Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
at the felt without the dealer
with Ivan Demidov and Lika Gerasimova
Good day, dear friends
Today at gipsyteam we have one of the most popular authors of our site.
His blog has already collected over 1,300,000 views.
It is interesting to discuss poker with him. It is interesting to discuss with him.
It is just interesting with him.
Guys want to be like him. Girls want him.
I want to present to you forhayley, or just Dima.
Applause
The first interview, global as it were, and I know that
we talk to each other from time to time, and I know that you have not made it public that
before poker and even alongside poker you were a very famous person in the cybersports community.
and generally tell us what you did before poker and
how you started, for history's sake, so to speak.
Yes, but I cannot say that in cybersports I was such a famous person
but I did something there that people remember.
As a matter of fact, I am on very good terms with the creators of goodgame.ru.
that is, Misha Mayker, Genya Nefanda, Dima Dian, the brother of Mayker, and of course, Igor Andreevich, or Bruce.
and at one point I decided to help them with their site.
Initially we planned that I would write news,
some articles etc concerning Counter-Strike.
But at the time of WCG 2008
there was such a situation that
the commentator who had to report all the matches,
he was either taken ill or he did not care.
and finally they told me to do it.
Well, ok, I thought, because
I thought I could do it,
and so step-by-step I became the main commentator on Counter-Strike at the site
and dedicated about one and a half years to it.
The last broadcast was, I guess, in 2010,
just at the time when the World Cyber Games was won by Navi from Ukraine.
After that I had a good streak in poker, I went to Thailand,
and slacked off a bit.
and generally it became uninteresting,
so basically I can say that
the last half a year I was doing it robotically,
but generally I liked this pursuit.
just because...
You were popular.
No, not because I was popular,
but I am by nature a person who
is not very interested, generally,
to be in the center of attention,
but sometimes I need to be heard.
and
Get a child
Did you never try to get a cat?
Yes, of course, that is a good idea,
but I am too young to get a cat.
So, this commentating job,
it gave me such an opportunity.
That is, one must understand that
even though it was kind of local,
there were very many people.
and those who watched the broadcasts, will remember that
by nighttime there was such a chaos,
there would be a lot of swearing,
people talked about life,
so it was fun.
Do you mean people in the virtual studio?
No, not the virtual studio, the listeners.
they would specifically come to chat?
Yes
By the way, it is interesting to compare,
how many..., there must be numbers,
how many people watch such Counter-Strike broadcasts?
Well, now of course I cannot give you exact numbers,
the ballpark?
but at that point there was always over 1000 people.
that is stable, you run it any day,
and the lowest figures were at some
cheap european online tournaments,
and even there there were almost always around 500 people.
So, that audience was broader than the poker audience?
Yes, naturally,
because, well,
in poker, people are not that interested in broadcasts, I think,
because in cybersports everything is based on those tournaments,
people watch them,
and in poker people like to...
play.
Yes.
to gamble.
Yes.
Ok, you said... first of all
announce your nickname, if that is no secret.
Well, at goodgame.ru it is either rhje, or as it was originally pronounced, crow.
That is, if you type rhje in russian layout,
it will come as "crow".
And, before commentating, did you play there yourself?
Tell us quickly.
Well, I played, but
all this was at a local level.
That is, when I was about 11, I would play at computer clubs,
I think everybody who came from cybersports
knows that it is standard,
gaming clubs, then playing at home over the network,
then something else,
Naturally, I played CS, Warcraft, Starcraft,
I had some success,
but all this at regional level.
To achieve something even in Russia alone,
one had to dedicate very much time to it,
and secondly, one had to live specifically in Moscow,
well, in team games, it was a must.
Even in non-team...
Now it might be different,
but when I played,
apart from Moscow and a bit of Saint-Petersburg,
nobody had a chance.
Yes, I had a similar impression.
So
I am originally not a Muscovite.
I am from from Norilsk,
but when I came to Moscow,
I no longer had motivation to play,
but I had an affiliation with cybersports, and
that's why I decided to do what I do.
And it worked out for me.
Ok, and Lika had a question.
What question?
The cities.
Why did you come to Moscow?
You lived in Saint-Petersburg, Thailand, Norilsk,
Why Moscow?
What is the difference?
If you grind poker, you can live anywhere. Can't you?
