The following narrative is a great example of why I leave the chat feature off. I just can't turn down an argument! This is in response to a comment that Microstakes Bankroll Builder left that read as follows:
not sure i agree with yorkshire pud. you appear to be hovering just above the 1ptBB/100 hands (as opposed to bb/100)verging on a rakeback pro. $7k may seem a lot for some, but for your volume i dont think you can call your "strategy" that successful. its just above breakeven actually. you seem to be a bright guy, why not try playing some real poker and REALLY trying to get a decent winrate for 200nl. you can do that by learning to full stack. you could play half the hands, and win the same money. just a thought.
First of all I would like to apologize to you for not donking off my chips to you in way that you find profitable or aesthetically pleasing.
Before I go on, however, I would like to address your inaccurate post commenting on my results for March. Even with the losses incurred at NL100 and NL400, my total posted win rate is 3.32 big blinds per 100 hands, or 1.66 Pokertracker big bets per 100 (1.66ptBB/100). You say that this is hovering around 1ptBB/100. I might not be a math expert, but I can assure that you made a grave rounding error here, as 1.66 is far closer to 2 than it is to 1. You also state that this is “barely breaking even” and “verging on being a rakeback pro”. However, once again your math is off. My winnings to rakeback ratio is 3:1. Either way, your tenure at small stakes has given you a skewed view of what win rates are the norm at middle stakes games. Players at NL200 are certainly making a living at 1ptBB, they are in the top 5% or so if they are making 2ptBB or better and they are at the absolute top of the food chain if they are making around 3ptBB, of which there are only about 4 or 5. Take Kush789 for example. He is a very savvy player and the very best NL200 player at Full Tilt. With a win rate of 3.56ptBB he could certainly do very well at NL400 and probably any full ring game that Full Tilt has to offer. Ahhh....if only he had the balls to “stick his head over the parapet,” as you would say.
But then again, why should he? He makes a very comfortable, stress free $20k or more per month. He knows he's no world-beater, and he clearly does not care. He doesn't dream of smashing heads with Durrrr or Gus Hansen at Rail Heaven, but he does get to work his own hours, own a beautiful home in any state (or country) he chooses to, and can impress women with the fact that he owns a Bentley financed by playing the game that he loves.
So to digress, what, exactly, defines a rakeback pro? I am offering a concise new definition:
A rakeback pro is a player who plays competitively for a profit motive whose total table winnings are exceeded by the amount of rakeback that he attains on a regular basis.
Here is what a true rakeback pro's stats really look like: lucksallugot. By the way, this guy full stacks NL200 and NL400, and though he might have his dignity for doing so, he clearly must live a miserable existence and consider a 22 oz. Heineken and a Crave Case at White Castle an exciting night out on the town.
After reading your reply to my results and then reading your most recent blog entry which was written on the very same day, I imagine that you came over to mine to vent your recent frustrations because I give a voice to the many faceless short stackers that you see day in and day out. And you know what? I agree with you, though not for the reasons that you might expect. I hate other short stackers as well. Not because they are killing the games, but because they are just another TAG who is taking up a seat from a full stacker that I want to siphon money away from. They come in all different skill levels and I have a lot of respect for a few of them and laugh at most of the others. So what do I do? I just leave the game and find a better one. Now as a mental exercise, take these two regular short stackers and note the difference in win rates:
It's like night and day isn't it? Which begs the question...why is this so? If we are all just shoving our money in the pot and waiting for aces, then IDKbutchyinsted must be the luckiest short stacker in the world, right? Wrong. And I believe that this is what really bothers you...
But before I go on, I would like to take this even further. Look at the stats of these two players who make their homes homes at 2/4 full ring.
I am sure that you find this just as shocking as you find it depressing. While Powerbert is struggling to make ends meet, gtr789 is sleeping until noon and taking weekend trips to Vegas. Why? Because he can!
