Rant +a few questions.

I was watching my mate the other night absolutely destroy the poker stars NL400 game, 3 tables running, I stop watching when he had one table on 3K, one on 2.5K and the other 2.2K, almost 8K total after buying in for 1.2K, or around 16 buy-ins up. I know he did the re-buy trick a few times in there, but even so it’s still an amazing run.

So obviously he was on a good run, as it only took a short session (don’t know the exact length). But how much of it was good run and how much extra did he make because of his skill? Brings me to the question of if I had had the exact same situation given to me would I have profited such an extreme amount. I doubt it.

So I asked him about his strategy, this is what he told me. To start off he went in and completely ruined his image, raising 100% of hands, showing bluffs, and making the re-buy a few times to get a big stack. He said the having a deep stack was vital for the strategy he was using. After he’d killed his image with maniac raising he dropped back into playing around 15% of hands pre-flop, only pairs/AK/occasional suited connector, and AQ but not to any resistance. At which point most of the table felt the urge to throw money at him. This is where he stacked up the 3 tables to about, 2.5K, 2K and 1.8K. Then the tables adapt to his super tight play, as most of them have just lost a buy-in to a set/straight/two pair. So he then changes up again, increasing his pre-flop to around 40%, tempered lagg he called it. And from there just gradually took smaller pots and built up to the final amount of profit that he was at when I left.

So using this strategy he pretty much wiped clean 3 tables, and though I still believe it was to a degree of upward variance, I also think he did pretty much what he planned to do, and wasn’t all that surprised at how much he destroyed the game.

So to any of you big game players, do you employ similar strategies at those tables? And if so how long before you were able to do so.. as in, I know that even if I had the bankroll for it I wouldn’t really feel comfortable raising everything pre-flop at higher stakes. I’m assuming that’s my lack of experience, and fear of big money, because if I find the right table at my stakes I don’t hesitate to bet the shit out of everything. Or you think that by the time a player has built enough bankroll to be playing 2/4 or 3/6 they would have enough knowledge and be comfortable doing that?

My mate also said that you can still just play Tagg, 15-25% pre-flop and win at 2/4, which came as a surprise to me as I have always assumed you have to be more manipulative at higher stakes because you won’t get paid off anywhere near as much.

And also, having read rilla’s bible on bankroll management, I have stuck with having 15 buy-ins or more for the desired limit. And my mate says that in his bankroll building days he worked on 10 buy-ins, and that 10 is fine is your playing a complete camping game, where as 15+ if your being a bit more inventive. What do you guys think about that?

Because of his 10 buy-in theory he has suggested to me that I should move up to $0.50/$1 NL right away, from where I am currently playing .25/.50 tables. I have $1300 online (the 1.6K in my sig is an AU$ figure), but my roll is split over 2 sites, so I have been treating them as 2 separate bankrolls. I would feel comfortable playing NL100 if my entire bankroll was on one site, so I will probably move it all over to poker stars soon. Despite what people have said, that the stars games are of a higher standard, I have still seen many a fish about the place. So you can still get paid off, but the higher concentration of more sensible players also makes for a lower variance game, which suits me fine, actually I think the stars game isn’t any more skillful, just a different stupid. Is there anyone out there that plays exclusively on pokerstars? And what is your opinion on that?

In my experience, the 2/4 game doesn't require a lot of creativity. I've done it on Party and Champs, and TAGG works just fine. If anything, it's better to be tighter because the table image is more aggressive and you're playing against it. That's full ring of course. 6 max is another story.

First off, even the biggest fish (and actually more often the biggest fish) have great runs like that. What separates the big fish from the good players though is that the good players build the huge stack and walk away with all of it, and the big fish lose it all. As for playing styles at higher stakes, when i first moved up i made the mistake of thinking it was different from low stakes, when really it isn't. I play 600nl and i still pretty much play a tagg game. If i have a read that i can take someone off a hand then i do so, but i did that at lower stakes too. For bankroll management i like to have 30 buyins. Its not as if i'm ever going to have a 25 buyin downswing (if you lose 25 buyins its not cause of a downswing) but it provides me with a buffer, because busting at higher stakes hsa much higher consequences then busting at 50nl.

as far as yer mate's strategy, he was switching up his game throughout the session and making everyone adapt to his game. his whole strategy seemed loose in the way he was mixing it up all willy nilly, but if it was throwing people off and making them work to catch up to what he was doing, it seems effective, to a point.

but with that style, the cards matter. as soon as he loosens up someone catches rockets and makes him pay. or he tightens up and gets sucked out with second best hand.

it seems like this could bite him in the ass if anyone recognizes him, or picks up on what he's doing, ie switching gears as it suits him.

i personally like it, and i think i do it to a point. i'll come out fast, then tighten up, then throw some chips, then etc, etc.

as long as he's catching cards, ya know, one of those nights, then it could be very effective. or he could get stung and burn thru his whole stack if he's not careful.

sorry, buzzed and rambling. but i like it.

Sounds like an interesting strategy, but let me get this straight...he deliberately drops a few full stacks and reloads just for table image as a complete maniac and fish? That sounds kind of expensive, I dont know if I personally could stomach throwing that much at a table just for the sake of table image, working just on faith that they will pay me back later.

