Exciting Full Ring Style of Play - not BORING

We play poker to win money, if you are making money in FR just stay in your game, but, when you get higher levels, you gonna need play in 6max.
I don't like this line that you adopt, but you are not questioning this, so continue your game and don't care about others players.

Do you want any opinions regarding the hand or it was just a post to exemplify your playing style?
I'm curious to know what is the sample size you have.

Originally posted by zetozinho
Do you want any opinions regarding the hand or it was just a post to exemplify your playing style?
I'm curious to know what is the sample size you have.

I am very interested in hearing other people's opinion on whether a style of poker can make the game more interesting. I am responding to those who said full ring poker was boring. Of course, I would like to hear criticism of how I played the hand. I learn a lot from people agreeing or disagreeing with me. I have purposely not presented my bb/100 win rate until I obtain a large sample size. I know that my preflop strategy is unconventional. Thus, it does not deserve to be statistically evaluated until there is a large sample size. I am approaching 20,000 hands since I abandoned standard preflop play.

Originally posted by romanista06
We play poker to win money, if you are making money in FR just stay in your game, but, when you get higher levels, you gonna need play in 6max.
I don't like this line that you adopt, but you are not questioning this, so continue your game and don't care about others players.

Sorry, I was not clear. I do care what other players think because I learn from their comments. I agree that full ring is limited to micro and low stakes. Please feel free to criticize my line. I welcome your feedback.

My impression from playing NL10 full ring is that you do not need to play A6s at all. You have so large implied odds that you can wait for much better cards and then double your stack without problem. But I didn't play this variant much.

as long as you consider excitement an important factor in poker, you should at least be aware, that the game does not work like that.

poker is applied math. the game is (almost) solved by now. there is right and there is wrong. there is no room left for style.

perfection has no style.

Bullshit. I believe that poker will never be solved because you never know what is inside your opponent mind. Let's play perfect and never imperfect - I would take over your whole bankroll.

I'd rather be bored and rich than excited and broke (or maddened by coworkers). Thus I strive to keep my winrate high enough given my limited cognitive ability, no matter how tedious the strategy is, because my alternatives are even worse. YMMV.

Agreed. Because we won't bleed the blinds so frequently as we do in a short handed game, we could, IMHO, wait for better opportunities to get involved in a hand.

Unless we have a better reason to do the opposite, for example: we are at LP and we have position over a villain that raises and folds a lot to 3bets (so we could 3bet weaker AXs or even more hands) or we have position over a fish that is going to commit his/her whole stack with QQ+ even in bad runouts (massive implied odds) or nits at the blinds. In those cases, we could deviate and start playing (mostly raising) a lot more hands.

Originally posted by oblak90
My impression from playing NL10 full ring is that you do not need to play A6s at all. You have so large implied odds that you can wait for much better cards and then double your stack without problem. But I didn't play this variant much.