Characteristics of winning/losing play.

[BZ_Zorro]

Some one was asking about win rates before, I want to know what you guys think. These are my results for $100NL over 14K hands.



During my winning period I was 2-tabling only, taking notes constantly, playing very tight/weak, not committing my stack without a huge hand. I set a goal to make a profit(no matter how small) at every table I sat at, or lose the minimum to blinds/a few limps if I didn't get a hand. When I got a big stack, I left soon after or played super tight. I never got involved in big pots with unknowns, and the only big losses were bad beats. It runs out to be about $1200/6000 hands, or about $20/100.

Since I went on tilt at about 6K, I've been lazily three tabling, raising far more to get PT stats up, with a few tilt sessions. I'm no longer making it imperative that I make a profit/lose the minimum on every table. I'm no longer obsessively watching play and note taking (it's impossible with three tables).

I think it's fairly clear looking at this that stacking other players with big hands happens fairly regularly no matter what you do. It's how much you bleed your stack in between that determines your win rate, and at $100NL that's determined in great part by how well you read the game and how weak tight you play.

Is this accurate?

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it's fairly clear looking at this that stacking other players with big hands happens fairly regularly no matter what you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

this i agree with about 75%. its actually less a function of how well you play than how well you choose games or seats at a game. people very often forget that your winrate depends more on how bad they suck than how good you are.

[ QUOTE ]
It's how much you bleed your stack in between that determines your win rate, and at $100NL that's determined in great part by how well you read the game and how weak tight you play.


[/ QUOTE ]
this is very true. doing whatever you can do to keep your head above water between sets, aces etc. will add hugely to your winrate.

fim

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
When I got a big stack, I left soon after or played super tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big problem. If you're going to play super tight anyways, why not do it with a big stack? A lot of my profit comes from playing a bit stack well. Get a big stack and then target the other people who have big stacks that you have identified as weak. Truthfully, you might lose a couple buy-ins while you're learning; in the long run thing experience will be invaluable though. Think of it as an investment and learn to play a big stack.

[raisethatmofo]

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
Stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are you talking about?

[raisethatmofo]

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
Big stack play is overrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are very very VERY wrong. I make probably 75% of my profit after my stack hits 2 buyins. If you don't know how to play a big stack then I can see how you would say this. Ask ANY experienced no limit play whether it's better to have the table covered and you will see how COMPLETELY wrong you are. It's not my fault you can't play with a big stack.

[raisethatmofo]

[raisethatmofo]

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
$100 says I'm more experienced than you. I haven't seen you around here until the last month.

[/ QUOTE ]

I generally play $25NL at party/affiliates. I actually haven't really posted in SSNL in the past month so I don't know why you would have seen my posts here. I post very infrequently and only on hands I find intersting. Lets wait a bit and see what other, respected, posters have to say. You should be making a LOT more money with a big stack and if you're not that means you have a deficiency in your big stack play. TWP, Garland, Bobbo, xorbie, Skeme, Sephus, and soah will back me up, I guarantee.