|
wolfmmix
|
03-17-2009, 01:47 PM
Post subject: NL2 vs NL5 - What am I doing wrong?
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 21
|
|
Hello all....
I'm hoping someone can give me some advice. I'm sure its something simple I'm doing wrong.
I started the an experiment on Feb 23rd using a modified version of the 19 hands theory but also included limping in the SB with SCs.
Over 15k hands at NL2 (.01/.02), I'm winning at a rate of 15.72ptbb/100. Though a smallish sample, that qualifies as being a consistent winner.
Now, once I hit 15K hands at NL2, I was rolled for NL5 so I made the jump. I've now hit 15k hands at NL5 with a paltry 1.92ptbb/100 winrate.
Here are my basic stats for each level:
NL2 - 13.0/4.7/3.17
NL5 - 13.2/4.7/2.92
My stats are almost identical but the results are terribly different. Are NL2 and NL5 really that different? What should I change up?
Thanks
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
AnTman_69
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 463
|
|
Wow! This is almost exactly the same post that i made when i first came to FTR too. crazy.
I will tell you what i was told. 15k hands is not big enough sample size. You could be simply running bad at 5nl, or maybe u ran really good at 2nl...only way you will find out is if u play more hands.
|
|
|
|
AFchung
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UCLA
Posts: 1,179
|
|
15k hands is not a terrible sample size, although more would've been better. i think its a combination of all the below things
1. running good at 2nl
2. running bad at 5nl
3. psyching yourself after moving up and playing a bit more scared
2NL and 5NL play the same, but i had a rough patch through 5NL as well. for me 5NL > 10NL > 2NL. lmao -_-
|
|
|
|
Muzzard
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 1,843
|
|
limp less/call less, get that vpip and pfr close to each other.
I ammuse your playing full ring. Get it in the ball park of 10/8-15/13. But you vpip/pfr should never be more than 2 or 3% different within that range.
|
|
|
|
amifat
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 92
|
|
as others have said 15k isn't a huge sample and you can get big down swongs in that period but tbh post moar stats, then we can have a accurate look at some of your potential leaks.
For example just from a far i see your VPIP is tight however you probably don't raise enough, this could be because you are not positionally aware or because you simply do not raise enuf of your range.
|
|
|
|
Jason
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: TN
Posts: 883
|
|
Another consideration to make is that poker stats don't directly translate to wins or losses. There are some stats that will surely translate to losses or minimized wins like if you never bet or raise or always CBET or whatever. But, just because you have a "good" VPIP% or aggression factor doesn't mean you're playing well after the flop or table selecting well or maximizing value or all of the things that go into playing solid poker and being a consistent winner.
So, to answer your question, I think you need to delve deeper than just the stats and see where something may be going awry. I also wouldn't think in terms of "I was winning and now I'm not - what am I doing differently?". Just approach it like you're not winning as much as you want and how do you get better? The competition being better and the sample size could be small pieces of the puzzle but there's probably other, bigger things related to your play in terms of gaining and losing value in hands based on your style. Good luck.
|
- Jason
 
|
|
wolfmmix
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 21
|
|
I'm certainly classified as tight-passive but hat is part of the experiment. The reason VPIP and PFR are so different is because I only raise with premium hands and call/limp with all other PPs, regardless of position.
I know that winning at higher levels will require more positionally-aware play and I'm certainly capable of it but it just seems odd that the same exact strategy that wins consistently at NL2 appears to be not nearly as productive at NL5.
Most of what I've read seems to indicate that NL5 plays almost the same as NL2 as stated earlier in the thread. However, the results of this limited "experiment" seem to contradict that theory.
Thanks for the responses so far. Keep em coming!
|
|
|
|
wolfmmix
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 21
|
|
After reading the replies, my next experiment will be to follow Renton's advice to see how that changes things up.
|
|
|
|
dev
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: swonging and swonging
Posts: 1,550
|
|
A lot of players psych themselves out when they move up. The truth is that the games aren't that much different.
Also, consider that variance manifests in different ways as well. You may have picked better tables at 2nl than at 5nl. Your confidence may have caused you to call down a little light, or a lack of confidence might have caused you to play some hands weakly.
Just keep at it, your winrate should come out better.
|
Check out my self-deprecation here!
|
|
wolfmmix
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 21
|
|
Thanks for the responses folks. Since this post, things have started to look up. Hopefully, I move out of NL5 soon.
|
|
|
|
BooG690
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,439
|
|
I'm in the same boat brotha...slowly but surely though!
|
That's how winners play; we convince the other guy he's making all the right moves.
|
|
bigspenda73
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pwnsylvania
Posts: 7,546
|
|
2ptbb/100 puts you in the top 1% of all poker players
|
|
|
|
oskar
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
Posts: 2,452
|
|
If you got HEM or PT, take a screenshot of your positional stats. You can upload it to imageshack and post here.
