My Microstake Confession And Why My Win Rate At 10NL SUCKED

Obviously the post Robb just created as an indirect repsonse to the thread I started regarding a typical win rate at microstakes.

I am in no way saying Robbs or any of the replies to my previous thread are wrong, I agree with all the advice. I think Robb should be recognized from making such an excellent thread and I think alot of new micro players can seriously benefit from it. I'm 5 starring it as soon as I'm done here with this one. Oh and his thread needs to be stickied asap.

The reason I sort of got steamed up on the thread I started is the fact that regarding that win rate I posted for comments, I haven't really disclosed all the details of my strategy etc. etc...you'll see what I'm talking about in a minute. Basically some of the replies were frustrating because my 'normal stacking' win rate is alot higher and I believe I just felt like I was being called a bad player because I was only running 3BB/100, when in reality I'm not.

No this isn't an excuse to a crummy win rate its a reason, and if I have to I'll post my SN and display all my PT data for anyone to believe me, I will because I'm sure many 10NL players at Stars will recognize me because I'm easily spotted. Now your all probably thinking WTF is this donk noob guy on crack? No I'm not so please continue to read on...

I was trying out a strategy I've always wondered how effective it really could be. In the past I've read about others effectively employing this strategy, and while giving it a shot, I've also seen others do it so poorly that people like this make microstakes a coppermine. Since I'm trying to turn $50 into a bankroll that's manageable for much higher stakes, with this strategy I would be able to follow good BR management while hopefully winning more money than I would at 2NL.

So what is this strategy? There was a hint on it earlier but I'll just make it very clear: SHORT STACKING

I was 16 tabling, with a minimum buy in, following a specific set of push/fold rules mixed in with a few limps and regular raises in. You know those guys who just shove pf? Yeah I wanted to see if they could actually be winning players. Most of them suck ass, but I think my approach was effective. I could probably write up a strategy guide on it - then again, why bother since your win rate will be too low - although your $/hour could be alot higher since your able to easily play 16 or more tables at once.

What I learned though from this strategy was although it was an easy quick way to boost my bankroll, I found it robotic and basically my development as a player wasn't moving forward. I was literally like a bot running at times 20 tables at once mashing the fold or raise button. Clearly If I tried this at 100NL I'd get my shit kicked around and thrown back in my face while being robbed at the same time.

The reason it works at 10NL is because there are so many stupid donks who will literally call you down with garbage. I've had my shoves called with Q5s, J4o, 56o, 78s..you name it. It's hard to believe I know, but that's why I made money. People were making mistakes. I can't wait till I'm rolled for 10NL since I'll be taking 100bb stacks instead of 15-20.

Why was my win rate so low for micro? Because I was folding in too many spots I couldnt play properly due to my stack, I was multitabling like fuck, and I was only either winning $2 or losing $2, not much more or less.

I didn't really want to disclose that I was basically running an experiment because I was afraid of getting 'bashed' for being a short stacker. I wanted to see whether or not its possible to win doing this and if so how much. As for now I'm well (over) bankrolled for .01/.02 - which I'm playing deepstacked at $5 after tripling my inital deposit with my short stack strategy (sorry if it feels like I'm bragging). I probably could be playing 10NL with a tight roll, but I'd rather not do that until I'm overrolled so I 'm now putting in some hands at 2NL. Once I get to $250 or so I'll be there again.

So either way, I guess I'd get bashed for having a low win rate.

With the experiment I found the variance was HIGH, however, if you play fullstacked at micro, the variance should be lower. In fact, for those who argue that micro is too hard because of 'variance' or rake or whatever, please go read Robb's post then please go read a book and try to figure out why you suck.

Bottom line: from this experiment I learned alot, but I've also learned that maybe it's best just to be more open/honest in the beginning instead of trying to hide something. I was afraid of being insulted for trying to short stack, but instead I just felt like crap because I was taking things regarding my win rate personally.

Conclusion: 16 tabling while nit short stacking works. But it's only good for turning an initial deposit into something worth playing with and I don't really recommend it if you don't know what your doing. The only thing you will learn is that most of the players are stupid donks at this level and you can't take more than 20bb from them.

One more thing: Don't hide key facts when making a post, it just ends up in a mess at the end. I left out my buy-in size and things just went to shit on my thread. I ended up taking smart ass remarks about how a 3BB/100 win rate is pathetic, but when your a 16 tabling short stack I think it might be OK.

Currently at 2NL I'm 18BB/100 full stacking FR over 3k hands - 4 tabling. I apologize for the length of this thread. I just felt like I had to confess all that to straighten things out and hopefully get some respect that I really don't get all enlighted about a 3BB/100 win rate. Just wanted to see how the tested aproach compared...

I never thought I'd learn so much about myself just from joining a poker forum. Sorry for the long post. Cheers all.

