400nl deep bluff

[cambridgealex]

Regs are very predictable with their betting and Id say within 30 mins of being at any reg filled table I can have them all on the edge of a cliff

LOL Guy you are hilarious <3

Wait... you are being serious?

Just imagine what you'd do to the bad players if you really can 'wow them with your fast game' so well vs the regs!

John Black multiaccounting!

Start a diary pls Guy!

[SuuPRlim]

if you play one 6max table with andy, franky, george, colin and vanessa. Andy, frank and george are all average winning poker players and have an ev of 1bb/100. Vanessa is the best reg and has an EV of 4bb/100, colin is unfortunatley a very poor poker player and is expected to be a loser in this game (luckily for colin he is filthy rich from a software company he started owns several very large houses and has an incredibly hot wife so he doesnt give too much of a shit) and ofc the other player in the game, is you.

every 100 hands colin has to lose 7bb for you to break even.

Now lets replace frank and George with Alex and Stuart (who are both also losing poker players, alex especially is very poor) now the three of them only 2big blinds every 100 hand an you make a small profit.

The point isn't that you can win more off the regs than the weaker players, it's that the regs will win some off the weaker players diluting the profit you can expect to make.

[shipitonetime]

Outrageous76, that is an absurd statement imo. I've played with you at 100nl and i realized how blow up u were v quickly and just adjusted accordingly. Seemed like u were just punting around. Maybe that was the case?

[pleno1]

its obviously a massively ridiculously false statement from guy.

What he might have meant was that he had a better HOURLY by playing regs as he plays significantly more hands per hour and is playing enough tables to try and exploit them and thus show a good bb/100 and good hourly, rather than the regs who bumhunt, don't play many hands per hour at all and even though they win at 10bb/100 are playing 8000 hands per month and thus guy is winning more.

It's obviously better to play fish, playing regs can be fine, players are winning at 6bb/100 at 500nl zoom which is supposed to be the "toughest mid stakes game out there" so its definitely achievable to beat regs hard, but never more than fish.

[SuuPRlim]

I have no issue playing regs, I think you should tbh as its hard to get decent volume in and stay sharp if you dont. That being said i'm not above quitting certain players who i think have the better than me or changing tables cos i don't like my seat etc

[Honeybadger]

You can't beat bad players because they call with anything and hit. You gotta search out the good players who respect your raises cos you can outplay them and rub their regfish dollars on your titties.

[outragous76]

You can't beat bad players because they call with anything and hit. You gotta search out the good players who respect your raises cos you can outplay them and rub their regfish dollars on your titties.

 

[DMorgan]

This is a very good bluff IMO.

Yep, you rep very little air OTR and can make plenty of combos fold on a board that I think lots of regs will barrel for thin-ish value, none of which you beat. wp.

[skolsuper]

if you play one 6max table with andy, franky, george, colin and vanessa. Andy, frank and george are all average winning poker players and have an ev of 1bb/100. Vanessa is the best reg and has an EV of 4bb/100, colin is unfortunatley a very poor poker player and is expected to be a loser in this game (luckily for colin he is filthy rich from a software company he started owns several very large houses and has an incredibly hot wife so he doesnt give too much of a shit) and ofc the other player in the game, is you.

every 100 hands colin has to lose 7bb for you to break even.

Now lets replace frank and George with Alex and Stuart (who are both also losing poker players, alex especially is very poor) now the three of them only 2big blinds every 100 hand an you make a small profit.

The point isn't that you can win more off the regs than the weaker players, it's that the regs will win some off the weaker players diluting the profit you can expect to make.

At 6max 400nl roughly 25bb/100 comes off the table in rake, so Colin would actually have to lose at 32bb/100 for us to break even, all other things being equal. With 3 fish they only have to lose at 10bb/100 each on average.

@pleno: 500nl zoom isn't beatable for 6bb/100 imo. Sounds like there is some selection bias there, take the next month's results of those regs who you think beat it at 6bb/100 and average them to find a more realistic projection.

[shipitonetime]

if you play one 6max table with andy, franky, george, colin and vanessa. Andy, frank and george are all average winning poker players and have an ev of 1bb/100. Vanessa is the best reg and has an EV of 4bb/100, colin is unfortunatley a very poor poker player and is expected to be a loser in this game (luckily for colin he is filthy rich from a software company he started owns several very large houses and has an incredibly hot wife so he doesnt give too much of a shit) and ofc the other player in the game, is you.

every 100 hands colin has to lose 7bb for you to break even.

