move up or just grind current limit some more? - Page 4

baal, you're wrong on so many levels ...

LOL baal had that screenshot on the clipboard ready to go since page 1.

3ptbb is an awesome winrate for FR, move up!
Baal's just jealous that he's been stuck on 2/4 for 50 years while everyones gone passed

On September 23 2008 02:23 Babs wrote: 3ptbb is an awesome winrate for FR, move up! Baal's just jealous that he's been stuck on 2/4 for 50 years while everyones gone passed

what are you saying? that he's a nit?

On September 23 2008 02:23 Babs wrote: 3ptbb is an awesome winrate for FR, move up! Baal's just jealous that he's been stuck on 2/4 for 50 years while everyones gone passed

wat? he's playing 3/6 and even if he was playing 2/4 he wouldn't be "stuck" because he beats the stake and it would be a choice

On September 22 2008 17:28 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On September 22 2008 16:06 Baal wrote: explain to me why you play FullRing is 6max gives you a better winrate lol. because there are less players so less premium hands are dealt, so it's profitable if you are good to be involved in more hands, so u can have a higher winrate by outplaying people in those hands

So why do people play fullring then? and even if that were true, the relation is NOT direct (like a HU should have 5 times the winrate of a fullring player) and EVEN if it were direct, it would mean i should have a winrate of 30% higher, and actually i have a winate nearly 300% higher than what wobbly think its the higests in fullring.

On September 23 2008 02:02 EvilSky wrote: LOL baal had that screenshot on the clipboard ready to go since page 1.

u got that right ;3

On September 23 2008 07:14 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On September 22 2008 17:28 asdf2000 wrote:   On September 22 2008 16:06 Baal wrote: explain to me why you play FullRing is 6max gives you a better winrate lol. because there are less players so less premium hands are dealt, so it's profitable if you are good to be involved in more hands, so u can have a higher winrate by outplaying people in those hands So why do people play fullring then? and even if that were true, the relation is NOT direct (like a HU should have 5 times the winrate of a fullring player) and EVEN if it were direct, it would mean i should have a winrate of 30% higher, and actually i have a winate nearly 300% higher than what wobbly think its the higests in fullring.

Because some people don't like the variance and pressure of shorthanded, and some people like to be able to play more tables more easily.

And I would imagine good HU cash players do have a considerably higher winrate than fullring players.

But obviously there are more factors than # of players at the table.

But it's a silly argument anyways. Just play and win and do whatever works for you. Comparing yourself to others in poker isn't so great of an idea when the game is based so largely on luck and circumstance.

FR is good for lazy players like me. I mean sometimes, I think, "c'mon bluffraising me like that, you ain't got shit against my 77 on that board, oh well ok ill just wait for my set later and bust your bluffraising ass!" lol

siiiiick graph btw. nj.

On September 23 2008 08:02 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On September 23 2008 07:14 Baal wrote:   On September 22 2008 17:28 asdf2000 wrote:   On September 22 2008 16:06 Baal wrote: explain to me why you play FullRing is 6max gives you a better winrate lol. because there are less players so less premium hands are dealt, so it's profitable if you are good to be involved in more hands, so u can have a higher winrate by outplaying people in those hands So why do people play fullring then? and even if that were true, the relation is NOT direct (like a HU should have 5 times the winrate of a fullring player) and EVEN if it were direct, it would mean i should have a winrate of 30% higher, and actually i have a winate nearly 300% higher than what wobbly think its the higests in fullring. Because some people don't like the variance and pressure of shorthanded, and some people like to be able to play more tables more easily. And I would imagine good HU cash players do have a considerably higher winrate than fullring players. But obviously there are more factors than # of players at the table. But it's a silly argument anyways. Just play and win and do whatever works for you. Comparing yourself to others in poker isn't so great of an idea when the game is based so largely on luck and circumstance.

the end.

