question for 400nl+ regs - Page 3

ok i gave up on this thread but i'm just going to reply to this

On March 06 2010 18:49 Sanai wrote: OP, you made a speculative thread asking for people to basically just hypothesize/generalize a bunch of bullshit about something that is in NO way quantifiable. It's like asking what's the difference between people who make $100k a year and those who make $50k a year. Yes, you could make some generalizations (those who make more are better educated, come from xyz background) but if you actually believed or did anything more with those generalizations beyond dismissing them immediately, you'd be a fool.

i was just going to reply to this by explaining why it's irrelavent to my thread, but it's just so full of crap i can't even believe a fully functional human would type it. you just said i could generalize that people making 100k/year are, on the whole, more educated than those making 50k/year. then you said if i actually believed that generalization i would be a fool. ummm.. you can't make a generalization and "not actually believe it" unless you're purposely being disingenuous lol. i think you are confused or something.

as far as doing anything more with them, i could be a nit and disprove this too but more to the point, where did i say anything about doing more with them? seriously http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/curiosity

What's worse it that you're trying to defend it by saying it's a "serious question." It's impossible to quantify because you're thinking from a specific perspective which says that everyone starts from small stakes and works their way up. If this were true, maybe some generalizations would be possible, but just as with my income example, that's completely false in poker. People play at different stakes for a trillion different reasons, the smallest of which is due to skill and steady progress.

ok first of all, i'm not trying to defend anything and i don't have to either. as the creator of this thread it's my prerogative to ask about whatever the fuck i want (as long as it's related to poker), and this is something i happened to be curious about. although it's funny you mention this because all i did was thank a couple people for making serious replies (although of course this thread is serious in the sense that it's an earnest question looking for an answer). as for the rest of that paragraph: you're taking specific (and as it so happens very rare) examples to try and make my question about generalities sound fallacious, lol.

EDIT: Probably a better way to approach this is: what do you think are the major leaks that keep people from moving into higher midstakes or something like that.

but that's a different question and one i'm not as interested in because everyone knows the (general) answers to that.

rar

So to summarise; you asked a question and you got replies from NL100, NL400 and NL600+ regs saying it was a dumb question which was impossible to answer, but actually it was just everyone was too stupid to understand.

OP lives in a higher plane of existence, prolly making him understand the answer of this thread 32% more than we do.

On March 06 2010 23:40 byrnesam wrote: So to summarise; you asked a question and you got replies from NL100, NL400 and NL600+ regs saying it was a dumb question which was impossible to answer, but actually it was just everyone was too stupid to understand.

i never said or even implied anyone was too stupid to understand it, possibly with the exception of the last person i replied to. so no. i got a couple decent albeit brief answers from mid-high stakes players, and a bunch of trolling (fwiw i'm not including gawdawaful in this as even though he obv disagrees with me he wasn't really trolling).

poker is poker bro, im not sure what you are expecting to find all that different between these limits, but it's really not that much. It's not like comparing NL2 to NL50. Sure at NL2 there are some very very specific player patterns that are obvious within 5 minutes of sitting down. People limp constantly, they play all sorts of hands, and they never fold. At NL50, people tend to raise when entering a pot instead of limping, and tend not to play shitty hands.

But between NL100 and NL600 I'd just say NL600 players are better at everything which makes a half way decent player profitable. They raise in better spots, they know when to call in better spots, they know how to play certain hands in a more optimal fashion than players at lower limits. But it's nothing groundbreaking. Just expect a higher class of player who can probably beat most NL100 players. What else can you say? It's not like everyone is raising and reraising the fuck out of each other preflop, or people playing ridiculous hands and trapping you with crazy suckouts or whatever. They'll just read you better than you read them.