Now lets replace frank and George with Alex and Stuart (who are both also losing poker players, alex especially is very poor) now the three of them only 2big blinds every 100 hand an you make a small profit.

The point isn't that you can win more off the regs than the weaker players, it's that the regs will win some off the weaker players diluting the profit you can expect to make.

At 6max 400nl roughly 25bb/100 comes off the table in rake, so Colin would actually have to lose at 32bb/100 for us to break even, all other things being equal. With 3 fish they only have to lose at 10bb/100 each on average.

@pleno: 500nl zoom isn't beatable for 6bb/100 imo. Sounds like there is some selection bias there, take the next month's results of those regs who you think beat it at 6bb/100 and average them to find a more realistic projection.

Theres been some sickos on 2p2 who have done challenges and achieved it over a decent sample. Not sure on exact figures tho. But yeh ur probs right, just heaters itts.

[pleno1]

if you play one 6max table with andy, franky, george, colin and vanessa. Andy, frank and george are all average winning poker players and have an ev of 1bb/100. Vanessa is the best reg and has an EV of 4bb/100, colin is unfortunatley a very poor poker player and is expected to be a loser in this game (luckily for colin he is filthy rich from a software company he started owns several very large houses and has an incredibly hot wife so he doesnt give too much of a shit) and ofc the other player in the game, is you.

every 100 hands colin has to lose 7bb for you to break even.

Now lets replace frank and George with Alex and Stuart (who are both also losing poker players, alex especially is very poor) now the three of them only 2big blinds every 100 hand an you make a small profit.

The point isn't that you can win more off the regs than the weaker players, it's that the regs will win some off the weaker players diluting the profit you can expect to make.

At 6max 400nl roughly 25bb/100 comes off the table in rake, so Colin would actually have to lose at 32bb/100 for us to break even, all other things being equal. With 3 fish they only have to lose at 10bb/100 each on average.

@pleno: 500nl zoom isn't beatable for 6bb/100 imo. Sounds like there is some selection bias there, take the next month's results of those regs who you think beat it at 6bb/100 and average them to find a more realistic projection.

Theres been some sickos on 2p2 who have done challenges and achieved it over a decent sample. Not sure on exact figures tho. But yeh ur probs right, just heaters itts.

yeh some people have definitely beat it at 6bb/100 over 200k+ hands, and a decent amount of regs have won at over 4bb/100 over bigger samples.

[skolsuper]

if you play one 6max table with andy, franky, george, colin and vanessa. Andy, frank and george are all average winning poker players and have an ev of 1bb/100. Vanessa is the best reg and has an EV of 4bb/100, colin is unfortunatley a very poor poker player and is expected to be a loser in this game (luckily for colin he is filthy rich from a software company he started owns several very large houses and has an incredibly hot wife so he doesnt give too much of a shit) and ofc the other player in the game, is you.

every 100 hands colin has to lose 7bb for you to break even.

Now lets replace frank and George with Alex and Stuart (who are both also losing poker players, alex especially is very poor) now the three of them only 2big blinds every 100 hand an you make a small profit.

The point isn't that you can win more off the regs than the weaker players, it's that the regs will win some off the weaker players diluting the profit you can expect to make.

At 6max 400nl roughly 25bb/100 comes off the table in rake, so Colin would actually have to lose at 32bb/100 for us to break even, all other things being equal. With 3 fish they only have to lose at 10bb/100 each on average.

@pleno: 500nl zoom isn't beatable for 6bb/100 imo. Sounds like there is some selection bias there, take the next month's results of those regs who you think beat it at 6bb/100 and average them to find a more realistic projection.

Theres been some sickos on 2p2 who have done challenges and achieved it over a decent sample. Not sure on exact figures tho. But yeh ur probs right, just heaters itts.

yeh some people have definitely beat it at 6bb/100 over 200k+ hands, and a decent amount of regs have won at over 4bb/100 over bigger samples.

but how many tried? #selectionbiasunderstandingfail

[SuuPRlim]

can anyone even win at poker anymore?

[Deadman]

can anyone even win at poker anymore?

Just Trickett

[cambridgealex]

can anyone even win at poker anymore?

Just Trickett

ironic!