![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Party Fears, Two
May. 16th, 2006 07:06 amI only played about 200 hands yesterday, mainly on Party. I'd intended to play 300 hands on Party, but I didn't think that the games were that good and, after an early $200 profit got hit back to $80, I decided that discretion was the better part of valour, just for the moment.
The games at Ultimate were fairly hopeless, so I I did a hit and run for $20. Virgin was equally bad, with a 27% VPIP at the 5-10 and mainly "faces" whom I know to be winners. I gave it a miss.
So I decided to replay some of the Party hands on Pokertracker. I filtered it to show only the hands that went to a showdown, but it still took me as long to go through two of the three sessions I played as it had to play the sessions in the first place.
That said, some interesting macro (general points) and micro (player-specific points) information came out of it.
The problem is, will the rate-of-return from this research exceed what I would have won if I had been playing on the tables instead? Given the points I gathered just from an hour's study, and given the fact that my win rate at 5-10 over the past year is marginal, to say the least, I think that the answer is, yes, it would.
Once again, just from a small sample, it seems to me that a large amount of the conventional wisdom seen on 2+2 is, to put it bluntly, inaccurate for daytime play.
Volcanic activity, Tuesday, still bubbling under.
The games at Ultimate were fairly hopeless, so I I did a hit and run for $20. Virgin was equally bad, with a 27% VPIP at the 5-10 and mainly "faces" whom I know to be winners. I gave it a miss.
So I decided to replay some of the Party hands on Pokertracker. I filtered it to show only the hands that went to a showdown, but it still took me as long to go through two of the three sessions I played as it had to play the sessions in the first place.
That said, some interesting macro (general points) and micro (player-specific points) information came out of it.
The problem is, will the rate-of-return from this research exceed what I would have won if I had been playing on the tables instead? Given the points I gathered just from an hour's study, and given the fact that my win rate at 5-10 over the past year is marginal, to say the least, I think that the answer is, yes, it would.
Once again, just from a small sample, it seems to me that a large amount of the conventional wisdom seen on 2+2 is, to put it bluntly, inaccurate for daytime play.
Volcanic activity, Tuesday, still bubbling under.
