Party 15/30 Stats

[WillMagic]

It seems like a strange reaction to add tables when you have lost money net...but whatever works...and if you are switching from short-handed, then maybe you need a ton of tables to keep you from getting bored.

But unfortunately, when you play as tightly as you are, you are leaving a lot of money on the table as you are missing a lot of marginal, but profitable situations.

Finally, I find it a lot more important at 15/30 to have some idea of which players are maniacs and which aren't - basically which guys are the guys I should call down when I hold top pair and they raise the turn. My feeling is that with eight tables, you have no time to look at your PT between hands, or anything else for that matter.

I dunno...I don't think your current strategy is that great. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Will

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
I played 15% of the pots preflop according to Party's little "stats" button.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate that you're multi-tabling, as I do too. And I appreciate that 15-30 is tougher than 5-10. But more hands than that have value. If that's all you're going to be averaging long term, drop to 5-10, play the same number of tables or more, and cut your variance for the same earn. Play poker! Nut peddling will get the money, but not enough of it to make at least me happy.

15% in pokertracker wouldn't be horrible, but 15% in the party stats button is sick unless you're just not being dealt anything.

~D

[samdash]

I wouldn't trust that "little party stats button". I have seen it say I've won 100% of showdowns 2 hours into a session when I recall losing at least 1 or 2. Don't know how often stuff like this happens, but I have a feeling its not very accurate even though it doesn't seem very complicated.

[Grvnhigh]

FWIW, the win at showdown number at party appears to only include hands in which you made a bet on the river and were called. I'm not sure about betting and calling a raise, but it definitely excludes check-calling and having it checked down.

[samdash]

oh that makes a lot more sense.

[Duke]

I think the "seen flops" part of it is pretty decent. The showdown thing is known to be retarded.

What I meant was voluntarily seeing 15% of flops, like not just knuckling in the BB, is fine. But only SEEING 15% of flops sucks. And well, I'd be hard pressed to believe that EVERY pot is raised, since I've played 15 on party and they're not.

~D

[Duke]

And to soda - yeah it's tight, yeah you'll lose a lot less when you're running bad (as you obviously are), but you'll also not make as much as you should long term when things turn around back to where they're supposed to be.

Mathematical anomalies have happened to all of us online guys.

~D

[mike l.]

"If that's all you're going to be averaging long term, drop to 5-10, play the same number of tables or more, and cut your variance for the same earn. Play poker!"

if you really really want to play poker then you need only play 24 tables at once of 1-2 and limit your preflop hands to 3.4%.

it's so excellent that i know a man who started doing that 18 hours a day in 1989 and he is now one of the richest men alive. yes you guessed it: that man is donald trump. get it? trump. as in cards. his screen name on party is elysium2004.

[SA125]

"And I won 5% of the hands. That's right, only 5%. But, I won $2300 over 3000 hands."

I think the percentage of pots won is deceiving when trying to determine if you should be up or not. What matters is wins at showdown. That's where the money is. You obviously won some nice pots and weren't stuck with 5% of folded to your BB.

Except for the other night where I went over 100 hands, yes 100 hands, without even folding a winner, I usually average 5-10% of wins. Yet 75% of those wins are usually without a showdown. I rarely average more than 50% at showdown. It's usually because my Q's getting cracked by 25o calling a raise h/u from the BB or my nut fl getting housed out in huge pot.

I routinely win an average share of pots (10%), but they're usually small ones and not nearly enough of a fair share of the big ones at showdown. I thought Random Shufflers weren't supposed to be so consistent. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Nomar]

Is there a reason why you are trying to play more 10 handed poker than shorthanded ? From my experience your win rate should be higher and your swings should be lower playing shorthanded. You will obviosly have more 1K dollar downswings during a session but you should be able to win a larger percent of sesssions played.

So I ask why are you trying to play 10 handed poker ?