Hello,
whenever I play microstakes, I think I end up winning like 7/10 without even thinking of adjusting anything. I play hands at some static range, read their sizes a bit, timing a bit, call only with nuts or something close to it, and that's it. When I DO think too much, I end up loosing. Is it because almost no adjusting is required if I only play some good basic strategy? I mean ... THEY make some "stupid" mistake sooner or later ....
Well. If 90% of the players are beaten by your default strategy, you are crushing them. On the higher stakes...you will meet the lag, the tag, the nit.....and will have to adjust from your default strategy.
Hi.
Have been thinking about this aswell. I normally play micros and I am a thinking player, but I decided to 3-table instead of 1-2table abit and removed my HUD to do this because my screen is to small for using a HUD with 3 tables. Now the wins seems to go quicker, may be a coinsident but it would be awesome if this was the way to go.
Tnx for the answers. OK, let's say we solve this problem. Therefore 1.5 and 3.5 is better without too much analysing, because those players even tilt more, etc., so they actualy change styles, but not on purpuse :D, and it would only be confusing while reading HUD against those types, etc. ...
Next question would be more psihological matter ... how can one change that thinking (fast playing, without much deep, lever thinking), and starts to apply HUD and thinking in sense of counter-strategy? Specialy if one is used to play (click) fast and thinking more about own cards, position, nuts, etc. - how can one slow down while playing for bigger stakes, and start to think all this things that you see in HUSNG Videos, for example?
Also, where do those guys find time to think 10,000 sentences about a move where you only have like 30sec to act? :) sometimes they (coaches) play it fast and explain the move later - when there's already next hand running - and they explain it for like 5minutes ... do they process all that info in just a few seconds when they make decision in live action?
Sorry for my English.
Some things to consider:
- Micro players are mostly fish
- BUT there is a large variety of fish: some play too tight, some play too loose, some are positionally unaware some love to bluff, some play really loose preflop then play fit or fold post flop, some slowplay way too much, some have ridiculously exploitable bet sizing tells, etc etc
- The maximally exploitative strategy is quite different vs different types of fish.
- Typically a multi-tabling strategy is formulated to exploit the general population at the stakes you are playing and to put in mass volume.
- You will revert to autopilot mode because you won't have time to make good reads/notes and consider each decision with all available information. You will miss a lot of opportunities to exploit individual player's specific leaks.
- Your ROI will be lower than if you were single tabling but you will be playing a higher volume. You may, therefore, be able to achieve a better hourly rate by multi-tabling if the decrease in ROI is offset by your increased volume.
- HOWEVER, if you look to move up in stakes the population's leaks become smaller and your edge will decrease. Your default strategy may not even be profitable.
- No amount of volume with negative expectation will lead to long term profit.
- By spending time thinking about how to best exploit each opponent you will find more and more spots to increase your edge, better preparing you for games against less obviously exploitable players.
The way I see it is, even multi-tabling, 3.5 level will not be a very good hourly rate compared to just working an average job. You may have maximised your hourly at that level, but you have lost so many opportunities to increase your edge and maximise your long term winnings at higher stakes.
RE: Good players making fast decisions and taking 5 mins to explain them afterwards.
These players have spent a lot of time away from the tables analysing and thinking about the best play in common spots. As such, when they come up, the decision is intuitive to them. They explain their thought process for the benefit of those to who it is not yet intuitive. They are not necessarily going through a first principle thought process for every decision they make at the tables.