Well, I totally did my bollocks over the weekend (lost about 1/3 of winnings for month, half of winnings at table). So I'm taking a rest tonight. That will prob cost me $40 on the Party cash machine, but fuck it. Picked up about $40 in 350 hands and decided to stop at a winner, after three shite days. I had begun to play badly, and I knew it.
Part of the appeal of Rush Poker is probably that it allows multi-tabling on a lower bankroll. And the big multi-tablers play an ABC game that doesn't used HUD (i.e., plays are not player specific). Other players who would like it would be the HEM/PT3 haters and non-users. And then there's the pure action junkie for the evening. Finally there's the people on the move with only a Netbook monitor. Now, that for me is the real appeal. I'd just have to accept the loss of the HUD. All in all, not an unattractive mix, but not one I'd choose all the time.
Heads Up? Well, Heads Up is kind of Rush Poker anyway.
It's funny, but "game selection" has suddenly become "bum hunting", thanks to the Heads Up controversy. I've long been of the opinion that if you are playing at a level where you have to find "good" tables, then you are playing at too high a level. That's why I'm interested in the forthcoming book that I've heard about on exploiting regulars. Fish are nice bonuses, but if you need to find them, then you are in trouble these days. Your bread and butter needs to be the break-even players -- preferably the massive multi-tablers who are playing by rote. For a start, there are lots more of them. Secondly, they tend to play in similar ways. Thirdly, you don't have to worry about finding "good" tables, because all tables are likely to be good.
So much of this is ego-related. People look for bad players at 10-20 just so they can say they are 10-20 players. In fact they could probably make far more money stiffing the auto-pilot tight-regs at 1-2. If you want to see a recurring theme from winning players, it's that they all have come to realize that ego has no place these days for the winning poker player. That's one reason that I've virtually given up following "the stars", except where I feel I can learn something from them. Dwan is a great player, but I think as a metagamer he is flawed. Antonius, meanwhile, is shrewder. Ivey is the greatest all-round player in the world with a good sense of bankroll (I think), but he is flawed because gambling has become everything. It has become the end in itself, rather than getting him lots of money which he can spend in the real world. For Ivey, gambling IS the world.
Poker is just so full of these contradictions. That's what makes "success" at it more subjective than was previously thought. Money is a way of keeping score, but it's no longer seen as the only way of keeping score.
no subject
Part of the appeal of Rush Poker is probably that it allows multi-tabling on a lower bankroll. And the big multi-tablers play an ABC game that doesn't used HUD (i.e., plays are not player specific). Other players who would like it would be the HEM/PT3 haters and non-users. And then there's the pure action junkie for the evening. Finally there's the people on the move with only a Netbook monitor. Now, that for me is the real appeal. I'd just have to accept the loss of the HUD. All in all, not an unattractive mix, but not one I'd choose all the time.
Heads Up? Well, Heads Up is kind of Rush Poker anyway.
It's funny, but "game selection" has suddenly become "bum hunting", thanks to the Heads Up controversy. I've long been of the opinion that if you are playing at a level where you have to find "good" tables, then you are playing at too high a level. That's why I'm interested in the forthcoming book that I've heard about on exploiting regulars. Fish are nice bonuses, but if you need to find them, then you are in trouble these days. Your bread and butter needs to be the break-even players -- preferably the massive multi-tablers who are playing by rote. For a start, there are lots more of them. Secondly, they tend to play in similar ways. Thirdly, you don't have to worry about finding "good" tables, because all tables are likely to be good.
So much of this is ego-related. People look for bad players at 10-20 just so they can say they are 10-20 players. In fact they could probably make far more money stiffing the auto-pilot tight-regs at 1-2. If you want to see a recurring theme from winning players, it's that they all have come to realize that ego has no place these days for the winning poker player. That's one reason that I've virtually given up following "the stars", except where I feel I can learn something from them. Dwan is a great player, but I think as a metagamer he is flawed. Antonius, meanwhile, is shrewder. Ivey is the greatest all-round player in the world with a good sense of bankroll (I think), but he is flawed because gambling has become everything. It has become the end in itself, rather than getting him lots of money which he can spend in the real world. For Ivey, gambling IS the world.
Poker is just so full of these contradictions. That's what makes "success" at it more subjective than was previously thought. Money is a way of keeping score, but it's no longer seen as the only way of keeping score.
PJ