[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm finding myself disagreeing with many posters more and more. Whether that means I am a bad player, or I post bad, or other players just post good and play bad. I don't know. I'm beating the 2/4 game for more than anyone over 100k hands so I don't think I'm just running really good. It is sad, but perfectly possible that the overall forum aptitude for analysing these small stakes hands has gone downhill. Again, I'm just confused as to why I consitently have the wrong answer, but continue to beat the games more than anyone else playing them.

Please don't flame me.

-SmileyEH

[/ QUOTE ]
This post brings to mind a lot of questions for me. Mainly, why someone who beats a particular game for more money than anyone else over a 100k hand sample would still be playing that game after 100k hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should move up. I've played up to 15/30 but ran bad when I did. I think I'm a winning player at 15 full but probably not by much. The problem is I'm deriving all my income from poker, and I would have to beat 15/30 for about 1.5BB/100 4tabling to match my currently hourly rate. I also suck at handling large monetary amount downswings so psychologically playing a game where I win 4 out of 5 days is better for me as well. I really do need to stop playing 2/4 though as my game is pretty stagnant and while well suited to 2/4, probably not well enough developed to beat higher limits for very much.

However, whether or not I'm actually the highest earning 2/4 player in small stakes is kind of beside the point. The fact that I do win a lot and disagree with the forum line quite often leads me to believe that there are some systematic problems with the way posters are looking at hands. Or I'm just a huge luckbox.

-SmileyEH