatively painlessly go back and get that insanely expensive piece of paper does bring a sense of pride.

Going to be following this with interest, all the best! Largely to hear how 5/10 plays as well, guessing it's a bit like $50nl or $100nl online, and imagine some games/tables going to be fishier than others.

It's interesting I'm not sure you can compare it to any given online stake level. There are some good regs who are probably closer to 400-1knl regs online, then there's a good amount of really terrible regs who wouldn't beat 10nl online but maybe eek out a slight profit or maybe even lose money a lot of these guys are the retired type who are playing mainly for entertainment and they think they're making money, but I wouldn't be shocked if none of them really need to make money so they don't track it so they don't realize that actually they're losers in the game. Either way though not like I'm going to make much from them after rake in a 9-handed game. Then you have the fish, and there are a ton more fish per table at live than online. Online games usually revolve around one fish and if a 2nd fish sits it's a gold mine. I've found the average amount of whales who are clearly not trying to win long-term per-table is probably somewhere around 3 at a 9-handed table, and the great thing about 5/10 is that as it gets late a lot of the times it will play shorthanded and a lot of the regs will have left. The other day I played 5 hours in a 3-handed game with 2 whales.

So yeah long story short in terms of easy/hard it might rate around 50nl or so, but I think a lot of leaks even good 50nl regs have will be exploited pretty hard by some of the tough 5/10nl live regs (mainly just hand-reading/turning hands face up in big pots), but I'd imagine if you beat 50nl online it shouldn't be hard to just try to play pots with fish and show a profit at 5/10nl live.

Well one could argue that assuming a fair deal both live and online, and the same style of play, that the statistical variance is no different -- it just comes faster with the higher volume of hands in online player.

Realistically though, if a given player's style changes between live and online (e.g. looser/high-variance style in one vs. tighter/low-variance style in the other) which isn't uncommon given the typical difference in play style of most live vs online players, then there very likely is a notable difference. And there's almost certainly a difference in *perception* of variance just due to so much less volume (and less tournament opportunities for MTTers) live vs online. Which is why so many live players new to online don't realize the variance speedup and blame it on rigging instead.

First off 5/10nl live plays MUCH bigger than 5/10nl online. Mainly it's because there's more people making mistakes at live, and that leads to first off them calling more and second off raise sizes by anyone at the table being larger. It's not super uncommon to see 4-way flop action when there was a $40 open and $150 3-bet.

Variance in $ or in bb is probably similar live and online, but neither is a good measure of the way you experience variance. What matters is variance compared to your win rate, and since win rates are ridiculously higher live than online as the fish/reg ratio is much better, the perceived variance is much lower.

I think the bigger factor though is that a good hourly for a 200nl online pro who's playing ~12 tables (or 4-tabling zoom) is probably close to the same hourly for a 5/10nl live pro (and probably bigger if they're getting good rb/doing sne), but the swings in general are a lot smaller.

Wasn't expecting like a million responses to that lol... but to duggs in particular. I think accounting for deep is tricky. If our edge is the same no matter how deep we are then yes, variance would be higher if deeper. But I don't think the consistency in edge is a good assumption. Most live players absolutely suck at playing deep, so if we can do so well, I would think our win-rate sky-rockets when deep.

Well I don't know about other people here, but I know playing deep is one aspect I suck at as well. I've sort of tried to talk a bit of strat to some of the regs I'm kinda friends with on playing deep pots. The only issue is we're opponents so no one's really gonna give me actual good information, and if the roles were reversed I'm the same way. I've blatantly lied about my ranges in some spots when asked a question like that by a live reg, so I'm kinda expecting the same in return. But yeah I know when I get in deep spots against fish it will increase my winrate, and the bad live regs just start nut-peddling when it gets deep, but I wouldn't be shocked if there's a few 5/10nl live regs who have a sizable edge on me when stacks start to get 300bb+ because they've played a ton of pots that deep whereas I just haven't.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

...

Well I don't know about other people here, but I know playing deep is one aspect I suck at as well. I've sort of tried to talk a bit of strat to some of the regs I'm kinda friends with on playing deep pots. The only issue is we're opponents so no one's really gonna give me actual good information, and if the roles were reversed I'm the same way. I've blatantly lied about my ranges in some spots when asked a question like that by a live reg, so I'm kinda expecting the same in return. But yeah I know when I get in deep spots against fish it will increase my winrate, and the bad live regs just start nut-peddling when it gets deep, but I wouldn't be shocked if there's a few 5/10nl live regs who have a sizable edge on me when stacks start to get 300bb+ because they've played a ton of pots that deep whereas I just haven't.

Nice reply, thanks.

I understand what you're saying, since you have so much more experience online and effective stacks rarely get above 200bb with more than maybe one other person at a table unless you're specifically playing deep tables.

It's also pretty interesting how you mention lying about your range in specific spots, and expecting others to do the same. I would expect that not everyone would lie about this though. I think the balance between friendship (co-workers?) and competition is extremely tricky. Obviously the players who give you the most trouble are also going to be the ones you can relate to the most, and who you can likely grow the closest to.

But back to deep stuffs, I can't say I'm an expert on live deep spots, but now with the max buyin at my casino increasing to 150bb, it only takes a few medium-sized pots won to put me at 300+bb deep, and that's often against one or two other players. I do only play 1/2, but am always willing to look at live spots

As a side-note, if you're looking to post live spots, I'd suggest taking a look in my thread for formatting. I find that when I make HH's easier to look at, people tend to respond more frequently.

 

[hackmeplz]

Yeah not really sure how many hands I'll post, I honestly find individual hands kinda meh, like I think looking at overall strategy is much more interesting and unless there's a line I just hadn't considered at all most HH questions will come down to "how's he going to play this spot?" and with no HUD stats all you'll have to go on is my description so yeah...

I find it much more interesting to talk about say we're 300bb deep what kind of oop 3b range should I have and to what size against fish, against meh regs, against good regs. What should my cbet ranges look like in 5-way pots?

There are a million other questions like that I could ask and I think would provide pretty solid discussion, so I'll try to post any interesting hands I can think of but that's the other thing most live sessions don't have a ton of interesting spots come up. But more importantly I'll just try to post some things on like parts of my game I'm re-examining, different interesting things I think about common live spots (you know, the ones that are gonna make the big winrate differences anyway).