Friday, September 22, 2006


Oddly, mere days after complaining that I can't beat $1/$2 to save my life, it's not only become my regular game, but I'm beating it about as hard as I was beating 50¢/$1. 2900 hands in at PokerStars, I'm beating $1/$2 for over 4 BB/c. At the time of my complaint, I was working off a bonus at Royal Vegas Poker (a Prima site), so I conclude that the game quality is a lot tougher at Prima. Other explanations are available, but that's the easiest conclusion to draw, so that's the one I draw. Occam's Razor.

I've played a little $2/$4 as well at Stars, and made money, but it's been much more of a struggle than $1/$2 is. I just loaded my $2/$4 sessions into PokerTracker, and it shows 500 hands and a 1.75 BB/c win rate. If both of these numbers were to hold up over the long term, it would mean that $1/$2 is actually more profitable for me, despite being half the stakes. But that wouldn't be the whole story; if I was beating $3/$6 or even $5/$10 at anywhere close to the same rate, it would be far more profitable for me to play there.

This all assumes that the numbers I have pulled out of PokerTracker have some measure of validity. Neither set of numbers even approaches statistical validity. (It sounds good when I say it that way, but all I mean is, "I need a lot more hands in to rely on those numbers." I dropped out of Statistics 221 in college before we learned how to figure statistical validity, and even if I hadn't, I probably wouldn't remember how this many years later anyway.)

This is mainly a quick update; I have a longer post I want to write but it's far off-topic, so I'll break it out into another post. And, in any case, I did want to do a quick update.