Oh, I should probably add that the speculative part of the Super Nit range, like A4s from under the gun, probably has no value at this level, and that for those trying a similar drive, it would probably be best to drop those.
The time difference is dowright infuriating since I’m either working or sleeping at the times that you are playing!
I’m certainly very interested in seeing how you go the second time around … Good luck!
Regards,
TA
Would be fun to see you on the tables.
I’m about half way through so far, and it seems likely this will have the best results of any strategy so far, which should not be too surprising, as there was obviously extra value to be found at 1/2 relative to Pre Flop Hammer, which had already had one of the highest win rates in big blinds per hundred hands.
It’s interesting how I can fold 20 or 30 hands in a row (or more), and then make a 4 bet and get almost everyone on the table to still call, and then get raises behind, LOL. I think 10% to 20% of the players will never fold pre flop, and another 10% to 15% will always raise pre flop (or just go all in every time), and then you have another similar sized group that will call any bet on the flop and turn with no draw and no part of the board, just hoping that the river might give them bottom pair…
Anyway, in an environment like this where so many hands end up all in pre flop anyway, I think you have to be at least moderately tight. Even if you see someone that goes all in pre flop 40 hands in a row (had that happen), you still don’t want to call with Kx or Qx if there is anyone left to act behind you that might be slightly more picky about the hands they are going all in with. Like wise with Ax or small pocket pairs if there are several people behind left to act. These holdings would do fine against the bingo machine, but will not do well if one or two others call.
2 Likes
Super Nit results:
Tables played: 1/2 NL Holdem 9 max
Hands played: 1,001
Chips won: $17,133
BB/100 hands: 855.79
Wow… so the highest BB/100 of any test run so far by a huge margin.
- Super Nit @ 1/2: 856 BB/100
- Night Rain @ 50k/100k: 77 BB/100
- Super Nit @ 20k/40k: 58 BB/100
- Small Ball @ 10k/20k: 3 BB/100
- Multiple Personality Disorder @ 5k/10k: 66 BB/100
- Random Fool @ 2k/4k: 26 BB/100
- The Maniac @ 1k/2k: 39 BB/100
- Value Village 2 @ 500/1,000: 109 BB/100
- Orphaned Pot Adopter @ 200/400: 49 BB/100
- Pre Flop Hammer v2 @ 100/200: 2 BB/100
- LAG Problems @ 100/200: 125 BB/100
- Robo TAG @ 50/100: 131 BB/100
- Pressure Cooker @ 25/50: 139 BB/100
- Lazy Limper @ 10/20: 244 BB/100
- Value Village @ 5/10: 220 BB/100
- Passive Fish @ 2/4: 73 BB/100
- Pre-Flop Hammer @ 1/2: 222 BB/100
Why did this do so much better than Pre Flop Hammer at the same stakes? I’m guessing the factors below were involved.
- I got somewhat lucky, and that luck mostly involved frequently having players that would go all in every hand over and over and over again. I had that in the initial Pre Flop Hammer run also, but it happened more frequently this run, and had to add at least some value.
- With this strategy, I’m playing more hands that have a positive expectation against these frequent pre flop shoves. Those additional hands have a slimmer edge, and that added volatility, but on the whole still added additional value.
- I got to attack dead money pre flop more often. Pre Flop Hammer has people folding a limp more frequently, while with this I’m often making a normal raise, someone 3 bets, someone else 4 bets, and then I’m going all in. Usually several people cold call a number of those bets, and while some call the final all in bet also, the ones that fold are surrendering a larger quantity of chips already invested, on average.
- I got to play post flop more often, and the value only strategy post flop also does very well on this level.
Lazy Limper on 2/4 6 max tables coming up next.
Didn’t think there were usually many 9 max tables going… has usually been one or two, and so I actually been playing more 9 max than 6 max (I like 9 max better when playing something super one dimensional, as is the case with a number of these).
Some of these runs end up being more painful and tedious than others, and this one dragged for me. I was actually expecting to see a pretty low win rate, as it didn’t feel like I did that well, and was actually surprised to see that I’d actually done quite well (second highest win rate ever achieved). This approach relies a lot on hitting big hands post flop, and that didn’t happen many times over this 1,000 hand sample.
This played quite differently than the first time I tried it back in January, where I played it a few levels higher than this. Here, it played a lot more like Pre Flop Hammer, because of frequent pre-flop aggression from other players at the table. I wasn’t able to limp all that wide, and so would often find myself limp jamming moderately wide (Ax suited, AT and up, KQ suited, and pocket pairs down to 77 or 66). Since I was limp jamming wider than in Pre Flop Hammer, there was more volatility (I thought many of my sessions broke even or lost a bit of money).
Lazy Limper trial 2 results:
Tables played: 2/4 NL Holdem 9 max and 6 max
Hands played: 1,007
Chips won: $15,015
BB/100 hands: 372.77
1 Like
OK, the third run of Pre Flop Hammer coming up on 9 handed tables at 5/10. I don’t expect to make any significant changes to the strategy as laid out in prior posts (hardly necessary given how incredibly simple this one is).
