progression of a NLHE player

I have been playing poker for a couple of years, and online for just under a year now, NLHE $50 and $100 buyins. I started on UB w/ a roll of $1000 because I knew about variance by reading before playing a single hand online. Over the course of the first 7-8 months or so online, I did well, playing really really tight (20% of flops on full ring). I was up to just under $2500 at a peak, not bad. Then I started playing a little more loosely about 2-3 months ago. That is when I also started playing break even poker. Here's the rub: while I'm not making nearly as much money in terms of BB/hr or BB/100, I feel as though I am getting much better as a player than if I had continued to sit there with my teeth in my mouth and make Robby Robot plays all day. In other words, I don't think I would have nearly the same insight into reading hands and betting patterns had I continued on the rock formation path. Sure, my variance has increased, but god dammit I have learned so much by mixing up my play purposefully.

I guess in a nutshell I'm looking at the lower buyin levels as cheap practice for working on my postflop play with an eye on higher limits in the future. Anyone else take this approach in their progression in becoming a better player? Anyone recommend that I stop? I am really enjoying playing the LAGGy style much more than TAG, and I think it's broadening my perceptions immeasurably. I'm fairly certain that at my stakes I could tighten right back up and go back into autopay mode, but I'm more concerned over the long haul (3-5+ years) that this will limit my opportunities in becoming a much better player. When it comes down to it, I want to be able to adapt to each individual table based on my perception thereof, and I am not sure I can do this by just playing TAG all day.

g00t or bad?

wow, you just articulated what I think in my head daily.

heres the way my poker has progressed in 3 easy to understand levels..

Level 1: You start out wild and crazy and stupid, no method to the madness. I half way played the player, halfway played my cards. Got lucky and one a couple of 20 person tourneys and thought I had the game mastered. Never thought about position/stack size/table image/ ect ect. Just flopped the NuTs and moved all-in.. It Was radical..

Level 2: SLANKSKYFIED. I started losing more then I was winning. Read a shizload of books. Learned posotion/starting reqs/bankroll/ect ect. Gave crappy players way to much credit for hands. Got pushed around at the table usually, but my solid machine like play would sometimes prevail.

I frowned upon reckless players like, Daniel Negranu, Phil Ivey, and especially that lucky Guss Hanson (Man! that guy gets all the luck). Idolized the tight solid players Slansky, Hellmouth ect.

I finally got sick and tired of playing textbook poker. To many times I threw away TPTK to a reckless players re-raise, only for him to show me bottom pair w/ equally bad kicker thinking he had a great hand.

Level 3: I started to see the beauty in the post flop play of Daniel, Phil, Gus ect and realize why they are such great players. I start playing tight yet very agressive poker. I Play my position perfectly. I am not looking for the best hand nessecarily, but looking for my opponent to have a hand I know he will lay down. I learned to use my opponents over agressive, or overly tight play to my advantage. I think poker through much more logically now, and I'm hoping eventually my bank roll will begin to show that.


Sorry my reply is long and doesn't really say anything, but you made a great post and it made me think about my current poker situation.

I'm in the same boat as you, so we'll let the experts chime in on your question. If I had to guess though I would say your on a path to greatness.

that explains my progression..

im at the level where i call preflop raises on the button with small suited 1 and 2 gappers, against someone holding AA and taking advantage of them on the flop because they become married to their hand and let implied odds take care of the rest.

not a big tourney player though, i think thats probably the next level of my progression.

I'm currently in that transition from level 2 to 3 and its quite a painful transition when you're used to a steady win rate and suddenly you start getting proper variance. It's made me question my ability to play at my current level and i'm hoping i've had a cold run of cards and it'll turn around without a complete overhaul/backtrack. We shall see...

Originally Posted by Legendash

I'm currently in that transition from level 2 to 3 and its quite a painful transition when you're used to a steady win rate and suddenly you start getting proper variance. It's made me question my ability to play at my current level and i'm hoping i've had a cold run of cards and it'll turn around without a complete overhaul/backtrack. We shall see...

ya im just now getting used to the variance... like last night i lost 100$ at 25$ NL playing rag cards on the button for raises, but today i hit a huge upswing, made 3x what i lost the previous night ... funny to listen to people calling you a fish after you crack their AA

implementing high stakes play at $25 nl, sounds fun... but surely you hardly *ever* do hit with them rags on the button!?.. and its harder to bluff your opponent off their hand.. im thinking this play is less profitable than monster camping in the long run?

Originally Posted by JonDoe

implementing high stakes play at $25 nl, sounds fun... but surely you hardly *ever* do hit with them rags on the button!?.. and its harder to bluff your opponent off their hand.. im thinking this play is less profitable than monster camping in the long run?

i dont bluff often, and i certainly wont do it without outs and a card or two to come.

yes i miss alot, big deal, its easier to toss rags then it is to toss your AA.. with implied odds you make back that money quick.

when you hit 3 of a kind or better from the button on a low card flop against an opponnent who raised before the flop and your pretty sure he has an over pair or two high cards, i dont see the problem in moving in on him. if he has AA he's not folding, AK you might get a lay down.

if i hit an OESD with my 46s, i'll call his modest flop bet, but soon as i hit, im moving in on him.


how is it high stakes play ?? doesnt everyone play their position?

