Bright Eyes
Feb. 21st, 2006 07:15 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksIt was distinctly lighther this morning than yesterday, indicating that we have entered the "hour in a week" period of days when the days get longer very quickly. You would think that I would remember when this would happen (it is, after all, not like Easter, which can crop up at varying times). But I never do.
I logged into the Empire site to see if any changes had occurred in the past couple of weeks (particularly relating to the legal settlement with Party), and found $10 in there, plus a "40% bonus up to $200". Even though Empire is Tumbleweed City these days, this was a bit hard to turn down.
Unfortunately, there was a bit of a catch. I'd accepted the need to play 2,000 raked hands of a buck or more, but I was caught out by the fact that the "free" $10 suddenly became retroactively conditional. I had to knock out 300 raked hands before it was "released" (despite the fact that it was sitting in my "real" account rather than "bonus" account). Sneaky.
Now, 2,300 raked hands (probably about 4,800 hands in total at $2-$4) in 10 days isn't really a problem, except that at Empire you can struggle to find the games. there's nothing over $2-$4 for a lot of the time. And it also, it must be admitted, tends to rule out playing much anywhere else. And this can lead to severe boredom. Luckily I've run well there for a couple of days, although the month as a whole remains a struggle.
Foolishly I logged into Virgin later last night. I spotted an unbelievably soft $5-$10 game and, yes, promptly did my bollocks in it. I had decided to go to bed when, UTG, I picked up AJ off. I smacked in a raise, got called by loose player 1 and semi-loose player 2.
Without boring you with the details of the hand, I ended up winning with 2-pair Queens and Tens with my Ace kicker playing. One guy called me all the way with KJ off and the other decided that 32 suited was good enough to call on a flop of QQ2 and turn of QQT2 (no flush draw). But, for the previous hour and a half, I hadn't been able to pick a winner. This was perhaps exacerbated by the fact that Loose Player 3, who had by now burnt some $400 and left, played every flop and raised about half of them. I think that I was the only player that he could beat.
That puts me about $180 down on Virgin, even after $50 in bonuses, for the past month. The software remains unremittinlgly appalling and a large number of players make sure that they abuse their one all-in every 24 hours option to the max (some don't even pretend to hide that they are doing it -- that's Scandinavia for you. BossMedia does nothing about it.) But the games are so weak (bad players and angle shooting appear to go hand-in-hand, which makes me also suspect that there is a lot of MSN going on) that I'm half-tempted to deposit some more and focus on the bigger-stakes games. You won't see a $15-$30 gme this soft for some time.
On the downside, one table of $5-$10, no matter how weak, is less profitable than three tables of $2-$4. And it's very ddifficult to multi-table on Virgin because of (a) the software and (b) its incompatibility with Pokertracker/GameTime.
But a single table of $15-$30 for a month, that's a possibility.
I logged into the Empire site to see if any changes had occurred in the past couple of weeks (particularly relating to the legal settlement with Party), and found $10 in there, plus a "40% bonus up to $200". Even though Empire is Tumbleweed City these days, this was a bit hard to turn down.
Unfortunately, there was a bit of a catch. I'd accepted the need to play 2,000 raked hands of a buck or more, but I was caught out by the fact that the "free" $10 suddenly became retroactively conditional. I had to knock out 300 raked hands before it was "released" (despite the fact that it was sitting in my "real" account rather than "bonus" account). Sneaky.
Now, 2,300 raked hands (probably about 4,800 hands in total at $2-$4) in 10 days isn't really a problem, except that at Empire you can struggle to find the games. there's nothing over $2-$4 for a lot of the time. And it also, it must be admitted, tends to rule out playing much anywhere else. And this can lead to severe boredom. Luckily I've run well there for a couple of days, although the month as a whole remains a struggle.
Foolishly I logged into Virgin later last night. I spotted an unbelievably soft $5-$10 game and, yes, promptly did my bollocks in it. I had decided to go to bed when, UTG, I picked up AJ off. I smacked in a raise, got called by loose player 1 and semi-loose player 2.
