FFS Stars, one time.
That is pretty much the crux of the following post!
I played 16 tonight, mediocre session I guess (in terms of volume) but nothing went for me. My only cash was in an $11 on Stars, coming 60 something in one of their huge fish nets, only for a measly $40, reducing the loss for the night to $150!
I consistently go deep in Stars tournaments but the big money always evades me and its really starting to frustrate me.
I had a big debate with myself in previous posts, questioning the logic behind playing on Stars and the same debate will begin to occur again. The variance in the huge fields is just disgusting and I don't believe I do too much wrong or make consistent mistakes when deep, especially these days. Namely, in my opinion, its down to losing those flips when they matter. Might get the run good initially but effort > reward in these tournaments.
On the other hand every other site is proving successful for me. Not only will it be down to less variance/tournament but its probably also to do with the quality of the fields - we all know OnGame and Ipoker networks, for example, can be absolute horror shows in terms of the quality and ability of players.
I'll have a think about it I guess, as like anything there are pros and cons for both options. I'll probably be bust on Stars after the next session so maybe that will be the time to review the setup.
Anyway, off to catch up on some sleep, guess that's the only advantage of it being an early finish! Three more sessions to go this week and then I'll look forward to doing a review post and outlining thoughts on the future!
A bit of heat to start off the new year
10 years ago
Mate, you have seen statistics of players who lose lose lose on stars but win big on other sites, but they still continue to play on stars. Thats because they are +EV. You are the same. If for every tournament you play you are expected to win $20, then you will get that eventually in the long run. On Bwin it might come more consistently, like $100 every 5 games. But on stars it might mean losing $2000 in the first 100 games and then winning $4020 in the 101st, and then getting the same results as Bwin, thats just how it rolls.
ReplyDeleteHopefully that makes some sense.. ROI is ROI and it will find its true value eventually.
I completely agree and definitely appreciate that, its just an opportunity cost of whether I were to stick with Stars and wait for the illusive big score, which will undoubtedly be bigger on there than any other site, or grind out smaller but more consistent results on other sites, which I know is obtainable in the short term.
ReplyDeleteVariance is variance, I might score big on Stars tomorrow, it might be in a year but when Stars accounts for maybe 1/3 of my volume per session, it makes it worse. If I'm back to 1/2 sessions a week at best, 10 tournaments a week on Stars isn't enough volume due to the variance involved. May well be +EV but it could also be burning money...
it is never burning though. never. i can be way too mathmatical in my thinking, i agree, but if you are +ev, it is never burning money.
ReplyDeletehowever, i will accept the opportunity cost argument. you are less +ev on stars than you would be on ladbrokes or betfair for example, so if you are at max capacity with the amount of tables you can handle, then it would be sensible to switch to another softer site which will shift your ROI up a few notches. if you have an ability to play infinite tables at a time, then stars could remain.
Yeh that's the focal point of what I'm suggesting. If you consider volume and potential max capacity along with an "estimated" ROI then I don't think its as attractive as it would be on other sites.
ReplyDeleteI'll see at the end of this week.