I can't seem to beat $10NL

[frob23]

I know you need 10k-20k hands at a level to really get a feel for your ptBB/100 but I still couldn't help but look at the following NL stats for the last 21,596 hands.

Over those 21,596 hands, I ran +3.59ptBB/100. That's not spectacular or anything. I would like to be running about twice that. I would also like to get paid while I lay in bed and watch my body become perfectly sculpted by magic... but life doesn't answer to our "wants."

I started to break the hands out by level to see how I am doing at each level.

$2NL: +13.78ptBB/100 [4134 hands]

$4NL: +8.25ptBB/100 [2412 hands]

$5NL: +1.03ptBB/100 [2696 hands]

$10NL: -3.65ptBB/100 [8059 hands]

$25NL: +6.37ptBB/100 [4295 hands]

Again, there's nothing fantastic about any of these. Most of them are too small of a sample to really get a feel for how accurate they are. But would you look at how I am doing in $10NL?

I am really doing horrible in that level. If I break it out by site, I can even tell you most of that is $10NL at PokerNordica. I typically run horribly at that level on PN. I am not exactly sure why. Most of the major hands, where I lose a buy-in, I just got unlucky. There are definitely leaks in my game that I am working on patching but for those leaks to explain how horribly I run at $10NL but not effect the other levels would be odd.

I still believe $10NL is beatable. And that I will recover all those losses if I keep playing the people there. Most of them are very weak. That is really only 6 buy-ins down. And I have had swings at those tables of 3-4 buy-ins in a single session. So for that level, I think 8k hands is not nearly enough to get an accurate winrate. Still... it is crazy how bad I am doing at that level.

I might not even bother if I can maintain a decent winrate at $25NL. If I can continue to beat $25NL, who cares if I can't beat $10NL?

Has anyone else seen something like this in their stats?

[Silent_Ac3s]

That is very interesting to me.. Definitely play more hands for larger samples, but I had that exact same problem...

I spent about a year playing $10NL, and the entire time I was just a break even/slightly profitable player. The whole time I assumed I was just a terrible player still, and I just had a lot to learn (although, I felt very confident about my game and knew way more than the average $10NL player).

Then I figured I would try $25NL a few months ago, only because I was sick of being at tables where not a single opponent had a clue what was going on. Within my past few months at $25NL, I have profited way more than I could have imagined after just breaking even at $10NL!!

They say it is terrible to advance a level for a reason like this, and I agree, but there are always exceptions under certain circumstances.
If you play more hands at $25NL and see that BB/100 ratio drop, then you should definitely work on your game more before trying to play those stakes. just my thoughts on it...


...but then again who I am to give advice when I only play $25NL? lol.

[allthatremains]

Over what time frame have you played $2,$4,$5,$10 and $25NL? These are level changes for a bankroll change of over 1000%.

Did you do this for variety or just because you couldn't find enough tables at your level?

If I tried this over a short period (without gradually moving up as bankroll allows) I would be playing scared at the higher levels and playing bored at the lower levels. I know this doesn't explain the $10NL slide, because it is somewhere in the middle, but it still could be part of the problem.

[HeyKidMove]

Different levels require a different style of play, especially if they are on different sites. But since you have profited at every other level, I just think you had a bad run at 10NL. 8,000 hands isn't very many hands. I've ran much worse than that over a span of about the same amount of hands, but then when I break out of the downswing I'll have a +20PTBB 1,000 hand session or something. I would say that it's probably just variance and if you continued to play the level you would be able to adapt and become profitable.

[Vito_Nuccio]

Different levels require a different style of play, especially if they are on different sites. But since you have profited at every other level, I just think you had a bad run at 10NL. 8,000 hands isn't very many hands. I've ran much worse than that over a span of about the same amount of hands, but then when I break out of the downswing I'll have a +20PTBB 1,000 hand session or something. I would say that it's probably just variance and if you continued to play the level you would be able to adapt and become profitable.

