My couple questions:
1) How do we define if we have a large enough edge over the current field we're playing? Let's say, I bounce between 50nl and 100nl zoom now, and I see most regulars make what I consider quite big mistakes (e.g. calling mp vs ep with weak hands, 3/4-betting very small OOP, and so on). How do I know if that's enough for me to have decent winrate, high $/hr, and eventually to move up, or variance and my tilt are going to eat it all? Or if that's even a correct play, and I simply don't understand it?
Spoiler
"Play a bunch and look at your winrate" is not an answer I'm looking for
Because on couple hundred thousand hands variance can be enormous, and I can't play those within several days anyway, it'll take months; in that time my game will change, field will change, and likely VIP-system as well
2) How much should we trust current theory, considering it isn't actually developped that much at all? For example, a lot of winning regulars at mid-high stakes have fold to 3bet stat around 40-45%. But, in Janda's book he states that generally fold to 3bet <50% is theoretically exploitable, and offers numbers a lot higher. Also, PokerSnowie folds to 3bet 60+% in most spots (it has couple obvious flaws, but still considered to have close-ish to GTO model). Who's right? ![]()
3) From discussion couple posts above:
Originally posted by Tyradiel
well nit doesnt mean he is weak regular but might be some recreational player who read some basic strategies + have a lot of money and plays for fun
What's wrong with being a nit? I'm pretty sure one can beat at least 100nl and below playing smth like 17/15, and on most sites even higher stakes. That is, if the player knows what he's doing. And if he doesn't - no strategy will be good for him anyway, obviously. After all, nit is only a player who folds close to break-even hands, not sacrifising any huge EV.

