Re: Winning the Most on the Internet

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
Plenty of people bashed this article "Winning the Most on the Interenet". For those people, many of whom simply stated "this is wrong" "this is so obviously wrong" "I can't believe anyone would think this is right", how do you 12 table effectively?

If your answer is, you don't, or that it is simply not possible to do so effectively, go back and apologize to the author. If you have some other advice, go ahead and offer it.



[/ QUOTE ]

My advice: rename the article to "How to be a BOT.". I'm not sure that I personally want to set my goals as high as "BOT", but there are plenty who enjoy reading binary and speak in squeaks, clicks, and pips. I welcome the bots to my games, they are easy to read. +EV.

[Dave H.]

When I last posted my progress (I'm a relative beginner), I received many replies that, not only should I move up, but that I should consider multitabling. I was very hesitant initially, but I took that advice and there is no question in my mind that I have increased my win rate as a result. Because of the short decision time frames, I also realize that I make some negative EV decisions; however, I also know without a doubt, that multitabling is more than making up for those poor decisions.

I have a goal to play at a certain level. Perhaps when I reach that goal, I will reevaluate multitabling and occasionally making those -EV decisions, but in the meantime my bankroll is increasing at a rate I am comfortable with.

I believe the article written has a great deal or merit and I read throughout the article the rationale behind the author's premise. He clearly stated his assumptions and why he believed what he believed. I find no fault with what he wrote and I would be willing to bet that most of those who do are, themselves, multitabling.

When someone takes the time to try to instruct and when there aren't huge flaws in his logic, I think we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. To be critical is one thing; to say that his article is worthless and should never have been published, is quite another.

Each individual has his/her own method of "getting the job done". We all find opportunities in different ways and even in different fields of endeavor. So many of the negative responses read "You shouldn't be thinking" into what the author stated and that's just not what he was saying at all in my opinion.

Flame away!

[helpmeout]

This is the sort of crap that gets thrown around in micro and small stakes forums.

Its the get rich quick mentality.

Low limit players should be focusing on correct play rather than this zombie style method that they will have to untrain when they move up limits.

Most people who do this suffer from burnout and quit.

[Shaun]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seem like some articles are about getting better at poker, and some are about making the most money possible.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
And a good 15-30 player can make much more than $43/ hr 1-tabling.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but what will his swings be like? Not everyone has the same tolerance for losing $1500 in a session and maintaining a $10K BR online. Some people would rather play small easily beatable games where ABC poker will get you 2+BBs/100 and you stand absolutely no chance to lose any significant amount of money over any significant period of time.