New Challenge (old Challenge)

[chgocubs99 0]

I'm not a good coach.

I know all my leaks which is what really pisses me off:1) I'm not using your coaching enough2) I'm playing little 10-20 min sessions, not at all playing when I have the right mindset3) I'm not taking my time to think through decisions4) I worry about shortstackers leaving after the double up on me more than playing them correctly, and alter my own game to try to bust them sooner5) I'm building huge pots preflop to race against people I have a huge edge on postflopI'd call playing tournaments a leak too but it gave me my roll in the first place so I dunno.There's probably more but blah. You have helped me with the fundamental technical aspects a ton, and now I just have to learn not to be a retard with the other stuff.

Maybe I should coach you. lol.

You goin to the Shoe at all this weekend?

[Dratj 0]

Let's play some big2 acid

[RDog 0]

I think you're inferring A LOT here. I think most of this whole disagreement or whatever we want to call it comes from the fact that HU players see that graph and think "holy shit, 58k hands" and instantly relate that to the same quantity of hands HU and FR or 6m players see a HU player's graph of 10k hands and chuckle at the lack of volume.

This is completely my point. I don't chuckle at lack of volume for HU players. I realize you can't 10 table. From my very first post regarding this I said all that matters is money won. However you do it.

[Dratj 0]

I kind of stumbled across HU on my own. I was struggling to break even at 6m when I started on the stake with him, which surprised me since I thought I'd be better at it, but I sucked.I had a CR memebership and watched some of the videos and realized how to play fundamentally better at HU and I just developed my own style from there.Not to take anything away from Jordan or whatever, but he didn't really do that much coaching of my play.

you got good just from CR and self analysis? that's awesome.

[Suited_Up 2]

I know all my leaks which is what really pisses me off:1) I'm not using your coaching enough2) I'm playing little 10-20 min sessions, not at all playing when I have the right mindset3) I'm not taking my time to think through decisions4) I worry about shortstackers leaving after the double up on me more than playing them correctly, and alter my own game to try to bust them sooner5) I'm building huge pots preflop to race against people I have a huge edge on postflopI'd call playing tournaments a leak too but it gave me my roll in the first place so I dunno.There's probably more but blah. You have helped me with the fundamental technical aspects a ton, and now I just have to learn not to be a retard with the other stuff.You goin to the Shoe at all this weekend?

I'd like to, but not a lot of expendable cash right now really. I could risk a cash game maybe, but for sure not a tourney.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I wanna go back to this though.I have yet to see this actually be the case. Can someone show me evidence of this unless the person is terrible?

You don't see that variance is lower HU because you see mostly graphs from myself or cwik or naismith and we game select like super nits. We only play braindead people who mostly have no chance to win money in the first place unless they get lucky.If I had to play people who were proportionally as competent at HU as the decent regulars are at 6m, it'd be a variance jamboree. Since hand ranges are weaker the fewer players that are dealt into a hand, HU has the weakest hand ranges across the board. You're constantly having to value bet and bluff and make thin calls and thinner bets with 2nd and 3rd pairs, especially against better players, to show your profits. The fact that you're sticking so much money in so often with such weak hand ranges means that there's going to be a lot of luck involved when you call a shove with TPNK on KT7ss because you know their range is massive, where in 6m, your hand range should always be flipping or crushing them in a spot like this.Basically, I think that if 6m players could game select and find games which were as proportionally weak as the opponents I can play, they'd have even less variance than I currently do at HU.

[Acid_Knight 2]

This is completely my point. I don't chuckle at lack of volume for HU players. I realize you can't 10 table. From my very first post regarding this I said all that matters is money won. However you do it.

And my point is that it's not a slight from Jordan, it's just a natural reaction. At least not how I see it.I agree that the only thing that really matters is $$/hr and if it satisfies what you're looking for or not.

[Suited_Up 2]

You don't see that variance is lower HU because you see mostly graphs from myself or cwik or naismith and we game select like super nits. We only play braindead people who mostly have no chance to win money in the first place unless they get lucky.If I had to play people who were proportionally as competent at HU as the decent regulars are at 6m, it'd be a variance jamboree. Since hand ranges are weaker the fewer players that are dealt into a hand, HU has the weakest hand ranges across the board. You're constantly having to value bet and bluff and make thin calls and thinner bets with 2nd and 3rd pairs, especially against better players, to show your profits. The fact that you're sticking so much money in so often with such weak hand ranges means that there's going to be a lot of luck involved when you call a shove with TPNK on KT7ss because you know their range is massive, where in 6m, your hand range should always be flipping or crushing them in a spot like this.Basically, I think that if 6m players could game select and find games which were as proportionally weak as the opponents I can play, they'd have even less variance than I currently do at HU.

This sounds akin to theory of poker. Which is pretty pointless at this stage in the game.A huge part of HU is game selecting, so I don't think you can just leave it out of the equation when you're talking about variance.I'm talking about skilled HU players, and those players game select. So if you're including all those factors, doesn't HU seem like one of the lower variance games out there? I know I just started HU, and have never been coached whatsoever, yet for the most part, my results have been good. I've had like 2 bad downsings, and I'd probably put that on tilt more than the game itself.Edit: Granted our styles are different, just based on graphs I've seen, I play more like Tre, than you and Naismith, but I imagine it still holds relatively true.

[RDog 0]

And my point is that it's not a slight from Jordan, it's just a natural reaction. At least not how I see it.I agree that the only thing that really matters is $$/hr and if it satisfies what you're looking for or not.

This might be true but just because it is a natural reaction doesn't make saying something about me not making enough money according to someone elses standards less offensive.

