Wednesday, April 12th: Checking out NL...
Again, apologies for the 10 day hiatus from posting -- there was a big law school softball tournament down at the Univ. of Virginia. Man is it gorgeous down there...would have loved to have gone to undergrad or law school there.
Anyway, after playing in the PPM $10,000 buy-in tournament, I decided I wanted to next tackle another one of the goals that I set for myself in 2006: learn how to master NL hold'em. While it's true that I've had quite a bit of success at the $1K and $2K NL tables to date, I've never actually believed that it was the result of any actual NL prowess. I used the Ed Miller short-stack strategy, decried by many. And since Party still hasn't prevented players from doubling up, getting up, then sitting back down with less chips, it has worked just fine. I'll be the first to say that Party really SHOULD fix their software to prevent it (like every other major online poker room already has), but since they haven't, it's something I used to take advantage of. But no more! I'm forcing myself to actually learn how to play no-limit poker. Although I've achieved a pretty impressive limit winrate, LHE is really nothing more than math...I really do want to learn more about the fine nuances of high-stakes NL play.
So I'm more or less immersing myself in it now, playing perhaps 80% of my play at NL tables. And to this point, I'm having a blast and doing quite well. I stepped down to the $1K ($5 / $10) NL tables, because it's where I feel most comfortable. In fact that brings up what I think is another important point -- any time I decide to give a new style or strategy a try, I nearly always step down at least a few levels in stakes. When I wanted to teach myself SH play, I stepped all the way back down to the $1 / $2 6-max tables. Yes: one dollar / two dollars. And this was when I was happily multi-tabling the 20/40 and 30/60 10max games. Granted, I got bored at 1/2 pretty quickly, and opted instead for the 3/6 and 5/10 SH games, but you see the point I'm trying to make: don't consider lower stakes to be "beneath you." They're quite valuable training grounds for practicing. For NL, I could have stepped it down to the $400NL or $600NL tables, but decided to stick it out at $1K to see how it went. So far, so good.
Here's one of the most imporant things I've come to appreciate, which I'd never really internalized before. NL hold'em is different from limit to such an extent that it's almost a different game. Compare this new experiment to my initial foray into the 6-max games after having succeeded for so long at full-ring. The change, while it took some getting used to, really wasn't all that drastic -- one elementary (although not altogether fallacious) school of thought is to treat a 6-max game just like a 10-max game in which the first 4 people to act have folded. All in all, I had to learn to become more agressive, but the post-flop strategy and general thought processes were the same. Didn't take long for me to get up to speed.
NL hold-em, on the other hand, is a completely different animal. I realize now why my previous forays into NL (at least with a full stack) had brought me very mediocre results. A limit mentality in NL isn't just exploitable by more skilled players, I'm convinced it's downright incorrect. I was playing my standard LHE slightly-loose-aggressive game, and couldn't figure out how my opponents kept taking my whole stack with their ragged two pair or set. Surely I must be the unluckiest NL player ever to have lived to be succumbing to beat after beat after beat when I held premium starting hands, I reasoned. But it wasn't just bad luck -- I really didn't have the tools nor understanding to really excel, and I understand that now. I had to completely, and I really do mean completely restructure my game. For starters, my VPIP / PFR at 10max NL is now roughly 29/8 (compared to approx 22/12 for full-ring limit). Cold-calling raises, which I do around 0.0001% of the time playing limit is now routine, although still not all that frequent.
The first (and arguably most important) observation I've made is that my biggest winning hands are NOT the premium starting hands; e.g. JJ through AA and AK. They're still winners, and have very high win PERCENTAGES, but it's been learning how to turn a profit from my more marginal hands that has really helped my NL game step up. Just sorting through my most profitable hands, interesting hands that crack the top-10 include 66, 64s, K5s, 52o (??), and K8o. Conversely, AKs, 99, and AJs are among the top-10 hands that have cost me the most thus far. I'm sure those of you who are winning NL-regulars must be watching me come to terms with these concepts that are all but second nature to you, rolling your eyes and thinking: 'damn, welcome to this century', but I'm really enjoying the intellectual challenge of sketching the outline of a winning NL strategy coming from my LHE background.
I'm hesitant to cite my results, because they're over a very, very insignificant number of hands, and I want to be the first to concede that I really don't think I'm all that good a NL player just yet...but there's no doubt in my mind I'm on the right track. For whatever it's worth, I'm around 8 PTBB / 100 for my first 10K hands at $1K and $2K NL. My results don't really mean anything; far more imporant, I think, is that I feel comfortable playing full-stack NL for the first time. My previous attempts had been characterized by feelings of being completely lost in what to do, intermixed with tacit acknowledgement that I had been completely outplayed on every level. But for the first time, I'm starting to feel good about my NL game.
