PDA

View Full Version : Sets vs. Continuous


HtotheNootch
12-28-2005, 01:09 AM
What do most people here think is the correct way to STT?

I'm still learning so I've tried both. I don't have enough games to favor one or the other as I'm trying both, but the general consensus would be helpful.

Mr_J
12-28-2005, 01:20 AM
There isn't any 'correct', it's just preference. Figure out which suits you better.

Hendricks433
12-28-2005, 01:23 AM
I use to play continous but I like the easily scheduled breaks. But if im on my laptop it doesnt matter cause I can just play while I go to the bath room of course.

11t
12-28-2005, 01:29 AM
I play in sets because I think late game is where you make the vast majority of your money and that allows me to concentrate.

Also I can take a leak after every set.

benza13
12-28-2005, 01:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Also I can take a leak after every set.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bladder problems???

I played in sets until I was comfortable with it and recently have been playing continuously. Now I 6-table continuously, and am trying 8-tabling, but cannot handle this playing continuously yet. Maybe once I am pretty comfortable with 8 in sets I will try continuous again.

Playing continuously can add to your $/hr if it doesn't affect your ROI too much. You need to figure out which is better for you.

lacky
12-28-2005, 01:36 AM
continues sucks. If a boss asked for the continues focus, no breaks, no life that playing continuous hour after hour requires, you'd quit, and/or do a [censored] job after a while. Why do to yourself what you wouldn't let "the man" do to you.

12-28-2005, 01:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
continues sucks. If a boss asked for the continues focus, no breaks, no life that playing continuous hour after hour requires, you'd quit, and/or do a [censored] job after a while. Why do to yourself what you wouldn't let "the man" do to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I work 20 hours a week and I'm allowed a 5 minute break for every hour worked. I HAVE NEVER taken a break until towards the end, where I take all my breaks at once.

If your goal is playing so many SNG's a day, why not just play continuous and take one big break rather than all the small ones?

runner4life7
12-28-2005, 01:44 AM
Continuous is my preference. The most I have played straight is 78 and that was 10 tabling. I felt awesome after that /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I'll see if I can beat that tomorrow.

12-28-2005, 01:52 AM
Ten tabling in sets is perfect for me. Early and late play is so brainless that I can watch TV or talk on the phone or do homework or something, only really playing intense poker for maybe 10 minutes each set. If I played continuously, all of my games would be at varying stages, and I would have to have a certain portion of my attention consistently devoted across the span of an hour rather than letting it fluctuating in waves. This works for me because I have a short attention span. Also, I rarely have a solid 3-4 hour block of time that I can devote to poker. I have to squeeze in a set here and there to get my 20 hrs/wk.

yvesaint
12-28-2005, 01:53 AM
if im pumped and really concentrating, ill 8-table a set of 8. if im feeling anything but 100%, ill 4-table continuously until i finish 8.

12-28-2005, 01:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
if im pumped and really concentrating, ill 8-table a set of 8.

[/ QUOTE ]
brought to you by the department of redundancy department /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

yvesaint
12-28-2005, 01:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]

brought to you by the department of redundancy department /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

in case you didnt catch that, its 8-tabling a set of 8 tables in a set of 8.

Mr_J
12-28-2005, 03:24 AM
Why I play in sets.

1. I like the break.
2. Easy to keep track of where you are.
3. Ability to spread sets throughout the day/
4. Much more efficient in shorter sessions.
5. Allows better focus of later game.
6. ROI suffers less.
7. I enjoy sets much more (or is it I hate continuous?).

Most of these are just personal preference, but 4 and 6 affect most people. Unless you are putting in decent hours, playing continuously is very inefficient. If you are only playing a few hours a day, you won't play any more than if you just play in sets. Most people will suffer a little loss in ROI playing continuously. Part of it may be having to play many games all at different stages, but most of it will be that you have to concerntrate on more games.

My 10tabling stats average 12.25 sngs an hour, and an average of 6.5 tables running. Someone playing continuously in short/medium sessions won't average much more than that, but will average playing more tables at a time. The only way your roi won't be affected is if you are purely robotic.

I just find it much easier to put in a few sets a day before & after lunch, than sit down and play 3-4hrs straight. I like to split up my play, which is really bad if you play continuously.

Most guys who play continuously aren't really making much more (if at all). The guys who will benefit it will be those who play longer hours.

Hendricks433
12-28-2005, 03:47 AM
I seem to get better results when I play in Sets. IDK maybe too small of a sample size.

12-28-2005, 04:02 AM
I used to play sets of 4, after a while I switched to continuous. It isn't much harder, if at all, and it increases your hourly rate a bit.

curtains
12-28-2005, 04:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
continues sucks. If a boss asked for the continues focus, no breaks, no life that playing continuous hour after hour requires, you'd quit, and/or do a [censored] job after a while. Why do to yourself what you wouldn't let "the man" do to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, Id want to quit poker if I had to play continuously.

ZeroPointMachine
12-28-2005, 04:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I used to play sets of 4, after a while I switched to continuous. It isn't much harder, if at all, and it increases your hourly rate a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, because you eliminate the hassle of dealing with the lobby and playing tables at widely different levels, sets of 6 or 8 are just as easy to play as 4 continuous IMO and increase your hourly rate even more.

el_dusto
12-28-2005, 04:27 AM
I prefer sets. If one or two of them go very badly, it's nice to have a chance to cool off instead of spewing chips on other tables.

Plus, I agree with the notion that playing poker shouldn't mean you sit down for 8 hours with a half-hour break for lunch. That's exactly what I'm trying to get AWAY from.

Mr_J
12-28-2005, 04:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
sets of 6 or 8 are just as easy to play as 4 continuous

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that 6 in sets is probally no harder than 4 continuous.

To the guy you replied to, going from 4 tabling sets to continuous is easier (ie you suffer less of an roi drop, less inefficiency etc) than doing the same for 8+ tables.

tshort
12-28-2005, 05:18 AM
It sounds like most people prefer sets so they can take breaks.

The way I play is a sort of a mix of continuous and sets. I start a set of 4 tables. When those four are all around level 3, I start another set of 4. When the first set of 4 finishes, I start up another set of four. I usually end up having 6 or 7 tables open at any given time.

This allows me to concentate on the late stages of four tables, while pretty much folding every hand on the other four.

I think this method helps maximize ROI and yields a good hourly rate, but you have to play in 2-4 hour chunks without stopping to get the most benefit for your hourly rate. I would probably do this 10 tabling, but I don't like any 5 table set-ups. Yes, after doing this for four hours I really need a break.