When I feel for it I will try to dig a bit deeper in how the Net Adjusted is calculated, and get a picture how relevant it is for different playing styles etc. Looks you took a serious varance blow the first 150 tournaments. Your Adjusted is going up, which has to be a good thing.

When it comes to my graphs the Won vs. Adjusted should tell me I've run good, but that I might be a winner. Figure I should play about a hundred tournaments before there's any sense in posting my next graph. Then we maybe are able to say some more. Only single tabling, it takes a while. Will try to get into the game theoretically also, try to figure out the shoving strategy, relative hand strengths, impact of position, and so on.

Hi guys. I have 2 questions for the hypers' regs. 1) Is it really possible to make a decent rakeback playin hypers 5/6 hours a day, all $15-$200 buyin? If yes how many VPP you can expect for a year? 2) Why dont you come playin cash game if the trafic is bad? Thanks by advance to those of you will respond. GL at tables. Vanou

I started them and was making 1k vpps a day playing mostly 15's.

stopped for a while but starting again this week I guess. feel i'm gonan go on a heater..yes yes

Going from hypers to cash game. alot of players will have problems adjusting there strategy or starting hands. Talking for myself did play some cash games as they was hypers and got spanked

1. Im at around 18k vpps so far this month with the majority coming from hypers. I play around 5 hours a day which includes some heavy grinding 10-12 tabling and some more relaxed grinding 6-8 tabling. I have not played a 200 in close to a week (too busto, downswinging etc) and played 5 or 6 happy hours. Anyway that should give you an idea of what kind of vpps can be expected from these games.

2. Right now the main regs playing 60-100s include myself, Waterboa, Janiosmo, Bleu , and Bokkie. Jani and bleu both play plenty of cash still as far as I know. I'm not sure if bokkie still plays any cash or not and waterboa well I'm not even sure if he is a winning player in hypers in the long run and he would likely get killed playing cash. As far as playing cash alongside hypers its actually hard imo to combine anything with hypers as hypers require such a different skill set compared to mtts, cash, and even 18 mans. I definitely feel like Im not playing my A game in other disciplines when I combine them with a bunch of hypers. Maybe thats just me and others dont have the same problem but either way I need to work on it as my plan for next year is either to lessen my total number of tables game select cash games and play the higher stakes hypers or play everything and go for elite. I have a few months to decide but I will likely start knocking off some cash game rust in November or December when i should have a bigger Bankroll to play with (Selling my car as I'm moving to Vancouver which is on the opposite side of the country and Im not driving a week to get there)

yes i still play cashgames as well as the hypers.
I prefer cashgames but tableselect in that because otherwise i cant win it
but how can you ever try to go for elite if you play hypers juicy?

vanou what is a winrate at .25/.5 and .5/1.0 what you can get if you dont tableselect?

bokkie87

I would be playing both cash and hypers

what kind of stakes you want to play then for cash?

vanou what is a winrate at .25/.5 and .5/1.0 what you can get if you dont tableselect?

bokkie87[/QUOTE]

I play only 0.5/1 and 1/2 cash. i know 95% of players and I think very few players are really good. My winrate is pretty decent, specially when i am playing between 50 and 100 BB. I used to play turbos 9mans and 18mans sngs at FTP and PS and had a really décent ROI (sharkscope LDB often) but when i tried hypers, i was loosing. I understood it was définitly not the same games as turbos sng and cash, but i would like to improve my game at this structure (more action than turbos..)

50c 1 - 3 6 nlo8

i thought there where no winners on 50/1 and 1/2 because the rake is too high but what kind of winrate is possible for average winning player on that kind of stakes

20BB ratholers get killed by rake. Winning players are those who can play well deepstacked.

Moved up to $3.50 from $1.50. For a recreational player it's not really fun to see how bad players play at $1.50. It's not so much my ROI of 50%, which could in itself just be variance, but the frequency of visible bad play, probably much more I can't see because players fold. Playing wrong hands, not standing any pressure...

Want to develop as a player and getting at least a marginal profit in the process. When moving up to $3.50 I immediately saw that players are going in better, was a bit scared my ROI would go out the window, but then saw they are making many bad plays there also, but with a smaller frequency.

I poker! The money involved makes you always have challenges ahead. Maybe my break even point will be the $7 hypers, maybe somewhere else, looking forward to find out.

Have to eat my words up (as usual). Foremost I want to be a winner. Variance/bad play made me lose everything I won, when moving up. Back at $1.50, appreciating getting heads up most oftenly, trying to develop that part.

With all the effort and time you put into poker playynde, I am kind of shocked that you play that low.

It'll surely bore the hell out of you eventually...

Don't think so. How big a percent of all players are lifetime winners? 5-10%? I'm one of them. Even if it's not much in dollars. The 1.50 hypers appear to be profitable when comparing to my earlier games, will not get bored anytime soon . The whole thing is an intellectual challenge, gambling for a minimal profit. Seeing I'm not great at everything

Some people play video games and other games for free, I play poker, as good as I can. I also have the "guts" to admit I have to play low for being a winner for the time being. This forum is biased towards players playing higher, some lifetime winners, some who I figure aren't.

My age and economical situation makes the potential money for the real world from poker close to a non-issue. The game is just so fun, the main thing is winning while I learn, increasing my roll, giving potential to play higher if and when that time comes. Then there is no risk the gambling can damage my life.

nothing wrong with starting at the lowest buyin when playing a new format imo. he can still move up in two weeks or whenever he feels like

Will calculate where I win the most for now. If playing low is that, so be it. It's a kind of "table selection", which I never have done the usual way, always have wanted to beat every level without the selection, for getting a realistic wiew of my skills.

Pretty admirable attitude.

Highlighted is the reason I gamble it up.

It's just that you almost certainly will come to the point when you have to ask yourself - is this really worth my time? (unless you have a lot of time on your hands or only play poker as a hobby)

Did you not read his post?

yeah ok i missed the 'intellectual challenge, gambling for a minimal profit' part...

My ROI for the 1.50s has gone down to 40%





Hoping to be on a downswing right now

lol, let's see where you are in 500 games 40% is defintely not sustainable, even at the lowest stakes

Dude 40% is huge