10K Hands at 1/2 and 2/5 ZOOM
Posted by sted9000
Posted by
sted9000
posted in
Mid Stakes
10K Hands at 1/2 and 2/5 ZOOM
Just finished a little experiment of playing 10k hands of 1/2 ZOOM PLO and then the same of 2/5. I wanted to see the differences in the games.
My results (pretty meaningless): 1/2, 2/5, 1/2, 2/5
Thoughts on the games:
Player Pool- I found the level of the recreational players to be pretty similar, but the play of the regulars was miles apart. Some very good regs in the 2/5 pool (Skervoy, Gregy, Jimmyhat) and other HS regs that drop down to take my money. The number of recreational players in the 1/2 pool seems to be a bit higher than in the 2/5 pool.
Difference in reg play-
1) A lot of regs at 1/2 are WAY over-folding in the blinds and to flop cbets, which is basically free money when you notice it. I don't know if this is because they want to get to the +EV spot of next hand or simply a flaw in their game.
2) Balance. It seems like more profitable plays come up at 1/2 due to the fact that opponents are often not balanced. Examples: some "never" x-r turn oop vs missed flop cbet, some "never" continue in multiway pot after missing a cbet, and some "never" 4b w/o AAxx. Things like these are the biggest difference I noticed in the games.3) More of a Game Theory approach at 2/5. I noticed this mainly in spots where opponents have "some showdown value", but are near the bottom or there range; more 2/5 regs recognize this as a bluff spot, where 1/2 regs often miss it. Also more 2/5 regs aren't afraid to fire when at the bottom of range because of emotional/psychological reasons. Conclusions:- I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone could program a relatively simple bot to beat 1/2 ZOOM, due to over-folding, over-cbetting, and "straightforwardness".- You are not going to win by using an overarching strategy (ie steal a lot and cbet a lot) at 2/5 while you probably can at 1/2. Winning at 2/5 will require "real poker" based more on opponent specifics/adjustments and less on exploiting the pool as a whole.- ZOOM is fun. I think I learned a lot playing with some really good players in the 2/5 games.Interested to hear any thoughts/comments/questions on my stats and/or my thoughts.Thanks
Loading 24 Comments...
Conclusions:
- I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone could program a relatively simple bot to beat 1/2 ZOOM, due to over-folding, over-cbetting, and "straightforwardness".
- You are not going to win by using an overarching strategy (ie steal a lot and cbet a lot) at 2/5 while you probably can at 1/2. Winning at 2/5 will require "real poker" based more on opponent specifics/adjustments and less on exploiting the pool as a whole.
- ZOOM is fun. I think I learned a lot playing with some really good players in the 2/5 games.
Interested to hear any thoughts/comments/questions on my stats and/or my thoughts.
Thanks
Is my mention a level? I've been running a bit bad and think my play has suffered somewhat as a result, really surprised to see my name there. I actually think I have holes everywhere in my game.
Thanks for the confidence boost though :)
I only moved up to 500 zoom about 4-5 weeks ago so have a pretty decent feel for both games and agree with your observations.
No level. I think you play very well.
Another thing that I really liked and took for granite until yesterday when I jumped back into the regular games is that there is no buttoning, sitting out, sitting to the right of table starter....just sit and play poker !
Hi Man,
Thanks a lot for this kind of information. I m trying to move up from zoom 25$ and it's very useful for smal stacks players. It gives us some hope ! :D
ho, just re reading your post,
Do you mind explain/give some examples when you said : 3) More of a Game Theory approach at 2/5. I noticed this mainly in spots where opponents have "some showdown value", but are near the bottom or there range; more 2/5 regs recognize this as a bluff spot, where 1/2 regs often miss it. Also more 2/5 regs aren't afraid to fire when at the bottom of range because of emotional/psychological reasons.
Thx
No problem.
Here is an example off the top of my head: Say MP opens, BTN and BB call. Flop of 885ss, MP cbets BTN calls and BB folds. Turn As, goes ch/ch, River 6o and MP checks.....
I think that BTN "should" be betting his naked KK, QQ hands as well as his naked 8xxx hands here as bluffs as they at the bottom of his range (all spade draws and wraps came in). I see a lot of players checking these types of hands back on the river and I assume they are doing so because they have some show down value.
Thx I understand.
Very interesting post. Would you also say that the reading ability of the regs at 2/5 surpasses the 1/2 regs? Are they more range aware? As microcrusher said it gives us lowstakes grinders a lot of hope and I would really like if someone would do a similar experiment on 0.10-0.25 and 0.25-0.50 just to hear something about the player pools at these levels. Great post, sir! ;-)
"Would you also say that the reading ability of the regs at 2/5 surpasses the 1/2 regs? Are they more range aware?" - yes yes.
