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.