Without boring you with the details of the hand, I ended up winning with 2-pair Queens and Tens with my Ace kicker playing. One guy called me all the way with KJ off and the other decided that 32 suited was good enough to call on a flop of QQ2 and turn of QQT2 (no flush draw). But, for the previous hour and a half, I hadn't been able to pick a winner. This was perhaps exacerbated by the fact that Loose Player 3, who had by now burnt some $400 and left, played every flop and raised about half of them. I think that I was the only player that he could beat.
That puts me about $180 down on Virgin, even after $50 in bonuses, for the past month. The software remains unremittinlgly appalling and a large number of players make sure that they abuse their one all-in every 24 hours option to the max (some don't even pretend to hide that they are doing it -- that's Scandinavia for you. BossMedia does nothing about it.) But the games are so weak (bad players and angle shooting appear to go hand-in-hand, which makes me also suspect that there is a lot of MSN going on) that I'm half-tempted to deposit some more and focus on the bigger-stakes games. You won't see a $15-$30 gme this soft for some time.
On the downside, one table of $5-$10, no matter how weak, is less profitable than three tables of $2-$4. And it's very ddifficult to multi-table on Virgin because of (a) the software and (b) its incompatibility with Pokertracker/GameTime.
But a single table of $15-$30 for a month, that's a possibility.
Two tabling v a higher level
Date: 2006-02-21 06:42 pm (UTC)Brian Frew here.
I am interested in your comment that you find 3 tables of 2/4 more profitable than one loose one of 5/10. Do you think that I would find the same with two tables of .50/1 as against one of 1/2? That is where I am thinking of going next when my bankroll hits +600.
(Doing ok on Party by the way).
Re: Two tabling v a higher level
Date: 2006-02-21 08:21 pm (UTC)Referring to my first point, in actual fact it was probably marginal. I tend to think in terms of per 100 bets these days. If we assume that I am 1.25 per 100 bets at a tightish set of $2-$4 tables, plus about two bucks in rakeback, then we get $21 per 300 bets, which would take about 90 minutes, or the equivalent of $14 an hour.
Now, at the $5-$10 table, the loosesness made for a slow table, so even if I was 3.5 big bets per 100, that would only be 1.75BB per hour (plus a couple of bucks rakeback again), equal to $19.50 an hour. So the $5-$10 game would just sneak it (and these assumptions are very loose). However, the standard deviation would be in the region of $140 an hour in the $5-$10 game, but a mere $56 an hour in the $2-$4 game. If I was looking for excitement, the $5-$10 game might sneak it (although its slowness would mitigate against this). For bread & butter, the $2-$4 is better.
Now, as to your question, that's a toughie. At a guess, you would make about the same at 50c-$1 two-tabling as at $1-$2 single-tabling, but with less volatility. (say, $8 per hour SD as opposed to $12 per hour). But it's an important step forward if you are looking at long-term earn.
What I would recommend (strongly) if you move to two-tabling, is that you buy Pokertracker at www.pokertracker.com (if you do not already have it). It's about $55 and is worth 20 times that. Add the GameTime extension (a free download) and you get each player's VPIP and raise percentages "laid over" their name. Pokertracker does much more than that, but this particular feature is vital for me when playing three tables, because I don't have time to watch individual hands in which I am not participating. The "numbers" give me an idea of how the opponents play. Being able to interpret some bare statistics into a "style" comes with experience at each level.
If you are winning at $1-$2 and have $600 in the bank, I'd punt two-tabling at $1-$2 for about half an hour in the middle of a session. Then pull back to single-tabling on either side (kind of a warm-up and cool-down). Also, only open up the second table when you are feeling good and when you are up (and therefore playing with confidence). If you finds yourself misclicking or losing control, then just leave the table. No shame. My first attempts at three-tabling were at 1-$2 on Ultimate a mere seven weeks ago, and they were laughable. Now I have time, even in fast games, to surf the web at the same time. So, it does come, even though it feels pressuring at first.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-02-21 11:36 pm (UTC)How high are the regular games at Virgin? Are there much games above 15-30? Some regulars at empire were saying that they don't get rakeback anymore. Looking for a new site for my palette.
aksu
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 07:31 am (UTC)No rakeback at Empire now? I noticed that my own figures had not been updated at Raketracker, despite playing on Empire a lot over the past few days. And since my bonus, when it arrives, will probably wipe out any rakeback due, I'm not that bothered. But, for goodness sake, how have they got any customers at all, without rakeback?
PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 11:03 am (UTC)I'm not looking for mega games, but something in 20-40 100-200 range.
Empires rakeback issue must have something to do with party being in charge now. Future of Empirepoker as a standalone site is quite shady, but I imagine that you have better view to this than me. There are better sources but this I found quick http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/news.asp?news=319 .
gl
aksu
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 10:37 am (UTC)I believe that many of the players simply aren't aware there's anything wrong with abusing all-in protection, as they see everyone else doing it and most Boss skins don't have any statement on the matter even if you dig deep on their websites.
Boss used to have all-in protection on no-limit tables, if you can believe it. Needless to say the level of abuse made the games utterly unplayable.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 11:26 am (UTC)To say that they "aren't aware" somewhat stretches disbelief. You shouldn't need an overt rule (although I agree that there should be one -- that's Scandinavians for you) to be aware that this is not how the game should be played -- that it is, in fact, cheating, pure and simple. I knew this without poring through the rules of all the poker web sites at which I play.
Hence my link from one (all-in abuse) to the other (chatting on MSN). Either they know what they do is wrong (in which case they are likely to be doing other things which are wrong as well) or they don't know it's wrong (in which case they are likely to be other things which are wrong as well, but in this case, through ignorance rather than malice).
PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 09:23 pm (UTC)Another clueless question: You've said "that's Scandinavia for you" a couple of times now. To what are you referring? Does the region have a reputation for poor ethics? I'd say that most Americans have a pretty neutral view of Scandinavia, but then most Americans, if they're aware Scandinavia even exists, couldn't find it on a map...
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 10:00 pm (UTC)The second use of "that's Scandinavians for you" was actually just a bit of a comedic repetition of the first, rather than a deliberate emphasis.
I used to have a fairly poor view of Scandinavians' ethics in poker, but now it is no worse than my view of the rest of the world's. That's not because my view of Scandinavians' ethics has improved, but because my view of the rest of the world's ethics has deteriorated. It's not a discussion I really want to go deeply into (not here, anyway), but the latest multi-account scandal on Party is probably just the tip of a fairly horrific iceberg.
Culturally speaking, there are many good things about Scandinavians' concept of mutual assistance as a social good, but when you apply it to poker, it can cause concern. Add to this the fact that a large number of the Scandinavians who came into poker a few years ago were at University at the time (where you have a single room and many computers) and a distinctly more "we are a team" attitude, and you have the reasons for my caution. I'd like to point out that caution is a great survival trait in poker! In poker it's better to be suspicious and wrong rather than trusting and wrong. Poker is not a game where it benefits you to "think the best of everyone". Sometimes you have to force yourself not to transfer this attitude to everyday life.
I suppose that the Scandinavians get more than their fair share of my ire because, on the whole, they are a superior bunch (the scandal at Skandia has, I admit, generated a small amount of schadenfreude in the Birks world, not least because the CEO - now on criminal charges - dismissed the complaints of policyholders in such a peremptory fashion) , and also seem to get more narked when things do not go right. You would think that they would be aware of the pointlessness of worrying about individual hands, so I can only conclude that many of them are playing very thinly when it comes to their bankroll.
In addition, my experience of the Swedes at the Manorcon Diplomacy tournaments might have coloured my views somewhat. But it has to be accepted that this is overtly a team game. However, a few Swedes were in a live poker game at Manorcon a few years ago and one had trebled up his minimum buy-in (£20) to £60, and took £30 of it off the table. I said "you can't do that", at which point he said "well, if I can't, I just stand up, go to the bar, come back and sit down with the minimum again". His friends backed him up, so I just left the game. He saw no moral problem with his response. In other words, he knew that weeding was against the rules, but was prepared to do it anyway. A sample of one, you might say. But, well, like I say, caution is a great survival trait in poker.
If it's any consolation, if I saw the French mob-handed on a poker table, I would be even more cautious, and I would be even more cautious still (if I were very rich) about sitting down in a game consisting of three or more players from "the syndicate" in LV. I have no proof, but we are not in a court of law. :-)
PJ