I also got the feeling (and I have no evidence to support this) that a lot of the 1/2 regs were there "just to get in volume", where most of the 2/5 regs seemed to be taking more time, thinking a bit deeper and auto-piloting less.
Agree that someone doing the same sort of thing at those stakes would be cool. I might try that out.
Would be awesome! I would really enjoy that as RIO don't have any regs on those zoom stakes.
sted9000 - Regarding lots of the 200 zoom regs simply being there to get volume, it make sense because this is the lowest level at which you can reasonably achieve supernova elite. At 100plo I don't think it can be done.
Good point....this could explain my feeling.
I don't even want to think about how many hours you need to put in 4 tabling 1/2 to reach SNE. I think I would end up in zombie mode/auto-piloting a lot of the time if I were to attempt.
Hey not sure if u have played non Zoom but if you have, how would you compare the player pool of 1/2 PLO or 2/5 Zoom players vs normal tables 1/2 PLO or 2/5?
I think I am pretty qualified to speak to the difference between 1/2 normal and 1/2 ZOOM as I played 1/2 normal as my main game last year.
Saying that one is better than the other really doesn't get you anywhere meaningful, but I will say that I think the 1/2 normal regs are more thoughtful and make more conscious decisions where the 1/2 ZOOM regs tend to make more automatic/instinctive decisions. ZOOM's game setup promotes this. Different tendencies and patterns pop up because of this.
I would say that on average you would be at a table with more recreational players (with a little bit of work game selecting) playing regular tables.
I don't have the experience to speak to the 2/5 games vs 2/4 and 3/6.
Thxz =)
My experiment above was done 2 Tabling. When I was playing I always took note of players that were 4 Tabling, as I thought they would be playing poorly because they would have no time to think and therefore just be clicking buttons. So I decided to give it a try and played a 10k sample of 1/2 ZOOM over 4 Tables. I think I learned a few things:
Results:
Thoughts:
Learning still happens, but in a different way. Since you are in a rush for time you have no time to think creatively and take different lines in similar spots which would create learning moments where you could compare two different lines or thoughts. Instead you stick to the line/thought that you know best because it takes the least amount of mental energy. However you are still learning in the sense that you are going to be seeing and hopefully remembering patterns faster- as you are seeing 2x the hands.
When making decisions you often will substitute "this player" for "this type of player". Meaning you will be acting more on general stereotypes and inferences rather than specific ones. There is just no time to pull up notes or look in-depth at opponents HUDs.
I noticed myself playing a little tighter pre-flop and on the flop (folding to more cbets), which makes sense as the game is moving so fast. However as the 10k hands progressed I noticed that the game was slowing down a bit (I was being timed out less often and had more time to think a bit deeper).
Conclusions:
Playing 2x the speed does change the game somewhat, but with enough practice (in my case I think it would take A LOT) I think you can play almost as well.
Playing fewer tables might be a better place to work on developing new thoughts/lines/ideas, where playing more tables might be the best places to test and practice those concepts- because you get feedback faster.
Please let me know what you think. Thanks
Looks like early on there was a lot of AI pots and later on a lot of winning with SD value at river, or with out showdown (green line pacing with the yellow line. Any thought as to what was contributing most to this (might even just be variance I guess? but could be things like players playing more straight forward post flop, more weak players). I guess this could be you getting use to the pace of playing four table.
I am very uncertain what causes this. Of course I would like to think that it was me picking up on spots where people are over-folding, doing a good job of realizing my equity (not over-folding myself), and getting more comfortable with the pace of 4 Tabling. But it is probably just variance like you said (very small sample).
how many rake you have to pay in zoom 1/2 and 2/5?
@ 2/5 Zoom Rake Contributed = 5.6 bb/100
@ 1/2 Zoom Rake Contributed = 9.1 bb/100
Attributed rake would be more interesting if you don't mind.
@ 2/5 Zoom Rake Attributed = 5.65 bb/100
@ 1/2 Zoom Rake Attributed = 9.34 bb/100
So "Attributed" will be relatively higher when you have higher WWSF and W@SD% ?
That would make sense. If you put a lot of money into the pot and then fold at some point or lose at showdown your contributed rake will be a fraction of the total rake taken from the hand. Your attributed rake will be zero however.
I usually only look at attributed rake as it tells how much rake you've actually paid (i.e. money that has been deducted from your winnings).
But I can see that at your stakes both figures are almost identical. At the micros my attributed rake is usually 10-15% higher than my contributed rake because I win a lot of pots but play tighter than the field (not hard when you have so many 90+ VPIP whales).
Be the first to add a comment