Sorry to say this because I know this isn't what your looking for, but it sure seems to me like you have somewhat of an ego trip building here. Let me get this straight.. You were frustrated because some other beginners criticized your winrate? You actually felt compelled to start a thread here in the BC to tell everyone that your winrate is in fact much higher than first suspected? Even if this is only over a very very tiny sample of hands, that well really can't be classified as a sample (3k hands). And that you hoping to earn respect by telling everyone your "true" winrate?

Well I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by your winrate. However, I am impressed by your willingness to go out and take something you observed (shortstacking) and instead of quickly scampering to a forum to ask someone to spoonfeed (get it? Cuz spoon would likely be the one to reply with the most useful information?) you the information, you went out and became active with your learning/studying and you have come to some modest conclusions. If you keep trying to get better, and quit worrying about earning respect, or "proving yourself", then you'll do much better imo.

winrates mean fuck all at the micro's. Just beat the stake for a couple thousand hands and move up. I already posted this in another thread but with only 5BB/100 you move up in stakes every 40K hands so what does your winrate really matter at any stake

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

Sorry to say this because I know this isn't what your looking for, but it sure seems to me like you have somewhat of an ego trip building here. Let me get this straight.. You were frustrated because some other beginners criticized your winrate? You actually felt compelled to start a thread here in the BC to tell everyone that your winrate is in fact much higher than first suspected? Even if this is only over a very very tiny sample of hands, that well really can't be classified as a sample (3k hands). And that you hoping to earn respect by telling everyone your "true" winrate?

Well I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by your winrate. However, I am impressed by your willingness to go out and take something you observed (shortstacking) and instead of quickly scampering to a forum to ask someone to spoonfeed (get it? Cuz spoon would likely be the one to reply with the most useful information?) you the information, you went out and became active with your learning/studying and you have come to some modest conclusions. If you keep trying to get better, and quit worrying about earning respect, or "proving yourself", then you'll do much better imo.

Actually I'd like to thank you for posting this. It made me realize that my ego may act as a block for future development, and it is something I am going to need to learn how to control and deal with.
I see that it sort of came out as I took some posts too personally, but some of them were a bit unecessary. The fact that I know I'm good enough to get through micros at better than 3BB/100 but have people insult my win rate just sort of set me off (unfortunately). This never would have happened if I just said I was short stacking in the first place.

I understand the sample is small, and it's not really a 'true' win rate, what I meant was I know I can run better than 3BB/100 if I buy in full and not play so many tables.

I'm glad that your impressed the fact that I decided to experiment with short stacking, as I have seen alot of nasty posts on other threads regarding how short stacking 'isn't poker' and basically is frowned upon. I probably shouldn't be worried about opinions on it good or bad, but being a new poster here I wasn't really sure how short stacking was seen by the regulars. Instead of hiding it I probably should have started a thread or a blog about my short stacking experiment from start to finish. With that said, it's clear I've learnt more about poker in the past week than I have in the past year or so.

From now on I will be posting more threads regarding hand histories. I realize that too much discussion on win rates is just results oriented thinking and rather than worry about them, I should just focus on quality play. People were posting results oriented responses because that's the type of question I asked, so basically I got what I didn't want, and no progress was made. Despite the fact that this thread I made was pretty stupid since I went on a rant, by disclosing information about my experiement to others, and having you discover something about me (inflated ego), I've actually learned something now, and I can't really put a price on it.

Your reply actually helps me alot more than you may think and there's no way I can really thank you for this, but please take my thank you seriously. I'm not being sarcastic or routinely polite, I'm being serious.

Originally Posted by jyms

winrates mean fuck all at the micro's. Just beat the stake for a couple thousand hands and move up. I already posted this in another thread but with only 5BB/100 you move up in stakes every 40K hands so what does your winrate really matter at any stake

QFT

If you're beating the game and you're rolled for the next level move up.

Playing over-rolled is bad. I wrote an essay in BC on dangers of playing over-rolled about 18 months ago. It's mathematically bad, so don't do it.

As for shortstacking well done!

Short stacking is not a "bad" thing, particularly when not rolled high enough to buy in full. It is far easier to make yourself unexploitable shortstacking and thus great for early BR building. The other good thing about it is that full stacks don't take you seriously, so you get paid more often by them treating the "annoying shortstacker" with contempt.

There was a 2+2 pro who had to cash out his whole BR (lots of thousands) to pay life debts, couldn't get a job, and had $20 left on stars. He built it back up short stacking the micros until rolled for $5NL, then worked back up. He's still going I think, around 50 or 100NL now [Edit: not shortstacking any more obv, because when good and rolled why would you.]

If you can make more $$ per hour short stacking than by buying in full, and more $$ per hour is the most important thing for you right now (as it may be trying to rebuild a roll), then don't listen to people who tell you it's bad. Good decision making is about what's right for you at the time of making the decision.

