nav77

My win rate was a bit under 10bb at nlh20 with a high rake (at plo my win rate was 5bb and zero at plo10 where the rake was still higher) but it depends a lot on relative skill levels; I had like two more or less fish-palyers at the table and the rest were nits that were pretty easy to play against. 6-max cash.

For tourneys, there is the sharkscope site for stats.

Bluffing the river needs to be in balance with value bets (1/3rd or less are bluffs depending on bet size from pot to less) so you need to bluff a part of your missed draws or relative if no draws likely. Follow your feel also.

Betting IP is to happen less often when the opponent gets up to a likely hit like you are blocking whatever you try to get value from. Except if they tend to donk their hits. Out of position, I am more aggressive, as I don't want them to check their weaker hands but maybe when they can have a healthy bluff range also.

Checking back on the flop, one needs to keep folding a part of the range on every street if the opponent keeps betting. There are many players I wouldn't be checking back to with hands I am going to easily fold, so I add them to my c-bet range, and that is for exploitive reasons.

NLH50 online is still a beatable level without needing superior skills and the win rate exists (1 to 4 bb/100 plus rb and the same for PLO). As so, the live 200 game should be beatable with less skill (5bb rake cap). It takes time to learn to beat a game like 50 online.

In Spain, that 400 or 500 game is generally with a 10 € rake cap, in case it runs, as omaha is more popular as a live game (can't find spots to play as many hands in nlh), although additionally to 200 tables one can generally expect one 400 or 500 nlh game running also (generally not at small places), but as it looks like, it could be the highest running, while the plo1k could be a regular game (in spain) and possibly plo2k also running.

In Scotland and Ireland they might have 6-card omaha instead, and the nlh in Scotland is with a 5 £ cap (the american style rake cap) at nlh200 (highest nlh running while the 6-omaha is with 5/5 blinds 3 times per week in Glasgow -- I don't know its rake). In London the rake is also a bit more reasonable (Spanish rake). While in Amsterdam it is 20 € cap (minimum).

Two tables as it doubles the action without losing the feel. It is good to time then so that the other table is preferably rather new when the other is deeper. And when dropping out of the tourney, picking a good spot to take another one, if one has the option; one can have a pre-schedule, and could add some sit and go also at spots.

A good online amount to aim for is 800 tourneys per year, or 4 tourneys per day. Below a few hundred player tourneys preferably, at the most about 1k players, for sake of variance beatable and reasonable time per tourney.

MTTs NLH was the last I learned and I didn't run into any book (nor software really) that would not have been there 5 years ago, so if you need a book not more than 5 years old, then it would be some cash game book.

I put the final changes to my MTTs with the "one had at the time" tourney books (or two of them) so I understood especially when I am pot committed preflop (about 1/3 of the stack being the marginal where one just might do anything) plus some other factors (some related to stack sizes) for when to play tighter or looser.

Nothing much about postflop play anywhere, really, the high-limit MTT book as it usually is, meaning not much post flop play later in the tourneys, it seems, so it is mostly about smaller stacks, smaller bet sizes thing (if not allin or folding, or soft playing as so many seem to do later) and more or less like cash otherwise, as far as I see it (no tourney post flop strategy exists, counting out some pot control ideas that are not all accurate). but one likely plays heavily also the opponent and tension levels in tourneys.

The 8bb/100 at limit holdem shorthanded vs. bad players is possible up to some 10-20k hands easily, longer sometimes, e.g. some low limit player got to 4bb/100 in tougher games, and at high limits it could be 2bb/100 for up to 50-100k hands. But is hard to impossible to maintain without good rakeback. Equally bad run would put one to some -2bb/100 at best at 10-25c (not easy) or so when not running good. The long run in the easiest games would be like 4bb/100. So, about 2x air in top results.

Much the same as in NLH but hands not c-bet will be weaker; also, in NLH you can c-bet smaller with weaker hands (if not too obvious) that you would need to check with a bigger bet size.

Additionally, it is an opinion also, if one should check or bet with weaker hands as NLH and LH can use either one, being a style issue, and one needs mostly to know how to follow then.

In LH, one can c-bet more because one can defend with ace high or even with king high, if the board doesn't fill up too badly.

Wet boards, one can bet and raise weaker there, as there are more draws one can defend against. Dry boards get value from bluff raises (and peels) and some weaker call downs on average, but dry boards are also safer to check, just that giving a free card instead of betting very small is probably wrong but vs. aggressive re-stealers.

Low flop, if it is checked more often, is anyone's guess, as the opponent should then give value to the one c-betting them, and if one checks because worried of bluff raises, it is then fine to bet and defend (if the board runs favourably).

So, the weakest hands with showdown value can be checked or bet as long as one knows how to continue. If the opponent always raises and insists, it makes no sense (even if not losing) to bet too many non showdown hands. Plus if he always bets when checked to, it might be best to c-bet less.