Why did you choose such an expensive city?
Well, first of all, for a poker player, Moscow is not an expensive city anymore
if he is at least...
You must be rarely getting out of home.
Do you get out at all?
Naturally I do.
I like Moscow primarily because
First of all I have very many friends here.
Secondly, all of my leisure time
is very well supported by Moscow.
That is, I go to...
You mean the nightlife?
Yes, I go to a lot of music performances, for example,
and in other cities of Russia
these people, they just don't visit there.
And here you can hang out.
have a good time
have a blast
By the way, you had a lengthy discussion
on the topic of music, I remember.
Yes, I wrote a post about music.
I generally don't like to
talk in my blog about my life and my preferences
just because eventually it spills into
an endless stream of flaming where
everyone has to stick in there and tell that "I like..."
Dang, forhayley, I liked you,
but now I'm disappointed in you.
How can you listen to...
Yes, that is disgusting.
Everybody wants to say that he...
that you're not right.
And it's too bad.
I agree.
You played cybersports, commentated.
I understand that at that time
everybody, well, many people from that community
began to play poker.
I think that's how you started.
How did it come about?
Well, first of all, in cybersports
there was a big boom of interest in poker, as it were.
When you were winning at the Main Event, as I recall,
in... was it June... of... what year, 2008? July.
anyway, there was this news at every site,
former representative of the SK Gaming Team, Soul
reached the final table of the World Series.
And there was the chipcount,
but everybody thought it was the dough.
Holy Christ, he's got 20 million bucks.
Cool. I want to play poker.
And when you finished,
this news popped up everywhere,
and even SK Gaming published this news
I must have skipped it.
Back then I treated it vainly.
Now I've calmed down.
But back then I was following the news.
And generally in cybersports
a lot of famous players turned to poker.
I think this is so widespread because
what does cybersports teach you?
the skill of sitting in front of a computer for 20 hours a day.
Where can you apply this skill?
Most probably, in some kind of office and in poker.
That is, there's not much of a choice.
Yes, and that is a good topic because
there constantly used to be debates in
the forums back then,
on the topic of what qualities cybersports develops.
And nobody could give a clear answer.
But with time the answer came up.
Well, if you're talking about CS, it probably gives you nothing.
And Starcraft, it is a strategy.
Just kidding... It's just that
I can't say about now, but some time ago
CS was treated slightly derogatively
in the community.
Even though it was the most popular game,
but you know, everybody liked to pretend that
CS was for schoolboys, and we're intellectuals.
Something like that.
Well, you see, then DOTA came about,
and CS reached the top suddenly.
because DOTA is even worse.
It is hard to conceive a less intellectual game than DOTA.
I'll bring the tea.
Now we'll move on to poker
Ok, when did you start playing?
I opened your diary,
you created your first post already playing 50NL+,
your second blog (there was another one).
And I left the first comment there.
I just now remembered.
It was the third month of 2010,
about one and a half years ago.
When did you start playing?
I started playing about two years ago.
We're sorry, but one of the mics ran out of battery power, and we did not notice it immediately. :((
I started playing about two years ago.
That is, I had a slight problem with my university,
namely, "I don't want to study,
get off my back please".
And I took a stop-out,
but I was realizing that this, uh, stop-out, was for good.
It finalizes my studying, but because
I had some problems with the draft,
I decided to, loosely speaking,
get back there the next year.
And so I suddenly had a lot of spare time,
And I decided, why not try poker?
Well, really, I already dabbled there a few times before.
But one has to understand that it was gambling.
I would register for no-deposit $50 bonuses,
play SNgs for $30,
lose and...
And my bankroll was over.
But then I decided to take it seriously,
made a deposit,
I'm not sure how much, but not much,
and began to grind 5NL or 4NL euros at GoPlay.
You know what, when I playing poker first time,
it seemed to me to be very boring.
I... uh... first time started, played half a month,
because everybody said it was a cool game,
one could make money,
but I was very bored.
Because I played by the hand sheet,
raise this, pass this, zero creativity.
Did you experience anything like that?
No, I never felt like that simply because
I initially treated poker as heaps of money,
I was aware that if I endure this moment now,
then in the future I might win some
more significant sums of money.