I’m wondering why you don’t play each at the same stakes. Wouldn’t that be a better comparison?
3 Likes
I would add to @SunPowerGuru comment and would think that testing at a more competitive stakes like a minimum 500/1000 or honestly a bit higher … This would take out more of the calling stations and give a better representation of the strategies differences … I say this given your bank you could “afford” to put them to true test … I think the numbers received from these low stakes are very skewed
1 Like
Yes, that would make a better comparison, as would playing a larger sample of hands… but I just can’t muster the patience for that, lol. I was hoping some more players would also try these out, and post results, for a larger pool of hands, testing more styles against each other at the same level, and the same style across more levels.
1 Like
I’ve run tests on this thread up through 50k/100k, but as I play higher stakes, some of the simpler strategies become less and less viable. A good example of that was the deterioration in the results for Pre Flop Hammer in 1/2 versus 100/200, and right now, as I give it a 3rd test drive on 5/10, I’m kind of expecting it will land in the middle of those two, as it just gradually gets less effective (I’m about half way through and only a tiny amount up).
That said, it was interesting to see one player do very well with what almost looked like Pre Flop Hammer on 50k/100k. It was a slightly more sophisticated variant, as he didn’t limit himself to jamming pre flop, but still he would often jam with a variety of hands that looked much the same as spelled out for Pre Flop Hammer (though I suspect he was considering more factors when deciding whether or not to make his massive over bets).
1 Like
Ok, you got me on that one 
… I did start and I had every intention of continuing through with the different strategies but, honestly, I just don’t have your patience, even with 4 tables running, to just keep on folding and waiting for a premium hand (Pre Flop Hammer)!
Pre Flop Hammer is such a simple strategy that alcohol assistance to mitigate the boredom might make it playable. From memory, your other styles all require some level of decision making which make them unsuitable to be played whilst under the influence! If you have a suggestion regarding the second most simple style, I’ll gladly have a look at it 
… Yes, I know I’m lazy and I could easily scroll up and read them again but that just isn’t the sort of thing that drunk analysts make a habit of!
The other problem is time: I generally don’t have the time or I am too exhausted after work to do more than play, very casually, with a couple of friends on the 1/2 tables. I’m more than happy to donate a few hours on the weekends though.
I agree with everyone that we do need a much larger sample size before we can draw any firm conclusions. It will also be interesting to see if we can define and refine the strategies to a stage such that even I can play them exactly as you intend.
Regards,
TA
LOL… I’ve had the same trouble. I’ve nearly abandoned several of the test runs, and did abandon Shakespeare Monkey, and it can be somehow psychologically difficult to play a line according to the dictates of the style you are testing, when a stronger line is painfully obvious. Still, I enjoy seeing how the large frequency differences at different table stakes cause various styles to struggle or perform well, and just thinking about what is holding different styles back as I play them is an education.
Oh, also, some thoughts on some other strategies tested so far that are relatively easy to play:
-
Lazy Limper
- limp with everything on passive tables, or just hands with real equity as it gets more aggressive
- bet moderate hands like top pair conservatively
- bet huge hands like set, straights and flushes aggressively, with at least pot sized bets on every street, and feeling free to over bet pot by 2x also
-
Value Village
- pretty much play the most straight forward poker you can imagine
- tight opening ranges, with pot sized raises pre flop, and little to no limping
- never bluff (or at least close to never)
- make normal sized bets with hands that connect well with the flop (1/2 pot to pot)
- bet all streets with really strong hands, and consider betting only one or two streets with more moderately strong hands
Also, I think some people might enjoy modifying Pre Flop Hammer by also limping pre flop with normal drawing hands and some other moderate value. You could then also limp jam with the normal all in range on aggressive tables, or make any other modifications you’d like to any of these to make them more interesting, and less tedious to play. (I avoided this with Hammer as I wanted to better isolate for the effectiveness of these all in bets on their own).
3 Likes
I guess now is as good a time as any to say thank you!
I have been following the thread with interest, and understand the time and effort you’ve been putting into this. You should know that your efforts are appreciated.
3 Likes
I can confirm that your “Super Nit” range is a chasm compared to truly nitty play, and indeed resembles a “normal” VPIP frequency.
I am impressed by the win rate. The range you have constructed is probably the best recipe for success that I have seen posted on Replay. Over many thousands of hands, I aim for 25-30bb/100, which is quite sad compared to 58bb/100. The key here is obviously your bet sizing, and it strongly suggests that remaining balanced might not be the best approach.
A couple of clarifications: First, You state that all hands were played with a full raise or more. That means that your limp frequency was zero – you were either betting or folding, correct? Second, the posted ranges are actual hands that you played, correct? For example, your theoretical UTG range would include hands like 99 or TT, correct?
For this style, it would be interesting to know the percentage of hands that you won preflop or on the flop. I have to assume that the majority (70%) of these hands were won preflop or on the flop.
