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.

[josie_wales]

[ QUOTE ]
Big stack play is overrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are joking right?

[jaydub]

Since no one has bothered to submit a cogent argument for why it is preferable for experienced players to play SSNL cash games with very large (deep) stacks, I thought I would take the time.

As stacks get larger, certain skills become more valuable. It is a given that there are going to be players with deep stacks at your table, here are the skills you can use against them when you have an equally deep stack and why you are better able to utilize them than when you have a short stack.

One is the ability to get away from hands when you are obviously beaten. The first thing that jumped to my mind was the way mediocre players refuse to fold hands like TPTK or an overpair. They become married to their hand and refuse to fold despite a very inhospitable board texture. This tendency is bad no matter how short the stacks are, but being married to AA with 400BB is far worse than with 100BB. The extra stack depth makes it easier for skilled players to get away from hands. It's no longer pot the flop, pot the turn, oops I'm pot committed, may as well just push.

Second is the flip side of #1. It's the ability to extract the maximum amount of money from an opponent who is behind, often way behind. There is a definite skill in betting amounts that give your opponent(s) poor odds to draw out on you while at the same time not scaring them out of the pot. As your stacks get larger, this gets more valuable as the river will not necessarily have you both (all) pot committed.

Third is our old friend implied odds. Smart, deep players will fleece mediocre, deep players because they can read hands and know that even without current pot odds, some hands are worth drawing to because when you hit, you will take the other deep stack(s). With a short stack, you cannot reap the full benefit of the implied odds.

There are more reasons, and many sub elements (board texture!), but those are three that immediately came to mind.

[Tim H]

that 850 area is former support acting as stiff resistance.