boku87 - anyone know what games he played? - Page 5

On March 30 2010 11:50 asdf2000 wrote: Maybe u need to play more or work on ur game. Most people are clueless about the finer points in playing 90 and 180man turbo sngs. Personally I find them very easy to beat for steady profit. And variance can strike yeah but it isn't gonna be 2000 games at least not for me. Maybe 200 games break-even? Maybe 500? 2000 hell naw if this boku guy broke even for 2k sngs or ended down after 2k of them he prolly just went off his game if u don't believe me just sharkscope feel_iveys_nuts on ftp (90 man turbo sngs only), or asdf2000 on pokerstars (set the search to 180man turbos as I have played a wide variety of sngs on that name) and I do know some other regs who play similar to me and have similar stats

U played only sth like 3-4k sits so i think you don't have experience in being suck outed in 30 180mans in a row before final table. You should better look at "Pepiv" graph-this graph really impress me

On April 05 2010 04:22 Mierzwix wrote: Show nested quote + On March 30 2010 11:50 asdf2000 wrote: Maybe u need to play more or work on ur game. Most people are clueless about the finer points in playing 90 and 180man turbo sngs. Personally I find them very easy to beat for steady profit. And variance can strike yeah but it isn't gonna be 2000 games at least not for me. Maybe 200 games break-even? Maybe 500? 2000 hell naw if this boku guy broke even for 2k sngs or ended down after 2k of them he prolly just went off his game if u don't believe me just sharkscope feel_iveys_nuts on ftp (90 man turbo sngs only), or asdf2000 on pokerstars (set the search to 180man turbos as I have played a wide variety of sngs on that name) and I do know some other regs who play similar to me and have similar stats U played only sth like 3-4k sits so i think you don't have experience in being suck outed in 30 180mans in a row before final table. You should better look at "Pepiv" graph-this graph really impress me

If you are getting "sucked out" in 30 180mans in a row before the final table, I am pretty confident that you are completely clueless and have no idea what the meaning of suck out is.

On April 05 2010 07:20 Chewits wrote: Show nested quote + On April 05 2010 04:22 Mierzwix wrote:   On March 30 2010 11:50 asdf2000 wrote: Maybe u need to play more or work on ur game. Most people are clueless about the finer points in playing 90 and 180man turbo sngs. Personally I find them very easy to beat for steady profit. And variance can strike yeah but it isn't gonna be 2000 games at least not for me. Maybe 200 games break-even? Maybe 500? 2000 hell naw if this boku guy broke even for 2k sngs or ended down after 2k of them he prolly just went off his game if u don't believe me just sharkscope feel_iveys_nuts on ftp (90 man turbo sngs only), or asdf2000 on pokerstars (set the search to 180man turbos as I have played a wide variety of sngs on that name) and I do know some other regs who play similar to me and have similar stats U played only sth like 3-4k sits so i think you don't have experience in being suck outed in 30 180mans in a row before final table. You should better look at "Pepiv" graph-this graph really impress me If you are getting "sucked out" in 30 180mans in a row before the final table, I am pretty confident that you are completely clueless and have no idea what the meaning of suck out is.

No, i am pretty confident that you don't know what the word "downswing" on these 180s max means

i am too lazy to look up a graph but if its true that some guy played 3-4k games @ 12/180 and is bragging with his results - L.O.L, that isnt even a decent sample for 9/18mans, doomswitch awaits you, be prepared.

I wasn't bragging you dipshit, and my sample is less than 4k games but 4k games WOULD be a decent sample ur just retarded

no, it wouldn't be a definitive sample at all, but it would be highly representative


P.S: 4k 9man sngs is a ton I don't know what dimension u live in


And just so I cover my bases - I was never claiming my ROI would stay that high (in fact I have said the opposite I am sure it will go down over time). I was just making a point.

I dunno it kinda depends asdf. A lot of 180 grinders can do 4k in a month and you can definitely run way below avg in 4k games in 180's. I know what you mean though with 4k games you can definitely get some kind of idea of there game.

well there is also a fact that u cannot get as big of an edge when u play more tables. less tables = can observe more = bigger edge

anyone that plays 4k 180s in a month (jesus people do that?) must play a shit ton of tables

I won't disagree that I could easily experience more negative variance than I have, though

yea I mean I dunno if the majority of people can do it. But there a some sick 30+ tablers out there. Look at woodbrave he does it.

asdf2000 - I don't think 4000 is a big sample for 180.
I don't remember the exact calculations I made, but playing 10% ROI 9-man you'd need 2K SNG's.
Obviously 10% ROI when heavily multitabling isn't possible anymore ( maybe at a real low stakes ), so @ mid -stakes you'll get like 3-6% - then the long-run would be around 6-7K.

When you increase the field from 9 players to 180, and let's say you can get 10% ROI in the long-run (alto last time i played them i had 7 supernovas on my table) you would need more than 30K games (I think I arrived with my calculations at like 34K). 5% was sth like 90K games.

That's why a lot of people fell in love with them, and some people hate them. Swings are vast. For some people it would take 2+ years to arrive at a long-run sample grinding 50 a day.
So yea, 4000K could be a downer, a heater - or somehere in between.

