Can't beat $10NL Blitz (fast fold) BUT bossing it at $25NL (reg 6max)

[BUSB0Y]

It is more of a life challenge for me to beat $10NL Blitz.

$25NL regular 6max is like kindergarten compared to $10NL Blitz on the same site at ACR.

Some things I've noticed:
1) Even though huds work on ACR's Blitz (I use PT4), I've found the aggression to be wAAAAAY higher on Blitz pre-flop. 3bettors are more frequent, and you also see a lot of 12%-15% 3-bettors in Blitz.

There's a psychological issue at play when you sit at a standard 6-max table. When you 3-bet someone 2 times in a row, or 3 times, they start to feel bullied and will fight back, almost no matter who they are, unless they're just a total pushover. This doesn't really apply the same way in Blitz. Even if a guy 3bet you every single time you raised a hand with him, you don't get as emotional about it in Blitz because it occurs over the space of maybe days or weeks.

When you're sitting next to someone at the same table for hours, you have to consider things like how your villain is feeling from how you've just 3bet him recently, regardless of what both of your ranges could be, because short-term emotions can really change the way you usually play.

There are some other things I've noticed but this is the most non-obvious one I haven't really heard expressed much elsewhere so I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[UkoChebuko]

Well, I notice a lot of aggression at the reg tables as well. This is true, this field is very aggro. You can try in some other room, if you don't like it. The reg tables always will be more profitable than the "fast fold" poker. Maybe you are using the info in "a good way". Maybe you are good at the reg tables. Just play only reg tables, no shame in that.

 

[BUSB0Y]

Well, I notice a lot of aggression at the reg tables as well. This is true, this field is very aggro. You can try in some other room, if you don't like it. The reg tables always will be more profitable than the "fast fold" poker. Maybe you are using the info in "a good way". Maybe you are good at the reg tables. Just play only reg tables, no shame in that.

Yea you're right. As far as table selection goes I'll play regular tables to make money. I sort of "train" on Blitz, like an athlete would train at the gym.

 

[fundiver199]

Yea you're right. As far as table selection goes I'll play regular tables to make money. I sort of "train" on Blitz, like an athlete would train at the gym.

The thing is, you pay around 100$ in rake for 10.000 hands at 10NL Blitz. For that money you can have PokerSnowie for a year and train as much, as you want against the program. It will even tell you, when it think, you made a mistake. And you can also import actual hand histories for review.

Since you are essentially playing against unknowns in a fast forward game, its really not much different from playing against a computer, and the latter is a whole lot cheaper. You can also spend some of the money, you save, on a solver, if you want to take your game to the next level.

 

[crazycitizen]

Yea you're right. As far as table selection goes I'll play regular tables to make money. I sort of "train" on Blitz, like an athlete would train at the gym.

As a marathon runner would not train their fast twitch muscle fibres at the gym; I would reconsider whether Blitz is really training your regular 6max game.

Although I appreciate beating $10 Blitz would help you round your overall poker game...I agree with the previous poster that a program like Snowie should be more be appropriate to improve your reg 6max.

IMO sometimes it's better to stick with what you're good at.

But if you want to persist with Blitz, from what you said, you are finding people with higher 3bet% than normal - you can start to widen your 4bet% against those with a low 4bet-call%. Like how maniacs will sometimes use 89s as a 4bet preflop.
Also moving some of your normal 4bets into your 3bet-calls and looking to trap the aggros (especially if they have low 4bet-call%s preflop). Furthermore, calling down boards with middling hands if Villain has a low showdown-winrate%.
Experimentation will cost you money in the short term though!

 

[BUSB0Y]

As a marathon runner would not train their fast twitch muscle fibres at the gym; I would reconsider whether Blitz is really training your regular 6max game.

Although I appreciate beating $10 Blitz would help you round your overall poker game...I agree with the previous poster that a program like Snowie should be more be appropriate to improve your reg 6max.

IMO sometimes it's better to stick with what you're good at.

But if you want to persist with Blitz, from what you said, you are finding people with higher 3bet% than normal - you can start to widen your 4bet% against those with a low 4bet-call%. Like how maniacs will sometimes use 89s as a 4bet preflop.
Also moving some of your normal 4bets into your 3bet-calls and looking to trap the aggros (especially if they have low 4bet-call%s preflop). Furthermore, calling down boards with middling hands if Villain has a low showdown-winrate%.
Experimentation will cost you money in the short term though!

Thanks bro for the adjustments. Love the marathon/sprint analogy too!

 

[Swat1197]

Just try to open less from positions and try to play aggressive too

 

[John A]

The more GTO / Math heavy you are, the better you'll do at fast fold tables.

If your strength is reads and adjustments, and exploitative play, you'll do better at regular tables.

