|
|
 Originally Posted by Icanhastreebet
Are you sure playing PLO is best until you reach like 100PLO? Pretty sure the people at the stars meetings confirmed everyone with a huge sample size at X stake and <X stake were losers so unless you. They didn't say what X was but I would guess it's either 50PLO or 25PLO.
I think you can plug that last hand into a calculator and get a pretty good idea of what the next step is.
Well I've beaten 5 PLO before, see previous graph; it's much easier to beat the rake playing 250bb deep.
Like I've said earlier, rake hovers around 5ptbb for 10 PLO, which makes it significantly harder to beat, all things considered. But, it's certainly not impossible, and many people have been able to work their way through the micros up to 100s.
I'd say the reason people with huge samples at X stakes are all losers is probably because they're not good enough to move up in stakes in the first place. The same might actually hold true for holdem, though to a lesser extent (there are guys like Blackrain who never move up and just keep making money at cheeseburger stakes).
Consider that for most of us players who improve and put in the time, we won't spend more than 30-50k hands at a given stake in the micros before moving up, and most of the time it would take far fewer than that. I think to get to 50s in NLHE it took me around 100k hands total, starting with a banroll of about 100 and playing 2s.
Anyway, it seems to hold logically that if a person sticks around in a given stake over a large sample, it's likely because they fail to improve and therefore do not move up. This isn't exactly earth-shattering news.
As for the hand, yeah I've def run it on pro poker tools but I wanted to get some opinions on how I've thought things through.
|
Reply With Quote