Adjusting to a wild home game (1 Viewer)

[DrStrange]

In limit games, the typical win rates for "good" players is small relative to variation. A good limit player is winning 2BB per 100 hands while the standard deviation is ~~13BB per 100 hands. Luck has a much greater effect here. And tiny mistakes can cripple win rates. This sort of game birthed the notion that it can take tens of thousands of hands to begin grasping the difference between how good a player is and how lucky/unlucky they are.

Win rates in big bet games often are much higher than variance. My win rate was something like 15bb to 20bb per hour, and I wasn't the best player in the game most nights. The standard deviation was 17bb per hour.

No doubt each of our games will be a little different. Even so, the math remains similar. Any given hour, the variance and win rates are similar in size. But the win rate scales ratablly, you get an average of 15bb per hour for each hour played. But the standard deviation scales with square root of the number of hands played / hours played.

Play a hundred hours, win an expected (100 X 15bb) = 1,500bb. Play a hundred hours and the standard deviation is SQR(100) X 17bb = 170bb. You will note that the 1,500bb win rate is much larger than the 170bb variance. The chance of a solid winning player who should be winning 1,500bb over a hundred hours actually losing is essentially zero - it is more than eight standard deviations from the expected value.

So many words to say that Hero true win rate has been crippled if he is losing money after playing for a hundred hours and losing. This isn't bad luck. This isn't run bad.

Caveats - - - Maybe hero's base win rate is much lower than 15bb per hour? If the win rate is barely better than breakeven then luck will run rampant just like a limit game. Maybe Hero's sample size is tiny, say fifteen hours or less? Could be the ultra-deep stacked game led to a tiny handful of disaster hands. Lots we don't know.

But, if Hero has been raking in big wins for all of 2020 - 2022 and now the last few months have been losses, that means something is going wrong with Hero's game and/or some new shark(s) is taking Hero to the cleaners.

Hate to be a doom sayer, but here it is -=- DrStrange

PS By the way - if the weak players are willing stack off with hands worse than TP/TK Hero should accommodate them. Waiting for the near nuts leaves a lot of value on the table. Variance is higher but so is the win rate.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Thanks for the response, @DrStrange, there's a lot to digest there.

Overall, the idea that I'm playing badly (or at least non-optimally) is exactly why I started this thread. I would expect to have occasional losing sessions in a wild game like this, but seven in a row? That shouts to me that I'm either getting unlucky, not playing/adjusting well, or both.

That said, I do want to comment on a few specific things you said. Sorry, novella coming!

Win rates in big bet games often are much higher than variance. My win rate was something like 15bb to 20bb per hour, and I wasn't the best player in the game most nights. The standard deviation was 17bb per hour.

No doubt each of our games will be a little different. Even so, the math remains similar. Any given hour, the variance and win rates are similar in size. But the win rate scales ratablly, you get an average of 15bb per hour for each hour played. But the standard deviation scales with square root of the number of hands played / hours played.

Most online sources talk about bb/100, so for the sake of argument let's say your games averaged 30 hands/hr. That puts your stated winrate at 50-67bb/100 and your SD at 57bb/100.

I've tried to do some research today and get an idea for "typical" SD in live NLHE. It obviously varies based on a lot of factors, but the numbers I've found consistently seem to be in the 50-150bb/100 range.

Unfortunately, I haven't been keeping detailed stats on this game - I plan to change that in 2023. But I can approximate:

• I've played 115 hours of NLHE cash play with this group since April. The game moves slowly (20-25 hands/hr), so let's call it approximately 2500 hands.
• April-September, I was winning or breaking even consistently, and by the end of this period, I was ahead of the game in the low 4 figures, up about $1500.
• October-December, I've booked seven consecutive losing sessions for an approximate total loss of $1800.
• Based on these approximations, I've got an observed winrate of -24bb/100 since I started playing with this group.