I would probably eliminate some of those rag aces, as A6-A9 (suited or not) can put you in awkward positions on the flop, even in position. People tend to overvalue Ax suited, probably based on their observations of play at final tables in tournaments, where Ax suited is strong. How did playing those rag aces go for you? Was it profitable?
3 Likes
Thank you very much SunPowerGuru.
1 Like
Hi AKFolds. Responding to some of your questions and comments concerning Super Nit.
I can confirm that your “Super Nit” range is a chasm compared to truly nitty play, and indeed resembles a “normal” VPIP frequency.
LOL, yes. I’ve seen a few people over the years who’s play is so tight that Super Nit would seem like extreme LAG play by comparison.
Over many thousands of hands, I aim for 25-30bb/100, which is quite sad compared to 58bb/100. The key here is obviously your bet sizing, and it strongly suggests that remaining balanced might not be the best approach.
I think a degree of balance is required at any level (well… maybe not for low stakes here, LOL), but that there is a difference between moving away from balance for a short, 1,000 hand run, and persistently holding to a single, unbalanced approach for tens of thousands of hands. I’d also speculate that I might see higher win rates with some other strategies, though it will be interesting to see if that indeed turns out to be the case.
A couple of clarifications: First, You state that all hands were played with a full raise or more. That means that your limp frequency was zero – you were either betting or folding, correct?
Yes, mostly. I can think of a few exceptions:
- in the small blind I would complete after prior limpers with a fairly tight range (perhaps 20% of hands or so)
- I would defend as the big blind against normal sized bets, again with a pretty tight range
- I would defend in both blinds to smaller than normal sized bets
- Against min 3 bets and other min raises pre flop (or other smaller sized raises), I wouldn’t play strictly raise or fold, and would include a calling range
Second, the posted ranges are actual hands that you played, correct? For example, your theoretical UTG range would include hands like 99 or TT, correct?
The under the gun range with all 9 players was only AA through JJ, AK, AQs, T9s, 88, and A4s, and so I would fold TT and 99 in this position. Note though, that if even one person was sitting out, that range changed to AA-TT, AK and AQ, AJs, 98s, 66, A5s and A3s. Note also that if I had been forced to play this over several thousand hands, I would have rotated the “coverage” hands periodically (the weakest part of the range), or would have chosen a wider coverage range that I would raise with 25% of the time, and fold with the rest. So in seat 6, I was only entering the pot with 60 combinations of hands (out of 1,326 total), or roughly 4.5% of hands, with all of those for a raise.
Oh, and yes… I don’t typically fold TT or 99 under the gun. Super Nit is tighter than my normal play.
For this style, it would be interesting to know the percentage of hands that you won preflop or on the flop. I have to assume that the majority (70%) of these hands were won preflop or on the flop.
Yes, those would have been good statistics to keep. I’d guess your 70% guess is not that far off, though since I didn’t track that, I’m not sure. Obviously the pots that make it to showdown have a disproportionate impact, but even though I’m almost exclusively betting for value with this strategy, winning so many pots pre flop or on the flop is still nice, as the opponent’s equity share goes to zero on those hands, and with a hand like AQ or AJ off, that’s a good result.
I would probably eliminate some of those rag aces, as A6-A9 (suited or not) can put you in awkward positions on the flop, even in position. People tend to overvalue Ax suited, probably based on their observations of play at final tables in tournaments, where Ax suited is strong. How did playing those rag aces go for you? Was it profitable?
These and a few suited connectors and small pairs are the “bluff” part of the range, and since I didn’t really bluff with this strategy, that did indeed reduce the value I was expecting from them. That said, I played flop, turn and river pretty much the same whatever the cards in my hands were… how does my hand now compare to my opponents range?
- if I bet, will my opponent call with more hands worse than mine than with hands better? Then bet.
- If the calling range is stronger, even if I think I’m mostly ahead now, then check.
- Deviate from the above with a small number of high equity bluffs.
In general, with all of my hands post flop, I played cautiously. One of the tenets of the style was to over fold in the face of aggression (don’t make a general habit of getting sticky). With a hand like A3s, you will rarely have a board run out that is worth more than a single bet on all three streets. Top pair isn’t going to usually get calls from weaker hands over two streets, and so that leaves two pair on a dry board, trip 3’s, a wheel, or the nut flush.
I’d guess they show a profit. You’ll fold them post flop most of the time. You’ll win a small pot with them some of the time. You’ll lose a small pot with them some of the time (mostly when you bet fold). Every once in a while you’ll win a monster with a flush over flush win, or with trips on your bottom card. (and yes, you’ll lose some monsters now and then also, but overall the monster wins should be significantly more common than the monster losses).
On the topic of over folding, I thought it might be good to clarify that I don’t intend this to mean folding with everything except the nuts, but just that it involved a contraction of my normal calling range. I also modified that calling range a lot depending on a variety of factors:
- how frequently have I seen this opponent make bluffs in similar spots?
- how much of my opponent’s value range is my hand ahead of?
- are there factors that might tend to increase the number of bluffs in my opponent’s range (consider recent table image, value of forcing out other players, someone else making a weak looking blocking bet, etc)
1 Like