Re: Why SS is not as good as it could have been (rant content)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You suck at poker. If you had been good you would have played higher!
[/ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of possible rebuttals to this but let me just throw out an illustration for what is worth. Player 1 and Play 2 each play Party $3/6. Player 1 is in college and her parents pay all of her tuition and costs. Player 1 beats the game for 1BB/100 but rolls all winnings into her bankroll so she can move up. Player 2 multitables the $3/6 game as a living and supports a family. He beats the game for 2.75BB/100 and maintains an adequate roll for the game after paying living expenses. He builds his roll but it goes slowly due to all of his expenses.
After a year, Player 2 is still at $3/6 but thinks he may dip inot the $5/10 game when it looks particularly juicy. Player 1 decides to jump into the Party $15/30 game since she has the roll and she hears it is stocked with fish and that she can likely beat the game for at least a little. Is Player 1 better than Player 2. She is now officialy a "$15/30 player" unlike Player 2, who is still "stuck" at $3/6.
[/ QUOTE ]
I realize this, I know some very good players that play low, and some bad ones that play high [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. It is the "I beat 2/4 or 3/6-so I am good at this game" -mentality that I tried to attack because it keeps players in place, blocking progress.
|