Play a hundred hours, win an expected (100 X 15bb) = 1,500bb. Play a hundred hours and the standard deviation is SQR(100) X 17bb = 170bb. You will note that the 1,500bb win rate is much larger than the 170bb variance. The chance of a solid winning player who should be winning 1,500bb over a hundred hours actually losing is essentially zero - it is more than eight standard deviations from the expected value.

I think the math you give here is good for your specific winrate and SD. But I don't feel that it generalizes well to my situation, so I'm going to try to math it out.

Using the estimates above (and this SD calculator), I think my SD in this game so far is about 230bb/100. Yikes.

Let's say I believe I should be absolutely crushing this game for 60bb/100 and call that my winrate. I plugged this into the Poker Variance Calculator along with my other estimates (-24bb/100, 2500 hands, SD 230bb/100), and here's what I got:

Winrate 60bb/100, observed winrate -24bb/100, SD 230bb/100, 2500 hands
95% confidence interval	[-800 BB, 3800 BB] [-32.00 BB/100, 152.00 BB/100]
Probability of loss after 2500 hands	9.6058%
Probability of running below observed win rate (-24.00 BB/100) over 2500 hands with a true win rate of 60.00 BB/100 (»?«)	3.3919%

My losses of 600bb fall within the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (-800bb), and there's a 3.4% chance that my true winrate is 60bb/100, and I'm just running really, REALLY badly.

I'm not sure I buy it. So let's try again, but this time with a more conservative "true" winrate of 30bb/100:

Winrate 30bb/100, observed winrate -24bb/100, SD 230bb/100, 2500 hands
95% confidence interval	[-1550 BB, 3050 BB] [-62.00 BB/100, 122.00 BB/100]
Probability of loss after 2500 hands (»?«)	25.7144%
Probability of running below observed win rate (-24.00 BB/100) over 2500 hands with a true win rate of 30.00 BB/100 (»?«)	12.0215%

Still well within the 95% confidence interval, and this time there's a 12.0% chance that I could be a 30bb/100 winner in the game and still end up with these results over 2500 hands.

I'm not saying that my true winrate in this game is 30, 60, or anything else. I honestly don't know. But at least it's mathematically reasonable that I'm a winning player who is on a bad downswing.

This isn't bad luck. This isn't run bad.

Well... I'm still not convinced.

I have not always played my best in this game. Sometimes I've played really badly, and I've lost money that I shouldn't have. There are definitely adjustments that I can (and will) make to fix that.

But I'm also confident that I'm running substantially below EV over the past 50ish hours of play. I've lost a lot of large pots in the last few sessions where I got stacks in as a 65-95% favorite. (Yes, I got stacks in on the flop once recently as a 95% favorite and lost to runner-runner perfect.)

I know I sound like every other bad player who is trying to justify his losses, but I genuinely don't believe I'm a long-term losing player in this game.

PS By the way - if the weak players are willing stack off with hands worse than TP/TK Hero should accommodate them. Waiting for the near nuts leaves a lot of value on the table. Variance is higher but so is the win rate.

Yeah, overfolding and not betting thinly enough are a couple leaks of mine in this game.

Against certain players, it's almost always a mistake to fold TPGK. And some are never folding any piece of the flop - I should be getting three streets a lot more against these players rather than checking behind TP-type hands.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Let's GO!

I hosted this group tonight, and ended a six hour session up a hair under +500bb.

I did make some small adjustments tonight, but mostly I saw flops wider and made hands that held up more.

I think my minor adjustments are good, now we'll just catch some hands and profit!

 

[Schmendr1ck]

 

[Kain8]

I did make some small adjustments tonight, but mostly I saw flops wider and made hands that held up more.

I think my minor adjustments are good, now we'll just catch some hands and profit!

How @Schmendr1ck greets these players when they arrive:

 

[tabletalker7]

How @Schmendr1ck greets these players when they arrive:

View attachment 1063268

That's ok. Here's his players

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

That's ok. Here's his players

View attachment 1063273

Fantastic movie but some of those scenes edged like milk. My absolute favorite is that beautiful radio voice though! "hey boppers..."

