Vagueness and the Aftermath - A sporadic diary

[RED-DOG]

A galvanised tin bath. We used to get loads of these too (most houses had one hanging on the wall near the back door)


My brother Tracy and I used to use them as canoes, but they were terribly unstable.

[RED-DOG]

Old iron beadsteads were another common item. The trouble with these was that they didn't weigh very much and were quite bulky, but you could dismantle them and use them to make the sides of your truck higher.


You had to be careful when unscrewing the brass knobs off the top of the bedposts. They often contained bedbugs, and you didn't want one of those up your jersy to take home.

[M3boy]

So I'm still wrestling with online cash.

I don't get it. People say "wait until you can beat one Level before you move up to the next"

I have to admit, I can't beat any level. Well, not to the extent that I could say "That's it, I can beat that level, day in day out"

To tell the truth, I can't see a marked difference in the ability of $1/2 players and $5/10 players. The only difference I can see is in my own ability to play properly (i.e. boldly and confidently) without worrying about bankroll restrictions.

Bankroll considerations apart, as far as I'm concerned, players are no better or worse at $1/2 than they are at $5/10. In fact I often have 3 or 4 tables open, each one at a different level. I play them all the same, and I can be doing my bollocks at $1/2 and winning at $5/10.

It seems to me that when it comes to moving up levels, your main consideration should be having deep enough pockets to be able to absorb the now more expensive bad runs and dry spells, and to be able to play with the same confidence that you had at the lower levels.

How do you play different levels at the same time?

Different levels require different playing styles, what works at one level does not work at another.

ie : low level cash - basic tight aggressive is the key, but try this style at a high level and you will get killed.

[RED-DOG]

So I'm still wrestling with online cash.

I don't get it. People say "wait until you can beat one Level before you move up to the next"

I have to admit, I can't beat any level. Well, not to the extent that I could say "That's it, I can beat that level, day in day out"

To tell the truth, I can't see a marked difference in the ability of $1/2 players and $5/10 players. The only difference I can see is in my own ability to play properly (i.e. boldly and confidently) without worrying about bankroll restrictions.

Bankroll considerations apart, as far as I'm concerned, players are no better or worse at $1/2 than they are at $5/10. In fact I often have 3 or 4 tables open, each one at a different level. I play them all the same, and I can be doing my bollocks at $1/2 and winning at $5/10.

It seems to me that when it comes to moving up levels, your main consideration should be having deep enough pockets to be able to absorb the now more expensive bad runs and dry spells, and to be able to play with the same confidence that you had at the lower levels.

How do you play different levels at the same time?

Different levels require different playing styles, what works at one level does not work at another.

ie : low level cash - basic tight aggressive is the key, but try this style at a high level and you will get killed.

I would have also said that higher levels require different styles, and indeed more ability.  but within the range that I play, ($1/2 to $5/10) that somehow just doesn't seem to be the case.

As I said in my original post, the only difference seems to be having deep enough pockets to be able to absorb the now more expensive bad runs and dry spells.


EDIT: I made a couple of sarcastic comments in my original reply to Paul, (I'm so weak) but then, in a rare moment of common sense, I edited them out.

[jakally]

IMO, the most important factor to being a winning online cash player is game selection. That can (and probably should) mean, being prepared to play across different levels.

If you play $1/$2, or $2/$4 on Stars, the traffic is plentiful, and you can stay at one level and find the fishier players.
On smaller sites / networks, it is often more profitable to not be constrained by needing to play at a certain level, and to hunt round for the best games (although ensuring you are adequately rolled).

Although in more general terms higher limits have better players, and are more LAG, and lower limits have more passive or nittier players, this isn't always true.

[RED-DOG]

IMO, the most important factor to being a winning online cash player is game selection. That can (and probably should) mean, being prepared to play across different levels.

If you play $1/$2, or $2/$4 on Stars, the traffic is plentiful, and you can stay at one level and find the fishier players.
On smaller sites / networks, it is often more profitable to not be constrained by needing to play at a certain level, and to hunt round for the best games (although ensuring you are adequately rolled).

Although in more general terms higher limits have better players, and are more LAG, and lower limits have more passive or nittier players, this isn't always true.

For the most part, I think I agree with this. I do look out for known fishy players and will sit with them even at the (for me) high levels.

I think it is often the case that these players have had a good/lucky run at the lower levels and moved up for a while because they have cash on the hip.

[Karabiner]

I'm starting to think that there might be some kind of tooth's union, as mine seem to have "come out" in sympathy.

My bridge has worked it's way loose and I'm now doing that thing where they keep moving after I've stopped speaking.

[M3boy]

I would have also said that higher levels require different styles, and indeed more ability.  but within the range that I play, ($1/2 to $5/10) that somehow just doesn't seem to be the case.

As I said in my original post, the only difference seems to be having deep enough pockets to be able to absorb the now more expensive bad runs and dry spells.


EDIT: I made a couple of sarcastic comments in my original reply to Paul, (I'm so weak) but then, in a rare moment of common sense, I edited them out.

Proof that Tom's account has been hacked - FACT

[RED-DOG]

ITV's new show "Beat the star"

The star (in this case boxer Amir Kahn) beats the member of the public thereby preventing him from winning the $50,000 prize.

When Amir "wins" he doesn't get the prize himself, he just prevents the contestant from winning it. A difficult victory to celebrate I would have thought.


Is it me, or does this format just seem wrong?

[The_nun]

I agree Tom, I would be sooo very tempted to let the oppo win if I were the star.

[booder]

ITV's new show "Beat the star"

The star (in this case boxer Amir Kahn) beats the member of the public thereby preventing him from winning the $50,000 prize.

When Amir "wins" he doesn't get the prize himself, he just prevents the contestant from winning it. A difficult victory to celebrate I would have thought.


Is it me, or does this format just seem wrong?

Amir's opponent got what he deserved............nothing.  He was hopeless. Even Ironside would have beat him in the penalty shootout.

[RED-DOG]

ITV's new show "Beat the star"

The star (in this case boxer Amir Kahn) beats the member of the public thereby preventing him from winning the $50,000 prize.

When Amir "wins" he doesn't get the prize himself, he just prevents the contestant from winning it. A difficult victory to celebrate I would have thought.


Is it me, or does this format just seem wrong?

Amir's opponent got what he deserved............nothing.  He was hopeless. Even Ironside would have beat him in the penalty shootout.

Lol, that's true, but that wasn't the point I was making.

[booder]

i agree that the format is strange.

[boldie]

i agree that the format is strange. a joke and Khan should be ashamed at himself for even taking part in this

FYP

[gatso]

one of the worst pieces of tv I've seen in years. I only caught 2 bits, a contest to see who can hit the most nails into a piece of wood in a set time and a penalty shootout involving a guy who's clearly never kicked a ball before.
the stick he's going to get for his lack of footballing skills when he goes back to the police station doesn't bear thinking about