I think you're all missing the point somewhat. I know that playing decent, situation specific poker is better. (Notice I refrain from saying full-stacked poker, because I believe that playing a short-stacked game - one that is more flexible, and less mechanical than I describe above - can also be valid, if that's what a situation dictates. Greenstein, Fahar, etc). What I'm doing here is a technical exercise. It's been tried before, with some profitability, though no one denies playing "normal" poker well is more profitable still. It's just an experiment for it's own sake. Well, maybe not completely for it's own sake - it's certainly going screw up everyones PT databases, it's nice to have a rest from my normal game, and if it works I can employ my kid as a poker bot without ever having to teach him the rules >;-).

Though I do appreciate the responses, "Don't do the experiment" is perhaps not the most productive answer to "What's the best way to do this experiment?"

Apparently this is what Ferguson did to turn his dollar into 20k. I'm just trying my own spin as a mental exercise, and not because I think it's super poker.

Bode, and Swift: I don't think that's true. Peoples ranges are tiny for a flat call of 100 BB. So small that I think the above range is break-even at best.

Ash256: I've been grinding with the maximum buyin, and putting my opponents on ranges on every street for 200kish Hands. I want to take a break, and perform an experiment just for fun.

Pelion: I don't really. This isn't my regular game. This isn't how I've been playing so far, and it won't be how I play afterwards. I just want to see if it works.