So, poker was interesting to me not as a game,
but more as a...
when I would update Holdem Manager after my session,
see +$7, and think, wow.
So, you have zero interest in poker as a game?
Only money? Or is there an interest?
I started to develop an interest in poker later,
one has to see that
from the very outset I realized all the hopeless stupidity of the microlimits, low limits,
and tried to somehow optimize my game for this,
which was taking most of my time.
But for me, it was not really interesting to play.
But then, when I moved up to the first, so to speak, serious limits,
like 100NL, I began to meet thinking opponents,
and it all gradually began to develop,
And it got to a point, when in July of this year
I did not treat poker as only money,
and it was interesting to run the client,
open 15 tables of Heads Up with anybody,
any players, 1K NL, 2K... I did not care.
even 5K, thank God I controlled myself, did not play the top regs,
but at 2K NL I definitely played with everybody.
That is, no bankroll concerns?
No, in fact I managed bankroll properly,
I always respected bankroll management, not including the no-deposit $50's.
So you have a very low risk level.
Yes, I don't have it at all.
Ok, now you have a big enough bankroll
and if there was a table with some very weak fish,
Turks, who else?... Lebanese, Pamela Anderson...
how much are you ready to gamble away there?
not gamble, but to put on the felt?
What part of your bankroll?
Well, how much... depends on how many fish.
Well, a sweet game, 5 fish invite you to play,
for how much maximum would you agree,
blinds are like $1000-2000,
Yes, how much is your maximum?
Maximum? Online?
Live, with Pamela...
Well, live I could put down all my bankroll,
No, not really.
No, if you take a hypothetic super-sweet table online,
that is really super-sweet, then I'll play 20K NL easily.
You're talking numbers,
we don't need numbers, nobody knows your bankroll,
talk in percentages,
what part of the bankroll,
maybe you could put 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%?
Some can put 100%. Say, Gipsy can put down 100% with Aces.
No, that's not for me.
In a super-sweet game, I can put down 10% of my bankroll.
Wow, you're so tight.
It is... I don't even know if I could put down 10%,
I think you could put down more.
Only if I was on tilt,
One must understand that 10% of the bankroll is 10 buyins.
And such a bankroll management,
I, as a multi-tabler who so often ignores game selection,
know too well what unreal swings you can have in poker.
So, I had sessions where I, loosely speaking,
was losing 30 buyins in heads-up over 3000 hands.
And when I see 10 buyins,
even on a super-fishy table, it is still a bit too little.
Now I will never sit at a table if I have less than 100 buyins,
because I know what could happen in poker.
Don't play with fire, huh...
What's surprising, because of the enormous volume of hands you played,
over 2 years you reached...
perceived everything, so to say.
You know how much people learn in 6-7 years,
Ah, "an untalented regular", it took him a whole 2 years
to get up from zero to 5K NL.
Why is your blog called this?
"An untalented regular".
Because he likes to whine.
I can open a secret here.
No, I don't like to whine. Just
I don't know,
there are two points here.
Generally I have a rather low self-esteem,
and it is due to the following reasons:
First of all, all my childhood I was raised in such a manner that
that one should never compare yourself
with people who are worse.
You are now describing my father, but ok, go on.
I had a similar situation,
so if I did something wrong and say,
hey, they did even worse,
They looked down at me as if I was an idiot,
and said, "Do not compare yourself!"
After 5th grade I already quit saying it
because got back nothing but rebukes.
It was the first important point
The second important point is that
at a higher age
starting probably from age 14,
I was lucky, but on the other hand unlucky,
most of my spare time I talked to people
who were (not were, are) really unique,
and being around them I felt myself
a kind of a nobody.
Because they really...
And it was true for any sphere,
I always saw, loosely speaking,
a man who in my view was a super-top reg,
and I reached out to him.
We would meet each other, talk
and I absorbed, absorbed and absorbed
as a sponge everything he would say and do.
So, when you all your life
project yourself onto the very best,
try to communicate with him most of the time,
you feel yourself, say, not so well.
Because, wherever you might turn to,
He is better than I, he is better than I etc.
And finally you feel inferior.
Even now in poker,
I would not change the name of my blog,
because again, I only look up to the best,
and I understand how much I am behind.
Who can you name, if that is no secret?
But these players, how long they've been playing.
For 2 years I don't think...
