Wanted: a better mousetrap for $25 NL

[Skuzzy]

Are using the autorate rules from the FAQ of this forum? At the low limits playing sub 25%VPIP is not exceptionally tight. playing sub 7% PFR is sensible given the number of players who will call regardless so winning the pot preflop is a rarity. 1.2 TA is weak though, but you said 'mice' and the auto rate rules set mice as <25% VPIP <7%PFR and >1.2 TA

I 'adjusted' my rules and anyone playing >5% PFR still rates TAG preflop and Agg postflop if they have TA 1.4+

I adjusted figures based on my own instincts and intuition as to what was TAG at these levels.

[afreeman]

[ QUOTE ]
Are using the autorate rules from the FAQ of this forum?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, copied straight from the FAQ link.

[ QUOTE ]
1.2 TA is weak though, but you said 'mice' and the auto rate rules set mice as <25% VPIP <7%PFR and >1.2 TA

[/ QUOTE ]
Typo describing rules for mice; I would fix it in the original post, but the edit time has expired on it.

However, they are definitely mice in the PT summary window, and I am using the default rules available from the FAQ link.

[ QUOTE ]
I 'adjusted' my rules and anyone playing >5% PFR still rates TAG preflop and Agg postflop if they have TA 1.4+

I adjusted figures based on my own instincts and intuition as to what was TAG at these levels.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is probably the best advice.

Also, I'm becoming more convinced that watching for specific play tendencies (e.g. does villain always continuation bet? does he often fold to a C-bet? can he lay down a TPTK hand?) is probably more useful in NL than trying to classify a player as any one thing.

[ QUOTE ]
I find at 25 NL the fish are just as bad as .25¢ micro limit- they will play with any two hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

quoted for hilarity

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree that 40% seems high (again, limited data here), but I wouldn't be surprised to find that a higher percentage of players are winners at this level than is the case for higher limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

40% is perfect. IIRC, a datamined db will converge to ~40% winners. I can't find the post right now but there was a discussion about why this is true a couple weeks ago in one of the limit forums.

[ QUOTE ]
Sample size is WAY to small. When you get up around the 100 mil range, send back some data for us. Weak tight play will win at this limits, but it's not optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think to some extent people use the term "weak-tight" improperly. If you read the small stakes limit (I do), I think they particularly misuse it. I think some people feel like they ALWAYS have to bet until someone reraises them substantially and then they "know where they're at." This is not optimal play IMO.

For example, if you raise preflop with KK and get several callers, lets say 3 so that 4 players see the flop total. Flop comes up A-10-9 with two to a flush. I think it's pretty reasonable to think that one of those 3 players who called your preflop raise has an ace. I would probably c/f this flop, especailly with multiple draws. But I think most people would call that "weak." I would say that I'm probably beat and don't want to dump more money into it. I think a c/f is more optimal. So is that weak? So I would take issue with the label "weak-tight." I think people misunderstand the difference between pointless, pure aggression and thoughtful, tactical aggression.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]

For example, if you raise preflop with KK and get several callers, lets say 3 so that 4 players see the flop total. Flop comes up A-10-9 with two to a flush. I think it's pretty reasonable to think that one of those 3 players who called your preflop raise has an ace. I would probably c/f this flop, especailly with multiple draws. But I think most people would call that "weak." I would say that I'm probably beat and don't want to dump more money into it. I think a c/f is more optimal. So is that weak?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think any experienced player in this forum would argue if you said you wanted to c/f that flop. I don't think anyone would call you weak-tight either.

That said, I'd fire out the same 3/4 pot bet I always do. They don't know that I don't have an ace and they're just as likely to have KQ or 56 or 88. If I'm calling a raise I'm not calling it with AJ or AT or even AQ from a tight raiser. I'm doing it was hands that aren't going to be dominated and are going to be easy to play after the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For example, if you raise preflop with KK and get several callers, lets say 3 so that 4 players see the flop total. Flop comes up A-10-9 with two to a flush. I think it's pretty reasonable to think that one of those 3 players who called your preflop raise has an ace. I would probably c/f this flop, especailly with multiple draws. But I think most people would call that "weak." I would say that I'm probably beat and don't want to dump more money into it. I think a c/f is more optimal. So is that weak?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think any experienced player in this forum would argue if you said you wanted to c/f that flop. I don't think anyone would call you weak-tight either.

That said, I'd fire out the same 3/4 pot bet I always do. They don't know that I don't have an ace and they're just as likely to have KQ or 56 or 88. If I'm calling a raise I'm not calling it with AJ or AT or even AQ from a tight raiser. I'm doing it was hands that aren't going to be dominated and are going to be easy to play after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]


Maybe that wasn't the best example. But my point is simply that people misundertand aggression and when to properly use it. In other words, maybe people whom some might call "weak-tight" aren't really that weak. Maybe they'er simply using aggression more appropriately? Obviously everyone is different and it's hard to label people, but I do think people misapply aggression. That's my point.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]


Maybe that wasn't the best example. But my point is simply that people misundertand aggression and when to properly use it. In other words, maybe people whom some might call "weak-tight" aren't really that weak. Maybe they'er simply using aggression more appropriately? Obviously everyone is different and it's hard to label people, but I do think people misapply aggression. That's my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're vastly underestimating the value of fold equity. I agree, there are times to be passive (against a maniac or LAG). There are times to be weak (against a rock). But your default should be high aggression any time you're in the pot. Obviously it depends, but this should be your default.

One of the things I always try to keep in mind when I play is that I want to put my opponents to tough decisions while giving myself easy decisions. Without aggression this is impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Maybe that wasn't the best example. But my point is simply that people misundertand aggression and when to properly use it. In other words, maybe people whom some might call "weak-tight" aren't really that weak. Maybe they'er simply using aggression more appropriately? Obviously everyone is different and it's hard to label people, but I do think people misapply aggression. That's my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're vastly underestimating the value of fold equity. I agree, there are times to be passive (against a maniac or LAG). There are times to be weak (against a rock). But your default should be high aggression any time you're in the pot. Obviously it depends, but this should be your default.

One of the things I always try to keep in mind when I play is that I want to put my opponents to tough decisions while giving myself easy decisions. Without aggression this is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that your default should be aggressive, but I would simply say that you shouldn't go too far with it. Because I think you probably overestimate fold equity. I mean that's why small stakes has a separate forum from high stakes, right? Presumably SS has a lower fold equity than HS. And I think that is very true. I buy plenty of pots myself, but you have to be very careful about when you're applying aggression. I prefer to be aggressive when I actually think I have the best hand or when no one else seems interested in the pot, because I don't think in SSNL there is as much fold equity as most think. This seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation whys the "weak-tight" players do better--it's not that they're weak, but maybe that they actually understand the game better than most give them credit for

Ultimately most of your profit, IMO, comes from making better decisions than your opponents. You don't have to be hyper-aggressive and try to push everyone off a better hand, because that's not going to work too often.