It seems like it might have potential though, id be interested to hear more discussion on it.

He'd better have the BR to support that crazy ass style. Most online players don't pay attention to anything but their own cards, so his table image might go by unnoticed to a few players. Nonetheless, it seems like a risky strategy that could pay off. But it might not too, so you need to have a deep wallet to have the balls to do something like that.

Originally Posted by underminedsk

Sounds like an interesting strategy, but let me get this straight...he deliberately drops a few full stacks and reloads just for table image as a complete maniac and fish? That sounds kind of expensive, I dont know if I personally could stomach throwing that much at a table just for the sake of table image, working just on faith that they will pay me back later.

It seems like it might have potential though, id be interested to hear more discussion on it.

shit no, not drop a stack.. the rebuy trick.. get AI and reload while the hand is still running, and when you take down the pot another full buyin is added to your stack. Like hallingol does at the 10/20.. the idea being to have a large enough stack to cover the other big players at the table, so when you do catch a big hand you can get the maximum payoff.

He'd better have the BR to support that crazy ass style. Most online players don't pay attention to anything but their own cards, so his table image might go by unnoticed to a few players. Nonetheless, it seems like a risky strategy that could pay off. But it might not too, so you need to have a deep wallet to have the balls to do something like that.

he does have the bankroll for it at 2/4.. he has enough + another 30K or so. he usually plays 5/10NL

Originally Posted by Rondavu

In my experience, the 2/4 game doesn't require a lot of creativity. I've done it on Party and Champs, and TAGG works just fine. If anything, it's better to be tighter because the table image is more aggressive and you're playing against it. That's full ring of course. 6 max is another story.

i hardly ever see the 2/4 going on champs, that may be to do with being in australia and its in opperation at 3 am or somthing

It's pretty brilliant. I've read about people doing this before. Personally, I'm not good enough to even try it, nor do I play at tables where it would work. Obviously, you need to do play against good players that are aware. The great thing about this is that it can put people on tilt.

Originally Posted by BIGandRICH

I was watching my mate the other night absolutely destroy the poker stars NL400 game, 3 tables running, I stop watching when he had one table on 3K, one on 2.5K and the other 2.2K, almost 8K total after buying in for 1.2K, or around 16 buy-ins up. I know he did the re-buy trick a few times in there, but even so it’s still an amazing run.

So obviously he was on a good run, as it only took a short session (don’t know the exact length). But how much of it was good run and how much extra did he make because of his skill? Brings me to the question of if I had had the exact same situation given to me would I have profited such an extreme amount. I doubt it.

So I asked him about his strategy, this is what he told me. To start off he went in and completely ruined his image, raising 100% of hands, showing bluffs, and making the re-buy a few times to get a big stack. He said the having a deep stack was vital for the strategy he was using. After he’d killed his image with maniac raising he dropped back into playing around 15% of hands pre-flop, only pairs/AK/occasional suited connector, and AQ but not to any resistance. At which point most of the table felt the urge to throw money at him. This is where he stacked up the 3 tables to about, 2.5K, 2K and 1.8K. Then the tables adapt to his super tight play, as most of them have just lost a buy-in to a set/straight/two pair. So he then changes up again, increasing his pre-flop to around 40%, tempered lagg he called it. And from there just gradually took smaller pots and built up to the final amount of profit that he was at when I left.

So using this strategy he pretty much wiped clean 3 tables, and though I still believe it was to a degree of upward variance, I also think he did pretty much what he planned to do, and wasn’t all that surprised at how much he destroyed the game.

So to any of you big game players, do you employ similar strategies at those tables? And if so how long before you were able to do so.. as in, I know that even if I had the bankroll for it I wouldn’t really feel comfortable raising everything pre-flop at higher stakes. I’m assuming that’s my lack of experience, and fear of big money, because if I find the right table at my stakes I don’t hesitate to bet the shit out of everything. Or you think that by the time a player has built enough bankroll to be playing 2/4 or 3/6 they would have enough knowledge and be comfortable doing that?

My mate also said that you can still just play Tagg, 15-25% pre-flop and win at 2/4, which came as a surprise to me as I have always assumed you have to be more manipulative at higher stakes because you won’t get paid off anywhere near as much.

And also, having read rilla’s bible on bankroll management, I have stuck with having 15 buy-ins or more for the desired limit. And my mate says that in his bankroll building days he worked on 10 buy-ins, and that 10 is fine is your playing a complete camping game, where as 15+ if your being a bit more inventive. What do you guys think about that?

Because of his 10 buy-in theory he has suggested to me that I should move up to $0.50/$1 NL right away, from where I am currently playing .25/.50 tables. I have $1300 online (the 1.6K in my sig counts my live money as well), but my roll is split over 2 sites, so I have been treating them as 2 separate bankrolls. I would feel comfortable playing NL100 if my entire bankroll was on one site, so I will probably move it all over to poker stars soon. Despite what people have said, that the stars games are of a higher standard, I have still seen many a fish about the place. So you can still get paid off, but the higher concentration of more sensible players also makes for a lower variance game, which suits me fine, actually I think the stars game isn’t any more skillful, just a different stupid. Is there anyone out there that plays exclusively on pokerstars? And what is your opinion on that?