Grind vs Play Ratio
Yesterday I spent a good 4 hours studying my game, and today another 4 hours at least. The few hours during which I played poker inbetween felt totally different from most of my sessions. I really was A) Thinking about every decision and B) Noting hands for review in EVERY session and C) Appyling my learnings to the next session.
My main long term goals in poker are to reach and be profitable at the highest 6m/9m hyper stakes. My strengths as a poker player are grinding many hours - I have averaged over 6 a day for the past several months. However, I expect that my play/study ratio is about 6 to 1. Despite this I moved from playing $1.5 proftitably to playing $30 stakes profitably over a large tournament sample
My problem is that I can't see the forest for the trees - I find myself spending much too much time thinking about how many VPPs I can earn by putting more hours in and how fast that will enable me to reach SN/SNE. I'm thinking too much in terms of how I can get them by playing more hours, rather than by playing higher stakes. Through higher stakes I can earn way more VPPs, BUT they require a LOT of study to be profitable at. I don't want to be like the majority of poker pros grinding out the <50$ buyin stakes for years and years.
Because I want to aggressively move up in stakes, I think that my play/study ratio until I can play the highest stakes profitably should be around 3 to 1, meaning 1 hour of study for every 3 hours of play. The hour of study includes using ICMizer, strategy discussion with other pros, watching training videos, hand reviews, analyzing common spots and the process of identifying my leaks. Naturally even when I reach the highest stakes, I will still have to put in a solid amount of study.
Therefore I will be happy to average just 5 hours a day of playing so long as I get in at least 1.5 hours in a day of study.
- 23307 users
- 32 supernova Elites
- And players who actually win pre-rakeback
- They all share their poker lives on TiltBook