|
SNGs are meant to be easy |
|
Written by SwingSwingSwing
|
|
Monday, 08 September 2008 14:26 |
Sorry for the lack of updates - it's been a busy time at Chez SwingSwingSwing recently with trips to IKEA and subsequent assembly of various bits of furniture and having two extra doggies in the house while a friend was on holiday. Four dogs, especially when one is a hyperactive collie pup, is quite a bit more work than our two.
So what have I been doing poker-wise?
Well, as mentioned in my previous post, my other target for the year is to get my Sharkscope winnings into positive territory. So I've been studying and playing Sit'n'Gos. In order for to better understand my goal, I also spent a bit of time analysing the results that Sharkscope has for me.
My graph looks a bit strange, with a sharp fall at the start and then a plateau and then more losses. It wasn't until I'd downloaded my results and looked at them that I realised why. The sharp drop at the start was when I first started playing poker online. All the websites said that SNGs were great for getting your feet wet so I jumped in. Now in 2005, Stars didn't have any micro level SNGs; the minimum was $5. I played a few of these, fixed limit mind, and took one hell of a beating. It didn't take long to realise that I'd soon be busto so I switched to cash games. The plateau phase was a period when I took a fancy to playing the 70FPP satellites to the Sunday Hundred Grand. These have no monetary cost but the results were tracked by Sharkscope. Only the winner got the ticket. I played about 40 of these and won 2.
The rest of the graph is what I would call "proper" Sit'n'Go play. And with that in mind, I'm going to adjust my target. Rather than say "get Sharkscope figures back into positive territory", I'm going to say "get my proper SNG results back into positive territory" basically writing off my early fixed limit SNGs as a learning experience.
So my revised target is to win $177.70 in SNG's before the end of the year. Shouldn't be too hard, should it?
|