"you hardly *ever* do hit with them rags on the button!?"

That's my big mental block with this game. I know deep down that good players get dealt the same crap as, well, me, but still seem to make enviable careers based on 35o. And that, I guess, is why I'm not a good player

Originally Posted by biondino

"you hardly *ever* do hit with them rags on the button!?"

That's my big mental block with this game. I know deep down that good players get dealt the same crap as, well, me, but still seem to make enviable careers based on 35o. And that, I guess, is why I'm not a good player

you only need to hit 1 out of 20 times against a huge stack thats playing rock poker (AA KK QQ AK JJ ) to profit. no two cards are that much of a dog against AA

but sometimes they do make the big lay down and you dont get paid, depending on the player, i might just walk the dog and let him bluff at me til i think he's pot committed.

Originally Posted by Element187

yes i miss alot, big deal, its easier to toss rags then it is to toss your AA.. with implied odds you make back that money quick.

I definitely think this is part of a more advanced approach, but only part: when you have 86s and flop comes AK10 rainbow and they bet into you hard, it's so much easier to fold here than if you actually get your four flush or OESD. It actually couldn't be easier.

I am learning that the REAL skill in this style is obviously not hitting the flop: anyone can do that with any two cards, and when you catch heads up against the big stack, it's party time. Instead, it's what you can do after you miss the flop. If you can get them off their hand when you know they have you beat, that is what makes this style of play effective. And until then, you'll just be riding the variation rollercoaster, which gets a little unsettling after awhile. And maybe that is why I am going through this exercise, to improve my post-flop play by putting myself into real money situations that I normally would not have wanted to be in. Don't get me wrong, last week when I won my largest single pot ever with my 86s against his AA, I was really happy, because as soon as the flop came I KNEW that I was getting all of him there. But then once I had the high stack, making the types of plays to get players off of their best hands was the real value. That is what really excited me about the potential for this style.

I really appreciate the insightful comments from everyone on this topic. It's nice to hear I'm not alone in this stuff.

getting people to lay down their big hands with this style takes time.. you gotta keep showing the table the nuts when you push all-in, after you create such an animal image, you can easily push people off of anything as long as the board looks scary.

its a two way street, you can lose your stack from bluffing too much .. i try to keep it to a min. if at all.

update to this concept:

I think I may start off as Robby Robot for the first 30-50 hands (I like to sit down and 3 table for 3-6 hours when I'm playing poker, none of this 2 quick orbits shit), and then switch gears. I suppose this isn't that insightful, since the phrase "change gears" returned a lot of search results, but it's finally hitting home for me. By starting out textbook, I'm likely going to get a little ahead in chips as well as give out a tight image that will go well when I switch it up and start playing crap. Along the way, I'll be taking the table in and seeing who's obvious and who's scaring the shit out of me, as well as showing a premium hand or two after winning pots with them.

At least this would help me have some money to play around with instead of relying exclusively on my underdeveloped post-flop play. But it'll still give me a decent shot at practicing it more in a real money environment.

Originally Posted by alias2211

Robby Robot plays

Classic

Just remember that any sort of strategy or tactics in the low level NLHE games goes totally unnoticed by your opponents. There are still plenty of things to learn by watching your opponents, but there's not going to be as much deep thinking going on.

Originally Posted by SmackinYaUp

Just remember that any sort of strategy or tactics in the low level NLHE games goes totally unnoticed by your opponents. There are still plenty of things to learn by watching your opponents, but there's not going to be as much deep thinking going on.

bluffing at the low limits isnt worth it most of the time and i'll avoid it .. when i become a pimp and have the balls/bankroll to play NL100 i might try my tricky plays then.

It seems to be a common theme that anybody who plays above the level that is currently being discussed basically thinks that no players at the level in question have any poker skills at all. This then leads them to recommend playing ABC poker and not trying anything clever. I saw someone make this comment about 2/4 limit the other day and thought to myself "surely people at 2/4 know what they're doing" I think it's all relative to where you're at. One of the few people who doesn't do this is Fnord, he'll give advice on 5/10 and 0.01/0.02 the same and more people should try to do the same. I'm not saying the level you're at has no relation on the skill of play but it's lazy to just assume everyone is an idiot. Most of us were down there at one time and we obviously weren't idiots.

