Yeah i was considering about a coach but i thought i could learn by myself untill i get to higher stakes by watching these videos here and i put work in my database and flopzilla which i did for a time but now recently for last 2 months im going no where...its not like i dont know what to do in some spots i have in my head % of how much combos my villians have that will call or fold and base my decisions on that but recently its been going not so good.
Btw where did u find those winrates stats,its still possible to get that in 2019? I dont think i saw a single reg on this limit with anything close to that winrate,most of them arent that good not to be offensive but thats just my oppinion

Maybe time to exchange flopzilla for a solver for some of your study? I don't think flopzilla is bad in any way but you miss out on a lot by not using a solver. I mean long term and not over 2-3 months because there is a learning curve with solvers.

i do have GTO+ but i stopped using it because i felt it was pointless to use it on this limits where no one plays GTO even tho i did some nodelocking to try to sum up what are ppl doing differently

side question: why would you want to play on Stars? I've been off for a while but isn't the rake still ridiculously high there at least on the micros?

Best software and has the most fish+u can use HUD which is the most important thing for me i dont like playing vs unknowns

Well yes, these are certainly some pro arguments but at least for me they just don't outweigh the fact that you have to pay that much more rake to get them. Are you at least aware of how much BB/100 you precisely pay in rake and by how much more you have to crush your stakes to achieve the same winrate/hourly than on other sites?

theres like 6-7bb on this limits in rake yea i know which means i have to win more than that which i do but still i remember few months ago i tried to compare same volume i had on partypoker(when they had HUDs) and pokerstars and results were interesting there were more spewy fishy players on pokerstars so i was making more money from that compared to partypoker+of its 30% rakeback due to regfest on that limit,and from then untill now i stayed on pokerstars.I havent tried other sites tho

Could u describe in few sentances how do u study vs particular players? So u nodelock what u think they will do in which spot depending on their strats and u get counter strategy,but i dont think its helpful that much because u can do same thing with flopzilla if u adjust the combos and % properly and then just see if u have enoug equity to make desired play,no?

I haven't done much work with Flopzilla yet but I assume some big advantages of the solver-nodelocking approach are:

• Detecting leaks of the pool / your opponents. Example: You notice a certain texture should be check-raised 25% of the time but you already know they might at most reach 10-15%. Thus you can nodelock this and might find that you can now cbet 100% of your range instead of 65% before. But without the solver you might have never found out how much check-raising should be done on certain boards
• Learning about multi-street approaches with value but also especially bluffing candidates. Example: You might find new bluffing candidates or detect you picked the wrong bluffs in different spots (for instance in some spots you might overvalue blockers as bluffing candidates but in other spots you might overvalue equity compared to blockers and so on). Regarding value it might reveal some slowplay candidates you haven't thought of.
• I think it should be a much faster process

On the contrary one big plus of constructing the ranges manually in non-solver software is an enhanced learning curve because you are more involved with the ranges compared to just clicking through what the solver says. So it might have more direct effects on translating your study work to in-game ability. So there should be great value in combining both study methods.

Regarding a possible switch to MTTs: If you would decide to do so I don't think the work you've put into your 6-max game will be anything close to wasted. MTTs have lots of additional concepts and you have to tweak your 6max knowledge to integrate different stack sizes / play with lower SPR postflop and do a lot of different preflop and ICM work. But your general postflop capabilities will be super powerful for MTTs in general.

A big no to this point about flopzilla + equity being the same. If you could solve using range + equity analysis the whole PIO/monker algorithms (and GTO in general) would be a lot simpler. For a start using that approach it seems hard to see how you would develop mixed strategies. Also it removes at least one set of assumptions from your analysis. If you nodelock you are forcing a mistake from villain but PIO then allows the villain to play perfectly afterwards. You would have to make an assumption based on how much they fold as well as the range that you are nodelocking when considering say, a raise. as another risk it then becomes very easy to justify plays post hoc.

I think flopzilla has good value for giving starting points and a user friendly interface for constructing range assumptions and feel for what a range looks like in certain spots (although PIO does have Range Explorer). I just want to strongly make the point that + raw equity vs range is not even close to being the same as PIO/Monker.

Now I enjoy GTO+ a lot too but you display a GTO+ profile pic which might reveal some bias? :P Or just such an incredible big fan? ;)

haha okey got it certainly nothing wrong with that then. I appreciate their work too