[Main Index]

[Previous entry: mr. blue sky is living here today]

[Next entry: we’ve passed our prime in record time]

10/20/2005: "what we want and what we need
has been confused been confused
"

i've been thinking about this for a bit and it has recently come to the fore since Joe Speaker began playing at Full Tilt: does site selection affect your playing style and if so, then is is right to assume that site selection can and will affect your poker growth?

~~~~

i pretty much play on two sites, Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker. i have an account on Party Poker, but haven't played there in months, mostly i guess b/c i don't like the UI much. conversely, i really like Full Tilt's UI plus the graphical hand history; i spend a lot of time with the graphical hand history during play, esp. when multi-tabling, to make sure i don't miss the nuance in someone's play. Poker Star's has a pretty goog UI, good game selection, and one of the biggest draws, they really seem committed to their players (for that matter, so does FTP). i like that PS is very upfront about about having their RNG certified and their banking segregation, plus they deal with the Royal Bank of Scotland, which in the banking world is a pretty big hitter. so i limit my play to these two sites, almost exclusively during 2005.

as i have started to get into ring games online and have really began to use the power of Poker Tracker, i have begun to wonder, am i helping or hurting myself by only playing on two sites. while play on both sites is similar, there are differences with the aggression factor of players and how loose tables seem to be. and i have certainly noticed that play online at these two sites is vastly different than live play in my local cardroom (which i think is probably the norm for online vs B&M anyway.)

at some point i might need to broaden my play venues, but to be honest, it is not something i am excited about. for instance, i have an account at UltimateBet, but i am less than enthused by their UI. and i have no desire to go back to play at PP. with the wealth of new sites coming out it also should be mentioned that site selection isn't all about the play - security and trust are a big deal too.

i guess i don't have an answer for any of these mutterings, but it is something that i keep coming back too.

btw - i have built my bankroll back up to the buy-in point, basically making me even since Sept. one good session last night during the game was all it took!

Replies: 2 Comments

Hey, played in a game with some DS Alums, last night. Won the first tourney and I was PUMPED!

I haven't played a game in AT LEAST a year. AND I was playing against (at least) three strong players.

Have no clue how I won (um, luck when it counted *most* and a wee bit of...well, not really "skill").

However, I can tell you EXACTLY how I lost the next TWO tourneys.

And, you know what, I've never felt better about my game (OK, I don't think it can be called "game", yet).

I can tell you exactly when I didn't push hard enough, threw away the wrong cards, talked too much, and waiting too long to bet. I knew it at the time (why I didn't stop myself is the thing I've got figure out).

At the end of the night I broke even (I had also won the smallest pot of the tourney).

I don't think you and I will be running into each other at a tourney anytime soon, but I can tell you I'm picking up one of those books and signing up for some online games (free, of course. I mean, I'm still the cheap bastard I've always been).

Go 'stros!

Brokensword said @ 10/25/2005 11:38 AM CST

heh. playing with Stanley Joe et al?

i remember the one time i played and burned through $50 in no time flat.

would be interesting to see how'd i'd do now.

congrats on the win!

ps - check out Dan Harrington's books or Phil Gordon's new book. all 3 are par excellence!

bcd said @ 10/25/2005 11:43 AM CST


proficiently powered by Greymatter and gm-rss 2.0.0

adeptly administered by sellthekids, L.L.C.