Man, My Last 182,000 Hands have really Sucked.

[x2ski]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing 3-6 hrs straight is going to make it very hard to play your A game the whole time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take a smoke break every 1,000 hands (2 hours or so).

Unfortunately, smoke breaks end on Sunday (hopefully). Maybe I'll start taking short walks or something, lest people in my neighborhood start thinking I'm a perv stalking children every few hours.

Was that the proper use of "lest"?

Thanks for the info. It looks like I'd beter study more, 'cuz there's no way I can commit that much time to playing. Good luck on improving your game, I'd just like to get to your level.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I am realizing that I don't play anywhere near the amount of hands needed to improve to the level I desire. Hey x2ski, how long did it take you to play that many hands?

[/ QUOTE ]



Improving to the level you desire is not necessarily more likely to happen by playing lengthy sessions of 8-tabling. It's just a way to grind out income (although improvement CAN come...I just don't agree with the implication that it's mandatory).
you do need to play hands...but a half-million isn't necessary to be a better player.
people became good players long before the internet....pre-internet it would be pretty tough to play more than 100k hands in a year.


Playing FEWER tables and studying will improve your game.

Many would argue that playing that many tables for that long would make it extrmely difficult to improve one's game (although some 2+2'ers have seemingly proven that idea to be incorrect)

[x2ski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am realizing that I don't play anywhere near the amount of hands needed to improve to the level I desire. Hey x2ski, how long did it take you to play that many hands?

[/ QUOTE ]



Improving to the level you desire is not necessarily more likely to happen by playing lengthy sessions of 8-tabling. It's just a way to grind out income (although improvement CAN come...I just don't agree with the implication that it's mandatory).
you do need to play hands...but a half-million isn't necessary to be a better player.
people became good players long before the internet....pre-internet it would be pretty tough to play more than 100k hands in a year.


Playing FEWER tables and studying will improve your game.

Many would argue that playing that many tables for that long would make it extrmely difficult to improve one's game (although some 2+2'ers have seemingly proven that idea to be incorrect)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm single-tabling Poki right now practicing some blind plays.

FWIW I'm tearing ass after 269 hands (.429 sb/h wetf that means).

You might be on to something there Bobber... Obviously you're right, but it's hard to cut down when you begin to rely on a certain earn whilst including "extra".

"whilst" - how'd I do with this one? British people are funny.

[MicroBob]

I too enjoy the word 'whilst'.


I think Lorinda used it about 17 times in the Internet-forum FAQ's.


i understand your situation...but the way you have to auto-pilot to play 8 tables might still not be for the best in the long-term.
That's easy to say though when I'm no the one putting food in your kid's mouth (congrats btw).


But even just cutting to 6 tables during SOME of your play will slow things down some (and will probably feel like playing in slow-motion to you since you're so used to 8) and will allow you to perhaps concentrate a bit more and think on a slightly higher level.

It's one thing to have stats on your opponents and have a general idea of how they play...but your opponents aren't complete dolts most of the time no matter how bad they play.
And it's possible that THEY are getting a read on YOU.


Are you always getting check-raised when you value-bet after the draw comes through and always paying-off 'just in case' because you still have that chance of picking off the bluff??
If they read that you will pay-off and will almost always value-bet at the end then they will eventually be smart enough to C/R you to death. Stuff like that.
This is one of my biggest downfalls of late anyway and I think is something that goes along with multi-tabling ABC-ish play where your reads aren't quite as specific and you are less aware of what your opponents are thinking of you.

Also - since I'm currently a losing player I'm not sure any of my opinions should really be taken all that seriously anyway...but that's my own personal whine.

[x2ski]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you always getting check-raised when you value-bet after the draw comes through and always paying-off 'just in case' because you still have that chance of picking off the bluff??
If they read that you will pay-off and will almost always value-bet at the end then they will eventually be smart enough to C/R you to death. Stuff like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm value-betting like crazy but haven't been paying off raises/check-raises at all (unless my opponent tends to pull bluffs like this, which is rare [I hope]).

Maybe some more observant opponents are noticing that I'm value-betting my TPTK or whatever even when possible draws come in and not paying off, and taking advantage of that and bluffing at me more often? I dunno.

Good point anyway.

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Lorinda used it about 17 times in the Internet-forum FAQ's.


[/ QUOTE ]

Incredibly it was only twice, but I used it in a lot of posts too. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Lori

[SmileyEH]

You should play 2/4. You'll make a lot more money.

-SmileyEH

[Justin A]

I haven't read all the replies but in case nobody mentioned this it's likely you're folding too much postflop.

[x2ski]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read all the replies but in case nobody mentioned this it's likely you're folding too much postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Folding too much or not going to showdown enough?

Regardless, I thin I've got a problem with both.