Are you surprised?
Jan. 4th, 2006 07:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksHeadline from AP Worldstream this morning.
Study shows children no safer in SUVs than cars
JAN DENNIS
AP Worldstream; Jan 03, 2006
Well, to be frank, I don't think that children should be driving either SUVs or cars.
+++++
I tried three-tabling on Ultimate and Party yesterday night and early this morning. Small losses in each left the matter inconclusive. Was it noise, or does my play deteriorate too much when three-tabling? Part of the skill in playing this game is, of course, being able to distinguish noise from underlying trends. And I have a feeling that when I am three-tabling at the moment I am giving up a little bit too much in terms of earn -- perhaps as much as a big bet an hour per table. That's way too high a sacrifice to make.
But I'm not absolutely certain. Perhaps I'll pull back to two-tabling for the next week and then give it another go.
The Party three-tabling was made problematic by the fact that I got a lot of marginal decision hands and a lot of marginal raising/folding hands. Most of the time, things are a lot easier than that, so perhaps the amount of EV sacrificed in the long run would be significantly lower. It's a hard one to evaluate.
Study shows children no safer in SUVs than cars
JAN DENNIS
AP Worldstream; Jan 03, 2006
Well, to be frank, I don't think that children should be driving either SUVs or cars.
+++++
I tried three-tabling on Ultimate and Party yesterday night and early this morning. Small losses in each left the matter inconclusive. Was it noise, or does my play deteriorate too much when three-tabling? Part of the skill in playing this game is, of course, being able to distinguish noise from underlying trends. And I have a feeling that when I am three-tabling at the moment I am giving up a little bit too much in terms of earn -- perhaps as much as a big bet an hour per table. That's way too high a sacrifice to make.
But I'm not absolutely certain. Perhaps I'll pull back to two-tabling for the next week and then give it another go.
The Party three-tabling was made problematic by the fact that I got a lot of marginal decision hands and a lot of marginal raising/folding hands. Most of the time, things are a lot easier than that, so perhaps the amount of EV sacrificed in the long run would be significantly lower. It's a hard one to evaluate.
Two tabling.
Date: 2006-01-04 07:30 pm (UTC)I've just started experimenting with two tabling on Pacific and Ladbrokes with some success. It's easier to move between them, than when I tried two and three tabling on Laddies. (You can only actually play one table at a time of Pacific - that's a possible explanation for the lose play there - they get itchy for some action). On Laddies, I got into problems with windows popping up and finding myself clicking "bet" on a table I wanted to fold on and vice versa. Two tables is all I really feel comfortably in control of.
By the way I have my own poker blog at http://bigdealer.blogspot.com/ where I keep a weekly check on progress (or lack of it).
Re: Two tabling.
Date: 2006-01-04 10:14 pm (UTC)You need a decent-sized monitor to multi-table. Some people seem to have the ability to cope with different windows popping up, but I certainly don't.
The bog-standard multii-table monitor is the by-now-affordable 19 inch 1600x1200 resolution monitor. I use a 1920x1200 monitor, which allows for four tables and a little space on the side, or three tables and pokertracker's interface. Alternatively, set up a dual monitor system.
I'm aware of Pacific's amazing software, although I have never downloaded it myself. Ultimate Bet (which allows three-tabling and no more) is irritating enough.
PJ
Re: Two tabling.
Date: 2006-01-04 11:06 pm (UTC)