Sick, sick, dual monitor setup.

That is something I've been thinking about the past couple of days (yes, even live tourney donks think about how they can improve ).

Two of the last three deepstack events I've played, I've chopped for decent scores. But in both events I have more plodded my way through the fields than gone after people and tore the event up. I guess I'd be viewed as a solid player who doesn't make mistakes or give away easy chips rather than a genuinely dangerous opponent who you don't wish to have on your table.

When I played the 1k event in the SE last November Dave Callaghan was on my starting table and intentionally played pots against me in position. And I got pwned so hard. Since then it is something that has been in the back of my mind - how to move from being 'solid' to 'tough'.

But then again, how neccesary is it to be a tough player that other people are afraid of?

At the end of the day, is there anything wrong with concentrating on taking money off the players who are technically incompetent and unwilling to learn? Because there will be plenty of them at 1 / 2 and below online; in the live environment. I don't think there is anything fundamentally dishonest or dishonourable about being above average but not great. I'd prefer to have some wacky natural Phil Ivey type instinct for the game and win ALL the monies, sure. But maybe there is nothing wrong with accepting that your talent may be limited to some extent - and that the best you can do make less errors than the opposition rather than outplaying them? I dunno. I guess I'm undecided on the whole thing.

I would definitely say not move up to 2 / 4 until you are WAY, WAY, WAY overrolled for it and demonstrating an abillity to stick in a whole lot more hours than you are managing currently. Remember that Hector still plays 1 / 2 and he's probably better than you.

Lastly, I'll download that album you linked tonight and give it a listen. I'm coming around to the idea of free music.