Why do I suck at 10/20? (Long and cathartic) - Page 2

Nigel · #11 08-01-2005, 03:38 AM

This may sound crazy, but you could just skip 10/20. Like yourself, I did well at 5/10 and then hit a wall at 10/20. Maybe it was variance, maybe it was poor table selection, maybe it was me sucking at shorthanded poker. Who knows?

I moved past it and played 15/30 short instead of 10/20 and that made all the difference. Now the occasional times I play 10/20 6 max I do fine, and the demons seem to be exorsized, but for a long time it was a hump I just couldn't get over.

I hated that freaking level.

Good luck,

Nigel

bugstud · #12 08-01-2005, 03:58 AM

I give it another 20k hands before you need to worry

Subfallen · #13 08-01-2005, 04:11 AM

Maybe I'm just slow, but the difference in 2-tabling and 4-tabling is significant to me. Play fewer tables, bask in the pure joy of better reads. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Mr. Graff · #14 08-01-2005, 04:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
These results are all from 4 tabling. Maybe I should play fewer tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

nervous · #15 08-01-2005, 05:33 AM

This has inspired me to cut down my amount of tables. Me being the cock I am I started out in the 3/6 short game with 6 tables, and the swings were tremendous, I didn't know what I was doing most of the time, and to put it bluntly, I sucked. I have been 4 tabling the 3/6 game for the past few days with 4 tables of full games as well. I have to get out of the mindset of playing a ton of tables. I have to face it that my days of autopilotting 12 tables of 2/4 full are over.

Over my last 30kish hands at 3/6 6m when I was 4-6 tabling, I think my winrate would boast at around the .35-.45bb/100 level. Well, I'm going to take a shot at 2 tabling and LEARNING now just like you. Hopefully I will post a success story soon.

This is a great thread and an eye-opener for me.

Guy McSucker · #16 08-01-2005, 06:04 AM

It does seem likely that there's something up with your game that you can fix, and the other posts in this thread address that, but, just so you know...

[ QUOTE ]

After 25k hands I can no longer just say to myself I'm running bad. I can't imagine that after this many hands my PT winrate is more 1BB/100 off from my theoretical winrate

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

Most players have a standard deviation of around 16BB for 100 hand samples, so for a 25600 hand sample, the standard deviation of your win rate would be 16/sqrt(256) or 1BB.

It would be no surprise at all to find you were a 1BB/100 player running bad; slightly surprising to find you were a 2BB/100 player running really bad; pretty shocking but not impossible to find you were a 3BB/100 player running extremely terribly awfully bad; and a real stretch to find you were better than a 3BB/100 player.

But that's just stats. It's pretty meaningless in the context of your extended struggle.

Guy.

jdock99 · #17 08-01-2005, 06:06 AM

I have played both 5/10 and 10/20 online, and like you my results are much better at the former than the latter. My take on it is that in 5/10 most of your profit comes from bad players making ridiculous mistakes, like chasing inside dummy straight draws heads up or capping turns w/ JT on a AAJT board. In 10/20 on the other hand, although most of the "fish" play loose preflop, they do not make these fundamental errors postflop, so you have to beat them by outplaying them, like when a TA donkbets a turn scarecard and you realize he is trying to freeze you and will fold to a turn raise, so you make the move and it works. I believe this is a fundamental adjustment that is much harder to make than just jumping up one level like from 3-6 to 5-10, and I honestly do not think I have fully made it yet. In live games (in Los Angeles at least) I think this "jump" takes place when you move from 30-60 to 40-80, where you have to start outplaying the players and not just sit back and wait for them to hand you their $$ with bad play.

kamelion44 · #18 08-01-2005, 06:20 AM

While I think it's good policy to always look for holes and leaks, you certainly can run bad for 27k hands. I mean, don't automatically assume you're playing perfectly, but if you have a losing 27k hand period, it doesn't follow necessarily that you're playing poorly or even sub-par.

Subfallen · #19 08-01-2005, 08:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
While I think it's good policy to always look for holes and leaks, you certainly can run bad for 27k hands. I mean, don't automatically assume you're playing perfectly, but if you have a losing 27k hand period, it doesn't follow necessarily that you're playing poorly or even sub-par.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, El Diablo has reported a 30k break-even stretch.

tongni · #20 08-01-2005, 09:18 AM

As easy as everyone says 10/20 6m is, I think it's a reasonably tough game, especially when you are first coming from 5/10. It plays a lot different and you have to become a much better hand reader. Many of the players you will be up against have some leak, whether it is overaggressiveness or bad preflop play, but most of these players are pretty good hand readers and a fair amount of the time even the LAG's won't pay you off if you've been quiet for a while.