I do not track my playing with too much detail, but have seen these types results from myself and friends. The good news from your stats is your losing area is not the top level. That would be a concern. I say forget about that level and play at the higher one until a down swing. You are tracking for a reason and as stated, still a low sample size, but follow the trends and play where you are winning.

Good Luck Frob.

[frob23]

Over what time frame have you played $2,$4,$5,$10 and $25NL? These are level changes for a bankroll change of over 1000%.

Did you do this for variety or just because you couldn't find enough tables at your level?

If I tried this over a short period (without gradually moving up as bankroll allows) I would be playing scared at the higher levels and playing bored at the lower levels. I know this doesn't explain the $10NL slide, because it is somewhere in the middle, but it still could be part of the problem.

I go from level to level based on many factors. It depends on which site I am on, and how much money I have on that site, if I am playing with someone because that changes the level I will play at and so on. And sometimes, I just feel like goofing around and playing $2NL

I don't typically have a problem focusing on each level. So it's not like I am scared at $25NL or bored at $2NL. And it's mainly $10NL. I think it may be related to me just running unbelievably bad at that limit. I don't know right now.

[frob23]

Here is a chart showing my profitability for each game over the last month. It holds true for much longer but the ones for larger periods also have Razz and a bunch of other games in there so it's harder to see the general trend.




It just kills me that I can't seem to beat this level. And what is worse, I believe I am making consistent reads and plays but I just get drawn out on. More often than not, I have my opponent on exactly the range he actually has and I play to maximize the value against that range but he draws out.

An example would be a LAG-tard who over-bet an A-T-9 rainbow flop. I had raised pre-flop with A-Q and had watched this guy play for tons of hands. The pot was $1.00 and he fired $1.50 into it out of position. Based on hands he had previously shown down, this had to be A-rag. He's not intentionally bluffing with over-bets like that (although he is turning his hand into a bluff). And when he's strong (like 2-pair or better) he's betting half the pot to 3/4 pot. He's never fired a bet that big and not had a single pair hand with a weak kicker. I call, knowing that a raise is just going to get him off the hand and that he's likely to fire on the turn if I call. The turn is a 7 of spades and puts two spades out there. He fires $4.00 into the $4.00 pot on the turn and I call. Again, if he'd paired that 7, I would expect a bet of $2-$3 from him here. River 10 of spades. And he moves in for his last $4. I have to call, and I believe I am probably still ahead. He would shove the end here with only top pair and no kicker. He turns over A-5s for the back-door flush. I was completely right about everything. I knew I had him beat and that he'd get his entire stack in if I would just give him the chance. But there goes $9.80 from my bankroll because that is how Nordica likes to give it to me.

Could I have raised the turn and moved him off the hand? Probably. He might have called anyway. But that is not the point. I didn't want to move him off his hand. I wanted his whole stack and was sure I was ahead. If he was a different player, I would have played differently and probably have raised the flop or turn. But this guy was so transparent it was sad and that was the best way to ensure he gave me the most chips. I also had position and would be able to make the last bet on the river if he tried to check it down. So I think I played it fine. Maybe I shouldn't have played it that way. But still... what the hell!?

[RiverstarsVictim]

Here is a chart showing my profitability for each game over the last month. It holds true for much longer but the ones for larger periods also have Razz and a bunch of other games in there so it's harder to see the general trend.




It just kills me that I can't seem to beat this level. And what is worse, I believe I am making consistent reads and plays but I just get drawn out on. More often than not, I have my opponent on exactly the range he actually has and I play to maximize the value against that range but he draws out.

