Lol. A winrate is per 100 hands so it doesn’t matter how many tables you are playing. In my last 850 hands I’m up over 7 buy ins, so that’s over 80bb/100. That is obviously unsustainable, and it seems to me that winrate is relatively meaningless at fewer than 50k or 100k hands because swings of 5+ buy ins will happen and drastically change it.
But the point of my post isn’t that I’m a winning 10nl player, I’m actually a losing 10nl blitz player (although still a small sample), it was to compare 10nl to replay, and with that in mind, my only message to you is that you may be giving 10nl players too much credit for being close to gto. The game is definitely tougher than any live game I played, and most regs are not making the most obvious horrendous mistakes, but they rarely apply real pressure. Players on replay like idiotplayer require a much closer to GTO strategy and players like gamergirl apply more consistent pressure to play against than almost any individual opponent I’ve seen at 10nl. But then again, the highest elite stakes here tend to be short handed against a very small player pool of the top players, while the real money site is 6max against a larger pool, so you can avoid good regs if you want.
By the way, I’m not really jamming there. I had to answer something before Joe did!
You can’t just fold there though. I neither know nor care what the solvers say, BB will probably 3! fairly wide vs a CO min raise. If you won’t at least defend with something near the top of your range, yer playing the wrong game.
And because BB is probably 3! wider, I would be 4! there sometimes, especially with JJ, which is tricky postflop.
Without info on the player, I would NEVER assume he is playing anything close to perfect GTO. Why would anyone make such an unlikely assumption?
I agree. I don’t have the “solver answer key” in front of me, but in many similar spots the solver likes to flat 80‐90% and 4bet the rest.
I’m not advocating folding JJ here at all really, but honestly if there’s a spot where you feel really uncomfortable it’s better to fold than to make bigger mistakes later in the hand. Going in cold to a new table and facing a huge 3bet, it’s better to make a little mistake than a huge one. It’s not gto but as a default against some player pools, JJ is not doing well in this exact spot. It shows the value of information at the table.
Also not gto, but as a general principal, to win in poker I either want to be the aggressor to get value or folds, or induce bluffs when I have a good hand to call. While JJ can fall into this latter category, it’s quite vulnerable and not going to realize equity that well against aggression postflop even in position, so it’s a tough spot. So while folding is bad in terms of being weak/exploitable, folding in this spot if it’s the first hand at a completely unknown table isn’t going to be the most costly mistake in the world.
Nevermind, I googled it. 2cent/5cent? Punisher, you call someone winning 15BB/100 playing penny poker a “crusher?” Dude LOL.
Playing 4 tables is what, 200 hands per hour? At 15/100, that’s $1.50? No offense, but that’s like getting a job flipping burgers at the airport McDonalds and saying you are “crushing it” as an international chef, except the burger flipper is making way more money.
If these games are hard, with most playing a solid GTO game, I’ll give you some great free advice…
Switch to $1/$2 immediately! Will the 1/2 players be playing perfecter GTOer poker? From what you said, it would be impossible for them to be playing that much better.
So your win rate might drop to 10BB/100, that’s still $40/hour if you’re quad tabling, $60 if you can manage 6. Still not exactly crushing it, but you will be able to afford a pizza now and then.
I’m guessing there may be some miscommunication going on here. In the US, we name stakes by the 100bb buy-in, so 10nl is $0.05/0.10 blinds. In many places outside of the US, the stakes are named by the size of the bb, so 10nl is $5/10 blinds. This would explain the difference of opinion on the difficulty of games being discussed.
FWIW, it is very possible to consistently beat the $0.05/0.10 6 max games for 20-25bb/100, net of rake. Some sites will be tougher than others but overall the games are extremely exploitable. On the other hand, $2.50/$5 games, especially Zoom, are probably the hardest games running anywhere at any given time. Almost no one beats the Zoom games for more than 3bb/100. The regular tables are still beatable for more than that but table selection is going to be the key determinant. At these stakes there are more pros than recreational players.
You get ~75 hands per hour/table playing 6-max on regular games. Its ~200 hands/hr/table on fast-fold games. I have no idea how some players manage the number of tables they do and still perform at any reasonable level. I strain to play 6 regular or 3 Zoom at any given time and mostly limit myself to 4 reg or 2 zoom. The real grinders who do this for a living can manage far more. Even if they have modest winrates, the volume is there for them to make a decent hourly.
Haha, you are right. The title of post is microstakes. There’s at least one player in Venezuela who makes a living playing at these tables, but $5 per hour goes a lot further there.
Believe it or not, the general consensus (not just my opinion) is that .5/.10 online is much tougher than live $1/2. That has definitely been my experience. I don’t play poker to win money, or I wouldn’t have played 200k+ hands on replay. I’m not sure if other people on this thread realized what stakes we were discussing, but microstakes are from .01/.02 up to .1/.25 cent. I almost have the bankroll to move up to that last level. I could afford to buy in for a lot more than the initial $80 investment, but part of the experience is learning to beat a level before moving up.
