Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="zachvac, post: 693864, member: 26306"] No, 10nl should be 10*20 = 200, 9-tabling makes no difference in BR needed. Think of it this way, IMO 9-tabling at 1/2 (any unit, doesn't matter) for one hour is similar to single-tabling 1/2 for 9 hours, NOT single-tabling 9/18 for 1 hour. It decreases the variance. One bad beat at a higher limit hurts your BR a lot. One bad beat at the lower limit hurts just as much and although you'll have more bad beats per hour playing theoretically more hours/RL hour you'll also see more good runs. So as another example say my win rate graph is f(x), with the function value being the dollars won with the given x of hands. Assuming all other things (competition basically) equal, playing at twice the stakes changes your graph to 2*f(x). Anyone can see that a graph that fluctuates both directions has a better chance of breaking 0 at 2*f(x) than f(x). I claim that 2-tabling turns the graph into similar of f(2x). For those not familiar with manipulation of functions this is basically the function squashed together in the horizontal direction (so it only takes half of x to get to the old x value). This is really hard to explain and I don't know if this example clarified or confused people, but the point is that we are manipulating the # of hands played, not the stakes. As to being too optimistic, I'm going to put in some hours. I've got roughly 8 weeks, so to win 623 playing 20 hours a week would be 623/160 = 3.90/hour. I don't plan on playing a full 20 hours a week the entire time, but I'm currently winning at more than $3.90/hour, so that's definitely doable. My tough part will be the move up and being able to continue to beat those stakes. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us