This is not the case.
No, the thing is that
now you might be playing worse
than the top players, but
I cannot really judge,
you may be playing better than them,
just being modest,
but say, in another 2 years,
you can very well reach them.
You have not reached the ceiling,
you have something to look forward to.
No, I don't really think so.
I think that the ceiling is very close,
because I push myself really hard,
that is in terms of playing, studying,
I spend very much time,
and if you take all the regulars from Stars, for one,
only cash, I think this year I'll make top 3
by the amount of time spent playing
plus studying.
Maybe I will even be the no.1.
And considering all that I still
have not reached,
I cannot call myself a top reg.
I am just an average regular,
who sits there, sometimes bites off a fish,
sometimes loses.
Fine by me.
It seems... Ok, I understand you but
in reality this constant discontent
with your level
and this constant drive for self-improvement
is, hm..., very cool,
and it is probably what led you to success
primarily, but anyway,
because you might be playing the fool a bit,
Who else has such results at such a timespan?
And who climbed up the limits so fast?
I observe the russian community,
and nobody climbed up so fast playing with proper BRM.
I can give you two people right off the bat.
Who did it with BRM?
Yes, yes. They are fish2013 and MystersY, who is a girl.
They started playing at the same time as I,
and fish2013 is two bars above me, and
MystersY, I think, is on par with me.
And that is only in Russia,
and overall you could list a lot of regs, I think.
You don't need to overestimate my achievements.
Very many people climb up fast, but
again, you have to be aware of the fact that
they both invested a significant amount of time,
even though fish2013 is more of a slacker.
Another thing that allowed you to reach a success
is, I don't know other people
who play so much without breaks.
2 years, every month hundreds of thousands of hands,
100k+ hands, how do you motivate yourself?
And do you need to motivate yourself at all?
Or does it happen by itself? Is it not strenuous?
or is it strenuous, but you push yourself to do it?
And, uh, many succesful players
who reached a success,
won a certain sum of money,
they felt comfortable financially,
say, $100,000.
They live and go on trips wherever they want,
They don't have such a motivation.
They start to play less, work on their game less.
You did not experience this. Why?
There are a few points to make.
The first one is the fact that
as I wrote in my blog,
in poker the level of reward is
not corresponding with the level of competition.
So, loosely speaking, there is no other area
where you can invest so little time and effort
and achieve very significant results and
get a good reward for it.
But one has to understand that poker is not eternal.
I think that in the same form as now,
poker has only 2-3 years to live.
And that's why I am trying to squeeze out my maximum now.
And of course I also waste a lot of time,
which I do not like,
And I have no idea,
what do people who play less do?
And they are 99.9%.
What do they do?
Maybe they live, but
I think it's too little.
That's the reason no.1.
And the second reason is that poker
gave me a very good stance in life,
that is a lot of people of my age,
who I talk to, they have such a difficult time now,
they do not even have an idea of what to do.
There is a vacuum in their heads,
I want to try this and that, and finally
they do nothing, and their life as a whole
becomes rather aimless.
And I have this aim.
Silly as it might sound,
I want to learn to play poker well.
And it first motivates very well,
and second, switches you into an automatic mode,
that is it is in the subconscious that
I wake up in the morning and I know,
I must get down to grinding.
And I do something and then sit down to play.
That's it. I have a goal. I'm on my way to it.
It might be short-lived but it is...
Look, you... uh... I think all the players feel the same.
Just, I can judge from my own experience,
I also want, uh, wanted to learn to play poker well,
to grind cash,
WantED.
Meaning that I almost don't play cash now.
I understood I had to win money because
it is unclear what would happen to poker,
5 years, how much, it'll exist...
uh-huh, it was not a strong enough motivation.
For me, a strong motivation was when I directly needed money.
When I wanted to move away from my parents,
to go skiing somewhere,
to buy a new powerful computer,
And when you speak of such global long-term goals,
to save for the old age,
I was never motivated enough for that.
So in reality, is this what really drives you.
Well, yes.
I have a good feeling of satisfaction when
I know that I can afford
all that I want.
Now this is not true.
And even if you take some kind of a Porsche,
I know I'll never in my life buy it,
I'll never drive it,
but the fact itself that "I can buy a Porsche".