But, beating any game for 10/100 or more is very good and pretty unusual. The skill at these tiny stakes is possibly even higher than $2/5 from what I’ve seen. Anyone who actually wants to make money is advised to avoid online cash games because they are too tough for only a tiny bit of money.
I did say in one of the early posts that I bought in for $80, which at $5/10 would be 8 big blinds, not a bankroll.
At .1/.25 someone winning 10/100 playing 300 hands an hour would make $7.50 an hour, beats working retail.
The question asked (to Joe only, no less) specified 9-max.
It also specified 100/200, so wasn’t real money micro stakes.
It was then claimed that $0.02/$0.05 is so full of solid GTO players that 15BB/100 would be crushing it.
Sorry, but I don’t believe that. If everyone is playing perfect GTO, you wouldn’t be able to sustain 15BB/100, and if those games are that hard, you might as well be playing $1/$2… how much harder could they be?
Joe is a big boy and can defend himself, but wow. Calling one person out, then trying to show that he knows nothing is not cool. From what I have seen, Joe is a solid player with good theoretical knowledge. He and I don’t always agree, but he deserves a lot more respect than that.
I think he was suggesting that the other person thought we were talking about $5/$10, although why I would be here comparing the high stakes to replay is pretty hard to understand.
Lol … I was gonna say about same … Someone asks a question to be Only answered by a Specific Player … Then when that player responds you pick apart their answer trying to “one up” and prove them wrong … High jacking the tread … All I could think is … What kind of I’ve got Mommy issues display am I witnessing here
Like I said, yer a big boy and handled yourself well.
I’m not bashing microstakes. I’m playing free poker, how could I?
But you’re also not swaggering around saying those games are full of GTO experts and claiming that you’re crushing the game by winning 15BB/100.
Joe, you play winning poker here and are winning at the stakes you’re playing. So yeah, good on you.
I poke you with a pointy stick now and then, and have only managed to get an emotional tantrum from you a few times, so kudos on your remarkable restraint too.
Half the information in the original question was irrelevant. CO is CO, regardless of the number of players at the table. 100bb is 100bb, regardless of the denomination of the chips.
Agreed. IMO Joe’s biggest problem in beating these stakes is not being exploitative enough. He will win at a good rate playing a losers game (you win by other people making mistakes vs optimal). He will not max out his winrate by playing the most efficient winners game (making the moves to proactively exploit opponents’ weaknesses). This is not an uncommon theme. I predict that he will have a smaller dropoff in winrate as he moves up in stakes than many other players do. The balance of what skills are necessary to beat certain player pools will shift more towards theoretically solid play as the obvious exploitative opportunities shrink.
I don’t pay attention to people who think they come off as smarter by making other people look bad. Its intellectual insecurity for the most part. I know a lot of really really intelligent people and none of them feel the need to advertise it. It comes across naturally for those who possess it.
That seems like a fair assessment. I definitely don’t bash people over the head to get max value. Trying to be balanced makes the most sense to me even if it isn’t the most profitable or even close to actual GTO balance.
It does kinda seem like I’ve finally cracked 10nl (.5/.1) because I’m now winning over 20/100 over the past >5k hands, and it’s been mostly from scrapping for pots and not a lot of hitting sets or getting AA in pre (and holding). So hopefully 25nl here I come (.10/.25). Beyond getting max value, it’s tough to stay focused and not start experimenting because it’s more interesting or a learning experience.
I’ve been sitting in airports for the past 24 hours so it’s been good to have some entertainment.
There’s a difference between 100/200, which seems to be a reference to a Replay situation and a real money situation at any stakes. From a purely theoretical perspective, OK, no difference, but from a practical application perspective… big difference.
As I see it, the thread is about application, not theory.
It should be an application question, but it seems to have been introduced to test theory. In theory (aka the GTO play) is to do X, but the application in any actual situation is definitely going to be different. The denominations do confuse the situation because we were discussing either $5/10 or .5/.10. That doesn’t change the “correct” answer but it would affect one’s ability to feel confident flatting a 3bet with a medium strength hand, knowing whether your opponent is a replay player, a microstakes fish, or a professional. It’s an interesting way to see how trying to play “unexploitably” could actually play into one’s weaknesses even if you’re not technically making a mistake.
Edit: since the given example with JJ is relatively straightforward, a better example would be that the solver-based chart I use often has many flats vs 3bets and 4bets out of position with various hands like 76s/AJs/44 (depending on the exact positions). Maybe the solver says to call, but 95% of players would be better off “folding too much” than trying to play out of position with these hands against an aggressive opponent.
I’m happy folding there if the 3! frequency is low enough. I’ve seen people with a 3! frequency of 0.5% over a several thousand hand sample, which indicates pretty reliably that they are pretty much only 3 betting AA (and who cares if it could be slightly wider). In that spot, JJ goes into the muck without a seconds thought.
I also like 4 betting here some of the time, too. I agree that flatting is usually your best play in this spot, but there will be times I’ll just 4! with the intent going all in facing a 5!.
. And I’ve got my microstakes winrate going for me, so that’s nice…