Quads

[LuckyLloyd]

As Byron says, if you 3-bet TT here then the nits in this game, of which they are many many many, are only going to give you action when you're behind. Until they decide you're taking the piss, when they're going to start making more moves and giving you more headaches, because they know that you're 3-betting with hands that can't continue on a lot of flops. The bad players might give you action, but you're then going to end up in lots of tricky marginal spots post-flop. Obviously you want to be 3-betting more than just AA/KK, but something like a suited connector or two might be the easier way to do it, rather than getting too involved with TT/JJ just because they're the 4th and 5th best STARTING hands.

Lloyd - I know stats aren't the be-all and end-all, but out of interest what sort of stats would you guess (I say guess as I don't think from memory you really play FR) a standard TAG would play in this game? What stats would you consider LAG? What would you expect to play?

I know there are one or two players who have been able to play a fairly LAG 6-max style at FR with huge success, but I also know they're in a very very small minority.

I don't play ANY online FR. My cash experience online is 100% 6 - max. In any case, I'm a tournament donk more than anything else (only ~ 120k cash hands lifetime).

All that being said though, what I am reading above is mad. I mean, is the standard for FR 14 / 8 or something? And is the standard just to play 10 - 12 tables; 3 - bet KK+; set mine 22 - QQ; and open limp AQs+ or suited connectors? Then just hope that you out cooler the opposition enough and make the money off rakeback? I mean, wtf?

At 6 - max we HAVE to 3 - bet 88+ in order to give ourselves action; maintain balance; add deception; exploit repetative tendencies in regs etc, etc. Standard TAG is 21- 22 / 16 - 19. I run 23 / 20. And I play pretty tight. I mean I openfold A9s or less; A10o or less; KQs or less; UTG. And gradually open up to where I have a 35Vpip on the button. But this is really standard stuff.

The way you are describing FR to me is that everyone is playing ridiculously tight ranges and the money is predominantly made off cooler situations. Seems dull to me. And doesn't sound like poker. I always thought that a good players edge is defined by the amount of <40BBs pots he wins. And that he will win a much higher percentage of these than the opposition. So I dunno, I guess it's just a different game.

[boldie]

Why not just check the flop and turn and just put in a value bet on the river?..

[Moskvich]

is the standard for FR 14 / 8 or something? And is the standard just to play 10 - 12 tables; 3 - bet KK+; set mine 22 - QQ; and open limp AQs+ or suited connectors?

Yep. Spot on. Well, not quite with the last bit. But yeah, that's pretty much standard TAG play, and obviously relies largely on making money from bad players' mistakes. Obviously it's exploitable by those who play a more open game, and I think there are more of those around than there used to be - even so you're only talking about playing maybe 16/11 or 18/12. I don't think many players at this level could get away with playing 20/16. I believe there's some guy on FT by the name of ccuuurrse who plays or played something like 28/22 and destroyed the games, but he really is the huge exception.

Whether it's not real poker - I dunno. I mean, obviously you can 3-bet other stuff, make plays and give specific players something to think about in order to gain an edge over the field. Just not as often as you can/have to at 6-max. The point of balance that you need to find so that you're not playing too predictably but also not getting too far out of line is just in a different place.

[byronkincaid]

The 2 biggest winners I have 20K+ hands on are 5 PTBB/100 @ 11/7 and 6 PTBB/100 @ 12/7. They both 16+ table and are easily doing over 100K hands a month. They are obv tight and nitty but just make good decisions and don't tilt. Their 3 Bet range is usually QQ+ AK and one of them throws in as well. I'm 16/8 and I guess on average I'm the 3rd LAGiest player on most tables. Lot's of players with 5% PFR. My toughest opponent ATM runs 24/5. 

Many 6 max players take a stab at FR and think they can run over the nits, I did the same myself but it's more a case of playing solid and mixing it up against the regs so you're not too predictable. You can run some sick bluffs as well occasionally, I mean, I was seriously considering folding quads there for a minute

[bolt pp]

As Byron says, if you 3-bet TT here then the nits in this game, of which they are many many many, are only going to give you action when you're behind. Until they decide you're taking the piss, when they're going to start making more moves and giving you more headaches, because they know that you're 3-betting with hands that can't continue on a lot of flops. The bad players might give you action, but you're then going to end up in lots of tricky marginal spots post-flop. Obviously you want to be 3-betting more than just AA/KK, but something like a suited connector or two might be the easier way to do it, rather than getting too involved with TT/JJ just because they're the 4th and 5th best STARTING hands.

Lloyd - I know stats aren't the be-all and end-all, but out of interest what sort of stats would you guess (I say guess as I don't think from memory you really play FR) a standard TAG would play in this game? What stats would you consider LAG? What would you expect to play?

I know there are one or two players who have been able to play a fairly LAG 6-max style at FR with huge success, but I also know they're in a very very small minority.

