Originally Posted by Juniorsdaddy
At this point in my poker "career", I am at best a casual player. Before starting Rush poker, I would at best be able to play four tables at a time before the volume of hands overwhelmed me. When I started playing Rush, I was able to see dramatically more hands vs. my multi-tabling, as well as make better decisions without feeling rushed.
I am curious if others have had similar experiences using Rush, especially those who multi-table more than me under normal conditions. Is Rush a better option vs multi-tabling?
Hmm... a few pros and cons:
--Potential for Massive Volume (This is pretty much the only one I can think of)
--Can clear bonuses a lot faster while playing rush.
--If you enjoy playing like a total nit this may be the best place.
--HUD is not of great value to you, because you may never have a decent history with villain. When the HUD even works (Holdem Manager is what I use and the HUD never seems to work while playing Rush)
--Much Higher Variance than Full Ring or 6-Max (non-rush).
--Note taking on villains is more difficult especially when you don't watch the hand go to showdown against two other opponents.
6-Max or Full Ring:
--History with villains is always handy.
--Seeing the hands that villain is willing to go to showdown with (when you are not in the hand) is very good information
--Not nearly as much volume. I was seeing about 4 times as many hands playing full ring rush than you would in Full Ring. So 1 Rush table is the equivalent of 4 Full Ring Non-Rush tables.
--Generally slower game play.
When I weigh these two together I would much prefer playing a non-rush cash game. It benefits you more to be able to see your villain's actions on a consistent basis and having the HUD at your disposal is always +1000.
Rush was really profitable for the first month then the sharks started eating up all the fish and now rush is the playground for nits to eat off other nits and the 10% of the field full of low stakes recreational fish.
just my two cents.