 

[JustinInMN]

1) Straddle to $1, three limpers, BTN raises to $7, I 3! kings from SB to $28, and EVERYONE CALLS. Low dry flop, I c-bet shove for about half pot, everyone folds and I win.
2) Straddled to $16 (yes, .25/.50/1/2/4/8/16). First to act limps, MP limps, I rip about $80 with 99, first to act flats with more behind, and MP folds. First to act shows AA which holds.
3) Straddle to $1, one limper, MP raises to $6. I have TT on the button and 3! to $30, MP calls for just under half his stack. Flop Q53r, he checks, I shove, he calls and tables QTo.

1) Good job, nothing wrong with taking down a pot on the flop that got bloated preflop.

2) No one has mentioned this yet, but I think there's a case to fold 99 here. I don't think you're deep enough to set mine, and I don't think a raise gets this to even heads up, and even if it does, whoever can call that will almost never be worse than 45/55 against 99. 99 is a routine fold for me if I am ever facing a 4-bet pre, I think 7 straddles is analgous, due to less fold equity that usual and very few dominating situations for 99. This strategy kind of sucks because I could probably use this like of thinking to fold anything that's not QQ+ or AK, which would mean the all-ins I have here are pretty face up.

3) Don't hate this line. He's far too short to consider folding Qx on the flop, so check-call is probably villain's best line here. And if he doesn't have Qx, you really don't want to be giving a free card here holding just TT. If he's calling with QTo pre, he's calling with a lot of unpaired high cards that miss this flop. That's most of his range making the bet with TT worthwhile. When he has it, it sucks.

But overall (and I don't think any of the 3 hands above illustrate what I am going to say), in a game that's crazy loose my strategy is to call a lot more and raise less. I will add hands from both my typical raising and folding ranges and make them calling hands. Preflop, I might only raise the top 8-10 hands if first in the pot for example (say 99+ and AK, AQ), I'll flat with AJ, but I'll also flat with 54 as well. Yes, this means passing on some pre-flop edges, but it also gives more opportunities to exploit bigger edges post flop where unstudied players are far less formidable. When I do choose to raise, I am going to size it up. In a typical game I would raise pre 3x-4x the blind, but if they are demonstrating mistakes against that sizing, I am going to give them the chance to make the same mistake against 5x and 6x sizing.

The difficulty with this sort of strategy is it does require patience because your profit comes from getting the most every time the deck helps you, and riding out the stretches where it doesn't. And as @DrStrange so correctly pointed out above, sometimes those stretches are long and lead to crazy variance compared to similar sized limit games. Bluffing isn't a thing in this sort of game, you have to make hands to win, you have to get the most when you win, and you have to just ride it out when the deck isn't there for you.

 

[Goldfish]

When I first started playing this game, I was crushing it pretty hard. The last couple of months, though, I've been on a terrible downswing, losing $100-300 per session without a single win. Part of it is certainly runbad; I've lost a number of three figure pots where I've been a big favorite when stacks went in, and it seems like I've had more than my fair share of coolers. I even had to leave early a couple weeks ago when I had gotten sucked out on badly a couple times, I was tilted, and I knew that continuing to play was not a good idea.

 

[MatB]

Over the past few months, I've been playing almost weekly in a pretty insane home game.

It's .25-.50 NLHE, $60 max at first but moves up to $100 max once half the table has at least $100 in their stacks. The players are all guys ages 25-35, making me the "elder statesman" of the game. I've known and played with the host for years, which is how I got invited in the first place, and I've helped him with pretty much all aspects of hosting. I feel like I fit well with the group in spite of being much older; I'm often hoarse by the end of the night from talking and laughing so much. I've also hosted this group a couple of times on the rare occasions when the regular host is unavailable.

