OK, I have now been playing poker for a whole 18 months, and like the rest
of the clueless n00bs started with NLHE. Got interested in omaha/8 and
omaha, then concentrated on stud hi for a while, and have now 'graduated'
(or possibly decended) to razz.
Thing is, after totting up all of my deposits, cashouts and current
balances, I am up so far for my 'career', including rakeback and bonuses,
a
stellar $1200.00, playing mostly below 50NL and up to $3/6 limit (but
mostly
1/2 & 2/4). The amount I play that translates to less than two bucks an
hour. Think I'll keep my day job, lol.
For whatever reason, I seem to do well when I first start playing a 'new'
game, probably because I tend to be very cautious, then loosen up too much
and get belted, then settle down somewhere between the two extremes. This
hasn't really happened with razz - despite spending money on tournaments,
I'm up about $600 in the last month, and it seems to my very untutored eye
that more people _really_ suck at razz than any other form of poker.
Now this worries me, since the most logical reason is that it is simply
easier to spot idiotic play at razz than other games, and I am simply not
good enough to recognise the amount of bad play at the other forms of
poker.
OTOH, I actually like razz, despite the frustrating aspects of it. I also
realise I may simply be having a good run, but it seems like a very
straightforward game if you can remember cards and play reasonably tight.
So, back to the original question - is razz 'fi****er'? Is there a hierachy
of fishyness across the different flavours of poker, or is it simply a
case
of playing the game you most enjoy because there are fish everywhere?
Cheers, Robbie.
|
