Early 2007 shows the personal poker experience going along as it did late in 2006, with the net result being something close to every politician's dream stump speech --- a zero-sum game.
I was going to post about how Mondays are the day that the poker gods have long decreed to be Haley-does-not-win-day, as my historical records show that calendar day to be the worst for me, by a wide margin. Bad beats, suckout strings and cold-decking clusters... those are my Mondays. Being the true superstitious type, I've taken to doing things such as waiting for midnight to roll by just before signing up for a new SNG, just so it's not Monday any more.
But, as burdens go, Moondayphobia, or more technically, "logophobia," is pretty minor.
The real purpose is this post is to inquire why it is that when poker luck on one site goes south, the luck on another site seems to take off at precisely the same time. What karma-skewing poker god created that cosmic shell game?
Like a lot of folks, I've been grinding away at the latest PokerStars reload bonus, and it hasn't gone exceptionally well, with only two moderate winning sessions out of seven and a net loss already greater than the $150 the bonus will provide. Yes, I've long been aware of the Bonus Chaser's Curse, and I can affirm that it does exist. ;-) I've also had a bit of a downturn over at poker.com, capped by being on the wrong end of a wretched suckout deep in a big-money freeroll, well inside the money bubble and staring at a real win. So, down, down...
... and up?
Well, I found myself holding my nose and returning to Bodog recently, just because one of the places I write for decided to return to the site for this edition of its online tournament series. I call it taking one for the team. But I have to play something while I'm on the site, so I've played a handful of MTTs and several dozen SNGs, and the Bodog SNGs are not only soft as butter, I've been running well in them.
I've been playing mostly the $15+1 10-seat turbos, a smaller amount of $12+1 short-handed SNGs, and just a few $10+1 regular SNGs early on. Here's what a week or so of results, retyped by hand here, seems to show. The sequences that are 1, 2, 3 or x show my placement in each SNG; the $12+1 short-handed SNGs pay only two spots.
Bodog 10+1’s
1 - x – x – 1 – x –
Fees: $ 55 [5 x (10+1)]
Winnings: $ 100
Net + $ 45
ROI: + 81.8%
ITM%: 40% [2/5] (par = 30%)
Bodog 12+1’s (23):
x – x – x – 1 – 1 – x – x – 1 – 1 – 1 – x – 1 – 2 – x – x – x – x – x – x – 2 – x – x – x -
Fees: $ 299 [23 x (12+1)]
Winnings: $ 331.20
Net: + $ 32.20
ROI: + 10.8%
ITM%: 34.8% [8/23] (par = 33.3%)
Bodog 15+1 turbos (64):
1 – 1 – x – 3 – x – 3 – x – x – x – x – x – 1 – 3 – x – 2 – 2 – x – x – x – x – 2 – x – x – 1 – 1 – x – 2 – x – 2 – 2 – 3 – x – x – x – x – 3 – x – x – x – 2 – 1 – 1 – x – x – x – 1 – 1 – x – 1 – x – x – x – x – x – 2 – x – x – x – 2 – 2 – 3 – 3 – x – 1 -
Fees: $ 1,024 [64 * (15+1)]
Winnings: $ 1,485
Net: + $ 461
ROI: + 45.0%
ITM%: 43.8% [28/64] (par = 30%)
Collectively, that's a good run --- I'm pretty sure that an ROI of +45% over a run of 64 $15+1 SNG's is acceptable by almost anyone's yardstick. And yes, I've admittedly been running well; I have no doubt that over the longer run I wouldn't be able to maintain a rate anything to close this.
That said, there is a statistical concept called signature significance, and it indicates that I likely hold a real edge over the majority of players at this level on Bodog. In the midst of my losing runs elsewhere, it's a small measure of comfort. It's also worth noting that the reduced juice on these may well be more than enough to overcome the increased variance that turbos normally bring. Time will tell on that one; I'd need to play more like 500 of these before I could make a more certain statistical assessment.
Who knew turbo SNGs had the potential to be so juicy? Not me. Maybe not a lot of people. Then again, maybe it's all a shell game, and I'll go on a rush at Stars as this surge disappears in a puff of smoke.
No comments:
Post a Comment