To take a visual look into the opponent's range and manners, can show the way if even an obvious c-bet or check is actually good.

No Limit Hold'em - Beating the Micro Stakes by Thomas Mitchell. Imo, it has solved the problem for loose full ring games and I am happy to have it. It is not going to be any good online and you'r not going to play your late opens and heads up flops the best way, as it doesn't cover them like stuffs like the Janda books (and any videos from Youtube like nanonoko's who plays the old school way somewhat like Mr. Little does) that are enough if you never play these loose games.

I can verify that my IQ correlates well with my chess and poker IQ, all about average.

I have some high talents and at least one is measured in IQ tests but my visual limitation is pretty much the bottle neck for me. My emotional IQ is about average (but I have further improved my education there and feel pretty good about it considering that emotions and social are not my talents and still doing well).

I might not be a favourite to raise up to nlh/plo100 but I will try (live like nlh/plo500), as I don't see a wall yet. If I get stuck at easier games, then I just do, being at least something.

This correlation is not fully true in all cases, as there is no chance many of the top poker players would ever be much better than average chess players, lacking the needed deeper visual skills. But there are a ton of smart people playing higher limits (but not smart enough not to play).

It would get rid of many major bad beats (with the cost of winning as a favourite less often but when it is ran 3+ times) but as so few use it or it isn't a function at most sites, I stopped using it, partly also as there might be some statistical minuses for using it when tracking results, but I don't remember anymore. It feels a bit more clean to run it just once when the variance doesn't matter as much.

I found the Microgaming plo2 too tough for me. Tried also the lowest PLO Unibet but lost my roll. Prefer playing plo20 and 50 elsewhere. The Finnish-Austrian site is playable but I am not there so it can be a bit tough.

Looks like ring BB hands vs SB 50% open. The 3-bet hands are then too tight here and they need to be balanced with weaker hands. But it is well likely your SB is open raising tighter, in case you again use more like what he has plus more or less pretty hands.

If I saw correctly, it was a split pot.

Barcelona in Spain has a nlh 1/3 game that has a 5% rake capped at 10 euros. Meaning it is similar (but looser) than an online nlh100 game (with no rakeback). When allin and winning, one isn't paying 30 (5%) or 60 (10%) as rake but 10 (cap) or 15 (cap), and so one should buy in max and preferably play when there is much money at the table. I wouldn't play with a 10% rake though, but I don't need to figure out if it can be beaten.

08 section by Bobby Baldwin in Super System 2 is about limit omaha8 and is of no use online because it is spreading a flop strategy for loose games, and the strategy is logical there, and on the turn half so, but when it comes to other half on the turn, and then on the river, it is too semiblluff-raise aggro, and so all in all, it turns out it is next to no use online and dangerous on the turn and river no matter where you play. You might pick some preflop ranges and one or two tips for river betting but that's about it. The PLO chapter in that book is very basic and maybe not even worth a read, but I wouldn't recommend to buy SS2 just for this limit omaha8 chapter (its strategy cost me a little money online before I saw it incorrect and basically useless for me).

You don't need that book if you have the 2+2 Zee book that has a limit stud8 also (SS2 has a respectable chapter on stud8 also but doesn't teach one to think). Though the omaha8 (limit omaha8) part in this book is very basic and nutty, it still should be enough because there are no good omaha8 limit books, but mostly it is about understanding that A3JTs is a pretty good hand shorthanded and that half the pot win isn't much and the rest is mostly about one's own thinking, and learning from opponents perhaps.

The Deppen is a plo8 book and there isn't an option I think. It is a bit generic poker book also, one learning some stuffs for other games also (this is not intentional), but what the full value is for one's plo8 game, I haven't played it enough nor digested this book enough to know but you can expect that you will be doing a lot of thinking when playing and the preflop strategy in this book is partly a bit suspect but interesting compared to limit poker. Just don't expect too much, but as it is, I don't see how one could not read it. But one needs to do a lot of playing/thinking, this is only a hand as usual with most books.

7-Card Stud by Roy West covers about as much as any other 7 stud book and I have read SS1 (super/system 1, chip reese chapter), The Elements of Seven Card Stud by Konstantin Othmer, 2+2 book and I don't think they add anything to mention. You could pick any one of those and ignore the rest.

Anyway, most of stud one learns by playing/thinking about it, it playing rather differently compared to community games like limit holdem because one sees more, and none of those books help one there much actually because you need to read the boards and play it correctly on every street based on that and use a logic that you have to figure out yourself. The same with all stud games.

