I finally managed to crack 100 buyins under ev since the end of July as well, which is a pretty cool story I guess. On the plus side, removing the days when I was playing 8k+ hands/day for prizes, I've actually managed around 20ptbb/100 in aiev for the last 120k hands or so, since I last changed up my game in a big way. So at this point I definitely have the confidence that I'm at least a winning player.
VPP wise the process is simple. I need 14 4k days to hit SNE and be done. That's the next two weeks and I really hope I can be done with this by December 20. The intense grinding I did at the end of November has really taken a lot of the pressure off and I feel very confident now about hitting SNE by Christmas Eve.
I rarely do this lately, but some random thoughts:
One thing has really gotten me thinking lately as I play more and more plo. Back when I was playing lhe, people would ask me if poker was risky gambling, and I would always with absolute confidence be able to answer absolutely not. The only real risks as a lhe player were having games dry up or sites shut down and take your money, and the biggest downswing a winning player could realistically have was only about 1000BB or so. I don't feel that confidence in ploplo. I mean the lines for winnings and the lines for aiev just don't correlate at all, and even aiev represents such a tiny part of the luck in this game.
It also has me thinking a lot about the role of advice. As far as I know there are really two schools of thought on poker.
The first, which is thought by probably a majority of laymen, is that poker is for the most part a game of luck. If you just assume all thinking, solid preflop players are close to equal, and take 1000 of these players, you will get a set of results created purely at random chance. The top 5-10 players in terms of luck get to become the experts that can coach and create training sites and everyone tries to emulate and look up to. The bottom 100 or so players in terms of luck are the regfish that are making so many mistakes.
The second, which is thought by a majority of wannabe poker pros (particularly those that believe every poker myth), is that in the long run poker is a skill game. Using the same 1000 players as above, the players that work hardest and are the most intelligent will rise to the top quickly. The players with the best results are the best players and therefore those are the ones that should be deservedly followed.
The real issue is that both schools of thought create the same world that we see before us, so neither can be really proved wrong. In fact both have merit, and the truth certainly lies somewhere between the two. I guess in a round about way what I'm getting to is this: In my opinion so far, in terms of holdem, the second worldview is more important than the first. In terms of omaha, the first worldview is almost as important as the second. The idea that there are players claiming to be good at the game with less than 500k hands under their belt is pure and utter insanity. In what I have seen so far, I honestly don't think you can come close to the long run with less than 3m or so hands.
Anyway, just my 2 cents. Numbers below:
VPP/Pace = 944,703 / 930,137
$Poker = $79,123