The game is insanely loose, and plays more like shortstacked 1-2. This is like every low stakes home game ever, but amped up to 10x. Preflop raises are rarely less than 8-10x, hands are straddled more often than not, and limpers rarely fold pre, even to large three-bets. It is tough to see a cheap flop or a heads-up flop. Stacks go in frequently, and rebuys keep the host extremely busy. This past Friday night, we had to let cash play because the bank ran out of value chips. The big winner of the night sun-ran $100 up to a $1500+ cash out.

Some examples of recent hands I was involved in:
1) Straddle to $1, three limpers, BTN raises to $7, I 3! kings from SB to $28, and EVERYONE CALLS. Low dry flop, I c-bet shove for about half pot, everyone folds and I win.
2) Straddled to $16 (yes, .25/.50/1/2/4/8/16). First to act limps, MP limps, I rip about $80 with 99, first to act flats with more behind, and MP folds. First to act shows AA which holds.
3) Straddle to $1, one limper, MP raises to $6. I have TT on the button and 3! to $30, MP calls for just under half his stack. Flop Q53r, he checks, I shove, he calls and tables QTo.

When I first started playing this game, I was crushing it pretty hard. The last couple of months, though, I've been on a terrible downswing, losing $100-300 per session without a single win. Part of it is certainly runbad; I've lost a number of three figure pots where I've been a big favorite when stacks went in, and it seems like I've had more than my fair share of coolers. I even had to leave early a couple weeks ago when I had gotten sucked out on badly a couple times, I was tilted, and I knew that continuing to play was not a good idea.

In spite of the runbad, I can't help but also think that I'm not adjusting to the game properly. I've been playing pretty ABC: see cheap/multiway flops with speculative hands when possible, shovel money into the pot when I'm strong, fold the trash, and pick up orphaned pots.

So, how do you play against this kind of crowd? What adjustments to an ABC TAG strategy do you make to beat this kind of game? What kind of variance do you accept?

Is this a real post?

 

[Schmendr1ck]

No one has mentioned this yet, but I think there's a case to fold 99 here. I don't think you're deep enough to set mine, and I don't think a raise gets this to even heads up, and even if it does, whoever can call that will almost never be worse than 45/55 against 99.

My logic in this case was that I'm getting calls from a range that is mostly a 45:55 dog, and often worse (some players here can find a call with any Ax).

I'm never ever set mining this shallow - I'm shoving for value with what is almost always the best hand. It's higher variance, but so is the rest of this game.

in a game that's crazy loose my strategy is to call a lot more and raise less

I've adjusted by tightening my PFR range, widening my calling range, and increasing the sizing of my raises.

I think it's making a difference, but I only have one winning session under my belt since making these changes. I'm not counting any chickens yet.

And as @DrStrange so correctly pointed out above, sometimes those stretches are long and lead to crazy variance

Actually, I'm the one who did the math and figured that I was probably on an extended downswing.

@DrStrange said I was probably just a losing player who didn't want to admit it.

 

[JustinInMN]

I've adjusted by tightening my PFR range, widening my calling range, and increasing the sizing of my raises.

I think it's making a difference, but I only have one winning session under my belt since making these changes. I'm not counting any chickens yet.

It's hard to read too much into any one NL session or any string of NL sessions. But obviously, I agree with these changes.

Actually, I'm the one who did the math and figured that I was probably on an extended downswing.

@DrStrange said I was probably just a losing player who didn't want to admit it.

Oh dear, I guess those posts blurred together when I was reading them, my apologies .

 

[hoshibaboshi]

Your adjustments make a heck of a lot of sense to me. Glad you posted a winning session to keep you excited for the next one.

 

[bergs]

View attachment 1065508

The seat next to him was a pot limit Archie player but he went back to his trailer after a bad session on set and just evaporated, like Luke when he used the force projection with Kylo Ren for too long.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

The seat next to him was a pot limit Archie player but he went back to his trailer after a bad session on set and just evaporated, like Luke when he used the force projection with Kylo Ren for too long.