[Naismith 0]

I had a CR memebership and watched some of the videos and realized how to play fundamentally better at HU and I just developed my own style from there.

It was awesome when Matt was playing 6m at the start of his stake. Every few minutes he'd send a hand history where he shoved a couple buy ins on a bluff and get mad that his opponent wouldn't lay down top set despite how realistically he was repping the backdoor double gutshot straight.I think some of us just play a style that is better-suited for HU. I struggle at 6m to get under 30 vpip. It's even worse full ring. I think Matt's the same way; the same issues that made him struggle at 6m make him successful at HU.

[Dratj 0]

hmm. maybe I should try hu, seems to fit my ADD problem, guess I shoudl sign up for CR first then, huh?

[Acid_Knight 2]

This sounds akin to theory of poker. Which is pretty pointless at this stage in the game.A huge part of HU is game selecting, so I don't think you can just leave it out of the equation when you're talking about variance.I'm talking about skilled HU players, and those players game select. So if you're including all those factors, doesn't HU seem like one of the lower variance games out there? I know I just started HU, and have never been coached whatsoever, yet for the most part, my results have been good. I've had like 2 bad downsings, and I'd probably put that on tilt more than the game itself.Edit: Granted our styles are different, just based on graphs I've seen, I play more like Tre, than you and Naismith, but I imagine it still holds relatively true.

The point is that at low stakes HU, you can game select so effectively as to somewhat mitigate the effects that luck will have on your game since your opponents will not be skilled enough to put you to the decisions that would increase the variance of the style you wish to play.The same cannot be said of low stakes 6m and FR because there are so many competent regulars playing who force you to make moves where luck will play a larger factor in the outcomes.What I'm saying is that if you are comparing apples to apples and are playing a set of opponents who make the optimal play, say, 75% of the time, HU is going to have a lot more variance because you're going to be putting in money in more and more spots without a dominating edge because your opponent is forcing you to do so, or risk getting run into the ground. The fact that low stakes HU allows you to play an opponent base that might have the ability to make optimal plays, say, 25% of the time, really means that you can eliminate a lot of variance by getting your money in more frequently when you know you have a larger edge.Does that make sense?

[Dratj 0]

I think acid should start a HU nl challenge thread.

[Suited_Up 2]

The point is that at low stakes HU, you can game select so effectively as to somewhat mitigate the effects that luck will have on your game since your opponents will not be skilled enough to put you to the decisions that would increase the variance of the style you wish to play.The same cannot be said of low stakes 6m and FR because there are so many competent regulars playing who force you to make moves where luck will play a larger factor in the outcomes.What I'm saying is that if you are comparing apples to apples and are playing a set of opponents who make the optimal play, say, 75% of the time, HU is going to have a lot more variance because you're going to be putting in money in more and more spots without a dominating edge because your opponent is forcing you to do so, or risk getting run into the ground. The fact that low stakes HU allows you to play an opponent base that might have the ability to make optimal plays, say, 25% of the time, really means that you can eliminate a lot of variance by getting your money in more frequently when you know you have a larger edge.Does that make sense?

Perfect sense, I can't disagree.

[Suited_Up 2]

I think acid should start a HU nl challenge thread.

That would rule.

[bull62 0]

I think acid should start a HU nl challenge thread.

Why? So the thread can lose another good player?

[Naismith 0]

Every time you guys give Acid credit for stuff, I die a little inside.To further Matt's point, though, the majority of the players we play aren't sure what the glowing magic window in front of them is or why it keeps flashing pictures of queens and kings and deuces.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I think acid should start a HU nl challenge thread.

The answer to everything would be "it depends" and therefore a thread is pointless

[The Lobster 0]

...the majority of the players we play aren't sure what the glowing magic window in front of them is or why it keeps flashing pictures of queens and kings and deuces.

This is going to be my new signature fyi.

[Snamuh 0]

FWIW I think RDog has the work ethic that most of us don't have due to the experience of working a 9-5 for 10 years or so. I know I wish I had half the work ethic and dedication that he has. If I put in 20k hands, I consider that to be an accomplishment and he's striving to put in three, four, five times that amount (even adjusting the amount to 4 tables worth of time, he's still putting in way more hours). I admire his work ethic, and I certainly wouldn't put down any of his accomplishments. Most would kill for the steady income that he generates.

[Naismith 0]

This is going to be my new signature fyi.

That makes me happier than it should.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Every time you guys give Acid credit for stuff, I die a little inside.To further Matt's point, though, the majority of the players we play aren't sure what the glowing magic window in front of them is or why it keeps flashing pictures of queens and kings and deuces.

Naismith wins my vote every time for his description of the lack of poker (or other) intelligence that our average opponent has.

[Naismith 0]

Also, screw Tre and his stupid QT hand at the Hard Rock.

[Suited_Up 2]

FWIW I think RDog has the work ethic that most of us don't have due to the experience of working a 9-5 for 10 years or so. I know I wish I had half the work ethic and dedication that he has. If I put in 20k hands, I consider that to be an accomplishment and he's striving to put in three, four, five times that amount (even adjusting the amount to 4 tables worth of time, he's still putting in way more hours). I admire his work ethic, and I certainly wouldn't put down any of his accomplishments. Most would kill for the steady income that he generates.

For sure!I'm struggling to even hit 10k hands this month. I just hate playing unless I really feel like it.

[Painter567 0]

Also, screw Tre and his stupid QT hand at the Hard Rock.

Thanks for the call fellow Tampa Bayers and visitors.....sigh.