Bumhunting vs Zoom and winrates

    • Suboptimal88
      Suboptimal88
      Bronze
      Joined: 11.06.2014 Posts: 53
      How often does a zoom player face a fish compared to a bumhunter?

      Ok lets say a hardcore bumhunter will have a fish on his table 100% of the time , how often will a zoom player have a fish if he plays full ring?

      Since fish and tilted/emotional regs are what drives our winrate up , its essential to have this kind of players on our table. Do you agree?

      I see a lot of people saying that zoom offers better hourly or its a bit worse than reg , how is that possible when we play against fish less often? actually shouldnt it be much worse?

      Well its possible to table select at zoom by simply playing at good times but even this i dont know if it can improve things enough.
  • 7 replies
    • Varune
      Varune
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.04.2009 Posts: 5,068
      On the lower stakes most of the regs still have alot of leaks which should give you a small winrate on them.(If your own leaks arent bigger ofcourse ;) )
      Zoom offers better hourly for some cuz they can play ALOT more hands/hr. Some of the bumhunters only play when they have a whale directly to their right, letting their effective Hands/hr drop to 100-200 hands, while 4tabling zoom gives 800ish hands/hr, so u need 1/4th of the winrate of said bumhunter to have the same hourly(w/o even counting rakeback which is also higher when zooming).
    • Suboptimal88
      Suboptimal88
      Bronze
      Joined: 11.06.2014 Posts: 53
      Originally posted by Varune
      On the lower stakes most of the regs still have alot of leaks which should give you a small winrate on them.(If your own leaks arent bigger ofcourse ;) )
      Zoom offers better hourly for some cuz they can play ALOT more hands/hr. Some of the bumhunters only play when they have a whale directly to their right, letting their effective Hands/hr drop to 100-200 hands, while 4tabling zoom gives 800ish hands/hr, so u need 1/4th of the winrate of said bumhunter to have the same hourly(w/o even counting rakeback which is also higher when zooming).
      how often will they have a fish on their table during these 800ish hands? actually if you 4-table you can easily do 1k hands , i can do so much and i consider myself slow but still 250 regular cash hands (assuming you 4-table) with a permanent fish on your table compared to 1000 hands against regs , i believe regular cash has better hourly under these circumstances unless you are playing fish often enough at zoom.
    • Varune
      Varune
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.04.2009 Posts: 5,068
      It's hard to give a definite answer to that question. You could tag everyone in the pool, it's a bit of a hassle at first, but when u have everyone tagged, you could guestimate how fishy the pool is.
      Ofcourse there are less massive whales in zoom(the 80/2 guys), and even if they are there, you only see them 1 in xx hands.
    • MisterSnS
      MisterSnS
      Gold
      Joined: 09.11.2011 Posts: 1,671
      Zoom is quite good if you can really slow down with the action and not snap-click any hand you play. You see it so often, it's like a disease and funny to see how fast players are clicking and how many bad calls you see there. So there's a big edge to get if one can play slow, hand by hand, not just vs. the fish. Can't say too much about regular tables. But they definitely seem softer and with table selection you can have a higher winrate I believe. But as always, depends, on what kind of hourly you are looking for, which format you personally like more (big one), and how many tables you are able to play simultaneously and still play your A-Game
    • Suboptimal88
      Suboptimal88
      Bronze
      Joined: 11.06.2014 Posts: 53
      Originally posted by Varune
      It's hard to give a definite answer to that question. You could tag everyone in the pool, it's a bit of a hassle at first, but when u have everyone tagged, you could guestimate how fishy the pool is.
      Its hard or impossible to have everyone tagged , we need another way to find the ratio , for full ring we need at least 12,5% of the population to be fish so we will have 1 fish on average per table , if the population is fishy enough then i think its possible for a zoom player to have a better hourly , i think the only way to find this is make a very general estimation about unknowns and those who play one table , we can say for ex that X number of those are fish.
    • SvenBe
      SvenBe
      Headadmin
      Headadmin
      Joined: 19.04.2006 Posts: 13,116
      I think a lot also depends on your personal circumstances.
      - can you invest a big bunch of time at once? If yes, bumhunting might be better. For me, I play a bit during breaks but only for a short time - no time to search for tables
      - fast poker can be instantly started and blinding out is quick. This increases your "real" hourly that includes setting up the tables, blinding out. Everyone remembers that the last of your 16 tables to blind out will take forever because 2 guys timebank and you just left the BB when you clicked "sit out next BB".
      - your own playing style: do you know what cards the "average" player on your limit has in his range ? If so, fast poker tables are a good choice,too. Same goes if you collect reads etc. Of course if you like to concentrate on one opponent and want to soulread him: go for reg tables+bumhunt

      So, it is not only a question of "BB/100", but rather look at the time & personal convenience,too!
    • ZakYoun270
      ZakYoun270
      Basic
      Joined: 10.12.2015 Posts: 40
      it's just game selection... seat selection is important too. zoom is fun but reg tables are best. and play omaha not nlhe, nlhe games too nitty