from http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ne-t70488.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
This got me thinking. My philosophy has been to play online poker to get better at the math aspects and play live to make money. In my last stint online, I finished playing 15 tables at a time... and not really getting any better. I was just grinding. There's nothing terribly wrong with that, except that I was better off focusing on getting better. It just felt wrong to sacrifice earn to go down to 2-4 tables in order to focus more on specific players and reads. Here's my plan to fix it:
I'll start any given session playing no more than 4 tables in a game that I'm comfortably rolled for (30 buyins) and a set amount of time to play. If I feel good about my play after a while, I'll look for good games above that limit. If I don't like a play I made, or if I just don't feel up to it, I'll look for good games at a lower limit. I can reload if needed, but I REALLY REALLY don't want to, so I'll set a ceiling of 15BIs for the top game I'll play, at no more than 4 tables. I tend to turn over tables pretty quick, leaving the bad ones and staying at the good ones, so I should have plenty of opportunities to re-evaluate my play and either move up or down.
In summary: start at br optimal, move up if playing well, move down if playing poorly.
It's kind of like manipulating bet sizing in blackjack: bet more with more edge, less with less edge.
Thoughts?