Originally Posted by Legendash

It seems to be a common theme that anybody who plays above the level that is currently being discussed basically thinks that no players at the level in question have any poker skills at all. This then leads them to recommend playing ABC poker and not trying anything clever. I saw someone make this comment about 2/4 limit the other day and thought to myself "surely people at 2/4 know what they're doing" I think it's all relative to where you're at. One of the few people who doesn't do this is Fnord, he'll give advice on 5/10 and 0.01/0.02 the same and more people should try to do the same. I'm not saying the level you're at has no relation on the skill of play but it's lazy to just assume everyone is an idiot. Most of us were down there at one time and we obviously weren't idiots.

the majority of the players at the 25 tables dont even pay attention to the board enough to know their beat, they just look at their own cards and play on the strength of their hand .. straight, flush, 3 of a kind and bet.

i'd imagine as you move up, players tend to think of their opponents possible holdings, and will lay their hands when they are obviously beat.


hence why bluffs will tend to work alot better at the higher stakes.. and no a continuation bet on the flop is not a bluff

most of the players i've seen at $25NL ARE idiots. but at the same time, they are bluffable.

if i have 86s on the button and i attack the blinds, they will call with any shitty rags just to see a flop.

then if the flop comes A high, they check to me, i bet, and they fold.

call it "playing the position" if you want, but it's a stone cold bluff and it works. it works BECAUSE i know my opponents are indeed morons playing any two cards.

clearly there are intelligent people (like FTR'ers) at the low limits too. but they are like 5% of the population.

ChezJ

Originally Posted by ChezJ

most of the players i've seen at $25NL ARE idiots. but at the same time, they are bluffable.

if i have 86s on the button and i attack the blinds, they will call with any shitty rags just to see a flop.

then if the flop comes A high, they check to me, i bet, and they fold.

call it "playing the position" if you want, but it's a stone cold bluff and it works. it works BECAUSE i know my opponents are indeed morons playing any two cards.

clearly there are intelligent people (like FTR'ers) at the low limits too. but they are like 5% of the population.

ChezJ

right but if they hit a peice of the flop they stick around.

and i think the % of poker players online that are FTR's are more like .01%

I stand by it at least in NL that strategy does not come into play beyond hitting the right hands and folding the wrong hands.

You can totally bluff at low stakes. What I have come to realise is that, among the completely clueless, there are a number of people (I count myself among them) who are flawed but have some kind of handle on the game. They read these forums, they read sklansky and brunson, they have their odds tables and hand rankings by their side. They're still learning, they get over-confident scared often, they tighten up like a clam when things are going badly, but they're not entirely hopeless.

And it's these people you have to play at $25NL. The fish, it's taken as read that you'll milk them (if I may mix metaphors for a moment). But the moderate players at the table (as few as, um, none but as many as 5 or 6 players at certain times) do play "properly" *to the best of their abilities*. And this is where superior knowledge and tactics works best, and this includes bluffing.

I agree with biondino, of course its about playing good cards and folding bad ones but that's not all their is to it regardless of what level you play at

playing good cards is not as important in NL as it is in limit.

playing your position is much more important.

nice post..

i'm probably moving from stage 2 to 3 at the moment. i would probably say that good players who have mastered stage 3 would find that this skill is much more applicable to the 6max shorthanded games than the full ring ones.

i basically learned the holdem basics from the internet sites such as this one, pokertips.org and others. i haven't read sklansky but pokertips had a pretty good synopsis of his theories on their site. i would say that all that information (hand rankings, pot odds) and stuff is very useful from moving from stage 1 to 2, but once you have mastered stage three, you realise that in certain situations, these rules have to be broken. this is especially true for nl over limit, and shorthanded v longhanded.

i must say the catalyst for realising the existence of a third stage was watching phil ivey and ted forrest play in the WPT first season finals. those guys are excellent...

Originally Posted by fkn2pt

nice post..

i'm probably moving from stage 2 to 3 at the moment. i would probably say that good players who have mastered stage 3 would find that this skill is much more applicable to the 6max shorthanded games than the full ring ones.

i basically learned the holdem basics from the internet sites such as this one, pokertips.org and others. i haven't read sklansky but pokertips had a pretty good synopsis of his theories on their site. i would say that all that information (hand rankings, pot odds) and stuff is very useful from moving from stage 1 to 2, but once you have mastered stage three, you realise that in certain situations, these rules have to be broken. this is especially true for nl over limit, and shorthanded v longhanded.

i must say the catalyst for realising the existence of a third stage was watching phil ivey and ted forrest play in the WPT first season finals. those guys are excellent...

with the difference being ivey has skill, and where as ted forrest is a straight up gambler, and loves the rush.

well i just watched the wpt:bad boys of poker episode where gus hansen steamrolls the table like a vacuum cleaner. wins every single coinflip hand when it really matters.. only loses the ones that don't matter. he wins the final hand by flopping a straight off his pair of sixes.

there was one situation where he calls an all in raise preflop with 10 8 diamonds.. he was up against 66. and he won. i dunno whether this was a wild crazy stupid play.. maybe he read the other guy as having low pockets and figured he had to gamble it up to win the tournament. there was another situation where he bluffed 2 guys off their hands with 33.

he may be lucky but i think this guy has some strange way of reading people..