I had to show the EV line as well otherwise you might think that massive drop was because I’m an idiot

To those mass multitablers those 680 hands still took 4 hours – with husngs I’d never really been concerned with how many hands I get in and hadn’t realised how slow it is.

The other thing is the crazy rake – 600 something hands at a sustainable (ahem) rate of 66bb/100, and the rakeback is 30% of my winnings! I’m going to have to keep an eye on that – even with the nice Rakeback % I get at this site, a more regular winrate of 3-6bb/100 is going to have a hard time beating the Rake. Hopefully the rake goes down as I go up in stakes (and down in winrate)…

Yesterday for instance I bought in short ($10) into a NL20 game, and after an hour my opponent finally gave up – my stack was $32. That was an hour of chipping away without any huge shoves. Is that how it should be? Normally my game has far more variance than that, with a few more shoves causing some big stack sized swings along the way. Seems like a very slow way of winning (an hour of $20 husngs could easily be $100 on a good day), although I should remember that long term my crazy swingy style has generally lost, despite the epic 4-5 buy-in session wins!

I also realised that traffic numbers on these sites is very misleading. For instance I said the other day how EverLeaf was showing only a few thousand players while Pokerstars had a massive 200 thousand. It turns out that PokerStars’ numbers are vastly inflated – the real number is more like 80,000 (according to pokerscout). Still a lot, but not quite the same wow factor. The difference in numbers is that the 200,000 included play chip tables, plus players signed in but not actively playing

120,000 inactive/play chip players sounds a lot. Maybe I’m still not seeing the real numbers here…

Update: Just noticed the latest HEM release supports EverLeaf. I’ll upgrade when I get home. I noticed the that HH text doesn’t include rake taken from the pot, so hopefully HEM is figuring it out somehow…

Of course the difficulty is finding opponents, but the site mysteriously had only one person on each stake who was just sitting there waiting. No full tables, just these guys. Very patient people, shills or bots?

I started at the lowest limits and cleared out the first guy until he left. I then moved up to NL10 and started on the next guy. Again I was able to take his money fairly easily (almost too easily) and I started to wonder if he was a bot (which on the whole aren’t good players). So I started a little chat, and he replied so he seemed real. I kept on going until finally he sat out. He didn’t leave – he just sat out. So I left, and looking back at the lobby he had sat back in, and there was still the NL2 guy still waiting. I’m leaning towards shills now.

I then sat at NL20, and this guy had a very different style (although still really bad). He 3bet me preflop almost every hand, I switched down to 2bb openraises and widened my 3bet calling and started taking his money. Three times I built my stack up to $30 and then try a shove to get his last $10 (he wasn’t rebuying) – each time I got it in ahead which was great, but each time he hit on the turn or river putting us back to $20. Finally tilt was getting to me and I got it in with KQo against his 99. I hit a Q on the flop but then the wanker hit a 9 on the turn.

So overall I lost, thanks to that last hand and the horrific rake. I get 53% rakeback on that site, so I shouldn’t feel too bad about the Rake, but I’m pissed off that I was tilting at the end. In many ways KQo wasn’t the worst hand to get it in with against this guy (far from ideal without an A though), but the tilt made me instaquit when he spiked his set and I would have been better to stick around a bit longer and at least recoup my losses…

Nevertheless, HU cash was a lot of fun. Reading Jungleman’s well he said that he got to $30 & $50 husngs with mediocre winnings, but then switched to cash and the rest is history. Maybe that’s me too