It's really that simple. It doesn't mean you can't do well w/ GTO at regular tables or visa versa, but those are the formats you'll excel at based on your strengths. Some very heavy GTO guys are horrible at exploitative play and reads and again, visa versa.

 

[BUSB0Y]

The more GTO / Math heavy you are, the better you'll do at fast fold tables.

If your strength is reads and adjustments, and exploitative play, you'll do better at regular tables.

It's really that simple. It doesn't mean you can't do well w/ GTO at regular tables or visa versa, but those are the formats you'll excel at based on your strengths. Some very heavy GTO guys are horrible at exploitative play and reads and again, visa versa.

Damn, thanks for this John. This probably explains the difference I am experiencing, though I do want to get better at the GTO and math aspects of the game.

 

[fundiver199]

The more GTO / Math heavy you are, the better you'll do at fast fold tables.

This is true, and this is because, without reads you basically can not do anything else than attempt to not lose by playing in an unexploitable way. Of course this is not entirely true, because you will still have population reads and on some sites you can use a HUD, so you have some individual reads as well. But even with a HUD fish often swim under the rador, because you only have 5 hands on them.

The other issue is, that if everyone play GTO and does it well, then everyone lose at the rate of the rake, which is around 10 BB / 100 for a game like 10NL 6-max. And I am actually not sure, these games are even beatable today on sites like pokerstars, 888 Poker or ACR. Of course its a bold statement to say, they are not beatable. But who actually has a database with for instance 200.000 hands from a 10NL Zoom game played in 2019-2020 to prove, they are able to beat the rake?

What typically happen is, if people go on a heater, they assume they are winning and move up, and if they lose, eventually they give up and stop. Which is, what I did after around 30k hands at 10-16NL Zoom on PokerStars. This is a genuine question, so if someone has that database with 200.000 hands from a 10NL Zoom game, please feel free to share it

 

[UkoChebuko]

What you talking about !? NL10 Zoom unbeatable? I think it is not so hard to make 10/100...Even with small sample. Even without history. You will have some info after 15-20 min. For some "brutal" fish you don't need many hands. You need to play fast. Because the fish will lose 3-4 stacks and will quit.

And the normal tables , if you buy some hand history and if you use "some" table selection, then 10 blinds will be bad. With this "four tables" rule, I think even 15 blinds will be bad.

10 blinds rake is way too high. Must be some low limit with very aggro play. Yes, NL10...NL10 most likely. With uncorrect play.

I had a sample, but I played very long time ago. With rakeback. I think 11bb/100 hands. Now without rakeback the "expected" win rate will be higher. Also if you play at 9-10 PM ET time, you will see some crazy things.

I don't think the field is too strong now. Back in the days I played $15 SNG in PS and this was a nightmare. Very difficult to achieve 3% ROI at $15 18 men. 6 max STT was so ugly, BE crap. The fifty was good, but small rakeback. Now, exactly now, the games at $15 are soft. Yes, "soft", that's I said. With rakeback at $15 from 18 players, there was 13-14 regulars. Now not more than 6-7.

Also this NL16 Zoom. Only crazy people there.

 

[UkoChebuko]

Mate, if NL10 is unbeatable, then what about NL25!? NL 50, NL100!? Ofc the win rate will drop significantly. But there is a cap already. You will play deep, not quit with 115bb. There are regs there. For several years. And still play this. For living...There are bots as well, cartels as well. How this can be unbeatable!? For NL200 you can say that. But we can't compare NL10 and NL200. This is like to compare NL2 and NL50. Can you "beat" NL2 with more than 3bb/100 hands!?

This 30k BE at NL10-NL16 for sure is "very bad luck", downswing. Even if your "luck adjusted" line is not showing this. There are not only "bad beats". The "bad beats" are only small part from "the bad luck".
You can be BE 30k hands even at NL2.

 

[LevySystem]

What you talking about !? NL10 Zoom unbeatable? I think it is not so hard to make 10/100...Even with small sample. Even without history. You will have some info after 15-20 min. For some "brutal" fish you don't need many hands. You need to play fast. Because the fish will lose 3-4 stacks and will quit.

And the normal tables , if you buy some hand history and if you use "some" table selection, then 10 blinds will be bad. With this "four tables" rule, I think even 15 blinds will be bad.

10 blinds rake is way too high. Must be some low limit with very aggro play. Yes, NL10...NL10 most likely. With uncorrect play.

I had a sample, but I played very long time ago. With rakeback. I think 11bb/100 hands. Now without rakeback the "expected" win rate will be higher. Also if you play at 9-10 PM ET time, you will see some crazy things.

