This is an extremely small sample. In general, you'll find that raising > folding > calling in the small blind.
I've run these through my entire 109,000 database and it holds for every stakes I've played, 2nl, 5nl and 10nl. My sample is just SBs. So you say 8,000-some hands is extremely small. OK, why do you say that? Do you know how many hands would be appropriate? I think you overestimate how many hands you need to get a pretty good reading.
8k hands is not a big sample
I just feel like you and kleitches, as well as some others, when presented with evidence contrary to what you are used to, or what you've heard, immediately start quoting things like sample size, yet I bet you really have no clue about sample sizing, in general. I don't either, really, but I think I have more than enough to get a good read. My opinion, that's all.
First, you're completely delusional if you think people here "stick their heads in the sand and spout cliches". These are winning players giving you advice based off substantial experience. Where do you get that these people are not providing you with any evidence of their own? Have you seen the graphs of winning regulars around here? How about you try talking to some of them about playing the small blind 30% and see what they think of that? But wait! That would do no good because you're too stubborn to consider another viewpoint that may differ from yours. This is ironic because you're accusing people that are trying to help you of doing this. The only difference is they're proven winners over a significant sample, meanwhile you are not.
You can attack Stu all you want, but he (as well as others in this forum) are only trying to help you. Rarely does anyone around here try to set out to trivialize learning players or make them feel like shit. It doesn't even make sense for us to do that in this particular thread because most of us are at similar levels. So calling him a jerk is just a big LOL.
When I read Belgo's reply to your post in another thread, I initially felt sorry for you. I agreed with your sentiments that a player shouldn't be discouraged, as long as they were trying to learn the game and make efforts to improve. Now, it is clear to me that you are not willing to learn. You're adamant that your play is the best way and that everyone else is wrong. For this reason, I'm done with you and trying to help you. I'm sure you will be seeing that lots of people will be giving up on you as well. There is absolutely no point in trying to assist someone who doesn't appreciate good feedback, and going further even tries to prove that the wrong way to play is the right way (and believe me, Rogue, your way is certainly wrong).
I was responding to a question about 5nl, specifically. I spent a ton of time going through my stats as carefully as I could and giving a thoughtful answer. I stand by my answer to the OP asking about the SB -- don't fold too much.
Of course I've seen graphs from players here, and don't you think I was trying to talk to everyone about how much to play out of the small blind at 5nl? That's exactly what I was doing.
Of course I'm willing to learn, but I should think that if I come up with a new theory, or at least a way of playing that doesn't sync with yours, that you won't automatically dismiss it. I posted my screen shots, why doesn't someone else post theirs, too, if they want to show where I'm wrong.
What makes you think I'm not a proven winner over a significant sample? Kid yourself, if you wish.
I'm sorry you think I don't appreciate the people in this thread who make thoughtful comments and interesting discussions. You are wrong. I do, extremely. But when I hear people dismiss things offhand, when it's clear they haven't looked deeply into it themselves, it makes me shake my head and wonder why they feel the need to comment. Sample size, short stack, raise instead of call, etc., etc. People have cliches about these subjects. Everyone has an opinion, but how many actually have tried different things and learned for themselves.
If you guys want to be done with me because I object to arguments being dismissed offhandedly, that's your perogative. I'm not sure some of those that you say are "helping me" have ever actually done so. Some of them have made sort of rude comments, some of them have ignored me; however, others have actually made constructive comments, and I always appreciate it when they can do that without the belittling comments that so often go with it. There is no need for that.
Which brings me to another point -- I've had it up to here with Stu -- he is constantly ridiculing me and I just snapped. I've warned the mods that he is baiting me and to see if they could do something about it. I guess I got on his bad side long ago -- I don't know what his problem is, but he does not treat me well and he does not treat many other people well, either. I'm sick of it, can't you understand? I don't read his posts if I can help it, because I usually end up feeling so lousy when I do. It's not worth it. He's on my ignore list now. Sometimes I accidently read them, though. Occasionally he is reasonable, but so often he is rude. It's just ridiculous to have to put up with that when I'm trying to enjoy the forum like anyone else. How would you like someone following you around and making comments about how practically everything you say is wrong? I don't think he actually plays poker; he just reads books and spouts facts that often don't apply to the situation at hand. End of Stu rant.
wow thats your response to people who are trying to make you a better player?? You post in a thread based on micro guys improving and helping each other so they can all learn and move up, you post an interesting topic for discussion, then when people don't take your side because its wrong, you freak out?? Open your mind a bit. What you posted isn't 'evidence' its just your stats, If i open shove a2 every time i have it, and after 7k hands of doing it, i have a profit, would that mean its a good way to play?
They aren't trying to make me a better player, they are simply taking my answer to the OP and trying to discredit it, but they don't have much basis for it, like why the sample size too small, or why it's not better to make more out of some hands than simply folding. If they do have something to show, I wish they would post it.
RogueRivered, I think a lot of people are thinking your sample is from 8K total hands, but it's actually from 8K hands in the sb, right? So what about 45K total hands? Still a smallish sample but I'd say your results aren't just variance. Having said that doing things like open limping the sb is sure to lose $$ beyond 5nl. You should really focus more on learning at micro stakes rather than increasing your win rate. I hope that makes sense because it's very important.
Yes, exactly. Thank you for trying to clear that up. Perhaps some people didn't look at the chart carefully enough to figure that out. As for winrate, I strive to maximize it at any stakes. I see what you are saying, but I will adapt when I have to.
well im a hudge nit, so im not best for that, i just steal a ton, but play like 2/1 from every other position. But ye i complete the sb with suited connectors, pairs or hands like k,j. I hate playing oop, so i only raise aq+tt+ from the sb behind limpers. I bluff bet basically any scary high board like kq3, at4 etc just because the limpers ranges are weighted towards small pairs and connecter cards.
Heck, this is basically what I said, isn't it? I like to flat with small pocket pairs, suited connectors, and sometimes other suited cards, including suited aces. Of course it's all dependent on villain's stats and the preflop activity. And I like to steal when unopened or against some limpers, depending on the limpers position. That's exactly what the screen shots that I posted show.
Someone above, I think is was kleitches, asked why I don't show what happens when completing the SB versus raising. Duh, that's exactly what I did. Look at the charts.
To be honest, I felt I gave the OP a good answer -- it works for me, so I think it would work for others. I'm just trying to help him at 5nl, since that's what I know. I don't know about higher stakes, but I'm certainly willing to learn and adapt as I advance. I don't know why anyone would assume otherwise.
So actually I was looking forward to maybe some people looking at their databases and realizing that maybe some of what I said is actually right. I thought I might get even get a thank you or something. Instead, you see what I got. That's why I "freaked out." That, plus Stu's response, which was unwarranted, can't any of you see that?
I don't like getting upset or letting my emotions get the best of me. Believe me, I had a lousy day today. I couldn't get all this out of my mind. Perhaps I should give up on this forum. It's just not worth it sometimes.
