]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Kramer545 — Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:57 am
]]>
I too get frustrated when I hear about people moving up like 3 limits in two months or whatever - why aren't I doing that? I ask myself, and you probably do as well. See above for the answers. Of course, then there's instances where people tilt away 14 buy-ins because they aren't ready, and sometimes I think people just take shots. And finally this is the internet - I don't have any specific examples and am not accusing anyone in particular, but I think sometimes people that post bloated winrates and such are either lying or it's a statistically unfit sample of hands.
Moral of the story is - work hard and do the very best that YOU can be in YOUR situation. There's plenty of money to be made despite the number of kids grinding it out instead of getting summer jobs.
Statistics: Posted by Runner_Runner — Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:35 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
With my bankroll at $625, it's conveniently just about exactly 25x the buy-in for the $25 tables. I've been toying with the idea of gambling more with my small bankroll, maybe using a 10x buy-in plan, so that I can move up in limits quicker (I feel like I've been toiling in the $25 tables forever; with this plan I'd start at the $50 tables immediately). But the problems with that is that even as small as my bankroll is, I would not be able to replace it all if I happen to bust out. I'd have to probably deposit a couple hundred dollars and start out at the $10 tables from scratch. Also with 6-max and its higher variance I worry that I'd start playing weak/tight and wouldn't feel comfortable making high variance plays without the BR to back it up. I think instead of that I should keep a conventional BR (25x sounds like a good number) and quit making withdrawals from it. If I hadn't made a single withdrawal since I started playing at the beginning of the year I figure I'd be on the $50 level by now and 1/2 or 3/4 the way to the $100 tables. So it's really my own fault I haven't moved up like I want to, although knowing I'm playing with only my winnings has given a certain psychological advantage to me as well (knowing that should I go broke-pokerwise- I'd be no worse off than what I'd be if I never started playing; and I've probably withdrawn several hundred dollars more than what I actually deposited, so I'd actually still even be ahead if I go "broke"). I'm not sure what the magical level I'll hit before I start withdrawing again, but at least through the $100 level I'll keep all winnings in my bankroll in an effort to rise up in levels a little quicker than I have been. Of course this is discounting an emergency. If I need my entire bankroll for an emergency I won't hesitate to pull it all out and start over from scratch. But it'll have to be a huge emergency (and not just vacation or something) before I'll even consider it.
I'm nearly through with NLHETAP and despite the mind games that I've let happen since reading it, I'm really glad I bought it. Hopefully I can start using the knowledge I've learned from it in a positive rather than a negative way.
Total Bankroll: $625.04
Left to $50s: $624.96
Statistics: Posted by Kramer545 — Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:46 pm
]]>
Reading NLHETAP hasn't helped my mindset at all. I'm always feeling like I need to continually mix things so noone can get a "read" on me. Of course, Sklansky doesn't even recommend mixing it up all that often so it's really not the fault of the book, but he has so many caveats about "a perceptive player will pick up on this if you do it too often and nail you" that I've been completely paranoid about being read so I'm going a bit crazy mixing things up so that it's simply not possible. The problem, of course, is that this isn't $5000NL. This is $25NL. I've most likely been mixing up my play completely unneccesarily. I've gotten really far away from playing ABC poker. A lot of it has to do with playing 6-max. With so few players to focus on I feel a little like I'm much more exposed to the other players. As a result I'm telling myself to never play a big hand (or small one) the same way even twice in a row because I'll be read like a book. Of course in retrospect this is a stupid way to think at this level (or probably any level, since there's no reason to mix things up THAT much). I'm making money with my good hands, but I'm also pissing away just about as much money little chunks at a time just so I'm not "predictable". I'm bluffing way too often. I'm calling hands down way too often. I'm slowplaying way too often. All in the name of being unpredictable. I'm doing things that probably only 1 player in 20 will even notice at this level. And after a week I've finally realized that it's costing me money to do this.
So I'm going to try to get back to my TAG way of playing, and more importantly, focus more on ABC poker than mixing things up. I've still usually been pretty tight preflop this week, but I've noticed a trend in the past couple days where my VP$IP is steadily rising. I need to squelch that before it gets out of hand. I'll still continue to mix things up from time to time so I don't get TOO predictable on the off-chance someone is paying attention. But I'll make those plays very occasionally, and only if I feel, after playing a session awhile, that I actually am being read a bit by the players and not getting paid off enough on my good hands; I may try a wild play there to get them back to guessing, but then immediately go back to ABC.
I'm going to make my new home PokerStars. I'm doing this for two reasons. First, because my handle on that site is different than the one I use to post here (I'm Kramer545 on several other sites including UB and Party). This probably won't matter much, but just a peace of mind thing. The second is because unless I'm mistaken, you can't datamine PS (if I'm wrong about this I may have to change my mind about PS). I feel this will give me an advantage over most of the other players who multi-table (4 or more) and rely on PT only for reads; this way they can't just come in and grab the last 200 hands I'd been playing. I'm finding at 6-max that I'm relying less and less on PT stats and more on my own reads (especially the intangibles that the PT stats don't do justice; though I don't discount PT's stats, especially the VP$IP and PFR, as they are always good to have), so I'm not as concerned with not being able to datamine myself. I've heard that PS can be a tougher place to play than many sites, but in my experience the last week I'm convinced that whoever said that wasn't playing micro NL 6-max. The players are routinely loose and most of the tables I've played the play has been very passive. Plus they always seem to have a nice selection of 6-max tables at my limit.
Right now my bankroll is kind of all over the place (some at Stars, UB, Party, Pacific and Neteller). I've made the withdraw from everywhere except Stars, so once I don't have to look at 5 different places to see what my exact bankroll is I'll start posting it here again (right now I really have no clue exactly what I have in my BR). I don't like not knowing exactly where my bankroll is at because I'm a "structure" sort of guy and right now, without any structure, I kind of feel like I'm just drifting along without any specific reason for playing. That should change once I get everything back into Neteller and can start posting my exact bankroll here again.
Statistics: Posted by Kramer545 — Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:21 pm
]]>
For some reason I thought 6-max would be more aggressive and crazy than FR. So far I've seen just about the opposite. I finally faced a few people today that raised just about every other pot, but so far they are the exception rather than the rule. Maybe it gets more aggressive up in the higher limits? There just seems to be an awful lot of two or three limpers seeing the flop, one making a small bet and the other two folding. I'm doing what I can about winning more than my share of these small pots, but I'm starting to wonder exactly what the value of a hand like 55 is in these games, other than the obvious value of having a pair. Even with the table all having near the max buy-in, it feels like it's probably one in a hundred chance that even if you do get lucky and hit a set that you'll get paid off nicely for it. And I have been seeking out tables with most players having near the max-buyin (and that's not easy; most people seem to buy-in for $10 at these $25 tables), but I'm starting to wonder if that's a good idea. The smaller stacks are the only ones that seem willing to give any action at all (unless, of course, a large stack has the nuts or close to it). The implied odds go down, but the normal pots seem to be larger than a table with all big stacks. I'll play around with this idea over the next day or two to see how it pans out.
Statistics: Posted by Kramer545 — Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:34 pm
]]>