Quote:
Originally Posted by Mepslol
Humblerone still mixing in 11$ buyins :P
Showed the AQ hand to a few players and got similar responses, in that people are surprised I would play the $11 Builder.
I'm trying to be very diligent when it comes to game selection. Not enough people are, IMO. A handful of players are good enough to overcome poor game selection, but for the majority of grinders it eats into their bottom line and throws them into the fiery pit of high variance. Not saying you need to avoid higher stakes, in fact the buy-in doesn't always reflect the level difficulty. I often find myself passing on 'flagship' games because of the reggier fields. For example, I haven't played the Big $109 or Hot $55 all year.
It seems like a significant % of regulars are more interested in massaging their own egos rather than playing the most optimal schedule. Some of them should clearly move down (Or away from the tougher games) but refuse to because of ignorance; perhaps they used to beat those stakes, binked a score in that specific game once, or think they're just unlucky.
I don't know what goes through their minds, but I do know that it's extremely difficult to look in the mirror and say "I might not be good enough to beat these games."
Quote:
"I might not be good enough to beat these games."
I've thought that at several points in the past and each time, I end up making some type of adjustment: More review, different schedule, another format, etc.
Do I think I'm +EV in the B109 or H55? I do. But I imagine my edge is fairly thin, and there are other/better games being offered so why not play those instead? I think I've found more than a handful of games in the $100+ buy-in range that fit that description, but I also still mix in the softer lower stakes stuff when I've got table space. For me, there's no shame in playing a low/micro buy-in if I think it's profitable enough/worth my time.
And about that $11 Builder -- It might have been the softest F2T I've ever played. I'd much rather have my high equity spots be against weaker competition. All that does is give me a better chance to chip up and avoid negative variance and realize my equity. Who wouldn't want that?
I guess it depends on what your goals are in this industry. I'm likely not as ambitious as other grinders; some guys want to be the best, grind the highest stakes and/or turn their poker ability into e-fame. Mad props to the guys who put in the work to achieve those goals, it's just I never wanted any of that. Instead of enduring massive swings, pushing super thin edges, and searching for reprieve via infrequent life-altering scores, I'd much rather print at a more consistent rate -- even if that means slightly less profit.