London Colin
Top Member
One at a time, or several at once ...
The number of games you can get through in an hour is a function of how long each game lasts. That's the key point.
You reduce your chances of winning the table somewhat by going all-in on the first hand, but it only takes a minute to either progress to round two, probably as (joint) BR1, or bust out and go straight into round one of another table.
Since an average game probablly takes thirty minutes or more, the vast bulk of your time is spent playing those tables in which you have progressed to round two. It would have to be many, many, many times less likely to win a table by going all-in for that approach not to yield a higher hourly win rate.
Indeed, the only question in my mind is whether just one kamikaze round is optimal, or whether two or three would yield an even higher win rate. (I suspect not, but I haven't tried to systematically work it out.)
The number of games you can get through in an hour is a function of how long each game lasts. That's the key point.
You reduce your chances of winning the table somewhat by going all-in on the first hand, but it only takes a minute to either progress to round two, probably as (joint) BR1, or bust out and go straight into round one of another table.
Since an average game probablly takes thirty minutes or more, the vast bulk of your time is spent playing those tables in which you have progressed to round two. It would have to be many, many, many times less likely to win a table by going all-in for that approach not to yield a higher hourly win rate.
Indeed, the only question in my mind is whether just one kamikaze round is optimal, or whether two or three would yield an even higher win rate. (I suspect not, but I haven't tried to systematically work it out.)