NL strategy

[nflchad]

Okay so I've read about an interesting strategy for beating the low limit NL tables up to 100NL. The strategy basically consists of moving in preflop with AA or KK and limping with all pocket pairs QQ and smaller if you hit a set you move in on the flop if not you check/fold. With the pocket pairs you want to limp in as cheaply as possible although you can call small raises probably up to 8xBB on party more against multiple limpers. Also if the pot hasn't been raised yet then calling with Axs is acceptable, flop a flush move in, flop a draw then draw at your own discretion.

Obviously this can't be the most efficient strategy at these games but the beauty of it lies within the fact that someone could easily 12+ table this although at a very low win rate.

I played about 2K hands (4-tabling and watching TV) of this while clearing a bonus at MultiPoker, it's really amazing what some people will call down with even though you've been folding for an hour straight. However picking up AA, KK or a set is so rare that when you do get one of the hands just picking up the blinds is disgusting. My win rate over those hands was around 2PTBB/100 at NL 25, my usual win rate is around 14PTBB/100.

The cons of the system are obvious, it's very very boring, and you really don't learn anything except that people like to call 100xbb with AJs

So what do you guys think? Profitable? Retarded?

[ChipFish]

[Zybomb]

This strategy was given by a man who now goes by the pen name of Roy Rounder, he finished in 30th place in Event 2 this year at the series

He has newsletter which he sends out from time to time to his mailing list (which somehow I got on although i dont know how... but im not complaining some of the things discussed are interesting)

He recommended that this strategy be used in low limit NL TOURNAMENTS (30+3 and lower) not cash games. And it was to be used until there were 4-5 players left.

It was based on the theory that in low limits players will call with too many hands, and your chances of doubling up is large enough. If I recall correct it was...

AA or KK: Go all in

AKs AKo 22-QQ limp or call a standard raise. If you flop a set move in. TPTK bet aggressively

Axs and suited connectors 78 and above: Limp only, if you hit your flush or straight move in. If you flo a draw call bets when pot odds are in your favor, otherwise fold.

Everything Else: Fold

Realistically this makes no sense -- any idiot who has seen u fold 200 hands and then suddenly move in isnt going to call you unless he is strong (granted sometimes not strong enough)

However maybe it operates under the assumption that folding often can most of the time get you close to the money in low limit SnGs bc of the loose aggressive and stupid play that often is around these games. In addition youd only need 1 double up or so to be in good shape. He advises once it gets down to 4-5 players this strategy has to be aborted.

Never tried it but hey maybe ill enter a 5 dollar SnG once im up and running again and see what happens -- i mean he wouldnt jus pull this out of his ass and print it would he? lol

[Talking Poker]

I think it's interesting. As you are seeing, it looks like playing normally is more profitable, but I do think it's interesting.

As for your 2 BB/100 win rate, if you are able to play 12 tables at a time and log 60 hands per hour per table, that comes out to 2 * 12 * 60 / 100 = 14.4 BB per hour, which is nothing to sneeze at. With a $2 BB (not sure what table buy in that corresponds to), you're approaching $30 per hour playing mindless poker, yes?

Are you really able to earn 14 BB/100 at $25 NL normally? That's astounding....

[greenbuckets]

I have heard this before, but it is way too restrictive.

Easy money is there for the taking at low buy in NL games. Get on a site, look for a table where there are several players playing below the buy in. On party, it is not hard to find a table with 6-7 seats with players who buy in with $20-$40 when the maximum buy-in is $100.

Get a good hand and put them all in. They will call with Ax, QJ, 78, etc. Just last night, I went all in with JJ and was called with someone holding K5o. He had $34 and then bought in again for $20. A few hands later I put him all in with my 66 and he called again with K5, though suited this time. He typed in "K5 is my lucky hand." Not anymore, I guess.

It may not seem like much, but taking $20 at a time adds up real quick.

[nflchad]

Bold above

[Reel Deal]

Sklansky has a similar system in his Advanced Tournament book... he developed it for a casino owner who gave his daughter the present of a seat in the WSOP main event, even though she never played before. Apparently it worked pretty well for her (can't remeber if she made it into the $ or not... have to go back and look).

[badblood44]

This begs the question of why you are playing poker at all. Is it to win money? Or is it to become a better player?

How you answer depends on your own goals. I maintain that if you strive for the 2nd, the 1st will come by default. But that's just me.

Personally, I'm not in a position where playing a set NL-ring game strategy is personally fulfilling, even though it may generate profits. There isn't any intellectual challenge, which for me is the basis for my desire to play poker.

Please don't misunderstand me and think I'm being critical of anyone who does subscribe to the other goal. I'm just stating what my own motivations are.

[2Tone]

I am very comfortable at two tables at once, and can handle three, though my win rate suffers. I've learned (the hard way, of course) that I can't play four at once.

I read about people, like occasional poster ODoyle, playing many more tables at once with the goal of maximizing raked hands. I've got to think if you are playing that many tables at once, you have to be adhering to, if not this, then a similar very basic strategy.