Also post steal %
|
|
The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
|
|
Outlaw
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,033
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
2ptbb/100 puts you in the top 1% of all poker players
|
Even at 5NL? Holy crap lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Muzzard
limp less/call less, get that vpip and pfr close to each other.
I ammuse your playing full ring. Get it in the ball park of 10/8-15/13. But you vpip/pfr should never be more than 2 or 3% different within that range.
|
O RLY? I run 22/18 in 6m
|
|
|
|
PlayToWin
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 606
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
2ptbb/100 puts you in the top 1% of all poker players
|
Seriously, where did you get this info? If this is a true stat, it's hard to believe it would apply at all levels of online poker(2NL-200NL, etc.).
|
|
Explain...what I do for a living without saying "I make monies in da 600 enels by pwnin' tha donk bitches". Instead I say "I'm a online financial redistribution broker". - Sasquach991
|
|
dranger7070
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Wake up in the mornin feelin' like P. Diddy
Posts: 2,524
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PlayToWin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
2ptbb/100 puts you in the top 1% of all poker players
|
Seriously, where did you get this info? If this is a true stat, it's hard to believe it would apply at all levels of online poker(2NL-200NL, etc.). |
Its really not that hard to believe if it IS true. The majority of players that play online poker (or any poker for that matter) are losing players. Thus winning at 2ptbb/100 would make you better than most.
|
|
|
|
killerkebab
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 149
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PlayToWin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
2ptbb/100 puts you in the top 1% of all poker players
|
Seriously, where did you get this info? If this is a true stat, it's hard to believe it would apply at all levels of online poker(2NL-200NL, etc.). |
If I had to guess, I'd say its derived statistically. I'm going to assume the mean (average) winrate across the board is 0ptbb/100 (poker is a zero sum game after all) and that 2ptbb/100 is three standard deviations above this mean. However I can't prove this without a sample or more data, spenda can do that :P
|
|
|
|
oskar
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
Posts: 2,452
|
|
poker is only zero sum if there's no rake.
|
|
The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
|
|
Outlaw
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,033
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by oskar
poker is only zero sum if there's no rake.
|
Good point. Your average break even player is losing his ass because of rake... so a person running 0BB/100 is really a winning player but is losing his ass because of rake. So what's a break even player actually going to run with rake figured in? -2BB/100?
|
|
|
|
Kijjo
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 554
|
|
depends on what site and stakes (the rake %) and how many big pots he plays in. if you had a player who could simply steal every single time he was on the button (hypothetical) and never actually play a raked pot, he would in a sense not be losing anything to the rake. ofcourse that doesn't happen for real. but if you're flipping for your stack every couple orbits, and still breaking even, the rake's going to have eaten you hard.
|
|
Donk Skills:
#1 The bluff call
#2 The Drawing-Dead Value Bet
__________________________________________________ _____________
"What we do in life echoes in eternity."
Maximus Decimus Meridius - Gladiator
|
|
siltstrider
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 85
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Outlaw
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by oskar
poker is only zero sum if there's no rake.
|
Good point. Your average break even player is losing his ass because of rake... so a person running 0BB/100 is really a winning player but is losing his ass because of rake. So what's a break even player actually going to run with rake figured in? -2BB/100? |
Isn't the rake at most sites like 5%? Wouldn't that be -5BB/100? Making 2BB/100 doesn't seem so bad to me now...
|
|
|
|
Ragnar4
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Billings, Montana
Posts: 1,284
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by siltstrider
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Outlaw
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by oskar
poker is only zero sum if there's no rake.
|
Good point. Your average break even player is losing his ass because of rake... so a person running 0BB/100 is really a winning player but is losing his ass because of rake. So what's a break even player actually going to run with rake figured in? -2BB/100? |
Isn't the rake at most sites like 5%? Wouldn't that be -5BB/100? Making 2BB/100 doesn't seem so bad to me now... |
No. 5% of a 100 dollar pot is 5 bucks, but 5% of a 25 is 1.25. So if everyone shoves pre-flop at a 10 dollar table that's 90 bucks, but on average the pot is like a 12-15 big blinds before everyone folds, sooooo... that's like .06-.07 cents.
|
The older I get, the more I start wondering; Just what in the hell is going on here? 
|
|
Ragnar4
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Billings, Montana
Posts: 1,284
|
|
Also.
at 2 nl tables stay bad, and the environment never really improves.
but at 5nl the table can go sour and turn into a camp fest. I get up and run from a table if it dips below like 25% vpip. I also like tables that average getting a bunch of money on the table. so I try to sit down at tables that have like a 1 dollar or better average pot.
|
The older I get, the more I start wondering; Just what in the hell is going on here?
|
|
ArcadianRock
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 295
|
|
2BB/100 is pretty good in my book. That's only like $.80 for every 1000 hands for $2NL but when you start playing $400NL that turns into $160 every 1000 hands, and I've seen people multi table enough to make that 1000 hands go very quickly.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
