Advice needed

[unfoldable]

Leaders advice above is gold. Focus on fixing one issue after another. Trying to do everything at once will bring you into trouble, in every endevour in life. It will confuse you and you get worse than before.

Go one step back and analyze your situation, get an overview. If it takes a year to improve to a reasonable level, well, take that time if you want to stick with poker. Drop down in Limits if necessery.

Patience is still underrated.

[jstill]

[ QUOTE ]


jstill every person i know that plays on wsex is pretty bright and resigned to playing 1/2 or 3/6 forever. move to another site pls.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont get what the big deal is tho, maybe these bright people are on to somethin and theres a reason they stay there. I really only care about my hourly rate and how much I can comfortably cash out each week while using good BR management and playing for fun/improvement.

Its not like im not making $40/hr+ even as a slight loser (with 100% rb at 3/6 and 2/4 its easily $10/hr/table) and the swings at these limits dont even make me bat an eye and 4 tabling is easy and I can usually make myself/ find the time to play 25-30 hrs a week whenever I feel like it. The BR im required to keep is relatively miniscule and u throw in 50 dollars for every time i lose with AA half the days of the week and Im doing as well there money wise as at another site only getting 25% rb or whatever where I mite be beating the game for 2bbs/100 and the tough games keep me in the state of mind to question my play and always try to improve. My real only complaint with online poker is no longer have quick cashouts via neteller (man that was so much better).

And its also not like I couldnt have moved up (or couldnt now) to 5/10 or 10/20 if i just didnt cash out all the time (altho not much of a motivation to when all my money comes from rb).

I always respect ur opinion but im pretty content for the time being at wsex, I know most of the player pool by now and despite the "swings" that come with not crushing the games my income has been fairly consistent.

[gehrig]

jstill there is a v low earnings ceiling if ur stuck playing a tough small stakes game

[Apanage]

Of course not.But we need to know the rake structure to compare sites don´t we?
I asked the question and the only information I had was that he lost 0.5 BB/100 at WPEX and that he was a 2BB/100 winner at Boss.
If WPEX gives 100% rakeback and has a rakestructure that at average takes 1.5BB from the pot or 3 BB from every 100 hands he plays makes a difference doesn´t it?
Because when they take 1.5 BB from the pot he wins 1BB/100 all included. When they take 3BB from the pot he makes 2.5 BB/100 all included at WPEX.
So I really think the sarcasm was unnecessary which it would have been anyway

[jstill]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fair enuff i get ur point. kinda matters what the rake structure at wpex is tho i think it was a semi-fair question, it is quite a bit higher than say Pstars for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

wait why does it matter what their rake structure is?

[/ QUOTE ]

why doesnt it to make a comparison from site to site? it determines how many bb/100 im getting in my account each week as rakeback (granted its taken away at the table in theory and if it was less id just earn more from play), but to know my total earnings I need to know my win(loser) rate and how much im getting back in rb/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

come on so if wpx raised their rake it becomes more compelling to play there?

[/ QUOTE ]

obviously i wasnt implying that in any way , I dont know why we arent on the same page but Im sure we are both thinking about this correctly so Im not gonna bother tryin to resolve whatever the communication problem is

[SteveL91]

Have you done/considered any coaching, Guy? It can be a really big help (and most importantly, confidence boost) if you hook up with a good coach. I've worked with a couple, and they both really helped my game. There's a sticky with a link to the site in MSNL, or: http://www.jvelliott.com/poker/coaches.php

RE. WPEX:

At 5/10 6m, the rakeback has worked out to be ~2.4-2.5BB/100 over ~20,000 hands. I don't have enough hands at 10/20 6m to really be sure; numbers show it's around 1.4-1.5BB/100, but it seems higher based on what I've gotten back. Though, that could be explained by the fact that I've been playing a fair amount of 2-4 handed at 10/20.

My results so far have been pretty terrible, but it's not because the games are so hard (at least at 5/10 and 10/20). While there are a handful of guys that I think are at least decent, for the most part, the player pool is terrible... including myself. Yes, the games are tougher than Stars, but they're not unbeatable.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
bc ur gonna have way sicker downswings.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. Let's make some basic assumptions:

1. Site A has soft games that you can beat for 2 BB/100. No rakeback or incentives are available.

2. Site B has tough games that you can only beat for 0.5 BB/100 but the site gives you 1.5 BB/100 in rakeback.

3. Your standard deviation (SD) in BB/100 would be the same in either game.

4. Delay in receiving rakeback doesn't matter. Your bankroll is large enough that waiting until the end of the month (or whenever) to be paid is no hardship.

Your profit rate in either game will be 2 BB/100. The probability of losing money over a 10000 hand sample is the same. So is the probability of a 300 BB downswing. Ditto for any similar measure of good or bad luck.

In order to lose over 10000 hands at Site A you need results that are more than 2 BB/100 below average. The probabilty of this happening is determined by SD.

In order to lose over 10000 hands at Site B you also need results that are more than 2 BB/100 below average. The first 0.5 BB/100 worth of bad luck eats up your table winnings and the next 1.5 BB/100 worth of bad luck cancels the rakeback. Once again the probabilty of this happening is determined by SD.

Assumption 3 is obviously not perfect. Different games do have somewhat different SDs. In general good games have somewhat higher variance than bad games because loose play inflates variance. So while "it depends" the swings at juicy Site A may actually be worse than at tough Site B.

[BrassMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bc ur gonna have way sicker downswings.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. Let's make some basic assumptions:

1. Site A has soft games that you can beat for 2 BB/100. No rakeback or incentives are available.

2. Site B has tough games that you can only beat for 0.5 BB/100 but the site gives you 1.5 BB/100 in rakeback.

3. Your standard deviation (SD) in BB/100 would be the same in either game.

4. Delay in receiving rakeback doesn't matter. Your bankroll is large enough that waiting until the end of the month (or whenever) to be paid is no hardship.

Your profit rate in either game will be 2 BB/100. The probability of losing money over a 10000 hand sample is the same. So is the probability of a 300 BB downswing. Ditto for any similar measure of good or bad luck.

In order to lose over 10000 hands at Site A you need results that are more than 2 BB/100 below average. The probabilty of this happening is determined by SD.

In order to lose over 10000 hands at Site B you also need results that are more than 2 BB/100 below average. The first 0.5 BB/100 worth of bad luck eats up your table winnings and the next 1.5 BB/100 worth of bad luck cancels the rakeback. Once again the probabilty of this happening is determined by SD.

Assumption 3 is obviously not perfect. Different games do have somewhat different SDs. In general good games have somewhat higher variance than bad games because loose play inflates variance. So while "it depends" the swings at juicy Site A may actually be worse than at tough Site B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, Stellarwind. Now that the WPX thing has been cleared up, I'm once again ready to suckle the glorious teet.

<Begin mod edit by StellarWind>

I deleted your last sentence. This forum is for strategy and occasionally having a little fun. It's not a place for you to do business. Don't so anything like that again.

<End mod rant>

[Victor]

you havent completely convinced me.

[BrassMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
you havent completely convinced me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, that it's +EV? Haha - nah, I just mean because you could whoop up on me, that's all. I just looked into the deposit options - apparently I can do a bank wire. Pain in the butt, though...