I am never, ever introducing PL Archie to this group.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Okay, maybe. Just to keep @MatB from being sad.

 

[TheSalt]

2) No one has mentioned this yet, but I think there's a case to fold 99 here. I don't think you're deep enough to set mine, and I don't think a raise gets this to even heads up, and even if it does, whoever can call that will almost never be worse than 45/55 against 99.

I think 99 is a mandatory jam here. If you get folds it’s free money. Even when called you are very often flipping and with so much dead money it’s easily +EV. Absolutely cannot be folding 99 here when you are 5bb deep effective.

 

[JustinInMN]

I think 99 is a mandatory jam here. If you get folds it’s free money. Even when called you are very often flipping and with so much dead money it’s easily +EV. Absolutely cannot be folding 99 here when you are 5bb deep effective.

But it's not a tournament, it's cash. And I just think hands that can call the shove are far more skewed to overpairs than coin flips.

 

[Random Phish]

I don’t like the way you played any of the three hands listed:
1. Ripping it in is going to get everything worse to fold and everything better to call. No one had a set or straight so they folded
2. Ripping it in is going to get everything worse to fold and everything better to call.
3. Ripping it in is going to get everything worse to fold and everything better to call.

 

[TheSalt]

2. Ripping it in is going to get everything worse to fold and everything better to call.

How often does someone have a hand better than 99 8, handed? That’s only TT+ which is like a 5% range.

But it's not a tournament, it's cash. And I just think hands that can call the shove are far more skewed to overpairs than coin flips.

Yeah but alot if your value comes from when everyone folds. Then you just scoop up $40 uncontested for a $80 bet.

 

[tabletalker7]

How often does someone have a hand better than 99 8, handed? That’s only TT+ which is like a 5% range.

What he is saying is anyone worse than 99 folds. He only gets a call from that 5% range.

 

[TheSalt]

What he is saying is anyone worse than 99 folds. He only gets a call from that 5% range.

So 60% of the time everyone folds and you scoop the dead money. If that’s the case I’d be jamming ATC in this lineup when the $16 straddle is on.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

I don’t like the way you played any of the three hands listed:
1. Ripping it in is going to get everything worse to fold and everything better to call. No one had a set or straight so they folded
2. Ripping it in is going to get everything worse to fold and everything better to call.
3. Ripping it in is going to get everything worse to fold and everything better to call.

Go back and read my earlier posts in this thread.

This isn't a game full of solid players where I should be playing near GTO. Many players in this game are unable to fold any piece of the board, even when they are obviously way behind or not getting the right odds. And some genuinely don't care. They show up to move chips around and have a good time.

It's super-loose, and players are happy to get stacks in with sub-par hands all the time. In all three of my original examples, I'm making exploitative shoves that are going to get a lot of calls from a lot of worse hands - and when they don't, there's still a substantial pot to take down.

Here's an example from last night's game with this group (I wasn't involved): UTG raises preflop, folds around to SB who 3!, BB calls, UTG 4! jams for about 100bb effective. SB calls, BB calls.

So AIPF three ways, UTG shows kings, SB shows , and BB shows . Unsurprisingly, BB binked his flush and raked in a $150 pot.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Last night I tried an experiment based on some of the discussion in this thread. In a nutshell, I massively dialed down the pre-flop aggression and played much more passively than I normally do on early streets. I played as if I had zero fold equity pre- or post-flop in most hands, so I tried to get to most flops cheaply and only continue with made hands or nutted draws.

I narrowed my pre-flop raising range to premiums (JJ+/AQs+/AK) and limped a very wide range of speculative hands: all pairs up to TT, most suited connectors and larger suited one-gappers, all Ax/Kx and many Qx suited, any two broadway suited or not. I was very fit or fold post-flop in multi-way pots (which are the large majority of them). I would usually take a call-down line with most top pair type hands vs. aggression, and I saved the post-flop aggression for bigger hands.

