While it seems that in every other blog I read, someone else is talking about a crazy downslide, that's the exact opposite from where I'm headed. Wait, I don't mean at Party. I've been getting the sandpaper draped pole, sans lube, right in the keister playing at the Party tables. Doyle's on the other hand, is a completely different scenario.
In the past two weeks I've dropped 50% of my Party bankroll, while my Doyle's roll has jumped an unreal 1500%. Neither amounts of money were huge to begin with, but when I add the two sites together, my bankroll has more than doubled. While the players at Doyle's are truly horrific, there are few things that attribute to my recent swing towards the good.
At either site, I'd regularly play at the .25c-.50c NL tables. The major difference is that the maximum buy-in at Party is $25 while at Doyle's it's $100. That's odd considering that the max buy-in at the .50c-$1 tables is also $100. This means that at Doyle's, you get plenty of play for your buy-in. It also means that many players buy-in for way under the maximum. They putting themselves at a enormous disadvantage for a few reasons.
1--raises hold no weight-- If the small stack has a superior hand on the flop, yet there are numerous drawing hand possibilities on the board, it's damn near impossible to bet the big stack-that just happens to have a nut flush draw-out of the hand for, say, $7. It's much easier for the big stack to play that draw all the way to the river when they know for certain that it's going to be "only a few more dollars".
2--minumum expectation from monster hands--Let's say that the small stack of $10 holds AA in the BB. Even if there are 4 players that are willing to play the hand down to the river, the most he's going to win is a little under $40. Then you have to take into consideration that the short stack doesn't really want all 4 of those people in the hand, because he's more likely to get drawn out on. See, me and math, we don't get along, but it doesn't take Johannes Kepler to realize that their expectation for that hand isn't going to be anywhere near $40. Without the benefit of a large stack, they're leaving money on the table.
I realize that this isn't groundbreaking theory that I'm laying out, but there are times when I want to grab these players, and say why are you being so nice to me? I'm glad they don't understand, but you'd think that they'd realize something isn't right after the 7th $10 buy-in done in an hour.
- Player recognition-With the smaller overall player base, there are only 3, maybe 4 of my tables going on at any one time. This means that I get to play with most of the same people constantly. Good for me, bad for them. There are only a handful of players that I would call "tricky", and know enough to stay away from. Coincidentally, those are also the same players that always buy-in with a large stack them. Ok, so not so much a coincidence. The fewer number of players also means that I have a good read on which players are known to push with mediocre flush draw. Or, say, will push in their entire $50 stack, trying to bluff out 4 opponents. The guy holding quads didn't seem too afraid of the raise.
Isn't that what PokerTracker is for?
Sure, it would be useful. That is, if I'd been multi-tabling. Did I forget to mention that? Oh, I'm sorry. I meant to say that right away. I've earned this 1500% profit over the past two weeks by one tabling. And I freely admit that, right now, I'm a mediocre player at best. Just think what a reasonably good player could be making by two-tabling! Doyle himself would be coming to you for a loan. And you'd be able to turn him down because, well, Doyle, I don't think you're good for it. Think about the possibilities.
There is one thing that I'd like to warn you about, though; BSS is rampant. BSS, or Big Score Syndrome for the anagram challenged, is an affliction that forces a player into calling with all of his chips just with a draw, in hopes of doubling up. It doesn't even have to be a draw to the nuts. Any draw will do, regardless of how minute the chances of it hitting. Up against a made full house, and the only thing that will save you is the case 2? Don't worry, just blame BSS, and it'll hide that you're really a bumbling retard. It's a disease. You can't help it. While this may not be a bad tactic to employ in a tournament, it is terrible ring game strategy. If you bust out of the tournament, you can always go back to the ring game to win a buy-in back. If you bust out of a the ring game, you bust out of the ring game. There is no more money.
These players are just looking for the one time hit. The adrenaline rush you get by winning a big hand. All the while the grinders like me sit back, enjoy a beer, and wait to bleed them dry.