An example would be a LAG-tard who over-bet an A-T-9 rainbow flop. I had raised pre-flop with A-Q and had watched this guy play for tons of hands. The pot was $1.00 and he fired $1.50 into it out of position. Based on hands he had previously shown down, this had to be A-rag. He's not intentionally bluffing with over-bets like that (although he is turning his hand into a bluff). And when he's strong (like 2-pair or better) he's betting half the pot to 3/4 pot. He's never fired a bet that big and not had a single pair hand with a weak kicker. I call, knowing that a raise is just going to get him off the hand and that he's likely to fire on the turn if I call. The turn is a 7 of spades and puts two spades out there. He fires $4.00 into the $4.00 pot on the turn and I call. Again, if he'd paired that 7, I would expect a bet of $2-$3 from him here. River 10 of spades. And he moves in for his last $4. I have to call, and I believe I am probably still ahead. He would shove the end here with only top pair and no kicker. He turns over A-5s for the back-door flush. I was completely right about everything. I knew I had him beat and that he'd get his entire stack in if I would just give him the chance. But there goes $9.80 from my bankroll because that is how Nordica likes to give it to me.

Could I have raised the turn and moved him off the hand? Probably. He might have called anyway. But that is not the point. I didn't want to move him off his hand. I wanted his whole stack and was sure I was ahead. If he was a different player, I would have played differently and probably have raised the flop or turn. But this guy was so transparent it was sad and that was the best way to ensure he gave me the most chips. I also had position and would be able to make the last bet on the river if he tried to check it down. So I think I played it fine. Maybe I shouldn't have played it that way. But still... what the hell!?

You made a thread about not slow playing flopped flush hands, I totally agreed with it. I believe the same applies to TPTK or in your example, TPGK. It's such a vulnerable hand. Better to win a small pot than risk losing a huge pot which appears to be what you're doing more often than not. I'm always raising his flop bet and I'm happy if he folds.

Edit to add - if you know he'll fold to a raise on the flop, you can do this with any 2 cards.

[frob23]

There's a difference here in that we're heads up in position and, assuming our range is correct, we are not worried about 3 outs. I don't think he ever does this with a pair of 10s but even if he did, 5 outs is enough to sweat if we can get a pot sized bet or larger off him on the turn when he misses. Assuming we know the player well enough to have a good sense to know when he has improved to beat us, we're not afraid to play this for value against someone who will bluff a lot more often than they will call.

General things that must be in place to slow-play:

1. Your hand must be very strong.
** 2. You probably will chase everyone out by betting, but you have a good chance of winning a large pot if you check.
3. The free card that you're giving has good possibilities of making second-best hands.
4. This free card has little chance of making a better hand for someone or even of giving him a draw to a better hand with sufficient odds to justify a call.
** 5. The pot must not yet be very large.

The primary factor here is #2. If I raise, I am only getting called if I am crushed. But if I just call, I will likely get a large pot when he fires again on the turn. Against the range I've got him on, I think my hand is very strong (#1). And I expect him to bluff if he doesn't improve so #3 doesn't apply. I think #4 is certainly true here. I've got him on 3-5 outs. Which is 6-10% to improve to a better hand. But most importantly, I think #5 plays here. This pot isn't worth nearly as much as I expect it to be if I let him play into it.

The only real difference here would be raising the turn and hoping he'd fold. Once he improved to 12 outs, we no longer have enough to price him off the hand with a raise. So we could induce a mistake by raising that turn.

Also, we don't slow-play a flopped flush because the board is extremely threatening. We're just not going to get much value unless someone is willing to put money in on the flop. If we slow-play a flopped flush and the river pairs the board and an opponent makes a large move, we don't know how to react. They're probably not making that move unless they have at least a flush and will very likely be making that move with a hand that beats a flush. You want to charge people who are willing to draw down on a flush because they're drawing down on a monster hand which means they have a real chance of improving to a better hand.

So, I could raise on the flop and win a little pot of $2 or I could go with my observations of this player and increase my expectations by 3-4 times that amount with a risk of about 10%. The one time I get drawn out on, will more than be made up by the 9 times I am not and he plays this exactly the same way. Does this increase my variance? Of course but I am not playing to lose the least when someone gets lucky. I am playing to win the most when they don't.

