Hi Dave. When you write "it's not scaleable", you mean, of course, that it isn't limitlessly scaleable, which is importantly different, because it brings in the question of "how scaleable does it need to be?" I reckon the best massive multi-ers are pulling down a million bucks a year (taking Clarkatroid as a parameter), which I assume most would say is "scaleable enough".
Secondly, the only thing which is probably limitlessly scaleable is NL Hold'em short-handed (in that the limits have not yet been reached). Tom Dwan will prob play $2k-$4k NL if he can find the opponents. Elsewhere, well, even Ben Grundy seems to have discovered that SH PLO isn't limitlessly scaleable.
But is it a good thing to aim for those insane levels? In other words, is the limitless scaleability good for anyone but the hopelessly degenerate gambler, to whom the money is basically meaningless?
But this is all a bit of a red herring. Should you be asking youself this question? A better question would surely be "Given the current state of online poker (or indeed, online and b&m poker, or, indeed, life in total) and my estimate of future trends, what strategy will give me the best balance of satisfaction and profit?"
Once it's termed in that way, the "problem" of scaleability (or lack of, limits to) disappears. It becomes a non-issue. Or, rather, it becomes just one factor in the "bigger question". I think Ben Grundy might have to reinvent his game (and Isildur certainly will!), so the inherent risks involved in metagame strategies are not just limited to the multi-tablers.
As for me -- well, as I've written before, although multi-ing is still well scaleable for me (I could go up at least four limits and up to 4 times as many tables in theory, although that would restrict me mainly to pokerstars) I'm not sure that it's the right strategy for me, beccause I think that I would burn out. For me, there's still a bit of joy in the "challenge" in the individual hand against another good play. But the money to pay off the mortgage just gets given a greater weight by me at the moment!
no subject
When you write "it's not scaleable", you mean, of course, that it isn't limitlessly scaleable, which is importantly different, because it brings in the question of "how scaleable does it need to be?"
I reckon the best massive multi-ers are pulling down a million bucks a year (taking Clarkatroid as a parameter), which I assume most would say is "scaleable enough".
Secondly, the only thing which is probably limitlessly scaleable is NL Hold'em short-handed (in that the limits have not yet been reached). Tom Dwan will prob play $2k-$4k NL if he can find the opponents. Elsewhere, well, even Ben Grundy seems to have discovered that SH PLO isn't limitlessly scaleable.
But is it a good thing to aim for those insane levels? In other words, is the limitless scaleability good for anyone but the hopelessly degenerate gambler, to whom the money is basically meaningless?
But this is all a bit of a red herring. Should you be asking youself this question? A better question would surely be "Given the current state of online poker (or indeed, online and b&m poker, or, indeed, life in total) and my estimate of future trends, what strategy will give me the best balance of satisfaction and profit?"
Once it's termed in that way, the "problem" of scaleability (or lack of, limits to) disappears. It becomes a non-issue. Or, rather, it becomes just one factor in the "bigger question". I think Ben Grundy might have to reinvent his game (and Isildur certainly will!), so the inherent risks involved in metagame strategies are not just limited to the multi-tablers.
As for me -- well, as I've written before, although multi-ing is still well scaleable for me (I could go up at least four limits and up to 4 times as many tables in theory, although that would restrict me mainly to pokerstars) I'm not sure that it's the right strategy for me, beccause I think that I would burn out. For me, there's still a bit of joy in the "challenge" in the individual hand against another good play. But the money to pay off the mortgage just gets given a greater weight by me at the moment!
PJ