"I ain't Scar'd"
by jnells | Published Nov 07, 2011
Not too much has been going on since my last post. I have continued grinding the HU SnGs on Lock Poker, hoping to god that I'll actually see some money from the site. I cautiously optimistic that they will, but I have been very low variance while on it exclusively playing HU SnGs always having 20 Buy Ins for what ever stake I'm playing. So far I am up a little more than $1100 over just over 500 games and have 1 cash out in the withdrawal process (which is a painfully long process), with a 4-6 week wait for the check to be cleared (whatever that means). As long as I get the $585 check by December I will continue playing heavy volume. I am most worried about this first withdrawal, since once it goes through (assuming I never go bust) I am a guaranteed winner of at least $450 even if the site implodes all over itself A-LA Full Tilt Poker. I also thought up a schedule for withdrawals assuming this first 1 went through, the first was $600 when my account hit $1000, next will be $1000 once my account hits $2000, and finally $2500 once my account hits $5000. If I hit those goals (knock on wood) I will most likely start integrating MTTs and possibly start learning online cash, which I have never been very good at. Where even if the site gets frozen and doesn't pay out I'm up $4000 so whatevskys,"I ain't Scar'd" .
I mentioned this in the part of my last entry which got deleted when I posted it to CP, my Lock Poker handle is resultsoriented, and if anyone is actually reading this you are more than welcome to sit me in my $20-$30 HU SnGs even if you are good, "I ain't Scar'd". In fact I played a couple of games against I high stakes player who was up $34k on Sharkscope. He actually made some big errors IMO, but he was most likely just dicking around in low stakes, possibly drunk or bored. He also challenged me to play higher, first at $100's, then he literally begged me to play $50's so maybe he was suckering me in or something. Given that I saw him do some very bad plays such as open shoving 50 BBs on the button and re-shoving 50 BBs over a 2.5X a couple of times, in the past I may have jumped into $50's or $100's but again I am taking a more professional attitude to BR management and explained that once I get back to $1000-$1200 in my account I would play $50's with him cause "I ain't Scar'd".
The player's I am typically running into are neither good nor are they terrible and surprisingly almost all of the people that I Sharkscope (I don't do it for everyone) that had more than 500 games played were winners, so maybe the fish don't stick around much. There are also increasing new American presence, who don't seem to be horrendous, since most of the USA fish prob wouldn't feel comfortable playing in the sketchy time period that we are in now, since they thought online poker was rigged since it came about, because it was the only way they could explain their loses. Of course my motto about playing in this time period is, "I ain't Scar'd". Regs I am running into are generally too tight IMO, and some mix it up to some extent and some just play way too straight forwardly against me. There was also a reg at my levels who is a pretty big nit, but is up $3,000 since he last cleared his sharkscope, which I assume was because he was a big winner at the $20's and didn't want to scare fish who use sharkscope away too fast, he yelled at me for sitting him and then played like a nit, making the match last longer than my average match, and he played ok which gave me a lowered ROI than an average match, so I was ok with not habitually sitting him in the future. The next night he sat me at a $23 and then talked smack in the chatbox when I 4bet/folded (I think it was a good spot) and when he semi-heroed a 2 street bluff (I think it was a bad bluff by me), so needless to say next time I see him waiting in a lobby, I'm insta-skull-fuck-soul-owing him really hard since, "I ain't Scar'd".
In live poker news, I haven't played but enjoyed the pieces of the broadcast that I saw of the WSOP final table and in short I think that the format, while not perfect is definitely a big improvement over anything they have had in the past. Going into it I was blindly supporting Lamb, O'Dea, and Collins in no particular order. I have gone back and forth on what I thought about Phil Collins limping strategy, and there are alot of pro's and con's and it definitely saved him in the AQ vs AK hand since if he opens and Heinz 3bets he can't fold he has to fold or 4bet and I tend to think he's be 4betting. Maybe I am being results oriented and Collins is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better than me so who am I to question it but I think that it was a mistake, even though the biggest factors that it effects both are positive for Collins, 1) it lowers variance giving him a greater chance of moving up at least a few spots (as he was able to do with a little luck) and 2) it is IMO not something that any of the other players planned on him using. Still not 100% and I am sure that Collins or just someone better than me could change my mind but I don't mind putting my opinion out there: "I ain't Scar'd".