On September 23 2008 08:02 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On September 23 2008 07:14 Baal wrote:   On September 22 2008 17:28 asdf2000 wrote:   On September 22 2008 16:06 Baal wrote: explain to me why you play FullRing is 6max gives you a better winrate lol. because there are less players so less premium hands are dealt, so it's profitable if you are good to be involved in more hands, so u can have a higher winrate by outplaying people in those hands So why do people play fullring then? and even if that were true, the relation is NOT direct (like a HU should have 5 times the winrate of a fullring player) and EVEN if it were direct, it would mean i should have a winrate of 30% higher, and actually i have a winate nearly 300% higher than what wobbly think its the higests in fullring. Because some people don't like the variance and pressure of shorthanded, and some people like to be able to play more tables more easily. And I would imagine good HU cash players do have a considerably higher winrate than fullring players. But obviously there are more factors than # of players at the table. But it's a silly argument anyways. Just play and win and do whatever works for you. Comparing yourself to others in poker isn't so great of an idea when the game is based so largely on luck and circumstance.

Totally agreed, however what im fighting is that Wobbly said that my stats are not comparable to FR stats, and what im saying is that even if it were a linea relation between # of players and winratio (making HU 5x more profitable, which it isnt), even then, my winrate should be 30% higher, not 300% higher, so im right, he is either wrong with the biggest winrates on FR or the FR regulars suck, plain and simple.

god baal move up already

On September 23 2008 09:51 taqtiX wrote: god baal move up already

lol hijackamentz

On September 23 2008 09:30 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On September 23 2008 08:02 asdf2000 wrote:   On September 23 2008 07:14 Baal wrote:   On September 22 2008 17:28 asdf2000 wrote:   On September 22 2008 16:06 Baal wrote: explain to me why you play FullRing is 6max gives you a better winrate lol. because there are less players so less premium hands are dealt, so it's profitable if you are good to be involved in more hands, so u can have a higher winrate by outplaying people in those hands So why do people play fullring then? and even if that were true, the relation is NOT direct (like a HU should have 5 times the winrate of a fullring player) and EVEN if it were direct, it would mean i should have a winrate of 30% higher, and actually i have a winate nearly 300% higher than what wobbly think its the higests in fullring. Because some people don't like the variance and pressure of shorthanded, and some people like to be able to play more tables more easily. And I would imagine good HU cash players do have a considerably higher winrate than fullring players. But obviously there are more factors than # of players at the table. But it's a silly argument anyways. Just play and win and do whatever works for you. Comparing yourself to others in poker isn't so great of an idea when the game is based so largely on luck and circumstance. Totally agreed, however what im fighting is that Wobbly said that my stats are not comparable to FR stats, and what im saying is that even if it were a linea relation between # of players and winratio (making HU 5x more profitable, which it isnt), even then, my winrate should be 30% higher, not 300% higher, so im right, he is either wrong with the biggest winrates on FR or the FR regulars suck, plain and simple.

I think as well Baal is what do you and wobbly consider to be a good sample number of hands. I know people at FR NL200-400 who are running at like 10BB/100+ over 100k hands but is that a good sample? To wobbly 100k hands is like 1 day. To you it's like half a year. That doesn't make one of your right or wrong really.... but i think both of you play completely different types of poker. He plays tons of hands and grinds pretty hardcore (and he's done well at it) While you play less tables and less hands but each hand you really use reads and apply thinking preflop and postflop and that's why you profit far better per 100 hands. While a FR player who plays 20 tables can't really think out each hand. I doubt anyone would be able to sustain a good 6 max winrate at FR just because it's impossible ... just as difficult as trying to play 18+ tables at 6 max. I'm rambling but whatever i think asdf2000 said it best.

On September 23 2008 08:59 whamm! wrote: FR is good for lazy players like me. I mean sometimes, I think, "c'mon bluffraising me like that, you ain't got shit against my 77 on that board, oh well ok ill just wait for my set later and bust your bluffraising ass!" lol

lol.. you play an average of 8k hands a day... i wonder how much you'd play if you weren't lazy...