I don't think the field is too strong now. Back in the days I played $15 SNG in PS and this was a nightmare. Very difficult to achieve 3% ROI at $15 18 men. 6 max STT was so ugly, BE crap. The fifty was good, but small rakeback. Now, exactly now, the games at $15 are soft. Yes, "soft", that's I said. With rakeback at $15 from 18 players, there was 13-14 regulars. Now not more than 6-7.

Also this NL16 Zoom. Only crazy people there.

Mate, if NL10 is unbeatable, then what about NL25!? NL 50, NL100!? Ofc the win rate will drop significantly. But there is a cap already. You will play deep, not quit with 115bb. There are regs there. For several years. And still play this. For living...There are bots as well, cartels as well. How this can be unbeatable!? For NL200 you can say that. But we can't compare NL10 and NL200. This is like to compare NL2 and NL50. Can you "beat" NL2 with more than 3bb/100 hands!?

This 30k BE at NL10-NL16 for sure is "very bad luck", downswing. Even if your "luck adjusted" line is not showing this. There are not only "bad beats". The "bad beats" are only small part from "the bad luck".
You can be BE 30k hands even at NL2.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Please prove me wrong about this.

 

[UkoChebuko]

I knew it. You dumb troll...

1. I have not experience in the tournaments.
2. I will crush the MTTs, I am pretty sure.
3. Only misinformation in your posts, this is true for Collin Moshman as well.
4. I am NL2 ninja with 5bb/100 hands a am so fcking good. I know everything..
And not this...
5. NL10 is unbeatable. PROVE ME, SHOW ME!

You are so fcking dumb, even no need to offend you.
And I think this forum is at this "stage", because idiots, like you. Playing for 100 years freerolls. And NL2...But they know everything. . "Prove me". Well, where is YOUR proof then!?

 

[UkoChebuko]

"NL10 is unbeatable". And everyone clapping your hands." Ofc, mate, I knew it. This is a pure gambling. This is a lie. Let's go to the freerolls. We will talk something about poker strategy, but only to look, like badass."

 

[UkoChebuko]

I want to be clear what is happening in this forum. I don't attack this guy @fundiver199, I think he was just unlucky with this 30k hands at Zoom. I think he is good enough for good win rate. Also I am not laughing to him. Also this guy, @BUSB0Y.

This @LevySystem, he is just a troll. He use some topics with a discussions, with different opinions. He try to offend me, to turn other people against me. To turn the discussion into argue. That's the trolls do...

 

[fundiver199]

What you talking about !? NL10 Zoom unbeatable? I think it is not so hard to make 10/100...Even with small sample.

Do you actually have a sample to prove this? And I mean 200.000 hands or at the bare minimum 100.000 hands played in 2018 or later. Because otherwise you are just talking / speculating.

 

[fundiver199]

10 blinds rake is way too high. Must be some low limit with very aggro play.

This is, what my database show for 10NL, and I think, its completely normal. I play around 22-23% VPIP for 6-max, which I certainly dont think is particularly loose, and I am a bit on the passive side preflop. Maybe you can get away with 8-9BB / 100, if you play really tight, but I dought anything below that is realistic. Of course as you move up, the rake will go down slightly because of the per pot cap. This is essentially never reached at 10NL, so every time you AK goes all in preflop against another AK, PokerStars keep 4,5% of your money, and most other sites keep 5%.

 

[UkoChebuko]

Because otherwise you are just talking / speculating

Here we go...I can say the same. Where is your proof then? Show me...
Listen, give $1k to some couch and he will show you, whatever you want to see. Even 10/100 at NL200.
If you believe in this (NL10 Zoom is unbeatable), then you should do something else, if you are not sick gambler. If the real win rate for Zoom NL10 is 0/100 and less, then the days of poker are over.

the rake will go down slightly

And this is just wrong.

 

[fundiver199]

Mate, if NL10 is unbeatable, then what about NL25!? NL 50, NL100!?

Then they are probably also unbeatable as well, although it is a bit more complicated than that. As I wrote in the previous post, the rake does start to go down at least at 100NL. Player pools also get smaller, which should decrease the difference between Zoom and normal tables.

There are regs there. For several years. And still play this. For living...

For sure there are regs at Zoom. Most of the players at 10NL Zoom are regs. Probably somewhere between 95-98%, which is the entire problem. But just because there are regs does not mean, they are winning. It takes time to find out, you are not winning, and some people are more stubborn than others.

People of course have to pay their bills, but maybe they win at regular tables or tournaments and then burn up some of the money trying to beat Zoom. Or maybe they have other sources of income like streaming, getting paid by a poker site, coaching etc.

