I started playing poker about a year ago playing SNG’s for a while and switched to cash games soon because I like the more mathematical approach and find SNG’s changing in a preflop game too soon. I almost immediately started reading things on the internet and since then have spend a lot of time improving my game.

I’ve been a member of FTR since about 10 months now and since than read every post in the shorthanded, high stakes and strategy forum. I’ve read every sticky and tons of interesting threads from the archive, mostly the ones from Lukie and Fnord. I also read about every sticky from all 2+2 NLH sections and tons of interesting archived ones, including most or all threads from players like cts, samoleus, El Diablo, limon, aba, VanVeen, bldswttrs, etc. And the books I have read until now are The Real Deal, HOH1, NLTaP, Phil Gordon’s Little Green Book, SuperSystem 2 and TOP (in that order also).

My bankroll started with a €50 deposit at PartyPoker and I worked my normal way up in the micro stakes, with solid bankroll management and picking up tons of bonuses. I started at 5NL and I went quickly to 10NL and 25NL. Since than I have spent a lot of time at 25NL and 50NL and did some 100NL for about 2 weeks, but was uncomfortable after loosing a few buyins and went back to 50NL. My bankroll is at $1800 now.

The thing is, I have never been a serious winner over a large period of time, at any stakes (being 25NL or 50NL). I bonuswhored very effectively, which made my bankroll grow steady, but my BB/100 has never been >2 and at 50NL even somewhere between 0 and 1, could even be <0 by now. (I don’t have PT on my PC at work and it’s been a while since I checked my stats).

From all the time I have spend and still spend at reading and studying NLH, I feel like I must have quite an edge over most of the players at the stakes I am playing. I just know I have, looking at the hands that I and others are playing, but my winrate is far from telling the same story. I can’t remember having a 3+buying session every since half a year, hell maybe ever, for example.

This is beginning to bother me quite a bit, because put so much time and effort in trying to get better and don’t see a lot of results. I know so much more that I did 6 months ago, but my bankroll hasn’t grown a lot from winning pots.

Therefor I have set myself a goal. I moved down and I want to be a serious winning player at 25NL over a larger sample of hands and time before I do anything else in poker.
I will stop bonuswhoring, because I have cleared most of the very lucrative ones, but more so because I want to play at 1 site only and focus only on being a winning player.

(I already played 4-8 tables 6max and I likely will keep doing it as I like being busy and it keeps me from FPS. I also use a Tablehighlighter, autoreloader and betpot script, to make life easier as a multitabler, of course besides PAHud and PokerTracker.)


Of course I am struggling with what I have to do to become that solid winner or else I would have been one already. The thing I think I have the most trouble with is the general loose passive table conditions of the lower stakes.

1- It can be that in reality I don’t have the big edge over my opponents that I think I have. As this is a possibility, I do doubt it is very true, and I really hope that doesn’t sound cocky. I am not an arrogant person at all. But as I read through the forums every day, I feel like my knowledge is at 100NL at least, certain area’s maybe higher, certain maybe a bit lower.

2- It can be that overall I just ran quite bad for the last say 6 months. I don’t play tons of hands a week so bad runs last a bit longer. Though I still play about 5-10 hours 4-8 tabling and 6 months is a lot of time.

3- While those two points of course have their share, I find it likely that the third one is the most important and I know this can very well be more feel based than knowledge based.
I feel that my more or less taggy (preflop) style (see below) fits hard into the loose passive games that 50NL and lower usually are. I don’t want to moan here and sum up all the uncomfortable situations these conditions bring up, but we all know how it is to get 3 callers to your OOP aces, to see your sets being outdrawn over and over, etc.

I remember there was a thread with more or less the same subject as mine, a while ago (couldn’t find it), where one referred to a concept in limit holdem where there is a point that playing against a lot of loose passive makes it very hard for a TAG to win money, because ‘there is always someone outdrawing you’.

Of course we all read TAG is good and winning and I very well understand why it is. But the last time I stacked someone with a set is more than a month ago I think and the last time I have value bet 3 streets against someone and won was even longer.
And it’s not like simply putting 6BB raises in preflop will solve it, as people (likely not very conscious) adjust to it.


I think my preflop game is quite solid, especially for my stakes, though maybe a little bit too tight. I play about 18/14, UTG range is AJo, KQs, ATs, 22+, steal blinds >30%, etc.etc. I don’t 3-bet very light (though still lighter than most) because I don’t think it is very profitable at my stakes, but I do understand the most of the concepts of it. I definitely don’t call too much preflop, maybe not enough. I raise limpers very often, seldom limp myself, fold quite a lot to 3-bets, etc.

I have read dozens of good threads about preflop, I really don’t think I have big leaks in it, especially not .

I find it hard to comment on my own postflop game. Ofcourse I c-bet a lot, less OOP, and I recognize boards that aren’t profitable to c-bet at all. I don’t fire second barrels a lot and when I do it’s on very good boards for it. Besides that, I don’t spew around a lot and seldom run big bluffs as I don’t think they are very necessary at my stakes.
It could be that I’m calling a bit too much postflop, but as players do so much weird stuff at my stakes I feel like calling a bit more. Besides that, of course I am not the best postflop player, otherwise I wasn’t posting this, but I am at least solid and not spewing around big time.


Back to the improvements based on the general loose passive table condition. For some reason I feel like I have to be in more pots, because implied odds seem to be there. On the other hand, how can one have a lot of implied odds against passive opponents?
Even if I do have to be in more pots, I have a hard time choosing the right cards (and likely opponents).

Some things that go through my mind are:
1- Open up my game in a laggy way, so aim for 25/20 or something.
I imagine my cards will usually still be better than those of my opponents, I am the aggressor and there’s always some FE, the good cards will get paid of even more, and the pots are raised, so there is more to win when I hit, etc.
2- Open up my game in a passive way (seeing more flops and get paid when you hit big), so aim for like 25/12. I have trouble fully understanding the fundamentals behind this though, maybe someone can help me out.
3- Do what I do now, be patient and if I am anything decent the winrate will come once.
4- I also think understanding the concept Fnord talked about in this thread would be important, I hope someone can explain some things for me: http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-58490.htm


I really hope I can get some solid advice in this thread. Of course this started with a bad run the last couple of weeks, but I really do think there can be a solid strategy thread about how the loose passive tables can be exploited the best, as I do doubt the standard TAG style is most profitable.