EDIT: If we didn't have a hand strong enough to call him down, I could raise with ATC in this spot knowing he's going to fold most of the time. But I don't want him to fold. I want value from him over-playing a dominated Ace.

[tercermundo]

sorry for the noob question.. but where do you track your results?

[travz21]

Play 50k hands at a level at least before you think you can't beat it. You're under 10k even.

[frob23]

sorry for the noob question.. but where do you track your results?

I use the following site: https://www.checkyourbets.com/

I think I have talked about it before. It doesn't track the number of hands, I track that in a spreadsheet and not on there. But it records sessions by hours. I put the number of hands in the comments and then go and enter the sessions later on a spreadsheet. I enter them on the spreadsheet about once a week.

The site is nice because it can tell you how many table hours you play as well as how many real hours. So if you are playing 3 tables, each hour you're getting 3 table hours at that level. This lets me see that I have gotten about 69 hands/hr per table for the 381 hours I have played all the games I track. I have to calculate those numbers on my own but it makes it easier.

Another nice thing is that you set up everything based on what you actually play. You enter the sites you play at and the games you play. And then, when you start a table, you just click to start recording the session, select the site, select the game, and enter your buy-in. You can enter rebuys if you need to while the game is in progress. Then you just record the end when you leave and put in the amount you left with and any notes (I use this to record the number of hands on each table for my other program).

I love it. Plus, you get lots graphs and fun {stuff}.

[RiverstarsVictim]

There's a difference here in that we're heads up in position and, assuming our range is correct, we are not worried about 3 outs. I don't think he ever does this with a pair of 10s but even if he did, 5 outs is enough to sweat if we can get a pot sized bet or larger off him on the turn when he misses. Assuming we know the player well enough to have a good sense to know when he has improved to beat us, we're not afraid to play this for value against someone who will bluff a lot more often than they will call.

General things that must be in place to slow-play:


The primary factor here is #2. If I raise, I am only getting called if I am crushed. But if I just call, I will likely get a large pot when he fires again on the turn. Against the range I've got him on, I think my hand is very strong (#1). And I expect him to bluff if he doesn't improve so #3 doesn't apply. I think #4 is certainly true here. I've got him on 3-5 outs. Which is 6-10% to improve to a better hand. But most importantly, I think #5 plays here. This pot isn't worth nearly as much as I expect it to be if I let him play into it.

The only real difference here would be raising the turn and hoping he'd fold. Once he improved to 12 outs, we no longer have enough to price him off the hand with a raise. So we could induce a mistake by raising that turn.

So, I could raise on the flop and win a little pot of $2 or I could go with my observations of this player and increase my expectations by 3-4 times that amount with a risk of about 10%. The one time I get drawn out on, will more than be made up by the 9 times I am not and he plays this exactly the same way. Does this increase my variance? Of course but I am not playing to lose the least when someone gets lucky. I am playing to win the most when they don't.

EDIT: If we didn't have a hand strong enough to call him down, I could raise with ATC in this spot knowing he's going to fold most of the time. But I don't want him to fold. I want value from him over-playing a dominated Ace.

Fair enough, I cant argue with your post because it's theoretically correct.

The reason I replied was because of :

And what is worse, I believe I am making consistent reads and plays but I just get drawn out on. More often than not, I have my opponent on exactly the range he actually has and I play to maximize the value against that range but he draws out

For whatever reason, you seem to be running a lot of bad luck vs villain's short term good luck. My pokertracker database also has a ton of similar beats. In theory I should win against these players in the long term. In reality though, these players either a) improve their game or b) go broke never to be seen again. So although your reply is theoretically correct, it could be seen as flawed depending on how likely you're going to be up against villain in future.

All I know is I've lost more against players who don't stick around too long than anybody else. There's absolutely nothing I can do against these players' short term good luck which is why now I wont allow any free cards with vulnerable hands like TPTK no matter what the read, unless I know I'll get enough hands against him in future.