If we are talking about the upper end like 100NL Zoom and above, its also not crazy to imagine, that quite a bit of cheating is going on like real time solvers, sharing databases etc. I personally think, Zoom games are a rake trap, and I also kind of hate the way, they play with an excessive amount of aggression. But if someone else wants to play Zoom, this is their choise, and I am not telling people not to

 

[UkoChebuko]

Most of the players at 10NL Zoom are regs. Probably somewhere between 95-98%, which is the entire problem.

Ok, mate, I see. Ok, you are right. Sorry for all "misinfomation". I really don't want to talk anymore. You are both right. I can't see how NL10 Zoom can be beatable. GL...You will need it. Everyone will...

 

[fundiver199]

Here we go...I can say the same. Where is your proof then?

Of course its not possible to prove, nobody is winning, without having access to the entire database of the poker site. It is however possible to prove, that at least someone are winning by that person sharing his own graph / database, and his winrate being buyond statistical variance. Which is why, I genuinely suggested, that people share their graph, if they are beating 10NL Zoom (or anything higher).

If you believe in this (NL10 Zoom is unbeatable), then you should do something else,

Which is what I do. I play tournaments and in periods in between that I have played regular cash tables. I am profitable in both these formats. But not in Zoom unless I got extremely unlucky over those 30k hands. Which is of course possible but also not very likely.

If the real win rate for Zoom NL10 is 0/100 and less, then the days of poker are over.

Why? Zoom poker is an online invention, and its not the entire poker universe. The problem with Zoom is, almost no recreational players are interested in it, and those few, who find their way, swim under the radar. Especially on PokerStars, where there are typically 500 people in the pool meaning, you only see the same player once per 100 hands.

 

[UkoChebuko]

"10 blinds for 100 hands, NL50 Zoom, 150k sample".

In one other forum the people are talking about this. Is this a "real thing"!? Is this a fake!? Is this an amazing luck!?

Here we talk about NL10. Can be beatable? Can achieve more than BE?

I guess different people, different forums, different topics. Different targets for the "affiliate advertisements". "CardsChat freerolls". "25 "good" post per day". Can't be different, I guess.

 

[fundiver199]

I dont know, why you get so upset about this? I just wrote, that I am not sure, 10NL Zoom is even beatable. I did not say, I know for sure, or that I have evidence. Personally I saw a 13 BB / 100 difference in my winrate between Zoom and normal tables. This was over a sample of 30k hands at Zoom and at least 70k hands at regular tables.

Sure some of this might be due to variance, but for me it was enough to conclude, that the drawbacks of Zoom are massively larger than the advantages, so I decided to stop playing the format. I have briefly revisited it since but not for a large enough sample to conclude anything meaningfull.

As for those people in "other forums", its obviously good for them, if they are beating 50NL Zoom for 10 BB / 100 over 150k hands. But are they showing their graph? Its not that uncommon for people to brag about their results, so without evidence I would take this with a grain of salt.

But once again if someone in this forum - not another one - actually have that kind of graph, then feel free to share it. I would love for someone to prove, that Zoom games can still be massively profitable, because that would indeed be great news for all poker players

 

[UkoChebuko]

I am not upset...You can't upset me so easily. You don't lie, you are not a "bad player", you just don't know.

This is my words :

The reg tables always will be more profitable than the "fast fold" poker.

I have a friend, recreational player. He very rare use a HUD. He use to deposit $150. Then play at NL10. 700-800 hands per day. With $220 he go at NL25. With 6 stacks for NL50, he try there. And again 6 stacks for the other limit, he go up. To NL200. At NL10 he is crushing. At some point he lose his money. At NL100 most likely. I can show you this for now. I mean to see how big is the variance. This "luck adjusted" line almost don't matter.

I don't have a "zoom" friends. Only SnG, MTT friends. No one wants to play in PS. Because the rakeback mainly. But, mate, you are wrong. 30k hands are nothing. Can be very easily a "bad luck".

Also I don't believe in this 10/100 Zoom NL50. Don't try to do that. Don't start to argue, if actually you want a discussion, if you want to learn something. There is a guy, very popular coach, creator of the big part of the strategy for UpSwing poker and PS. He have 6/100 for 300k hands Zoom NL200. I don't think it is a fake, I think it is a "luck". I talked with this guy. He can't even make a good HUD. Some ugly dumb HUD. Actyally he asking me how to do some things. His HUD was "blinking" and he don't know what to do. I mean obv he is not so inteligent player, he is a "very lucky player". Even for 300k.
I believe for NL200 is BE for "average" good reg. But we talk about NL10. Very huge difference. I also really want to hear some over opinions. Do you all really think NL10 is unbeatable? Even with one blind for 100 hands?
I don't try to say "NL50 is beatable with 10/100". I just tried to show what will happen if you post this in some other forum. No one will "like" this. Something different will happen.