Originally Posted by gingerwizard

Originally Posted by jyms

winrates mean fuck all at the micro's. Just beat the stake for a couple thousand hands and move up. I already posted this in another thread but with only 5BB/100 you move up in stakes every 40K hands so what does your winrate really matter at any stake

QFT

If you're beating the game and you're rolled for the next level move up.

Playing over-rolled is bad. I wrote an essay in BC on dangers of playing over-rolled about 18 months ago. It's mathematically bad, so don't do it.
As for shortstacking well done!

Short stacking is not a "bad" thing, particularly when not rolled high enough to buy in full. It is far easier to make yourself unexploitable shortstacking and thus great for early BR building. The other good thing about it is that full stacks don't take you seriously, so you get paid more often by them treating the "annoying shortstacker" with contempt.

There was a 2+2 pro who had to cash out his whole BR (lots of thousands) to pay life debts, couldn't get a job, and had $20 left on stars. He built it back up short stacking the micros until rolled for $5NL, then worked back up. He's still going I think, around 50 or 100NL now [Edit: not shortstacking any more obv, because when good and rolled why would you.]

If you can make more $$ per hour short stacking than by buying in full, and more $$ per hour is the most important thing for you right now (as it may be trying to rebuild a roll), then don't listen to people who tell you it's bad. Good decision making is about what's right for you at the time of making the decision.

Would you say some of the dangers would be maybe playing too sloppy because of all those back up buy-ins you would have in your BR? Plus the fact that you're giving up more $/hour at the next level up (assuming you can beat it for more $), and thus moving forward slower. Is your essay on the site if so could you add a link to this thread? I'd be interested in reading it.

Ok so I haven't bothered reading through the entire thread as I could only stomic your initial post. And after reading your other thread I think I have a good read on your tells, if you know what I mean.
All I can say is your winrate, stratagy, experiment......Don't mean shit with a shitty attitude. The purpose of the BC is so US noobs and donkeys, and yes I am a donkey myself as are YOU can try and improve ourselfs. The only way you can do that is to embrass the criticism and harsh remarks. Take them with a grain of salt but yet learn from them. And then once your little feelings are done being hurt thank the individuals who took the time to try and help you rather you like there mean words or not. Believe me they will respect you and your winrate once you've earned it. But just like your poker skills it takes time to earn respect and a lot more when you start off when a fucked up attitude!
I truly wish you luck with your journey to become a better poker player and I hope a more open minded one as well.

Originally Posted by HarleyGuy13

Ok so I haven't bothered reading through the entire thread as I could only stomic your initial post. And after reading your other thread I think I have a good read on your tells, if you know what I mean.
All I can say is your winrate, stratagy, experiment......Don't mean shit with a shitty attitude. The purpose of the BC is so US noobs and donkeys, and yes I am a donkey myself as are YOU can try and improve ourselfs. The only way you can do that is to embrass the criticism and harsh remarks. Take them with a grain of salt but yet learn from them. And then once your little feelings are done being hurt thank the individuals who took the time to try and help you rather you like there mean words or not. Believe me they will respect you and your winrate once you've earned it. But just like your poker skills it takes time to earn respect and a lot more when you start off when a fucked up attitude!
I truly wish you luck with your journey to become a better poker player and I hope a more open minded one as well.

Order of bolded text. 1 meaning first bolded line, 2 next etc..
1. Please read the threads before you decide to post an answer as you don't know where to start. Example, an answer may have already been clarified yet you decide to repeat the answer becaue you didn't notice someone already gave it.
2. This is true, however if you read my post you would realize that I have discovered my ego could be a block to my future development as a player and thus I am taking steps to work around this.
3. Your assuming I'm a donkey without any statistics. Good assumption though...maybe you should read my post?
4. Thanks. I don't think you mean to come off the way you sound, and I don't mean to come off the way I probably sound, but I think maybe we both don't know wtf we are talking about anymore so perhaps it's best we just leave it at that.

Perhaps we could both stop posting back at each other now and just focus on what we can do to improve our game. If you read my reply to the last reply, you would see I've already recognized some things and they don't need to be repeated. If your just skimming through you're not catching the entire picture and you end up missing alot of key facts. I appreciate your replies to my threads, however I really wish you would read not only my post, but the replies as well to get a handle on where the thread is going. To sum it up, please read any post you respond to in full from now on. It will benefit us all.

less talking more playing in my opinion

You're welcome

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ght=overrolled

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

less talking more playing in my opinion

good call

Originally Posted by kettleofish

You're welcome

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ght=overrolled

Thanks I've been dying to read this!

no offense but just reading ur posts makes me sick.... u talk as if you're the king of the world

Originally Posted by xptboy

no offense but just reading ur posts makes me sick.... u talk as if you're the king of the world

Yeah because we all know there is a king of the world.