|
|
#41
11-03-2005, 04:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: multitabling six-max question
[ QUOTE ]
I'm currently working out of a single room in a house w/out room for a monitor. It sux but i'd buy that monitor in a heartbeat if I had a place to put it [/ QUOTE ] how can you not have room for a computer monitor? 
|
|
#42
11-03-2005, 04:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: multitabling six-max question
Its all about the money for me baby! Altho, I do enjoy it sometimes when Im playing higher stakes than I usually do, or more tables. Basically things that challenge me, as opposed to playing 4k hands 6tabling. I usually don't play more than 6 tables, and the move from 4->6 tables has become pretty much complete for me now, so I dont get to be excited very often anymore.
-Mike
|
|
#43
11-03-2005, 04:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: multitabling six-max question
[ QUOTE ]
How it can be fun to play poker with 2 guys seeing 50% of all flops and often going to showgdown is beyond me. Its like playing tennis with your wife. Enjoyable at moments (when she does something funny or good) but not something you like to do 3 hours/day. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree with this. I am ultra competitive and will not play sports with anyone significantly worse than me. However, the random nature of poker and the tell-less-ness of playing online make your edge similiar to that of playing sports with someone barely worse than you. Even against fish, if you are playing optimally, you get put in so so many marginal situations. It is easy to throw up your arms and say these situations dont matter. But trying to pick up on betting patterns, timing tells (which I think is underrated expecially against the clueless), and 2nd/3rd level thinking can sway 0-.5 BB +/-ev decisions frequently. These things would take so so long to become "automatic" and still be as good as someone completely engaged, especially playing 4+ tables of SH. Squeezing out that extra .5BB for the vast majority of 2+2ers is challenging. Being ultra competitive, anything that is challenging and can win me money is at least engaging.
|
|
#44
11-03-2005, 04:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: multitabling six-max question
[ QUOTE ]
Playing poker live with people I dont know is about the most boring thing I can imagine. It doesnt matter if its a lot of money or not. It just is so extremly slow. Playing full tables online is really boring. No matter if its one or many. A bit funnier if it is at high limits, but still booooring. Playing 1 table 6max at a level I played a lot at before is boring. Playing many tables at levels I played a lot at before is pretty boring, but not as boring as playing 1 table. Playing at a level I am not used to (for me its 15/30and up) is fun. If its really high (for me) like 30/60 I can play 1 table. If its just a little higher then my normal 10/20 (lets say 20/40) I need 2 tables... When u play at a level u are comfortable with its boring. U have to be pretty stupid to not know pretty much excatly how to play each hand. (Of course there are a lot of marginal hands but they are just that: marginal. And of course there are hands u play a in a certain way that is wrong, but u will never know this when u play, only off-table). To make money at poker u have to play at a limit u are comfortable with. That means playing against players that are worse then u and at a limit where they cant scare u with their money. If u dont find poker boring a lot of the time u are not intelligent enough to be a really good pokerplayer. Most good pokerplayer are pretty intelligent and could have done something else much more interesting then playing poker online 3-4 hours/day. Its all about money and what u can do when u dont play poker. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#45
11-03-2005, 09:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: multitabling six-max question
[ QUOTE ]
Its like playing tennis with your wife. Enjoyable at moments (when she does something funny or good) but not something you like to do 3 hours/day. [/ QUOTE ] Except you usually get laid by putting up with the tennis...
|
|
#46
11-03-2005, 12:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: multitabling six-max question
[ QUOTE ]
When u play at a level u are comfortable with its boring. U have to be pretty stupid to not know pretty much excatly how to play each hand. (Of course there are a lot of marginal hands but they are just that: marginal. And of course there are hands u play a in a certain way that is wrong, but u will never know this when u play, only off-table). To make money at poker u have to play at a limit u are comfortable with. That means playing against players that are worse then u and at a limit where they cant scare u with their money. If u dont find poker boring a lot of the time u are not intelligent enough to be a really good pokerplayer. [/ QUOTE ] While I find it painful that you can't find the time to type the word "you" . . . u have a point. I think there's a reason that when all of the uber-pros are sitting in the super-high-limit games that during the game there's about 20 prop bets flying around at any one time. On the other hand, I think that most folks at our level aren't doing everything we can to become better players. At some point one reaches a threshold where it's actual damn (boring) WORK to improve. Yeah, I've learned how to isolate maniacs, read when my opponent is trying to see a showdown cheap with A-high/induce a bluff out of my broken draw, and, of course, value-bet the fish. But when I'm at a table with a bunch of competent 38/20 players (i.e., too loose but not dramatically so), how in the hell do I squeeze out more than a 1BB/100 advantage? And if I come up with a plan, how in the hell is it possible for me to gather sufficient empirical evidence to know whether it's working or not? I've gone off on a tangent to some degree, but you get the gist -- at some point around the 15/30 or 20/40 level, it becomes hard work to figure out how to stay a 3BB/100 winner, and it's work that can't be easily validated. And when it's difficult to "move up" . . . well, that's when the risk of boredom sets in. Okay, enough meandering.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