On April 06 2010 06:45 Qyvs! wrote: asdf2000 - I don't think 4000 is a big sample for 180. I don't remember the exact calculations I made, but playing 10% ROI 9-man you'd need 2K SNG's. Obviously 10% ROI when heavily multitabling isn't possible anymore ( maybe at a real low stakes ), so @ mid -stakes you'll get like 3-6% - then the long-run would be around 6-7K. When you increase the field from 9 players to 180, and let's say you can get 10% ROI in the long-run (alto last time i played them i had 7 supernovas on my table) you would need more than 30K games (I think I arrived with my calculations at like 34K). 5% was sth like 90K games. That's why a lot of people fell in love with them, and some people hate them. Swings are vast. For some people it would take 2+ years to arrive at a long-run sample grinding 50 a day. So yea, 4000K could be a downer, a heater - or somehere in between.

i guess there is one K too many in your post
GL finding it

On April 04 2010 11:50 FrinkX wrote: why the fk do u start every paragraph with fool and end it with retard breaktwister? thats what i do but i can actually back it up you're a fking fish, be humble and try to learn retard

Where have you backed it up asshole? Your posts are like something a 16 year old would write. Absolutely no content, you boring brainless spastic.

And LOL at you for trying to ridicule my statement about 'closer to breakeven than I thought' - I'm losing less than $1 per game over the 400 odd games, compare that to the losses I posted from boku's graph over the 2K games.

RETARD.

Sorry about the post above for those that are trying to contribute to the thread but I had to respond to that wanker FrinkX.

The more I play these, the more I'm surprised that so called 'pro' players play them. It is clear that there is very little edge in them compared to what can be found in cash games. I have played with some of the best regs in my timezone (I've checked on sharkscope) and they don't do anything special.

There is just too much luck involved in these. And I mean LUCK, not variance. The term 'variance' can be applied to results of individual hands over a period of time, but not individual tournaments which obviously comprise of a number of key hands which you have to win in succession, and be lucky to do so. The probability of you winning four 50/50 flips in a row is 0.0625. And this does not even consider the times you are 70-80% fav and lose.

I started to play these games as I heard there was a big edge in them for a good player. I simply don't think this is the case. I am struggling at the minute to see where the value is playing a large sample of these just to conclude that you need to be play good ICM poker, know who is playing this also, but above all else be a complete and utter fucking luckbox.

your obv wrong when theres people who are huge winners over 20k++ sample sizes

On April 09 2010 05:36 breaktwister wrote: Show nested quote + On April 04 2010 11:50 FrinkX wrote: why the fk do u start every paragraph with fool and end it with retard breaktwister? thats what i do but i can actually back it up you're a fking fish, be humble and try to learn retard Where have you backed it up asshole? Your posts are like something a 16 year old would write. Absolutely no content, you boring brainless spastic. And LOL at you for trying to ridicule my statement about 'closer to breakeven than I thought' - I'm losing less than $1 per game over the 400 odd games, compare that to the losses I posted from boku's graph over the 2K games. RETARD.

OMG this almost belongs in the ROFL thread

@ breaktwister
Frinkx has won more than 300K in Tournaments online and live ( Yeha 300.000$+)

And being down 380$ after 450 12$ games isnt even close to breakeven .....
Thats down 31,5 BI T_T

so what?300k is nothing, that is just pure LUCK, not even variance. FrinkXs a retard since he disagrees with breaktwister whose theoretical understanding of the game is simply outstanding

On April 09 2010 06:11 breaktwister wrote: Sorry about the post above for those that are trying to contribute to the thread but I had to respond to that wanker FrinkX. The more I play these, the more I'm surprised that so called 'pro' players play them. It is clear that there is very little edge in them compared to what can be found in cash games. I have played with some of the best regs in my timezone (I've checked on sharkscope) and they don't do anything special. There is just too much luck involved in these. And I mean LUCK, not variance. The term 'variance' can be applied to results of individual hands over a period of time, but not individual tournaments which obviously comprise of a number of key hands which you have to win in succession, and be lucky to do so. The probability of you winning four 50/50 flips in a row is 0.0625. And this does not even consider the times you are 70-80% fav and lose. I started to play these games as I heard there was a big edge in them for a good player. I simply don't think this is the case. I am struggling at the minute to see where the value is playing a large sample of these just to conclude that you need to be play good ICM poker, know who is playing this also, but above all else be a complete and utter fucking luckbox.

I would really like to hear more from breaktwister. This guy clearly has tournament poker on lock down...i mean why would anyone invest in a game with high variance?
I mean i seriously cannot believe that there are idiots out there who actually think like this. I wouldn't recommend you ever attending college, and if you are in college, stay away from economics and business. Im honestly afraid for your health that econ 101 might blow your mind.

breaktwister where art thou ?

updates plz

looooool

Just seen the posts there now. Obviously no point in responding to the people who want to fuck FrinkX cos he's won some tourns.

He came on this thread mouthin off like he knows everything about poker and calling me a fish cos I'm tryin to learn and have a discussion about these turbos.

No time for wankers like him.

And to Zep - talkin about college and shit. LOL at you, I've already commented on how stupid it is for people to come on making assumptions about SOMETHING THEY KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT. I'm not a college kid - I have an honours degree and am self-employed. I know about economics and business. Sounds like your the college kid taking about your economics class. You have an awful lot to learn about making assumptions based on zero knowledge. If you could actually read you would find out that I was simply comparing the edge in these turbos to that I generally find in cash games.

But no - the art of turbo obviously makes one a top class poker player.

For those that are actually interested in the content of the thread and not just some idiots trying to make out they know everything, I'm going to go ahead and play at least 2K games and maybe post up some graphs shortly.