question for 400nl+ regs - Page 4

there should be a "track someone's post" option in this forum to be able to track byrnesam & his epic responses :D

& srlsy OP you should understand that your question is somewhat stupid and cant really be answered to before Baal comes to this thread and destroys you :D

On March 07 2010 17:04 Spitfiree wrote: there should be a "track someone's post" option in this forum to be able to track byrnesam & his epic responses :D & srlsy OP you should understand that your question is somewhat stupid and cant really be answered to before Baal comes to this thread and destroys you :D

feel free to enlighten me in the meantime champ

oh man ur just a lost cause w/e

ok thought so

lol

On March 07 2010 16:21 animaniacs wrote: 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.

The only thing you annihilated was your credibility within this community. Enjoy your lifetime ban because I'm sure it's coming. I'm sure you'll spend it telling yourself how you were right and everyone else just didn't get your genius.

You asked a stupid question but because you're an egotistical twat you don't want to admit that your question was stupid and clearly impossible to answer. Instead you'd prefer to lash out at every responder who disagrees with you and attempt to insult them all in defense of your ego.

Good luck getting more advice from anyone in this community. I sure as hell won't be bothering to help you. You're just too stupid for your own good. My advice to you. Quit poker.

omg you gonna take that spitfiree? damn dawg

im not sure what you really want to hear, you want us to tell you NL600 regs are 150% better at understand fundamentals and 130% better at reading hands, and 165% better at being disciplined?

I mean come on...... we can't quantify it with any accuracy, they're just better players overall....

Who is this animaniacs troll anyway?

On March 07 2010 19:42 Fayth wrote: im not sure what you really want to hear, you want us to tell you NL600 regs are 150% better at understand fundamentals and 130% better at reading hands, and 165% better at being disciplined? I mean come on...... we can't quantify it with any accuracy, they're just better players overall....

and i don't mean like saying player A is X% better than player B at value-betting or whatever. i mean saying what percentage value-betting would account for if you made an (approximate) pie graph of the the 3 criteria i listed as to why midstakes regs are better than smallstakes regs. in other words i'm not asking "how much better is player A than player B at doing X". i'm asking "if you take criteria X Y and Z, how do they compare to each other in terms of comprising the gap between player A and player B".

so like for example if i was asking the same question about the skill difference between 2 players at BW using micro/macro as the criteria. i think player A's micro is 4x as good as player B's and his macro is 2x as good. but i also think macro is 2x as important as micro. so i would say the difference is 50% micro and 50% macro.

On March 07 2010 20:06 animaniacs wrote: Show nested quote + On March 07 2010 19:42 Fayth wrote: im not sure what you really want to hear, you want us to tell you NL600 regs are 150% better at understand fundamentals and 130% better at reading hands, and 165% better at being disciplined? I mean come on...... we can't quantify it with any accuracy, they're just better players overall....   and i don't mean like saying player A is X% better than player B at value-betting or whatever. i mean saying what percentage value-betting would account for if you made an (approximate) pie graph of the the 3 criteria i listed as to why midstakes regs are better than smallstakes regs. in other words i'm not asking "how much better is player A than player B at doing X". i'm asking "if you take criteria X Y and Z, how do they compare to each other in terms of comprising the gap between player A and player B". so like for example if i was asking the same question about the skill difference between 2 players at BW using micro/macro as the criteria. i think player A's micro is 4x as good as player B's and his macro is 2x as good. but i also think macro is 2x as important as micro. so i would say the difference is 50% micro and 50% macro.

yeaaaaaaaaaaa thats retarded.

yea that's pointless, i'd just say they have better or worse , or are a bit better or a bit/a lot worse at micro/macro and thats it

NL600 players generally have better micro than NL100 players

by about 47.9%

just like locoo said, It's pointless, seriously, no offense buddy but drop the case this is stupid

On March 07 2010 20:27 locoo wrote: yea that's pointless, i'd just say they have better or worse , or are a bit better or a bit/a lot worse at micro/macro and thats it

it doesn't matter if it's "pointless", the only point is to satisfy my curiosity.

there seem to be two basic objections to my post, one is that it's impossible to answer (even in generalizations), doesn't make sense, etc. which may be in part due to how my op was phrased, but regardless of that i re-explained this part enough already.

the other is that it's pointless or not useful in any way, which is completely perpendicular to the point of this thread.

On March 07 2010 20:55 Fayth wrote: just like locoo said, It's pointless, seriously, no offense buddy but drop the case this is stupid

but yeah, i'm done with this now because it's not going anywhere.

i just think the people who came in trolling need to realize that if it's not interesting to them the correct thing to do is ignore it and go on to another thread, and if nobody is interested it will die a natural death, instead of being like "zomg tihs shits retaaardeddd LOL".

peace

this thread is so retarded that I was unable to think of anything to say I thought for a while about a way I can contribute, but it's not possible
As a rule of thumb, they are just gonna be slightly better at almost everything

On March 06 2010 23:07 byrnesam wrote:

lol

as much as everyone hated this thread, its actually really enjoyable over some rum and coke

and my only constructive comment to the thread is umm

you might as well ask GOD for your "true allin ev" graph that represents how you play against villains entire range in every hand you played that you tracked, including how well you ran on hands that did not go all in, etc etc, cause thats probably just as easy as calculating the numbers you're asking for

byrnesam is so fucking funny haha =D

animaniacs for mod?