Last thing for now: the very last comment that was made in my last post is as follows:
"However, may I warn against the advice of "have fun and enjoy life. Soon enough you will run into the right person". I employed that strategy, and it didn't happen. I didn't "bump into the right person" and I regret it enormously. I'm 50 now and a lonely old age beckons. Seriously, put some effort into finding someone you love and work hard at the relationship. You won't regret it."
I don't mean to pick on you, specifically, Peter B., but what you wrote is precisely what I'm afraid of -- growing old, alone. I am not passing judgment on you or your life choices, but to me -- someone who, since he was young, has always put a premium on getting married and having a family of his own -- the idea of growing old alone is positively terrifying. Thanks for your candor - it gives one perspective. In the post I wrote on self-consciousness not too long ago, I submitted that most people I know do everything in their power to hide their insecurities...I'll do my best not to do that here: the idea of growing old alone is frightening to me.
Anyway, after playing in the PPM $10,000 buy-in tournament, I decided I wanted to next tackle another one of the goals that I set for myself in 2006: learn how to master NL hold'em. While it's true that I've had quite a bit of success at the $1K and $2K NL tables to date, I've never actually believed that it was the result of any actual NL prowess. I used the Ed Miller short-stack strategy, decried by many. And since Party still hasn't prevented players from doubling up, getting up, then sitting back down with less chips, it has worked just fine. I'll be the first to say that Party really SHOULD fix their software to prevent it (like every other major online poker room already has), but since they haven't, it's something I used to take advantage of. But no more! I'm forcing myself to actually learn how to play no-limit poker. Although I've achieved a pretty impressive limit winrate, LHE is really nothing more than math...I really do want to learn more about the fine nuances of high-stakes NL play.
So I'm more or less immersing myself in it now, playing perhaps 80% of my play at NL tables. And to this point, I'm having a blast and doing quite well. I stepped down to the $1K ($5 / $10) NL tables, because it's where I feel most comfortable. In fact that brings up what I think is another important point -- any time I decide to give a new style or strategy a try, I nearly always step down at least a few levels in stakes. When I wanted to teach myself SH play, I stepped all the way back down to the $1 / $2 6-max tables. Yes: one dollar / two dollars. And this was when I was happily multi-tabling the 20/40 and 30/60 10max games. Granted, I got bored at 1/2 pretty quickly, and opted instead for the 3/6 and 5/10 SH games, but you see the point I'm trying to make: don't consider lower stakes to be "beneath you." They're quite valuable training grounds for practicing. For NL, I could have stepped it down to the $400NL or $600NL tables, but decided to stick it out at $1K to see how it went. So far, so good.
Here's one of the most imporant things I've come to appreciate, which I'd never really internalized before. NL hold'em is different from limit to such an extent that it's almost a different game. Compare this new experiment to my initial foray into the 6-max games after having succeeded for so long at full-ring. The change, while it took some getting used to, really wasn't all that drastic -- one elementary (although not altogether fallacious) school of thought is to treat a 6-max game just like a 10-max game in which the first 4 people to act have folded. All in all, I had to learn to become more agressive, but the post-flop strategy and general thought processes were the same. Didn't take long for me to get up to speed.
NL hold-em, on the other hand, is a completely different animal. I realize now why my previous forays into NL (at least with a full stack) had brought me very mediocre results. A limit mentality in NL isn't just exploitable by more skilled players, I'm convinced it's downright incorrect. I was playing my standard LHE slightly-loose-aggressive game, and couldn't figure out how my opponents kept taking my whole stack with their ragged two pair or set. Surely I must be the unluckiest NL player ever to have lived to be succumbing to beat after beat after beat when I held premium starting hands, I reasoned. But it wasn't just bad luck -- I really didn't have the tools nor understanding to really excel, and I understand that now. I had to completely, and I really do mean completely restructure my game. For starters, my VPIP / PFR at 10max NL is now roughly 29/8 (compared to approx 22/12 for full-ring limit). Cold-calling raises, which I do around 0.0001% of the time playing limit is now routine, although still not all that frequent.
The first (and arguably most important) observation I've made is that my biggest winning hands are NOT the premium starting hands; e.g. JJ through AA and AK. They're still winners, and have very high win PERCENTAGES, but it's been learning how to turn a profit from my more marginal hands that has really helped my NL game step up. Just sorting through my most profitable hands, interesting hands that crack the top-10 include 66, 64s, K5s, 52o (??), and K8o. Conversely, AKs, 99, and AJs are among the top-10 hands that have cost me the most thus far. I'm sure those of you who are winning NL-regulars must be watching me come to terms with these concepts that are all but second nature to you, rolling your eyes and thinking: 'damn, welcome to this century', but I'm really enjoying the intellectual challenge of sketching the outline of a winning NL strategy coming from my LHE background.