Yes, I can buy it. I walk by a car dealership
watch people look jealously at this car.
And I think, I can buy it.
And I am choosing Bentley next door...
Yes.
And I walk on quietly.
So, I don't need it, but...
It's important that you raised your status
or you achieved something in life.
You compared yourself with your mates who
don't know what to do.
You don't have to feel like that.
That is, you are satisfied because
you established your identity.
uh, not identity, but more like made a man. You reached a success.
I don't think that
a success in poker can be somehow related to one's achievements,
because in essence success in poker is a very useless thing,
and nobody needs it,
I mean, say you are an excellent poker player
and you tell it to a man in the street,
a) he won't be interested,
b) even if he is interested,
only from the point of view of money.
And now imagine,...
Ok, you tell a person, "I am a strong chess player".
I think he'll have the same reaction.
Here it is slightly different. Look,
If you say, "I am a strong chess player",
he says, ok, and what is your rank in Russia?
You say, "I am no.1".
"Cool! The best player in Russia".
But when you say, "I am the best poker player in Russia"
And he says, "How much money did you win?"
You say, "Last year I won a million".
He is like, "Wait, and the best player in Russia gets a million,
and I read on the Internet that Lesnik won 5 million 2 years ago".
No, that's what happens.
So the only thing that is common, is the amount of money.
The only thing you can be proud of from poker
is what you earned.
I totally disagree, because poker is a difficult...
That's really the case. The fact that you 4-bet and 5-bet in some cool way,
is not important to anybody at all.
It is important that you were able to learn.
It is important that you learned it.
It is an intellectual game
and to play poker well,
one needs to have a certain set of qualities,
and you need to be, uh, and to develop them,
so it is, uh, now for example, many American poker players,
even several years ago they were recruited by trade companies that
trade on the stock market,
some big companies. They, when they said they played poker professionally at a high level,
it was a huge plus. They were even recruited without...
uh, some were admitted without some...
uh, so they would not have passed otherwise,
without their results from PTR?
Something like that.
They would not have been taken for this job,
they would not have enough education or something.
and with poker they were taken to big companies
because poker really educates,
and if you achieved success in poker, it means a lot,
it means that you are not a fool,
that you possess a set of qualities,
Do you not feel like that?
First of all, there were single instances...
Perhaps there were not many written reports about that.
But one must understand that
a poker player who wins a lot of money,
is not necessarily some kind of a crazy intellectual...
Well, if you leave out bumhunting,
an upstreak or a big tournament win,...
then there would be no one left.
There'll be one. The only one.
That's why we invited you,
to raise poker's prestige.
Seriously, of course, luck has an effect, but
I don't agree that poker doesn't give you anything.
It gives you a lot.
No, I am not saying it doesn't teach you anything.
I cannot consider myself a made man
just because I learned how to play poker.
Well, I might have misused words here, not a made man;
you reached a height in something that you do.
What are you planning to do when these 2-3 years
that you give poker run out?
I have no clue.
No clue?
You'll buy a Porsche?
I can't even say...
Go back to Thailand?
It must another reason why I play so much,
because I think that right now I have to
make much, much money not to think about it for 5 years or so,
and then maybe when I start running out of money,
I'll sit down and think,
what will I do?
I have $100 and a flat costing $7000 a month.
I think we'll make a club.
And we will all think what we will do.
Former poker mafia. We'll make serious business...
Let's, uh, turn back to poker,
I think you are one of the best candidates
to find out what is happening at the limits like
600NL, 1KNL, 2KNL, 5KNL.
What is your assessment?
How do you assess the current situation
compared to, say, two years ago?
What do you think will happen in the future
globally, with poker at these limits?
with the regulars, and so on.
What is the general situation there?
How do you estimate yourself in this?
I'll put such a global question.
Well, here you'll probably have to split the limits because
600NL, 1KNL, 2KNL, may be very similar to each other,
many regulars play them side by side,
but they are still different.
400NL and 600NL, in essence, is poker freebie.
That is, for any grinder, absolute freebie.
There is a funny fact:
If you look at the top winners at PTR
at 400NL, 600NL and 1KNL this year,
then you'll see that the guy who won most at $2-$4, Gogol's Nose,
he made, I guess, $135,000 for a year,
and at 1KNL Karen won the most,
and he took down $170,000.
