I complain a lot on this blog, often justifiably so, about how I'm currently running. Today I'm going to do close to the opposite.
Recently I got to thinking about two instances in which I have been very fortunate with respect to poker. The first is that I didn't experience a stretch of terrible variance during my early days attempting to grind up a roll 25NL and 50NL. It's quite possible if my career had begun with awful variance, I simply would have given up. Running well early on also allowed me to move up to small stakes more quickly, and have a very profitable first year before deciding to play for a living.
Secondly, while I have had some stretches of absolutely ridiculous runbad over the past year and a half, in general I have run worst at the lowest stakes I frequent (100NL) while significantly better at 200NL and above. The exception to this was my first couple thousand hands of 600NL where I was something like 5 BI below AIEV, but my recent results bumhunting there have somewhat rectified that. It's a lot more encouraging financially at the end of the day when variance is costing you less than it could simply because of where it's happening.
2 comments:
superb blog and i agree with you about the stars changes being crap. was interested to know why you say pokerstars "knows" they have fooked up?. I hope they change it similar to full tilts changes.
If you cant get 24 tables of FR going why not have a go at 6-max where you could play less tables and still earn the same VPPs. Then you wouldnt have to move from Pokerstars.
Certain Stars employees have given the impression both in forum posts on 2p2 and in person at EPT Monte Carlo, that internally the decision makers recognize they've made a mistake with the changes.
It's possible I'll start mixing FR and 6-max.
Post a Comment