#1
|
||||
|
||||
Today was a good day ($2/$4 NL)...
I've hardly played any non-league poker lately, for a variety of reasons. With the WSOP coming up soon though, I decided to see if my mostly sucky ass 2006 luck had taken a turn for the better now that we are in the second half of the year.
I'm happy to report that things are looking good! See below. The funny thing is, this was mostly a number of small and medium pots that I won, and not just a few giant hands, like you might expect. I still took my share of beats, but probably a bit less than the expected amount, which amounts to about 1/3 as many as I usually take (I was running above average, in other words). I was trying out a new theory today, and it worked REALLY well. I have no idea why I've never done this before. You know how we always yell at people for sitting with significantly less than a full buy in? Well, I decided that those guys are probably all a bunch of eejits, so I decided to seek them out. I joined tables that had at least 2 (and preferably 3 or 4) players sitting with less than half a buy in (< $200). And I killed them. Believe me, I'm the last person you need to tell about short term variance and small sample sizes, etc, but I think I may be on to something here. This is a way to do NL table selection that I hadn't previously tried, and I quite like it. This was three tabling, btw. Last thing: For you cash game NL gurus out there, how do these numbers look? It wouldn't surprise me for you to say I play looser than you think I should, but I'm ok with that. In general though, are any numbers way out of whack? BTW, note how I sorted the Known Hands list. Gotta love 54s!!! And look at KK in the green for a change! |
|
|