That is, the difference in yearly profit between
the best player at 400NL...
You mean he won $170,000 exactly at that limit?
Yes, yes.
So the net winnings difference between
the best player at 400NL and the best player at 1KNL
is only 30,000 for a year
considering that first, Karen is
100% stronger than Gogol as a player,
and secondly, swings at 1KNL can be wildest.
For example, now Karen is having, I think, 3 consecutive losing months,
even though he won the most this year at 1KNL,
and at 400NL nobody can have losing months,
that is if we're talking about a decent player.
So, on the topic of 400-600NL,
I think it's gonna be ok there.
For 1KNL, it gets slightly more difficult because
there is a very clear trend of disappearing fish.
That is, there are a lot of regular games.
So if you want to win at $5-$10, you need to, for example,
know how to play Heads-Up
because a lot of money is made when tables get started,
in regular 3-max games etc.
2KNL and 5KNL is a whole different story,...
The games don't run there that much.
Yes, basically, I play no less than 150,000 hands a month.
And I squeeze out the maximum of 2KNL, and
it's only 10000+ hands,
at 5KNL I might only get 1000 hands.
Because the tables start only when there is a fish.
And if you want to play without fish,
you must be one of the top players in the world, because
you'll only get action from the best in the world.
So far I am definitely not that strong.
And I think that if they understand that you are better,
they will stop giving you action.
Yes. That's the sad story.
So, 2KNL and 5KNL are, so to speak,...
And if you compare with, like, 1 year ago, or you can't say?
I cannot say what it used to be a year ago
but talking to strong players,
they are inclined to think that
the level of the game does not grow that much.
There are 2 very important points:
First, one has to understand that
a good player's bankroll always grows faster than his skill.
That is, new players appear at 1KNL from time to time,
who basically are only bumhunting there.
So, they played 6 tables at 100NL, 6 tables at 200NL,
6 tables at 400NL,
always in position to a fish,
with some weak regs,
their bankroll naturally grew, and now
these people are slowly taking places at 6-max 1KNL tables,
and you are most certainly going to have an edge on them.
That is, if you battled with regs, played Heads-Up, etc.
This doesn't decrease your expected value
because there are more and more regulars like that.
Moreover, regulars like that start to appear at 2KNL and 5KNL.
I can give you a funny example.
An average table at 2KNL and 5KNL is easier to play than an average table at 1KNL.
That's how it's always been, I think.
Yes.
Higher limits, uh...The strongest game was always at the midstakes.
Yes, 6-max definitely so.
1KNL is now the strongest limit online
because at higher stakes there is always a mega-losing guy
who automatically gives every reg +3ptbb,
and the reg's task is simply not to give away these 3ptbb to the rest.
And it's not so difficult
if you really work on your game.
Plus, another point is that
while the general level of the game grows,
the relative advantage of the best players stays the same.
So, if you look up PTRs of the most stable winners,
gogol, nanonoko, pobolero,
their winrate is at almost the same point every year.
The level of the field grows,
but they grow along with it.
And they keep their advantage.
Naturally, if a person gives up on his development,
starts to play less, fails to review sessions,
yes, he'll descend,
but if he puts in his 100%,
he will almost always have an income...
You think this won't change?
While there is fish in poker, I think it will not change.
It's an old question, but
PokerStars changed table formats,
the last changes, so to speak,
in poker industry with the cash table formats,
do you find them positive, negative?
Generally it is cool
because, as I recall,
they used to have a minimum of 20 Big Blinds per table,
when I was starting to play 400NL;
there was no game at all.
Only shortstackers?
Yes, at 400NL there were only shortstackers,
First I even had to play these dumb 20-50 BB tables,
with half-stack, I was mad about it,
I was losing, I was psyched out,
then they made 40 BB+ tables,
and it slightly improved, but
ideally you'd want to remove all shortstacks, kill them.
It would be great.
However, now there is another problem.
Stupid spanish idiots with 40 BB who...
Ok, in Spain a very strong, top regular
put out a cool book
a training book, like BVD in Russia,
but the people who read it,
people who know Spanish, say
it is the best book on poker they could find, the best they ever read.
And that's why now at every table on PokerStars,
there are a lot of Spaniards, and they all play with these dumb 40 BBs,
with a 3bet of 15%, and
it is very irritating.
