Re: Winning the Most on the Internet

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
The advice of this article goes COMPLETELY against what was written in the February article "Why some struggle making The mirco to small stakes jump" by Scott Armstrong. According to Scott, the type of play recommended by Mr. Shepperson is exactly what will cost you your bankroll if you are a serious player intending to move up in limits:...
"While there are plenty of soft spots at small stakes tables online, it requires better reads and concentration to find them. You can't play multiple tables on autopilot the way you can at the micro levels. The necessary adjustments become even more vital if you plan to move up past the small stakes level in the future. It's not even the particular adjustments that are important here -- it's the process of recognizing those adjustments and adapting your game to a different level."

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand by what I wrote last month too. Personally, in my experience, I don't doubt that there are people who can play multiple tables without having to put much thought into their play. But I doubt highly that EV can be maximized if you're literally trying to eliminate any THINKING from your decision making.

I have a hard time playing 4 tables, honestly. Even thinking about reads, concentrating on hands, etc, I know I'm probably sacrificing a small amount of EV so I can work through a bonus faster, etc.

[theBruiser500]

doe this guy post on 22 what is his sn?

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The advice of this article goes COMPLETELY against what was written in the February article "Why some struggle making The mirco to small stakes jump" by Scott Armstrong. According to Scott, the type of play recommended by Mr. Shepperson is exactly what will cost you your bankroll if you are a serious player intending to move up in limits:...
"While there are plenty of soft spots at small stakes tables online, it requires better reads and concentration to find them. You can't play multiple tables on autopilot the way you can at the micro levels. The necessary adjustments become even more vital if you plan to move up past the small stakes level in the future. It's not even the particular adjustments that are important here -- it's the process of recognizing those adjustments and adapting your game to a different level."

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand by what I wrote last month too. Personally, in my experience, I don't doubt that there are people who can play multiple tables without having to put much thought into their play. But I doubt highly that EV can be maximized if you're literally trying to eliminate any THINKING from your decision making.

I have a hard time playing 4 tables, honestly. Even thinking about reads, concentrating on hands, etc, I know I'm probably sacrificing a small amount of EV so I can work through a bonus faster, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you should standby your previous article. Your articles have both been spot on, which makes me wonder why 2+2 would put something so contradictory to other articles in their magazine. Considering this also goes against everything The Dude said in his article this month. So in one issue, we have one guy telling us that we should work on our hand reading ability in order to become a better poker player and another guy telling us that trying to figure out what hand another player has is unimportant. I'm confused how it makes sense to print these both [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I really wish Mason or the author would come comment on this.

[The Dude]

I have no problem with 2+2 putting out two essays that take opposite positions, as long as each one argues valid points and uses good reasoning. And while there are some elements of truth in this article, they are drowned out by the garbage. (For example, I 8-table and my BB/100 isn't quite what it is 4-tabling, but my hourly earn is MUCH bigger. At a certain point in a player's development, learning to play more tables is worthwile.)

I would also like Mason to comment on why 2+2 published this. I've heard him comment that books whose contents are 70% good are, in fact, detremental to most learning players since it's difficult to recognize the good from the bad. The Magazine Forum will help, but that's still no excuse to publish this kind of article.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

wow this article really is terrible

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I hadn't read it before this thread.

I'm shocked it was put in the magazine.

[gergery]

Personally, I thought it was one of the more useful articles in this month's issue.

His basic premise was "Making more decisions that are reasonably good is better than making fewer decisions really well". It's fairly counter-intuitive to suggest that you should not be trying to make better poker decisions, but instead be trying to make more of them.

He screws up a little when he tries to translate the very valid principle above into specific actions you should take, and you need to fill in a few obvious gaps he didn't spell out (this is limit, you must be making reasonbly good decision now, etc).

But I would much rather read an article that has a strong thought provoking premise that is basically correct and have to figure out for myself where its not quite right, rather than have to read obvious platitudes ("denial is bad") or look thru silly Q&A, etc.

-g

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
But I would much rather read an article that has a strong thought provoking premise

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the article is fun to talk about, I'll give it that.

[Burno]

I think (and hope) the entire article is a joke.

It's Cardplayer-esque

[fyodor]

I enjoyed this article. I didn't take it as a joke. It's just looking at poker differently than most players here do.

This guy isn't looking to move up to the 100/200 at the Bellagio or anything. He just wants to sit at his computer and crank out the largest income per hour that he can.

If you think there is a better way to do it, fine, but this is his plan: play as many tables as you can while maintaining a positive winrate.

Personally, whether I am going to take the advice or not, I would rather read something semi-new like this than the Dude's article which said nothing that hasn't been said before in pretty much every poker book ever written.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
It's just looking at poker differently than most players here do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by differently, you mean incorrect, you're spot on.