[Closed] BASIC sss profitable at nl100

anyone?

IMO depends on the site.

You'd need to spend time looking for tables with enough fish to pay you off, and avoid the TAG/SSS regulars like the plague.

But it is quite possible to be profitable.

Originally posted by fun101rockets
anyone?

Over about 10,000 hands I am profitable for about 3BI. If I took out plays based on stats I'm guessing I would be closer to break-even. I really only play it in order to clear bonuses so break-even is fine with me.

I wouldn't play without stats, but I would feel confident playing on a new site. You get stats on the regulars and short stacks really fast so you don't have to play very many hands without reads.

I know its a crap sample, but I hope it helps somehow.

i am fine with a really low winrate because even the rakeback is equal to over 20$US per hour

maybe if you play only 4-6 tables it can be profitable. but you would have to make notes and observations and adjust your play.

otherwise i dont think it will be profitable.

It is profitable. I sometimes did play nl100 without tracker as a SSS, nl200 too, and was winning. Ok my sample isn't that pertinent but if you have a solid preflop game, I'm sure it's possible. After the basic SSS is a terribly bad strategy, try to figure some ev+ adaptations.

Well if you will be playing in Cake Poker this is profitable.

i played a lot of sss on both FTP and stars NL100 and no chance basic sss is profitable unless of course u just run well.

do we all agree that by basic SSS we mean what you learn from basic/bronze articles ? or how advanced sss are we talking?

i mean it isnt really basic sss anymore when we are making steals/resteals, adapting 3bet ranges, isoraising, squeezing and so on imo.

and i just dont think that without these kinds of moves you will be profitable on higher limits than nl10.

Originally posted by raun
do we all agree that by basic SSS we mean what you learn from basic/bronze articles ? or how advanced sss are we talking?

Since a diamond member asked my assumption was that he read all of the articles, including the gold ones, but was playing without SSS experience. However he would obviously have tons of experience playing SNGs or BSS or whatever got him to diamond.

For what its worth my first try at SSS was done after reading a 2p2 article on short stackers and how to defend against them. Over 1,000 hands on NL50 and another 1,000 on NL100 I was running about 2ptBBs using a strategy even more simple and basic than what the bronze article gives here.

I think most people fail with the basic SSS because they can't stick to it. They get bored and start playing more cards then they are supposed to. (I base this on the fact that whenever a guy playing SSS posts his stats complaining that they are losing they are way to high in 99% of the cases.)

Everyone recognizes it as a mathematically advantaged strategy. That's the main reason why 2p2 nits and tagfish complain about it so much.

he also wrote basic sss (without stats or advanced plays) and i assume by advanced plays he mean the kinds of moves i listed.

and besides i really dont think you are correct. the reason peoples stats differ from what they would be if they played absolute basic sss according to the chart is simple that basic sss isnt profitable at other than micro limits.
its not because they all lack dicipline.

you might be able to be breakeven but thats prety much it i think. at least it was for me...
anyway... its not my funeral so good luck with it!

Originally posted by tokyoaces

Originally posted by raun
do we all agree that by basic SSS we mean what you learn from basic/bronze articles ? or how advanced sss are we talking?

Since a diamond member asked my assumption was that he read all of the articles, including the gold ones, but was playing without SSS experience. However he would obviously have tons of experience playing SNGs or BSS or whatever got him to diamond.

For what its worth my first try at SSS was done after reading a 2p2 article on short stackers and how to defend against them. Over 1,000 hands on NL50 and another 1,000 on NL100 I was running about 2ptBBs using a strategy even more simple and basic than what the bronze article gives here.

I think most people fail with the basic SSS because they can't stick to it. They get bored and start playing more cards then they are supposed to. (I base this on the fact that whenever a guy playing SSS posts his stats complaining that they are losing they are way to high in 99% of the cases.)

Everyone recognizes it as a mathematically advantaged strategy. That's the main reason why 2p2 nits and tagfish complain about it so much.

i have experience in nlsh poker (BSS obv). Over the last month i have been playin BSS at nl100 and have had virtually no profit (55K sample). I have decided to play by the sss charts exept steal and resteal a bit. For example if the button raises I am not going to fold AJ(i would push instead).
so far i am running kinda good, up 10BIs in just over a thousand hands
also i can see why people get bored, playin any less than 10 tables would be difficult because almost alll hands have a standard play.

if u play basic sss without stats on NL100 on the good sites the standard players know your range and u are pathetically predictable. the only people u can make profit from are the fish. real bad fish are few and far between. most of the players will be making good profit off you and the fish will have their share of suckouts.

if your a decent bss player then u will inherantly know what spots are exploitable with a short stack. i would encourage u to play your own style sss and tweak it to suit yourself. imho it can be fairly profitable if u can adjust your game dynamically and play the people as well as your cards.
when im running good i can get as high as 25bb/100, when im running bad i can still squeese out 3bb/100 but thats lag style sss rather than bot style where u can only really hope to get 2bb/100 and be subject to big swings.

To fun101rockets - I get why you are contemplating this, in some respects, but why would you disregard stats? I think that stats are a very important part of SSS, and it would be crazy to not use them unless there's a reasson you can't (unsupported poker room etc).

For someone who is moving from NLSH BSS, you will definately get bored, so get a decent multitabling setup (AHK scripts, TableNinja if you're on Stars or FT), and I would suggest using some of the more advanced SSS tactics like opening up the resteal ranges, sklanski-chubukov pushes etc. These tiny edges are important on anything NL100+, since you are likely to run into a lot of regs, and without them you'll probably start making -EV moves because you're not used to so little action.

I don't really see any reason to only play basic SSS when you have access to a lot more articles and you have a lot more experience than that.

i fukin love outplaying short stacks

If basic = without HUD, then yes, it is profitable. If basic = as the basic article and basic range and without steals/resteals, then no, you lose too much blinds. I 24-table NL100 without stats and notes, tight-basic SSS in EP and MP, but a lot looser LP. But I have good memory (remember all the regs and know their range and stealing pattern) and good observation skills (remember if sth special happens in one of the tables even while 24-tabling and adjust in this table).

i realized that actuall basic sss would be kinda dumb. i currently 16 table without stats and
1. steal and resteal quite lightish
2. push pf when there is some dead money in the pot with decent hands
3. dont leave when reach 25 often play with 30-35, always leave at 40 though
4. make a few other advancish plays based on reads

Originally posted by fun101rockets
3. dont leave when reach 25 often play with 30-35, always leave at 40 though

Interesting, If I'm not getting much action I only leave tables if I have above 30BB (or rebuy to full) I find that much above 30BB can be inconvenient to play with. Don't you?

if you dont get action i dont think the answer is to have a big stack. i think the opposite actually