The 1st was SS1, then it was copied and some stats added by 2+2, while the Elements book is a solid book that also covers the material but is a bit different preflop and so maybe better to ignore for a start. The Roy book is a simple one and only if you are more nerdy, you might not like his style of writing and would then pick the 2+2 book (it is a copy really, and the Roy book also could be said to be yet another copy, but it is cheaper and sort of more light and fairer one).

The original being the SS1 (if you play draw poker then you might pick that one instead as the starting point) and you get more stats with the Elements book (new edition, almost non existent soon?), though the stats are not really important imo, or one knows what they about are and one has a solid early strategy anyway even without knowing all the stats, though supershort and heads up one needs to do some more thinking.

What you get with any of these books is a preflop strategy, some basic 4th and 5th street strategy (you won't get much with any of these books) and that's about it.

You play based on what they should have and adjust it based on what you know about them.

I call at least a step looser vs any action player. I don't fold any pocket pair as default. Mere SCs have no blockers -- I have not even thought about 4-betting with them when IP, and if one calls with them preflop, depends on postflop also. Aces block aces, hmm. I don't necessarily 4-bet as much (or little) and one needs to think also.

One can up to usually run into players who are tight 3-bettors and even when not sure you know what the 3-bets generally are and your line is usual then, but it is also a lot about how you rate the opponent at that moment, and how you know he plays postflop. To me it is not that much about a fixed range in a lot of cases but it is better to think about the opponent and then how often one should defend, and I don't think the small details are important to me when I am adjusting like that, it being included.

He could have a flush draw, possibly with kq or so as you have the blockers. It is only a ten high flop, often floated 2/2, also with an ace though, and this player is a 33%, not a megafish.

The standard play is like to check-call down until the flush hits (the technical answer). It is really a no-brainer (induced a bluff, call down, though there is a rule of bet-fold also known vs the right opponent, though I am not using it too much but as a block value bet, this situation being different, betting Tx-jj rather than kk).

The pot size bet is a bad excuse for folding until one knows otherwise, and you don't know if it means a silly bluff or he woke up with what he considers a strong hand and isn't selling anything (medium stacking, preflop passive, not too tight nor lose, but it's about what one thinks about his post flop play).

A thin spot to lose a lot of money, even when you get a discount on the river. I would fold only if I would think I am beat (that is the other answer), like if he is from eastern Europe. It would be easier to call if he 3b pre more (CO vs B) and is known to often bet when checked to and no known bet size tell known.

The last thing you want to do is to pay off a player you think you are up against here, never bluffing, betting max for value, absolute face up. Many bet that amount to represent a bluff, but it is a river thing (and unfortunately even with the same speed, instant bet, one still has to figure if it is the nuts or a bluff), while on the turn many players/fish have a habit to underrepresent or/and seek further info before the final big river bet for last chance to get max value and under a more safe situation.

The size of this turn bet was the most interesting case combined to this opponent and generally, though many fish is betting the pot at stars plo, where I though don't play anymore, but at plo I don't remember they so often and so many of them bet the pot some year ago, but then started to bet the pot, that some say is a good indication of a fish (as others bet some less than the pot), but the fish must have heard it from somewhere, though I am still wondering why they are not better than they are and how they find the balls to bet the pot with their whole betting range. But maybe they have a pot bet selected, then they just push that button. It being a different case if there is no such button or there are other buttons clearly also and the habit on the site currently isn't to bet the pot.

Other than thinking what the opponent would fold often enough for the river bluff to show a profit, it is all close standard play. The preflop 3b is just a step loose.

• the top pair is still a top pair
• filled straights, 2p, backdoor flush draw
• we have many value hands with a 2/3 bet left, including the flush
• one missed flush draw (with 2 negative blockers) and possibly some missed other draws. If these would not exist (a rainbow flop), it can be hard to put the opponent on a hand he would fold for 2/3 river bet (in a 3b pot), until he knows you would not bluff that river, that would then need to be balanced
• the blockers might generally be up to meaningless enough to be ignored
• one would also adjust for the opponent.

This river bluff is easily -EV when seeing the last bad news of the 7s hitting the river. I would have no trouble barreling all the way otherwise (at nlh25). It is possibly not wrong to consider if the opponent would ever fold the turn-river and decide to check the turn with the idea to call a medium bet.

I would possibly donate anyway, but not sure, but I don't have a lot of bluffers compared to value bets (tt looks like a hand one might check fold the river with? I don't have the range analyses, just can consider the opponent and what he 4b preflop with. At least this river needs some respect over basic strategy). Maybe give up with the 1 gapper, if it isn't an official (balance) hand anyway.

I did find nlh micros to be soft after I made my study. And that does not include much experience after it will be still more soft. Players do not just lose money because of bad technique; too loose, too tight, not in balance but also because of the lack of experience. The nlh mistakes are often bigger. One has more control than one has in plo and limit poker where there are more often little possibility but just pay them off one way and the other. If someone runs really good, one might be able to duck much of it at nlh. I am on green on my 10 to 25 scores compared to plo where I just generate rake (if no rakeback), counting out stars that has a lower plo micro rake.

