Problem adjusting to aggression in SH games and very frustrated - Page 5

Nietzsche · #41 03-16-2007, 11:57 AM

While Party is tougher and more aggressive now than it was before the US ban saying that the 30/60 games were passive then is just crazy. Yeah, there were a few more passives in the game back then, but they were definitely the exception.

gopnik · #42 03-16-2007, 03:39 PM

watching this video helps me calm down when I run bad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StsG95-zdjg

dragon14 · #43 03-16-2007, 04:40 PM

Drew--

Appreciate the comments and advice. I'm actually going to wait until I have read Stox's new book before attempting any additional online play. I'm also taking the time to view Stox's videos and am studying Mathematics of Poker (I'm actually playing out some of the toy games and playing around with Pokerstove and Excel).

To further explain, I work full-time and have been primarily a weekend online player. The soft Party games were on Saturday, particularly Saturday night.

I'm actually right back to where I was at the end of October which really wasn't that bad a place to be. Now I have a good story and a good reminder to protect my bankroll and study the game more.

And off topic, Drew, I saw Taxi Driver for the first time about a month ago and have watched it three times it the last month. DeNiro's performance is amazing and despite the general weirdness of the film I couldn't help but find all the characters to be fascinating.

Nate tha\\\' Great · #44 03-16-2007, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
First, I'm going to echo the assertions that the 20/40 and 30/60 games on Party were generally not passive. Either you practiced superb game selection, or by chance you just managed to always catch the passive tables. Most Party tables played pretty much the way you described the Stars tables in scenario #2 in your post. They were profitable because people bluff raised in all the wrong spots.

While it's true that the games have tightened up a bit, there are still profitable games to be found at the mid-level limit hold'em games.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of what's happened IMO is that the people who were exercising [censored] game selection before are saying that not much has changed, while those of us who were better at game selection really notice the drop-off in game quality.

Guy McSucker · #45 03-16-2007, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]

A lot of what's happened IMO is that the people who were exercising [censored] game selection before are saying that not much has changed, while those of us who were better at game selection really notice the drop-off in game quality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fo' shizzle. I never used to bother with game selection - at the levels I played almost every table was good to playable anyway, and also I play at Euro times rather than US times which changes things a little. Anyway, since the UIGEA I noticed that I was sitting at pretty bad tables a lot, so I started game-selecting more, and now my tables are all better than they used to be. So for me, things have got better [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

On the other hand I keep getting rivered.

Guy.

DrewOnTilt · #46 03-16-2007, 06:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, I'm going to echo the assertions that the 20/40 and 30/60 games on Party were generally not passive. Either you practiced superb game selection, or by chance you just managed to always catch the passive tables. Most Party tables played pretty much the way you described the Stars tables in scenario #2 in your post. They were profitable because people bluff raised in all the wrong spots.

While it's true that the games have tightened up a bit, there are still profitable games to be found at the mid-level limit hold'em games.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of what's happened IMO is that the people who were exercising [censored] game selection before are saying that not much has changed, while those of us who were better at game selection really notice the drop-off in game quality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I agree that the game quality has deteriorated, beyond any doubt. But dragon seemed to imply that there were tons of loose passive games at the old Party 20 and 30 games. There certainly were loose passive players, but most of the bad players at that level were spewtard bad, not calling station bad.

DrewOnTilt · #47 03-16-2007, 06:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
watching this video helps me calm down when I run bad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StsG95-zdjg

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] couldn't I just catch a [hand]?

[/ QUOTE ]
LMAO I NEVER tire of that video.

Victor · #48 03-17-2007, 10:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, I'm going to echo the assertions that the 20/40 and 30/60 games on Party were generally not passive. Either you practiced superb game selection, or by chance you just managed to always catch the passive tables. Most Party tables played pretty much the way you described the Stars tables in scenario #2 in your post. They were profitable because people bluff raised in all the wrong spots.

While it's true that the games have tightened up a bit, there are still profitable games to be found at the mid-level limit hold'em games.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of what's happened IMO is that the people who were exercising [censored] game selection before are saying that not much has changed, while those of us who were better at game selection really notice the drop-off in game quality.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude im the king of game selection.

bbbushu · #49 03-17-2007, 10:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
watching this video helps me calm down when I run bad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StsG95-zdjg

[/ QUOTE ]
is this video real or what?

PokerBob · #50 03-17-2007, 10:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Now even the 5-10 and 10-20 game follow this pattern:
Flop:I bet, he checkraises
Turn:He bets, I...
River:He bets virtually 100% of the time

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that you chose this as an example speaks volumes.

EDIT: and 350BB downswings, although sucky, are common in short-handed limit hold'em. i think you do not truly understand the variance involved in that game.