I always thought it was easy to play them.
I don't play that much, but
I think they steal 100% from the Button,
and it is somehow, uh, not very balanced.
Why? If you make the right adjustment,
you won't make a ton of money off of them.
Why? If he raises 100% on the Button,
You can 3-bet...
Ok, he'll shove wider.
Yes, but 100% is not a very balanced raising range, right?
Not 100%. They raise more like 75%.
They raise a lot from the SB though.
But they basically understand why they do it.
And if a person understands why he does it,
you cannot exploit him that much.
So all your gain in poker is coming from
spots where you somehow
make a person make big mistakes.
And most often it happens postflop.
I think that in Hold'em there is no money preflop.
In cash. Because...
What is their winrate? 0?
What's really interesting, their winrate is comparatively high.
Any Spanish donk shortstacker playing by the book,
will have a higher winrate than I.
Let's buy and translate this book...
Perhaps we need to.
I am not sure about how this book is issued to the buyer,
but that would be cool.
Really, have a look at their PTR,
No one of them has less than 1.5 ptbb.
And they play like total...
Their postflop play is ridiculously terrible.
Of course if they double up, they leave, but
if they stay with this full stack,
and you are in a hand with them postflop,
they do not understand...
If they do not understand, why not just call them preflop?
He makes a raise, you call.
Against 40 BB it's hard to have an edge postflop.
You won't win much anyway.
His biggest mistake will be for, like, 25 BB,
and that's not much.
And if the stacks are 100BB+,
you can make a person make a mistake
for, roughly speaking, 50 BB+.
And this significantly adds to your winrate.
Plus, they don't play postflop that much.
That's why you cannot exploit them at all.
Plus, to have an edge on a shortstacker like that,
you must... they all play differently,
you must understand what he calls preflop,
what he 3bets you with on the SB,
what he 3bets you with on the BB,
what he pushes,
what range he calls a push.
So you need to know approximately 20 parameters for each one of them,
moreover, he modifies them all the time.
And that's what they do.
I mean, good shortstackers,
They see how regulars...
100BB regulars don't adapt their game so much against shortstacks.
So they have a common plan,
I push this, I call this, I fold this.
And the good shortstackers collect information
and adapt themselves so that they
could exploit all these leaks.
And I cannot write so much info on these Spanish shortstackers,
because there are too many,
and they are always updating,
moving up limits, they are all crazy...
You're saying they learned by the same book.
They must have a lot in common.
They learned by the same book,
but every person has an individual game style.
Some shortstacker might think, I don't want to 3-bet small pocket pairs,
because I want to call them.
Another one will 3-bet them
Somebody will not want to push a wide range, somebody will push anything.
As a matter of fact, there is a very big difference between shortstackers.
Probably the reason why it was easier for me to play with them,
even though I did not have much experience, is that they mostly play preflop,
and it was my strong side from when I played tournaments,
I like it. They have unbalanced ranges preflop,
and you can have an edge on them at least before they learned your game.
And since I do not play much,
and they don't have stats on me,
I personally do not find it difficult to play against them.
But if they are regulars and have minings on you,
they know how much you 3-bet, how much you 4-bet,
maybe you cannot have an edge on them.
I'll give you a number to illustrate.
fish2013, who has the highest winrate at 1KNL,
who I think is the best player in the world at 1K-2K NL,
he has against these shortstackers,
we reviewed his database,
something like -5ptbb if not more.
So he loses a lot to them,
being the strongest player at 1K NL overall.
And you?
Me? I lose a ton...
I don't remember exactly, but something like -7ptbb.
So you cannot play against them
if they play properly.
If they are really professional shortstackers.
One must realize that between a shortstacker
who learns by a sheet from the PokerStrategy website,
and a shortstacker who has already played like that for 3 years...
by the Spanish book...
he already has an edge.
In Russia there are also good shortstackers.
like... mostly self-students, but
you can see that they approach it seriously,
constantly invent something.
In reality, playing with 40 BB is rather difficult anyway.
And one can invent some interesting lines,
but generally I don't consider it very effective, because
though being good, its limit is probably 2ptbb.
Even so, it is only good so far, while people have not seen into it yet.
Many people, so to speak.
Yes, the Spaniard...
***!