I'm hesitant to cite my results, because they're over a very, very insignificant number of hands, and I want to be the first to concede that I really don't think I'm all that good a NL player just yet...but there's no doubt in my mind I'm on the right track. For whatever it's worth, I'm around 8 PTBB / 100 for my first 10K hands at $1K and $2K NL. My results don't really mean anything; far more imporant, I think, is that I feel comfortable playing full-stack NL for the first time. My previous attempts had been characterized by feelings of being completely lost in what to do, intermixed with tacit acknowledgement that I had been completely outplayed on every level. But for the first time, I'm starting to feel good about my NL game.
Last thing for now: the very last comment that was made in my last post is as follows:
"However, may I warn against the advice of "have fun and enjoy life. Soon enough you will run into the right person". I employed that strategy, and it didn't happen. I didn't "bump into the right person" and I regret it enormously. I'm 50 now and a lonely old age beckons. Seriously, put some effort into finding someone you love and work hard at the relationship. You won't regret it."
I don't mean to pick on you, specifically, Peter B., but what you wrote is precisely what I'm afraid of -- growing old, alone. I am not passing judgment on you or your life choices, but to me -- someone who, since he was young, has always put a premium on getting married and having a family of his own -- the idea of growing old alone is positively terrifying. Thanks for your candor - it gives one perspective. In the post I wrote on self-consciousness not too long ago, I submitted that most people I know do everything in their power to hide their insecurities...I'll do my best not to do that here: the idea of growing old alone is frightening to me.
posted by Blog Administrator at 2:30 PM
9 Comments:
First off, glad to see you're still writing...had me worried there for a bit...
Secondly, I'm also making my first forays into NL after concentrating on FL for while. However, I'm still in my first year of playing, so divide all your numbers by about 1000 and you'll get an idea of where I'm playing.
Third, in regards to the bumping into the right person, it does happen. I was alone for a long time and it just happened. However, when you do meet that right person, the time for sitting back is finished. You've got to squeeze every last bit of EV out of the situation to make it happen.
Good luck on all counts; I'll be reading...
I would appreciate it if you would share your thoughts regarding your extended use of Ed's short stack strategy.
Thanks.
I talk a lot about the Ed Miller shortstack strategy in previous posts. I'm sure you'll be able to find the answers you're looking for there.
hello.. was wondering about your thoughts as to how to pick the fishiest NL tables, do you still use VPIP as the major indication? btw great blog ive been reading for 5ish months now
Great results! What are your thoughts on moving up? I've read that there are only 20 players in the world that can consistently win at the highest stakes NL. Wondering how soft the $1000 tables could be compared to those higher stakes. At what point do you test those waters and find out? This also raises the question of what has bigger upside for profits, limit or NL?
I tend to think that much of this success is due to your extreme discipline which you've touted earlier.
Gordo
You should be on your 3rd wife by now considering your age... what are you waiting for?
Why did you go to law school in the first place? What were you expecting? I ask this because you seem quit introspective so I would have thought you had good reasons for going to law school.
Is it because like many Ivy grads, we gravitate towards fields like ibanking, mconsulting, and law because everyone we know is doing the same? What are you actually going to do with your law degree.
Patience is quite important in looking for the woman of your dreams. Once you find what you are looking for it is a lot of work to go and get it.
Just put the same effort into finding a woman that you put into poker.... and no doubt you will get what you want.
It is when the fear you have overcomes every other emotion that you will be *inspired* to make the changes you want. You need some leverage to make changes... but don't settle.
And make sure she plays poker as well or she won't understand what you do. Even though I only play some evenings my wife's family isn't overly thrilled. Most families don't want their daughters married to gamblers!
Excellent post as always. Don't have any specific comments or questions immediately as usual, except that your full ring NL style based on PT stats is very peculiar and INCREDIBLY loose compared to the standards that experience has arrived to ... not to say that some players aren't able to apply themselves well like this too. I hope to see some posts by you in the High Stakes Pot Limit/No-Limit forum?
Btw, 8 ptbb/100 at 5/10 is the same as 2bb/100 at 40/80, so it's not really a big step down in limits for you, is it? I'm honestly impressed by your winrate after 10k hands, knowing that it is a small sample, but knowing about your limited experience at NL and knowing about the non standard approach you take from the stats you've given. I think an average 10-max NL regular TAG is something like 16/8 and something considered a full ring LAG is somewhere around 20/10-26/12, generally.
ON the whole, interesting developments ...
Post a Comment
<< Home