Saturday, June 24, 2006

I am really starting to enjoy NL.

The other night at the Wynn I was playing 2/5, and was completely card dead. I played perhaps 3 hands over the span of a couple hours, all of which saw me check-fold an air-balled flop.

Then, finally, I flop a hand. I push all-in, get called, and my slim advantage holds up. Maybe 20 minutes later, I call a short-stack's all-in with A7s, and win that. I then sit around card dead for another 30 minutes or so before leaving, up about one buy-in.

Three hours, two hands won, yet I can add one more winning session to my ledger. I'm trying to remember the last time I played limit and won only two hands over the span of three hours. Well it happened a lot, poker being what it is, but I'm not sure I ever had a winning limit session with those kinds of stats. Certainly not one where I nearly doubled my money. Yet, in NL, that's very possible.

Why did I ever play limit?

18 Comments:

Blogger Stacy said...

You played limit so that with your experience, you could teach me the horror and pain that is limit poker.

10:48 AM  
Blogger estonb said...

Limit blows, I'm never going back.

7:33 PM  
Anonymous StrangeNuts said...

Just curious, when you play NL online, how many tables do you play?

2:51 PM  
Blogger eric said...

4-8. I should go no higher than 6, but I often find myself with 7 or 8 regardless. I try to stay at 6. 500+ hands/hour baby! I've even cleared 700 hands/hour on nights when the games were particularly quick.

3:17 PM  
Blogger estonb said...

Yeah my MT ratio is pretty weak. I really start to show signs of slippage around 6. I don't know how some of those wiz kids play 10 tables at once of 10-20 NL...

1:47 AM  
Blogger eric said...

There's a difference between "regularly playing 10 tables of 10/20NL" and "have once played 10 tables of 10/20NL." There's also a difference between "playing 10 tables of 10/20NL profitably" and simply "playing 10 tables of 10/20NL." My guess is that many people who claim either of the former statements would be better described by the latter statements.

2:52 AM  
Blogger Duck said...

do you use 1 or 2 monitors to play 8 tables? how do you stack the screens up for the mist efficiency?

i have played 5 tables once...it might help if they were all the same game and didnt switch between omaha, hold-em and 7 stud hi-lo

usually 3-4 is plenty.

1:25 PM  
Blogger estonb said...

There are people that do it E.

1:58 PM  
Blogger eric said...

I have two monitors, 1600x1200, so 8 tables fit perfectly. 6 fit perfectly, with just enough room for the poker room client and for my XM radio tuner to be visible.

There are people that do it E.

ahem...if I may be borderline rude for a sec,

My guess is that many people...

many != all.

3:51 PM  
Blogger eric said...

oh yeah, duck, do not mix totally different games like that. I guess if you have like 2 or 3 tables going, but otherwise it's a recipe for disaster. I've tried it before. The only time I can mix games is when I'm doing NL cash games and NL SnGs.

I mean, I'm sure there are people who can do it out there, but I've never heard of it.

3:54 PM  
Blogger estonb said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:21 AM  
Blogger estonb said...

Duck, are you going to play in the HORSE event?

12:27 AM  
Blogger estonb said...

E, what's your VP so far? Are you a nit or LAG?

12:30 AM  
Blogger estonb said...

Ok as long as we're being borderline rude...

My statement to you and your reponse are not mutually exclusive. That is, I did not say you had committed a fallacy in suggesting that some people lie about being able to "regularly play 10 tables of 10-20 NL." as you are suggesting I did in your last response.

Your response might be that "There are people who do it, E," certainly suggested that you weren't aware of that fact, and that was insulting.

In a way, I guess it was supposed to be insulting in the same way your response to my first post was. When I said I didn't know how wiz kids did it in my first post, I wasn't talking about some gimp or the frauds.

So then, "There's a difference between "regularly playing 10 tables of 10/20NL" and "have once played 10 tables of 10/20NL." There's also a difference between "playing 10 tables of 10/20NL profitably" and simply "playing 10 tables of 10/20NL." My guess is that many people who claim either of the former statements would be better described by the latter statements," is a somewhat trivial response, since I didn't say something like, "Hey Eric 95% of the population can 10 table 10-20 profitably, why can't I? There must be some sort of misrepresentation here!" To which your response would have made perfect sense.

My response then to your response should have just been, "Duh."

12:56 AM  
Blogger eric said...

haha, okay fair enough.

Also, I don't know what VP is.

3:01 AM  
Blogger estonb said...

Hmmm...what % of pots you voluntarily put money into the pot (i.e. not including blind money). If you use pokertracker, it has it in there. If not, then ignore heh.

3:05 AM  
Blogger eric said...

oh ok. I always referred to that as VPIP.

About 25.

4:55 AM  
Blogger Duck said...

I will only be in vegas for one weekend during the wsop madness
aug 3rd thru the 6th

I have no interest in laying out 50K for much of anything right now.

3:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home