#41
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Lowest beatable limit?
[ QUOTE ]
Another thing I've thought about, but doesn't totally even out because you will swing more, is that at almost every table at commerce there are always a few absolute donks you would not find online except in the rare occasion, and just one of these donks calling every single hand kind of "pays the rake" for us because they play so poorly. Does anyone think this makes sense? or am I smoking rocks again... [/ QUOTE ] Loose players isn't what causes a lot of variance. (I'm assuming that's what you're asking about.) Variance is mainly caused by aggression. Not that the loose/tight aspect doesn't affect it. Commerce will tend to be a swingier game because "aggression rules the day in LA" as some have said. Though, to be honest, online is definitely swingier than Commerce, even if Commerce is believed to be swingier than Bay 101, or other casinos. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Lowest beatable limit?
that is kinda what I meant... I thought of it like this: the loose player is going to play his crap hand every time and cover the rake for the rest of us most of the time, the kind you always see at live games but rarely even see at the 50c/1 game on party nowadays. However, occasionally hell win with his hand causing the rest of us to swing more, but I think I am probably missing something.
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Lowest beatable limit?
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with the long run in B&M is that it's pretty damn long. At only 30-35 hands/hour, it takes many, many sessions to hit 50k-100k hands. [/ QUOTE ] Indeed -- that is the problem. Long before I get any data that would come close to convincing you, I hope to build enough of a bankroll to move up past Foxwoods $2/4. (As it is, I try to play $4/8 when I'm not "scared money", and I recognize that my $2/4 B&M play is for recreation, not to make money.) I'm sure I'm not alone, as no sane person who wants to improve their poker game would commit to play 5K or 10K hands of entry-level B&M limits just to advance the cause of knowledge. I've tried to focus on the theoretical argument -- two extra limpers pay the rake -- instead of my small sample, because a couple hundred hours of live play doesn't mean a thing. |
|
|