OP, how can you quantify the difference between 100nl-600nl regs without looking at:

-Their religion, and respective piety
-Their family and family history
-Their socio-economic class
-Their artistic and literary talents
-Their sensitivity, romanticism and sentimentalism
-Their patriotism, provincialism, and rootedness in their native culture
-Their cooking, cleaning and other domestic abilities
-Their mental and emotional stability
-Their historical attitude and preferences regarding bourgeois family life
-Their racial origins (if not already clear)
-Their feminine virtues (virginity, modesty, etc)

On March 07 2010 02:40 FoolsPlay wrote: OP, how can you quantify the difference between 100nl-600nl regs without looking at: -Their religion, and respective piety -Their family and family history -Their socio-economic class -Their artistic and literary talents -Their sensitivity, romanticism and sentimentalism -Their patriotism, provincialism, and rootedness in their native culture -Their cooking, cleaning and other domestic abilities -Their mental and emotional stability -Their historical attitude and preferences regarding bourgeois family life -Their racial origins (if not already clear) -Their feminine virtues (virginity, modesty, etc)

MoltkeWarding. Cant believe I remember that guys name.

Was he a NL600 reg?

HOW MUCH BETTER WAS HE THAN EVERYONE ELSE?
IN PERCENTAGE FORM ONLY PLEASE

For 38 posts you got a lot of balls telling nolan to gtfo. He's a lp hero whereas you are just that random guy.

You can make it to 100nl by teaching a few monkeys. 400nl requires 4 times the amount of monkeys and 600nl requires 150% the monkeys it does for 400nl. Being a monkey yourself i hope my explanation helps.

i wasn't even trolling, that's really a major difference i noted.

haha foolsplay nice one mate.

dude i'm like the best ever i just run worse than everyone else duh.

On March 06 2010 16:37 nolan wrote: 400nl+ people think less about dumb shit like this 100nl people love thinking about stuff like this.

This FTW.

On March 06 2010 18:26 animaniacs wrote: Show nested quote + On March 06 2010 17:59 DooMeR wrote:   On March 06 2010 16:37 nolan wrote: 400nl+ people think less about dumb shit like this 100nl people love thinking about stuff like this. qft Orignial poster ur wasting ur time man seriously none of this matters it only matters to the extent that i'm curious about it. but i can see it's probably a lost cause getting any more real answers.

Seriously I'm just going to outright say it because your comments are so tilting. You're not getting "real answers" because your question is stupid. Clearly you have 100% failed to comprehend this and thus you keep arguing for what you believe is a good question and giving people attitude because lets face it you yourself are probably stupid. People are giving you good advice and a good answer when they say your question is useless, irrelevant, and impossible to quantify in the way you desire. Even if your 3 little categories were intelligently comprised - which I can promise you they aren't - it would be absolutely impossible because every player is unique in terms of what they do well and what they do poorly.

I'm not really sure what's going on this thread but it can't still be related to the original topic so I'm going to use this time to tell you I ate a bagel for breakfast.

I think this is a good question. I have noticed that number 3, self control, is actually the factor that low stakes players have in the highest abundance. The problem is that they don't tilt but they don't really play well either or adjust.

Number 1 and 2 are pretty closely related so I would say 90% 1 and 2 and 10% self control.

Also something to note, self control may be less if the players at lower stakes are actually trying to play well and make reads, because they may fail and tilt/and or go back to their robot mode of playing where they are tilt free

On March 07 2010 14:56 Big_Rob_48 wrote: I think this is a good question. I have noticed that number 3, self control, is actually the factor that low stakes players have in the highest abundance. The problem is that they don't tilt but they don't really play well either or adjust. Number 1 and 2 are pretty closely related so I would say 90% 1 and 2 and 10% self control. Also something to note, self control may be less if the players at lower stakes are actually trying to play well and make reads, because they may fail and tilt/and or go back to their robot mode of playing where they are tilt free

omg yes <3

to the benjamin1 kid, i responded to and annihilated all of the stuff you posted in my reply to sanai so you might want to put your reading goggles on before returning to your role as LP's defective meme.