24H 16-tabling tomorrow! And some analysis help

After running bad on NL100, i moved down to NL50 and ran even worse there. So now im down again to NL20 where i do just fine... Im not a horrible player ive just cashed out 3k and left the 1.5k in my account to play some more poker.. Earlier ive done 5BB/100 over 30k hands at NL50 before!!

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8563/shit2qe0.jpg

So guess ive ran pretty bad ( or played like a shitfuk postflop? )

Here is the graph of my NL50, its actually not as bad it looks from the first picture as i was pretty much break even until the last cuple of hands :////

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6990/shitnekrk2.jpg




Anyways, tomorrow when i wake up im gonna grind NL20, 16-tabling for 24 hours straight.. to build up my roll again. And if that's gonna turn out break even im simply gonna kill myself..

Now for the fun stuff, anyone want to make some kind of prop bet`?

My guess is you don't take advantage of position and allow yourself to build big pots with marginal stuff OOP.

How about you stop to try and multitable the fuck out of everything and play like 4 tables for a while and just see the improvement

What site are you playing at?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galapogos

My guess is you don't take advantage of position and allow yourself to build big pots with marginal stuff OOP.

---

I always keep position in the back of my mind, stealing the blinds, isolation limpers in position, pressuring SB in blind battles, and when thats said i always try to avoid playing oop. Allowing myself to build a big pot with marginal stuff OOP, this might be true .. I cant really think back to know if thats the case, but i will think about this in the future while playing.

Maybe my BB play is a leak?:

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8858/shit3ol3.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muzzard

]How about you stop to try and multitable the fuck out of everything and play like 4 tables for a while and just see the improvement

---

Im sorry, but never in a million years would i do that! When and if i get a good enough roll for 1kNL i would do that. I could never play at 5-8BB/100 playing one table of NL50, simply because of the low profit.

ironic enought i would probably make more money than i do now :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmind

What site are you playing at?

---

Ipoker network, NOiQ

IMO the proof is in the graph

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5230/4tableww0.png

looking at your position stats you are clearly taking too many weaker hands to showdown from UTG/UTG+1. Your WTSD and W$@SD are not looking all that good from those positions.

if you look at your stats from the two levels where you are losing money vs. the 1 level you are winning, what are the major differences you see? I see fewer showdowns with more showdowns won, as well as a tighter overall game where you are winning, while you are playing looser and seeing more showdowns, while losing more at the levels you are not winning.

Yeah, tighten up from EP and steal more instead. Fwiw i have 30% raise from button and 12% raise from utg 6-max...i dunno if thats anywhere near to ideal, but it makes life a bit easier. Also u seem a bit to loose from SB imo.

UTG and utg+1 i play any pair, AQ+AJs+, Any Axs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZwiFT

UTG and utg+1 i play any pair, AQ+AJs+, Any Axs

---

Take Axs out of ur UTG/UTG+1 range fo'sho!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muzzard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZwiFT

UTG and utg+1 i play any pair, AQ+AJs+, Any Axs

---

Take Axs out of ur UTG/UTG+1 range fo'sho!

---

I disagree!! =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muzzard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZwiFT

UTG and utg+1 i play any pair, AQ+AJs+, Any Axs

---

Take Axs out of ur UTG/UTG+1 range fo'sho!

---

and add KQo/s atleast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bode

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muzzard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZwiFT

UTG and utg+1 i play any pair, AQ+AJs+, Any Axs

---

Take Axs out of ur UTG/UTG+1 range fo'sho!

---

and add KQo/s atleast

---

Yeah my UTG and UTG+1 range is like AJs+/PP's/KQs and some other stuff if and when, but mainly just those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bode

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muzzard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZwiFT

UTG and utg+1 i play any pair, AQ+AJs+, Any Axs

---

Take Axs out of ur UTG/UTG+1 range fo'sho!

---

and add KQo/s atleast

---

Yeah ofcourse just forgot that one

you could definitely open up a lot more on the button

wow, i know ppl have pointed this out but i am amazed at how close your UTG raising range is vs you button raising range.

also zwift, there is so much truth to what muzz said and i dont think you should dismiss it. so many players are just so obsessed with volume, myself included. i play 9-10 tables and even still, i would yield a much higher win rate if i played 4-6. i guess names probably wouldnt mean anything to you since you dont play on stars, but there are a few people that are really good at playing a lot of tables, ISF and massimo are 2 of them. i know for a fact that they didnt get good at poker by 16-20 tabling. the moral of the story, is that you need to learn how to crawl before you try to walk. not trying to sound condescending or anything, but its the gods honest truth.

<3 beatin up on the 16 tabling robots

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muzzard

IMO the proof is in the graph

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5230/4tableww0.png

---

you are onto something here

Ok guys you convinced me, i went back to try 9tabling and everything went really great! im back to my agame, and 100NL.!!

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9472/backhw3.jpg



And holy shit i didnt notice this before but i think the graph is pr00f!:!:!:!:
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7199/16tablll1.jpg

DING DING DING! Same went for me. I was killing it at 8 or 9 tables but I soon as I went up to 12 i was barely breaking even. I have dropped back down myself.

you can 16 table if youre only good enough to win at 50nl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muzzard

IMO the proof is in the graph

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5230/4tableww0.png

---

While I do not disagree with your premise, your sample size is way too small to make that hypothesis.