paradise milking the rake

I have been playing at paradise for over two years now. The last year I have been a consinstent winner playing mainly heads ups(3-6). It seems lately though(2-3 months) that I have had to work twice as hard to make less money agaist alot of weak opponents. Almost everytime i sit I drop 100, 200, 300, sometimes as fast as 20-30 minutes and spend the next 2 hours getting it back. By this time I 'll clean the guy out and walk with a measely fifty dollar profit as opposed to the 150 he bought in with. I,m seeing alot of bad beats also, runner-runners, 2 outers you name it I see it, amd lately, more than usually it seems.


I understand playing twice as fast allows more bad beats to happen but I think most people would agree that more crazy things happen at paradise than any cardroom in the world live or internet.


So my questions are


1: Do any of you guys think that paradise is intentionally allowing good players to win at a slower rate so they can get more rake money.


2: That they label players according to their cashout histories and adjust the quality of cards and the number of draws that hit, etc based on the skill levels of players, especially in heads up play in which the transfer of money can be very fast.


3: Have any of you guys encounterd the same sort of thing and do you think I should right off as players getting better, bad cards, decline in my own play, or whatever.


I don't mean to join the conspiracy theorists and paradise bashers and have long thought paradise was legit. But I would like to know what any of you guys think. Thanks in advance


Billybob

I agree

I think you are an idiot. Also, if a bad player is given any advantage in headsup it would be rather hard to overcome that, as even bad players wont fold good hands headup.

...particularly on the heads-up tables, is that you should get the hell out when your opponent have anything less than around 4 big bets on the table.


Very often in my experience, the short-stacked opponent will manage a comeback which either ends up with him cutting his losses and leaving after getting some of it back or breaking even and leaving or actually wind up taking some of my money and then leaving.


The fourth alternative is that it takes a longer while to take him, and more of the profit goes to the rake. Anyhow, I can't seem to shake the impression, particularly heads-up, that it seems they want the game going for a while. Nothing strange while both players have more than enough money, but I really feel that once one becomes very short-stacked, he bounches back far too often.


At least I've come to the conclusion that it's not usually worth the risk of taking him for his last 3-4 big bets.


lars

you should get the hell out when your opponent have anything less than around 4 big bets on the table


From a short term profit point of view you're probably right, you could even raise your stopping point to, say, 10% of your opponent's original buy-in.


Having said that, however, if that's going to be your play I think you should tell your opponent your intentions up front. Otherwise I doubt you'll ever see him/her across from you at the table again.