Help! I cant beat NL4 x(

the only thing that stands out that i think might be bad is your fold to 3b is too low.

other than that nothing else stands out as bad, so just keep playing and see what happens.

[ ] solid sample size

3k hands is just too few man, you need to play more

On May 04 2010 23:13 Night[Mare] wrote: [ ] solid sample size 3k hands is just too few man, you need to play more

yeah 3k hands isnt anything yet...put in 50k and see where your at

NL4? They have that?

The rake seems insane, check with someone playing NL5 on stars what they're raking.

On May 04 2010 23:42 barbieman wrote: The rake seems insane, check with someone playing NL5 on stars what they're raking.

pretty sure stars takes less rake than doyles room

Why are you posting stats? Post some actual HANDS where you lost to see what you could have done better. Based on your jpegs I recommend increasing your W$WSF percentage.

You probably call too many reraises, other than that you seem to play well

your AF is a little low so I'm guessing you are calling down too much when you should just fold. You typically want to be betting or raising, or folding, and calling less frequently.
Also if you're just starting out I think 24/20 is a bit high - your post flop play isn't going to be good enough to handle all of the spots you'll end up in.....for example...you'll find yourself in a lot of situations where you call down and call through the river to find out you were behind. Maybe that is good experience though. But I'd suggest starting out w/ tighter hand ranges. At FT the rake is considerably higher than at PS and I think it's the main reason people actually tighten up drastically there and play like nits. That and the fact that it's rigged...but anyway
I think at this level you can get away w/ a lower 3bet %. 9 is probably about right, but you can even do well at 3-5%.

Your red line is fine for this sample size but over time it's hard to sustain a positive or level red line at this limit. Having it drop down gradually (due to folding more, picking better spots, being unbalanced, playing for value primarily, getting away with playing fit or fold in a lot of cases, etc) is probably more optimal....at this level.
The sample siZe is small so it is hard to say much definitively. This kind of swing is standard over 3k hands....as GSr_01 said above, put in more volume and see what changes and what doesn't.

i would play on pokerstars for starters

On May 05 2010 00:07 NewbSaibot wrote: I recommend increasing your W$WSF percentage.

lol

Looks like you're beating NL4 to me, but that rake is insane.

On May 05 2010 01:03 Stroggos wrote: i would play on pokerstars for starters

Why? when you can just get 33% rb on doyles or 27% on ftp? That's stupid.
Definitely stay on a site with rakeback when you're starting off.

yeah rakeback is a def when starting off. well any rakeback is a def then when you have a breakeven day you still make money lol

On May 04 2010 23:11 joLin wrote: the only thing that stands out that i think might be bad is your fold to 3b is too low. other than that nothing else stands out as bad, so just keep playing and see what happens.

This ^^^

Start by folding to all 3bets when you are OOP except when you have premiums (hands you want to 4bet get it in with) - this will instantly save you monies..

Hmm I'm struggling with the starting micro stakes as well, get any bonuses you can, cos they really help.

I thought I was doing good but after buying HEM I can see that most of my money came from the bonus offers...

I don't know how to get around the rake problem, I analysed my 20k hands on nl2 and came up with 7BB/100 of rake which is just ridiculous. I'm getting 27% of that back but even still.. thats like 5BB/100 or something. For a starting player it is almost impossible to win anything with that kind of shit going on.

With bonuses etc I've run $20 to $100 but should I move room or something? Its hard to find other sites that have proxy server support though, because all of my traffic goes through a university proxy so I kinda have to play on FTP. Tried moving to nl5 at $100 but just got served so far, and now after having HEM I can see that I am a marginal winner at best (after rake). At nl5 its even worse, for the hands I've played there the rake is like 8BB/100, which is about 6 after rakeback.

Kinda disheartened, anyone got any good advice?

I heard rumours stars has lowest rake taken at micro, but don't take my word for it, worth checking out. They don't start to charge until 50nl, at least it used to be like that. I think =p

And to OP, I see your playing 24% of ur hands, if I were you I'd trim it down to 18% or so, and toss out ur bottom range of hands, just when starting out, to avoid more difficult spots. Just an idea.

thank you all for your kind replies.

I will deff keep all this good advise in mind, and also Tonight I will post my biggest losses hands to see what you guys think

again Thank you

6% commission for any advice, read blog rules.