Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Poker session length

Although I didn't play much today, on Sunday and Monday I played about 3 to 3.5 hours on each day.

I hear of guys who play 8-12 hours in a day, and somehow my 3 hours as an extreme day for me seems pretty small.

The thing is though, by the end of those three hours i'm actually starting to get pretty bored of poker. That level of keen-ness and passion for the game is starting to wear pretty thin. Its at that stage that I think right, i've got to quit very soon or risk either not paying attention properly and losing a heap of BBs or possibly worse, getting sick of the game so much that I need to take a break for a while.

On Monday for example, toward the end of my session, I actually misread the board for the first time in probably six months, where I thought I had a straight and checkraised the river (my FD had missed but I thought my straight had hit), only to then find that I was check/raising J high. I guess it would have been a great move if he'd folded to the check/raise, but he wasn't goin anywhere and reraised me back. Cost me $12 all up so not a total disaster, but a good indicator that it was time to quit.

So far i've always chosen the first option in just quitting the session when i'm getting bored, since i'm not playing to live off a poker income, there's no point in playing when I don't feel like it.

Hmm ... this post is more about daily play than individual session lengths but I couldn't think of a decent and succinct title for the post.

Yesterday's play was all of 15 minutes, and somehow I managed not to lose any BBs, even with my AA being cracked twice, and more than my fair share of nasty suckouts, with a W$SD of 35%. Luckily I hit a couple big hands against a maniac who was all too happy to 4 bet the river with a single card 2 high flush versus my Q high with the K on the board. Rakeback credited me around $30 so all in all a small boost to the bankroll.

I also realised I had forgotten in my goals for December the Interpoker monthly bonus. I'm only taking it up for 30 pounds for 300mpps as I know I can do that quite easily. Getting rakeback at the same time means I should be getting around 60%rb or maybe more I think ... but will see.

Current bankroll: $15,050


TiocfaidhArLa said...

I've just scored a new laptop at work and it has a big screen that fits 9 IpokerNetwork minitables at once (no room left over for PokerOffice).

I'm not that talented yet, but curious how formulaic or robotic your style is these days and could you multi-9. If so, you could get 500 hands per hour easily and rack up a lot of rakeback without increasing the hours at the table.

I met an acquaintance yesterday who is making $2000/week NL50 and NL100 13-tabling. He says that his winnings to RB ratio is fairly consistent at 2/3 winnings and 1/3 Rakeback.

Do the rakeback maths work? He shared with me putting in 30-35 hours per week, 13-tabling with little or no table selection.

His winnings, playing relatively tight but very aggressively 3-betting and 4-betting, are averaging 2BB/100.

Poker (mostly online) has genuinely been his only source of income for some time now.

parttimebonuschaser said...

Thats a good question on the average rb versus winnings ratio.

I had to do up a spreadsheet and graph to work it out. The graph is now on the blog and might stay if it makes sense.

It looks like i'm more like 2/3 rakeback + bonuses and 1/3 poker winnings. That probably makes sense since limit is raked a lot higher than no limit. In fact i'm probably still a bit high for poker winnings given the number of bonuses i've completed at very high rakeback rates.

The most i've ever tried to multitable is 6, and that was a fair stretch and I was definitely losing value. I'm not sure my style is all that formulaic or robotic as a lot of decisions are based upon the preceeding actions by specific players.

That being said, when looking at 2p2 it seems a lot of the no limit guys multitable 16-24 tables, whereas the shorthanded limit guys often talk of not playing more than 4 tables. Obviously shorthanded you're not going to play as many tables, but i'm still not 100% sure why limit you'd play fewer than no limit.

Its interesting he can get away without table selecting. Maybe no limit is easier to be a winning player at by playing abc? maybe robotic works better in no limit? Dunno.