I almost never bluffed. I would take occasional stabs at pots when they looked like they'd been abandoned, but not often. A couple players in this game have also adjusted to the hyper-aggression by do what I was doing - going into check-call mode with hands like TPWK - so stabbing at pots that these players are in can be dangerous.

Results-wise, it worked. I was in for $60 and out for $290:

That said, it was intentionally a bit extreme, and I probably won't continue to play this passively. But it was a good way to show myself that there are a lot of spots where I can maximize value and minimize losses by taking more passive lines. I was able to see a lot more flops last night for a lot less money, and that gave me the opportunity to hit more often and extract value when I did.

 

[tabletalker7]

So 60% of the time everyone folds and you scoop the dead money. If that’s the case I’d be jamming ATC in this lineup when the $16 straddle is on.

How did the old saying go ..... "You can shear a sheep a hundred times but only skin it once" ....... Your method skins it. That play style gets you not invited to the next game. By slowing things down like the OP did, he was able to increase profits while minimizing variance and nobody noticed. People are happy to keep dumping their money to him, and not just for one night. They want him back so they can win their money back thinking they stand a chance. That is how you truly maximize your take home.

 

[glynn]

How did the old saying go ..... "You can shear a sheep a hundred times but only skin it once" ....... Your method skins it. That play style gets you not invited to the next game. By slowing things down like the OP did, he was able to increase profits while minimizing variance and nobody noticed. People are happy to keep dumping their money to him, and not just for one night. They want him back so they can win their money back thinking they stand a chance. That is how you truly maximize your take home.

Mmm yeah, the game described by the OP definitely sounds like one that will not re-invite a maniac who shoves ATC for dead money, good read sir.

 

[DrStrange]

I have played in my share of "crazy home games". Shove any two cards preflop and pick up the dead money uncontested? You must be joking.

You shove preflop and end up with a three way flip for $1,000. That is what happens in my games early on. Maybe not as much with very deep stacks. I certainly do shove lightish preflop with shorter stacks but strong enough to have an edge over the expected callers. Same with a limp / shove line. Might be aces, might be quite a bit less.

As for getting the boot for offering too much action - - That's just crazy talk. If anything jamming many times preflop with average hands is going to get you on the top of the invite list. -=- DrStramge

 

[Schmendr1ck]

By slowing things down like the OP did, he was able to increase profits while minimizing variance and nobody noticed.

This part of your post is correct. People noticed that I was winning / "running hot" but didn't notice the way I had changed my play style. And I gave just enough action in a couple of iffy spots to advertise that I wasn't nitting it up.

How did the old saying go ..... "You can shear a sheep a hundred times but only skin it once" ....... Your method skins it. That play style gets you not invited to the next game.

Good advice for many games, but definitely not this one. These guys thrive on aggression, and they have no problems with aggression from others like me.

 

[MatB]

I have played in my share of "crazy home games". Shove any two cards preflop and pick up the dead money uncontested? You must be joking.

You shove preflop and end up with a three way flip for $1,000. That is what happens in my games early on. Maybe not as much with very deep stacks. I certainly do shove lightish preflop with shorter stacks but strong enough to have an edge over the expected callers. Same with a limp / shove line. Might be aces, might be quite a bit less.

As for getting the boot for offering too much action - - That's just crazy talk. If anything jamming many times preflop with average hands is going to get you on the top of the invite list. -=- DrStramge

The words ‘shove and preflop’ were not on my ‘things Dr Strange will say ‘ Bingo card

 

[TheSalt]

I have played in my share of "crazy home games". Shove any two cards preflop and pick up the dead money uncontested? You must be joking.

Of course I agree with you I was responding to people claiming that by jamming a $80 stack with 99 (when a 1/2/4/8/16 straddle was on) would fold all worse hands and only get called by better.