I have some of the time been limping in limit heads up games those times I have a person who raises every limp and maybe 3bs every open raise. My reasoning is that it gets two bets (instead of three) in with the weaker range vs his whole range and three bets (instead of three to four, the four possibly not being in ones strategy anyway) in with a limp reraise with my stronger range vs his whole range. I have just as often been just taking the 3b up to every time, open raising the whole range, just folding preflop some more as it makes my range significantly stronger postflop.

I limp for similar reasons in big bet poker that I have been building in micros the last two years but not so much with a reason to limp rr at this time but i don't like to play a bigger pot with a weak hand when i know i will get 3b with a dominating range.

Some players might raise every time when one limps, making them good targets for trap limping. In ring games they don't need to raise every time for it often still being better to limp.

I studied books and played some over one year of mostly plo10 at stars and elsewhere. I was able to beat the rake, using mostly a medium stack. Beat it more on stars as they have a lower rake, but with a full rake all I beat was the rake that for me was about 1k in 35k hands at easy plo10 games. But I played with a medium stack start and reload.

With a bigger stack play one likely gets on green as I have seen that to be the case with some players I was playing with though I have also seen that big or normal stack play will produced enormous fluctuations in some cases as some score ridiculously huge at least still at 10k or 20k hands, that would not have happened to me, though my games were not much of aggro games but more like loose passive (but often aggros also), though some more aggro at stars (much depending also on who were there, plus players there open raise more often and you might face a raise more often if you limp, and a lot of players fold up to too often, and these were ring games that are looser than the zoom ones, especially if you table select) and some less bigger multiway pots, but bigger multiway pots also can produce more variance (I got big holes at times at some full ring play and also got big ups and the scores are unreliable at such games, or till one starts to play for big value mostly), that partly explain why at some super loose games the variance can be enormous.

I had no huge problem variance at any 10k hands, at least breaking even, and my losing streaks, though often in few hours, when bigger were 10 medium stacks both at stars and elsewhere. So, a 20 stacks medium stacks roll was and is enough for me. If using a big stack one would need maybe just a 15 big stacks roll in non aggro semi easy games with a semi aggro non nit style (it doesn't mean there should not be any possibility of going busto).

My last 35k hands (a different 35k hands at different site) at plo10 stars beat just the rake but I run unlucky (and as a result played some bad also) and some 25 medium stacks under all-in EV, and if that would have been my first run in relatively tough games or so (that is a reasonable possibility as I played just some five times that many hands), it would have busted something like a 25 medium stacks roll with break even skill, losing something like the amount of the rake during a 35k of hands.

In easy games, I wouldn't worry about the roll too much, and it is more important to play every limit long enough to think one is good enough to try a higher limit, and other than small shots at good higher games before that, I would and will now go for busto there as they often run bad for a start and the variance will put one out too easily if having just 10 or so stacks, and 5 would be a donation as it has no long run. It is true it is all a long run but in the short run it is more like a semi donation not being rolled enough when moving up as it is so much about luck then, making it more gambling.

I think one should play a level one feels one fits into, e.g. the current limit might usually be too comfortable too easy, that has its problems, like when one plays too tough games to feel comfortable enough.

My results at plo25 has so far been just beating the full rake (profits from possible rakeback only), though a bit better lately, and I might not get to big stack only play as I have usually run very bad (unlucky) when playing a big stack only, losing the flips, but I think I might play most of my time already with a big stack (and my luck has improved as a good relatively experienced player tends to be more lucky, counting out the beginner luck other than when trying to move up) as I am there any time I double and triple up (for a long time used to be closer a double up and leave) and possibly longer if the game (seat etc.) is good for it, and might have no limit for it in the future until too much is bad for it. More time at bigger stacks also seems to have improved my win rate a bit in spite of the game being a bit (more at stars but haven't been playing there) tougher than it was at plo10, and the rake being relatively about the same or maybe a bit less.

Playing a medium stack start (the big stacks won't like it though they about never said anything about it and at some sites such stacks are not too much out of the usual in easy games. The sites don't offer medium cap tables but at winning network I think, and stars tolerates it some 10 or so double ups only) also has the goods that one is able to play it better and against such better, and the stats get mixed, and the 3b pots might not happen all that often to make big stack play smaller, to get as much of that practise, one running into it more in more aggro or tougher games (there has been aggro tables where I had to use a bigger stack or there was just flipping) and the ranges tend to be different.

Plo has been a some more tilting game for me than nlh, though some of the time it seems I have got more used to it, but plo might not be for one who can't even with time get his tilt under reasonable control, but then can be a good game for those who can.