$100NL retrospective
How does the play @ $100NL differ from $50NL. I'll be honest. When I left $50NL, I had a bad taste in my mouth about poker. I felt like the tables were so nitty and I was pulling teeth trying to get players to put money in the pot. I mean, I WAS winning, but not as much as I wanted because it was so fit or fold or waiting for coolers. My fear was this trend would continue or get worse. I was struggling to figure out if there were major holes or leaks in my game that kept me from eeking out more $. Not to say there aren't leaks in my game, but fortunately, the pendulum swung the other way and $100NL turned out to be a joy by comparison. In fact, this was only the 2nd time of 6 moves up that I actually was able to increase my win-rate relative to the last stake - the other time being when I switched from $2NL to $5NL. At $100NL, I found that players actually liked to put money in the pot again. Those are the games I look for and like to play. There seemed to be more fish - tougher, regs? Sure. Pesky short-stackers setting up camp? Sadly, yes. But I was glad to see that the games were looser and pots were getting bigger in terms of big blinds.

I thought I would have to split time between $100NL and $50NL as I had done before between $50NL and $25Nl because of poor table selection availability, but fortunately I was just able to hit the ground running and not look back. My theory for this is that $100NL is a good price point and round number that attracts fish. In fact, aside from better games, I also liked little things like the easy units of big blinds. I take notes like "Villain made a 3.5x PFR with AA" and @ $50NL I had to multiply numbers by 2 to figure out the factor. At $200NL, I have to divide everything by 2. But, at $100NL, assessing stack sizes and multiplication factors of the blind requires no math

@ $100NL, a couple of quick, obvious differences is the increased number of nitty regs and annoying short-stackers. I honestly don't remember having a big problem with short-stackers. Now, I hate them and ESPECIALLY the ratholers who double-up and leave. I can't wait until PokerStars implements 35bb minimum standard tables and if they don't, I wouldn't be surprised to start spending a larger portion of my time @ Full Tilt. In fact, I already have been, but still call PokerStars home. I don't want to turn this retrospective into a debate or rant, but players who buy-in for 20bb, mostly push all-in or fold, and then LEAVE if they win are simply scavengers trying to take advantage of a loop-hole with the buy-in for a very negligible profit, if any, relative to players who actually try to PLAY more than 1 street of poker and win. Now, if the player buys in short and STAYS after a double-up, I don't have a problem, because now they have to adjust to 40bb's instead of 20bb's just like I have to adjust when I go from 100bb's to 200. When they LEAVE, to me, it's just so cowardly and wrong. At the very least, the ratholing time needs to increase to 24 hours.

There was more leveling in the games that I was used to @ $50NL. For example, I made a LOT more hero calls with ace high, 2nd pair, or 3rd pair and was right compared to previous games. I also double and triple barrel bluffed and was successful moreso than past games. You might say this is the first stake where they begin to "respect your raises" In fact, I sometimes found it difficult to regress back to $50NL on FullTilt when I first started because of that. My bankroll on FullTilt was low because it was my first deposit and I tried $50NL with several stumbles usually by calling down light and losing. I finally said "screw it" and played $100NL and have been doing reasonably well ever since. So, I found it more important to understand your fold equity and the lines that villains take so you can bluff and pick off their bluffs.

One more interesting detail that isn't widespread but at least one player seems to be doing regularly and I believe quite successfully is playing HU on full-ring tables and then shorthanded but leaving when the table gets full. I get the feeling that he specializes in HU and/or 6max but is taking his game to full ring either to have a better selection of players or take advantage of the new Stars VIP program which seems to favor HU and 6 max play on full ring tables. At any rate, just like shortstackers, it is a little discouraging for a player to play like that when he has the advantage and leave once he feels his advantage is negated.

Even though I did enjoy this stake, I definitely wouldn't recommend anyone think about skipping $50NL to get here. If I hadn't paid my dues @ $50NL, I don't think I would have been nearly as successful. I also had one of my worst, nasty break-even to losing streaks since I started playing occur while playing $100NL, so it wasn't always an easy ride to the other side. The skill-set leading here definitely built on the past stakes and aggression @ $100NL is just as bad as $50NL if not more so and you don't get exposed to as much of that @ $25NL and lower from my experiences.

I'm anxious to see what the $200NL pool is like. Early going, I REALLY like the # of VIP's generated. I was behind pace for Platinum for the month and it would have taken me several days to make it up, but just one afternoon of $200NL and I'm not only caught up, but ahead for the month and poised to get back on pace for SuperNova relatively soon. But, VIP and FPP points are just a side benefit. Winning, getting better, and having fun is my concern.