|
|
#74
06-17-2007, 05:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: please post your winrate/nl 100-nl 200
[ QUOTE ]
all 100nl.  [/ QUOTE ] wow, impressive. I play higher than this but it would be intresting to here where you play and if you dont mind posting your stats (vpip etc. incl by position) that would be intresting too. 
|
|
#76
06-17-2007, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: please post your winrate/nl 100-nl 200
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] My recent graph is 8-10 tables fwiw, and there's some really healthy tilt in there as well. IMO your winrate per-table doesn't have to drop at all if you have sufficient raw reflexes to play the same number of hands and can think quickly without making gigantic mistakes. However your overall winrate will certainly drop because of the lower fishiness of your 7th, 10th tables etc. But provided you can find 10 fishy tables (insert Party joke here) I honestly believe the cap for your 10 tabling winrate can be the same as your 1-tabling winrate. [/ QUOTE ] Not true. On 8+ tables you can certainly play a solid mechanical game if you're good, but no way you can make all the little adjustments that really optimize your play against the exact lineup and stack sizes at each table. I've said this before but I believe that a really good player could make around 15 PTBB/100 on 4 tables and there's no way you can match that with more tables because it requires too much study of your opponents patterns and history. [/ QUOTE ] Yep you have this down cold nuff said
|
|
#77
06-17-2007, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: please post your winrate/nl 100-nl 200
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] all 100nl. [/ QUOTE ] wow, impressive. I play higher than this but it would be intresting to here where you play and if you dont mind posting your stats (vpip etc. incl by position) that would be intresting too. [/ QUOTE ] Not a [censored] chance this is 200nl.
|
|
#79
06-17-2007, 07:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: please post your winrate/nl 100-nl 200
at 100nl ~5ptbb over ~80,000 hands
200nl ~-1ptbb over 20,000 hands
|
|
#80
06-17-2007, 11:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: please post your winrate/nl 100-nl 200
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My recent graph is 8-10 tables fwiw, and there's some really healthy tilt in there as well. IMO your winrate per-table doesn't have to drop at all if you have sufficient raw reflexes to play the same number of hands and can think quickly without making gigantic mistakes. However your overall winrate will certainly drop because of the lower fishiness of your 7th, 10th tables etc. But provided you can find 10 fishy tables (insert Party joke here) I honestly believe the cap for your 10 tabling winrate can be the same as your 1-tabling winrate. [/ QUOTE ] Not true. On 8+ tables you can certainly play a solid mechanical game if you're good, but no way you can make all the little adjustments that really optimize your play against the exact lineup and stack sizes at each table. I've said this before but I believe that a really good player could make around 15 PTBB/100 on 4 tables and there's no way you can match that with more tables because it requires too much study of your opponents patterns and history. [/ QUOTE ] Gah such a frustrating attitude. Firstly, lets just end this debate with one word: cts. QED. Also: - Where on earth did you pull your figures of "4 tables" and "8 tables" from? 100 hands/hr at eight tables equals one hand every 6 seconds, most of which are folds no matter what style you play and the vast majority of which will be routine. With enough practice it takes less than a second to glance at a PT stat or note and adjust your line accordingly. This leaves a lot of time spare, so when tough decisions come up you have several seconds at least. - You don't appear to be referring to yourself when you talk about a "really good player", so how would you know what's involved in attaining their winrate? - For 99/100 hands even the most creative player will have a standard line they are following, as most situations they've encountered thousands of times. - The Betpot script, auto-reloaders, etc. and simple reflexes reduce the amount of time that standard hands take, increasing the amount of time left for tough decisions - Re: study of patterns and history. This can be done outside of play-time through PT review, and notes can be applied for significant patterns - I think by "mechanical, robotic" you mean primarily that your play will become tighter and more straightforward, and I personally know this simply isn't true. [/ QUOTE ] Man, are you serious? There should be no debate whether or not the more tables you play the lower your winrate will be on average. It may not be a huge difference, but there definitely is one and if you don't believe that then you're just being naive. Where exactly does CTS fit into your example? Yes he plays a lot of tables at a really high winrate (especially compared to the others in his games), but there is no doubt that he his winrate would be better if he was playing only 2-3 tables at a time. Of all the people I've seen that have very high winrates, say 8ptbb+, I'd say 80-90% of them are not playing more than 4 tables at a time. There are some that are able to play 9 tables at 8ptbb, but they're the exception, and again there is no doubt that their winrate would increase if they dropped a few tables. But what is really important to most of us is hourly rate. If I could 2 table at 10ptbb or 9 table at 4ptbb I'd much rather do the latter as it's nearly twice the hourly rate. I agree that MOST decisions are pretty standard depending on your style and experience. Poker is a lot about pattern recognition which is how you come up with "standard" lines because you've used them over and over again with good results. But not every decision is a standard one and even if 99/100 hands are, the ones that deviate from being standard will impact your winrate dramatically for better or worse. And yes, the more tables you add the more robotic you will tend to play. For example you might pass up one +EV spot because you're in the middle of a few big hands at other tables that you would certainly take advantage of if you were playing less tables.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
