I think I am going back to weak tight play.

[steamboatin]

I have been studying NPA Ed Miller's book and it is great. I am not ready for the larger variance. I am a recreational player and these big swings are taking away some of the fun.

Now jump right in here and correct me if I am wrong, because I learn a lot everytime I make a post.

If you play for fun and fun is your primary objective, you should play in a manner that increases the fun as long as it doesn't cost you more than you could afford to lose.

I liked it better win I had numerous small winning sessions in a row and I am certain I am winning a lot more of those theorectical dollars, somehow it is not the same.

Now , so that Ed Miller doesn't think I am blaming it on him or talking bad about his book, it is very possible I am not correctly applying his methods. Obviously, they won't work if I am not using them correctly.

I just really like being able to say I won.

[Noo Yawk]

There is nothing wrong with playing for fun. If playing in a style that gives you small wins makes you happy, then who is anyone here to tell you your wrong?

[flair1239]

I agree, there is nothing wrong with your line of thinking. As a metter of fact, if you are playing purely for fun, it probably makes more sense to play in a manner that minimizes variance. Because, presumably you would want your fun to be as cheap as possible so, you don't have to replenish your deposit.

In your situation, there is nothing wrong with wiating to push big edges as opposed to trying to push every edge.

As a matter of fact I think one of the points, that Lee Jones was making in WLLH, is that at the lower limits there will be so many times that you have a big edge (relatively speaking), that you do not need to push every edge to be profitable.

[bernie]

I have a feeling that many, many readers of this book will think this same way after their first big losing run after reading the book. They'll go back to their old way of playing. However, many will blame the book, thinking Ed's full of crap.

I've noticed that the frenzy of jamming the hell out of mid/small pairs, ala hellmuth's book, has died down a bit. Now some of the players i saw 'trying' it have gone back to their old ways of playing.

b

[Noo Yawk]

Hey Bernie,

I've noticed the same thing with the Hellmuthian stlye of aggressively losing. Ed's book, will eventualy make money for those that fully try to understand the concepts. I don't know of any winning players that don't make these adjustments in loose games, and Ed did a great job of presenting these ideas in an easy to read manner. Some folks will always be hoping for the magic formula. I'm pretty sure the original poster is not one of them. For him, the idea of having fun and breaking even to small winner are satisfying enough for now. God bless him.

The other reason I agree is that you are now a wealthy man, and deserving of much brown nosing in the hopes of catching a crumb from you one day should I find my degenerate poker playing ass broke and on the rail one day.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Amen.

Poker is a GAME, and the purpose of games is PLEASURE.

If you're happier playing in a less than optimal style, and you understand and accept the consequences, do it.

Regards,

Al

[Cerril]

I've been toying with the same thing. For me it's more an issue of bankroll building than preferring being a small winner more often to vacillating between a huge winner and a big loser.

But I definitely think there are plenty of reasons to take a small +EV at limits/games where there's a lot of free money being thrown around.

One thing to keep in mind is that weak/tight play is actually far better quality poker than the average, so you're a huge step up as long as you keep your game selection skills (i.e. don't move up limits to the point where it's no longer a profitable style).

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Some folks will always be hoping for the magic formula. I'm pretty sure the original poster is not one of them

[/ QUOTE ]

No, i just put it out there as a general observation of how trends circulate on the tables. The new 'fad', for lack of a better word. I think the poster has thought it out enough and i wouldn't classify him as a player on the 'trend'.

When HEPFAP came out, there was likely a surge in that 'style' of play. Like there was a surge for hellmuth, though maybe not as noticeable as Phil is more popular. But many typical players only see shortterm. So when they lose a bunch in a typical swing, along with seeing other players having great nights winning with crap, their mental games aren't strong enough to fully buy into it. Hence, they go back to old reliable, more comfortable way of playing. I think this will also happen with Ed's stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
The other reason I agree is that you are now a wealthy man, and deserving of much brown nosing in the hopes of catching a crumb from you one day should I find my degenerate poker playing ass broke and on the rail one day

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're on the rail, it's because you busted out the table and everyone went home. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

b

[steamboatin]

Pretty much every hobby I have ever had turns into a part time business and loses it's entertainment value. It becomes work, I have plenty of work.

I am making a decision to keep poker fun. I do not plan to pull an Incredible MR. Limpet and turn into a fish. I am wanting to increase the fun and I will let other players maximize the small edges.

[NaobisDad]

For what it's worth. I think you are making the right decision.

[bernie]

I think he's making the right decision also.

Funny thing is, i can't imagine 'not' playing the other way. It's just ingrained in me to play more aggressive. So in a sort of weird, twisted way, i kind of envy him for being able to make the concious choice.

b