If we are all using the same “strategy”, then have you ever asked yourself why there are short stackers in all limits of the game? If I am doing something crude and replicable and making over $8,000 a month, then surely there would be an army of people just like myself who would quickly tire of NL50 and jump up in stakes to grab their share of the pie. But they can't, because they are just shove monkeys who know nothing of “real poker”, as you call it. But I do appreciate the service that they provide me. They offer me cover under the broad umbrella of the “shove monkey” so that I can slowly rob you blind with out you ever becoming aware of it.
Although I know nothing of your actually poker game, I can immediately see some serious weaknesses in your attitude. You are very narrow minded and inflexible. You are also arrogant in your assumption that I lack in poker skill because of the manner in which I choose to enjoy the game. Do you automatically assume that all TAGs are the same? How about LAGs? Of course there are good ones and bad ones, but they are all very unique. And the fish? Do you automatically assume to have a one sized fits all strategy to beat a “49/4” or you actually observing them closely to find a particular weakness in their play that you can directly exploit? I do. How about the short stackers? Every time I see a new one, I do my due diligence on tableratings.com. If I see they are a winner at NL100, maybe they are taking a shot at the bigger game because they had a good weekend and I will be keeping a close eye on them. If they begin varying their raise sizes to steal against certain opponents, I know they are a player. However, if I see they are just breaking even (like a real rakeback pro), then I can assume that they are simply following a script and are barely capable of varying their play, if it all. I avoid the former and victimize the latter.
Believe it or not, I don't just shove JJ every time I get it. I've raised KK and put in almost 1/3 of my stack and then folded it in it a spot where I knew my opponent had aces, and he did. I'll attack certain player's blinds and avoid others. I've folded sets on clean boards, overbet shoved 3nd pair for value on the river, made audacious bluffs, and ace high hero calls. But I don't expect you to believe me. You are very locked in to your views and I am okay with that. Why? Because this makes you exploitable.
New players come to the game looking for action. This is true, but they are donating money to good regulars and short stackers indiscriminately. They don't recognize me for who I am or what I am doing, but regardless, it doesn't really matter because they just don't care. They will take action from everyone and they will enjoy themselves thoroughly when they bust my aces with 74o. In a few months at the very most, your typical player will be broke and gone, having been hustled out of his money by the sharks at the tables in their various forms. I'm not bitter and I don't hold a grudge against the full stackers for breaking them so fast. All I wanted was just a few dollars from each of them, but that is not enough for “greedy” people like yourself who are not content without taking multiple buy-ins from them and verbally taunting them and humiliating them in the process.
Now does that last statement sound stupid? Of course it does, because it is. You are hustling the fish and I am hustling you. The site only requires that everyone buy in for what I am buying in for; nobody twisted your arm and made you buy in for more. But just by doing so, you made a very implicit trade-off. You get a larger percentage of the fish's money but leave your self susceptible to short stack hustlers and higher swings.
I am not some kind of simple-brained twit with an alien agenda. In fact, I relate to other short stackers about as much as you relate to me. I just made the trade-off in reverse. I chose a somewhat smaller profit margin for a higher daily win rate, the ability to play more tables, and do away with the vicious swings. I have a 6 year old daughter and another kid on the way and therefore security is much more vital to me than the great pissing contest that you refer to as “real poker.”
I saw your March results and that you have made a total of $2,000 in NL50 and NL100. This is very impressive, but I have to assume that you have another job or are still in school because $2,000 is not enough money to live out in the real world. I have bills to pay, people to support, and a healthy social life so I do not care for silly notions of pride in an anonymous, virtual world of post-college 20 somethings and bitter 2+2ers.
But now I would like to end this with a challenge to all of the cocky and critical full stackers out there. If what I do is so easy, then you can surely do it yourselves. Therefore I would challenge anyone who normally full stacks for an amount anywhere between $500 to $2,000 that you can not come even within .25ptBB/100 of my win rate at NL200 using a short stack strategy over a 100k hand stretch. Do I have any takers?