|
|
I don't think it's possible for me to disagree with this more.
1. You'd have to have double the ROI in slow games to make up for $$ per hour lost playing them as opposed to turbos (not possible),
2. Fire up more tables is a really poor argument for 2 reasons.
a. Far more difficult to play complicated post flop poker or "real poker" as you call it with lots of tables particularly as it's not like cash games as you can often be <4 handed in 10 or more at once!
b. You can fire up just as many turbos as you can normal games.
3. The most profitable mistakes donks make in the small stakes are in the end game, when their poor decisions bust them out, and where they spew EV all over the table by folding too tight, by limping, by shoving in dumb spots. Getting there faster is optimal.
4. You can't win SNGs early. Sure you may on average have x more chips because of playing "real poker" better in a slower one. But x aint gonna be vast, and if at all it can only increase your ROI by a couple of %. Because x more chips does not equal x more $EV. ICM is king my friend. That means knowing what to do when the blinds are high. You know that, you own, and you wanna get there fast as possible.
5. Turbos have less rake.
Slower blind increases are your friend if you can't be bothered to learn ICM properly, or if you enjoy the cut and chase of the post flop game but are too scared to play at a cash table where chips=monies. They may also be your friend if you enjoy the format more. But $$ per hour will never be better.
|