100NL is hard!

Are you playing the NL100 on prima or some other site? I'm curious if you've played with IamDeucE, I personally found him to be the most solid player at .5/1 when I played there, and I was surprised he never moved up.

And I agree completely with what you said about AK at .5/1 vs AK at even 1/2. I know 1/2 isn't highstakes or anything, but it's funny how huge the difference is in just that one regard.

Wow, Good blog entry. I hope you keep them up becouse as a struggling 200NL regular I think I should be able to learn a lot from this sort of post.

hey Rhaegar hope to play with you on 400nl to 600nl just for the experience =)
saw you at 100nl yesterday and thought it was someone on your account or whatever...
gl =)

There is a reason so many winning regulars at low-mid stakes are total nits--that style is immensely profitable at those limits.

what nickname do You have on i4? ( this is i4poker right?) I play nl100 and nl200 there and I would like to know wich tables should I avoid

On December 18 2007 23:56 TianYuan wrote: Are you playing the NL100 on prima or some other site? I'm curious if you've played with IamDeucE, I personally found him to be the most solid player at .5/1 when I played there, and I was surprised he never moved up. And I agree completely with what you said about AK at .5/1 vs AK at even 1/2. I know 1/2 isn't highstakes or anything, but it's funny how huge the difference is in just that one regard.

IamDeuce are u kidding me?

On December 19 2007 01:41 Zografa wrote: Show nested quote + On December 18 2007 23:56 TianYuan wrote: Are you playing the NL100 on prima or some other site? I'm curious if you've played with IamDeucE, I personally found him to be the most solid player at .5/1 when I played there, and I was surprised he never moved up. And I agree completely with what you said about AK at .5/1 vs AK at even 1/2. I know 1/2 isn't highstakes or anything, but it's funny how huge the difference is in just that one regard. IamDeuce are u kidding me?

yeah WTF, he totally suck ass

v v nice blog entry.. I'm had similar thoughts floating around in my mind but I never trusted myself on them... good read, really gets me thinking.

please dont play on ps
just a bunch of regulars like the ones u described =)

On December 19 2007 02:07 The72o wrote: Show nested quote + On December 19 2007 01:41 Zografa wrote:   On December 18 2007 23:56 TianYuan wrote: Are you playing the NL100 on prima or some other site? I'm curious if you've played with IamDeucE, I personally found him to be the most solid player at .5/1 when I played there, and I was surprised he never moved up. And I agree completely with what you said about AK at .5/1 vs AK at even 1/2. I know 1/2 isn't highstakes or anything, but it's funny how huge the difference is in just that one regard. IamDeuce are u kidding me? yeah WTF, he totally suck ass

.. That's weird, he was by far biggest winner when I datamined nl100 and played. It was like 4 months ago. Oh well, not like I had a significant sample, but I thought he was the best regular at NL100.

5,804 hands
1,094.80$ won
9.43 BB/100

Stats look super solid (I dunno, maybe I'm being silly not posting them but it feels 'wrong' )... Maybe there's more than 1 people playing on his account? Because while he wasn't like destroying people left and right or anything like that, I find it impossible for anyone to think he sucks.

I mean seriously, name one NL100 reg who's better than him? I don't know if Fayth counts but he was playing NL100 at the same time as I did on prima.

(note I haven't played NL100 since august, maybe player pool has changed a lot or something).

that's why poker is so wonderful.

totally different in every situation (even tho its totally not)

great blog entry.

thats why I beg to differ when the mid/high stakes player say "easy shove, you got JJ/QQ/KK just get it in...its NLXXX" There are alot of retards at NL50/NL100 but mostly tight/passiv ppl.

Funny thing is I seem to always win on this stakes if I avoid to play big pots with AA/KK/QQ.

I know exactly what you mean. I played some at 50NL and 100NL 6max recently on stars, there are some good players there who will win at higher stakes for sure, and some complete and utter retards. A total mixed bag. Although the "good" players at 100NL tend to be much less aggressive than high stakes players and you often find yourself having to fold mediocre hands to them that you would get in vs the majority of high stakes regulars, there are opponents like that at high stakes too, like Wyern on Prima for instance, getting it in light vs him is often unprofitable. Also what you say about table selection is very true, I mean at high stakes you don't always have the luxury to pick weak tables. But at 100NL table selection is so important, simply because it's really easy to find good tables, fish are very very abundant, there are so many tables running to choose from and as long as you avoid the ones full of regs and sit in good table position with the fish 100NL is really really easy, you just have to pay attention to who the regs are and who the fish are. I think in that sense FTP/Prima and other sites that you can datamine are the most profitable sites for 50NL-200NL because you can datamine and table select well. Above those limits there are less fish so it's all about finding sites that have the fewest good regs or the most fish at them I guess, until then the games have such a variety of players that datamining is really really useful, more so than at high stakes, where as you say, most of the players are quite similar.

Thank you - it seems like everyone who plays higher thinks that 50nl and 100nl are huge crapfests where people go broke with top pair no kicker for a buyin because they can't fold, and all you need is an overpair to double up easy. The reality is that there is a huge mix, from terrible to your avg regular who plays 20/15, 3bets larger than pot, knows what flop textures are good for his hand, etc.