All that being said though, what I am reading above is mad. I mean, is the standard for FR 14 / 8 or something? And is the standard just to play 10 - 12 tables; 3 - bet KK+; set mine 22 - QQ; and open limp AQs+ or suited connectors? Then just hope that you out cooler the opposition enough and make the money off rakeback? I mean, wtf?

yes, if you live on your own play for a living and have bills to play.

but no it isnt proper poker.

[Smart Money]

is the standard for FR 14 / 8 or something? And is the standard just to play 10 - 12 tables; 3 - bet KK+; set mine 22 - QQ; and open limp AQs+ or suited connectors?

Yep. Spot on. Well, not quite with the last bit. But yeah, that's pretty much standard TAG play, and obviously relies largely on making money from bad players' mistakes. Obviously it's exploitable by those who play a more open game, and I think there are more of those around than there used to be - even so you're only talking about playing maybe 16/11 or 18/12. I don't think many players at this level could get away with playing 20/16. I believe there's some guy on FT by the name of ccuuurrse who plays or played something like 28/22 and destroyed the games, but he really is the huge exception.

Whether it's not real poker - I dunno. I mean, obviously you can 3-bet other stuff, make plays and give specific players something to think about in order to gain an edge over the field. Just not as often as you can/have to at 6-max. The point of balance that you need to find so that you're not playing too predictably but also not getting too far out of line is just in a different place.

LL. That's not a bad summary of many successful FR players- and a good response from Moskvich.

There is still a significant element of skill at FR- it's not just about who wins the most coolers. Although it is possible to win consistently through playing a very straight-forward "robotic" style with minimal adaption- and a lot of players do this.

However, I've no doubt at all that 6-max players see more development in their game (over a set period of time) than those playing FR. This implies that your "average" 6-max player is going to be better at poker than your "average" FR player.

In fact, over the weekend, I checked out the stats of many of the biggest winners at $1/$2 FR on Sharkscope- just to see how their SnG's results look. I was a little surprised (perhaps I shouldn't have been) that nearly all show a -ve ROI% and have lost money! I would expect that if someone who knows the biggest winners at mid-stakes 6-max checks out their stats- then they would generally be much better. (Out of interest- anyone want to do that- or give me some names to check?)**




** Thinly disguised "Look how f**king hot I run at SnGs. See I told you I'm not just an unimaginative FR'er" post.

[Longy]

is the standard for FR 14 / 8 or something? And is the standard just to play 10 - 12 tables; 3 - bet KK+; set mine 22 - QQ; and open limp AQs+ or suited connectors?

Yep. Spot on. Well, not quite with the last bit. But yeah, that's pretty much standard TAG play, and obviously relies largely on making money from bad players' mistakes. Obviously it's exploitable by those who play a more open game, and I think there are more of those around than there used to be - even so you're only talking about playing maybe 16/11 or 18/12. I don't think many players at this level could get away with playing 20/16. I believe there's some guy on FT by the name of ccuuurrse who plays or played something like 28/22 and destroyed the games, but he really is the huge exception.

Whether it's not real poker - I dunno. I mean, obviously you can 3-bet other stuff, make plays and give specific players something to think about in order to gain an edge over the field. Just not as often as you can/have to at 6-max. The point of balance that you need to find so that you're not playing too predictably but also not getting too far out of line is just in a different place.

LL. That's not a bad summary of many successful FR players- and a good response from Moskvich.

There is still a significant element of skill at FR- it's not just about who wins the most coolers. Although it is possible to win consistently through playing a very straight-forward "robotic" style with minimal adaption- and a lot of players do this.

However, I've no doubt at all that 6-max players see more development in their game (over a set period of time) than those playing FR. This implies that your "average" 6-max player is going to be better at poker than your "average" FR player.

In fact, over the weekend, I checked out the stats of many of the biggest winners at $1/$2 FR on Sharkscope- just to see how their SnG's results look. I was a little surprised (perhaps I shouldn't have been) that nearly all show a -ve ROI% and have lost money! I would expect that if someone who knows the biggest winners at mid-stakes 6-max checks out their stats- then they would generally be much better. (Out of interest- anyone want to do that- or give me some names to check?)**




** Thinly disguised "Look how f**king hot I run at SnGs. See I told you I'm not just an unimaginative FR'er" post.

Lol i think full ring cash and sng's are kind of similar in some ways. Knowing how to play as a total nit is requirement for both (early stage of sng), kind of surprising that full ring nits don't adapt to sng's well. Maybe they find all this shoving any two cards nonesense a bit scary.

I personally i have gone from sng's to 6 max cash, Im not sure i like the sound of full ring. At least in sngs you had the entertainment of it being an all in shove fest after about 20 minutes.

[AlexMartin]

LOL @ using starting hand req's as an argument for forming bb/100 averages. Flops and streets is where cash players make money. Not whether you 3-bet JJ pre or you dont.

[Moskvich]

I'm not really sure what your point is there Alex, I don't think anyone's suggesting a necessarily direct correlation between PF stats and winrates...