1
 |
27s Canada. Jan 15 2008 00:50. Posts 87 | | |
I dont mean to sound cocky or anything but seriously I cant really find anybody decent on this site. I used to play on stars and there were plenty of good players it seemed. When I first got on Absolute i didnt like the software too much though it's better than a lot of other sites. It has a fairly small pool of regs at $25NL and $50NL. Most of them multi-table so I get a fair bit of hands in with all of them. Im not complaining though. I'm lovin my winrate there and my rake back so ship it, holla!
|
|
|
0
| |
maybe there is a reason why there are no REGULARS at Absolute LMAO |
|
|
1
 |
MiPwnYa  Brasil. Jan 15 2008 00:56. Posts 5230 | | |
how many tables can you play comfortably at AP ? |
|
|
1
|
27s Canada. Jan 15 2008 00:57. Posts 87 | | |
Not sure what you mean? I see a bunch of them on all the time. They play a TAGish game but most of them have huge leaks. |
|
|
1
|
27s Canada. Jan 15 2008 00:58. Posts 87 | | |
I mostly play 6, though I can play 9 which is the max however my computer doesnt like 9 and performs crappy so I tend to cap it at 8. |
|
|
1
 |
kantoiki Australia. Jan 15 2008 00:59. Posts 3818 | | |
| | On January 14 2008 23:52 tilted fish wrote:
maybe there is a reason why there are no REGULARS at Absolute LMAO |
haha, although I can see how playing anything under 400NL probably is okay at absolute considering anyone who actually has a super account probably wouldn't bother with lower.
To op: if you're the same person who was thinking about going pro, once again don't do it until you become a winning player at a higher stake preferably something like 1/2NL at least over a large hand sample. Nice to see you're doing well, gl  |
|
| muckv - i have an iq of 180 and i want someone to teach me how to take a shit IN the toilet. | |
|
|
1
|
27s Canada. Jan 15 2008 01:05. Posts 87 | | |
ok thanks. I forgot about the whole cheat scandal when I replied to you. As far as me going pro though. I'm not sure why I have to play as high as 1/2 in order to do it. I'm in no rush, but the money I make at $25NL over a large sample is at par or slightly better than what I make at my job, and I have no overhead. I certainly won't attempt it unless I'm sure I can beat $50NL no problem over a good sample. It'd probably be a good idea to be grinding $100NL but I'm not sure its necessary to be beating 1/2NL. It could take me a long time to get there only playing part time. |
|
|
1
 |
tloapc Pitcairn. Jan 15 2008 02:24. Posts 2591 | | |
hope u read it
I also gotta say I'm totally surprised that a brand new poster hasn't been completely flamed for pronouncing such ideas etc
there might be hope for us yet
fuck I need a cig.. |
|
| The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the stupidity of your action. | Last edit: 16/01/2008 03:33 |
|
|
1
|
kantoiki Australia. Jan 15 2008 02:29. Posts 3818 | | |
Yeah I just read your post in another thread and would take back some of the things i've said above, mainly you could probably do this when you beat 100NL or maybe even 50NL for a good winrate over a large sample along with decent rakeback.
The one thing I would advise is using a bigger bankroll management rule than just 25-30 buyin's for the next stake before moving up... I have a friend who is contemplating moving out and he plays 1/2NL and 2/4NL and he was planning to play 100NL with a 10k bankroll after withdrawing so that he could have that added security. (That way he could still withdraw 2k~ a month after not doing well or breaking even and still be alright).
So yeah I'd advise you use a bigger br management rule like 60+ buyin's and when you're playing 100NL as much as you say you will you'll be able to withdraw the rakeback each month and maybe a little more and it should be all good.
Best of luck to you and if you need help with hands etc feel free to ask. |
|
| muckv - i have an iq of 180 and i want someone to teach me how to take a shit IN the toilet. | |
|
|
|
