Jungleman vs durrrrr - Page 9

On September 01 2010 10:37 ShLiM wrote: thats why i like isildur hes 100% on his own

after making billions with cirque de soleil he should be.

On September 01 2010 16:27 Helmet wrote: Show nested quote + On September 01 2010 10:37 ShLiM wrote: thats why i like isildur hes 100% on his own after making billions with cirque de soleil he should be.

im not sure if you are trolling or not

On September 01 2010 13:27 RyanKrait wrote: Show nested quote + On February 5, 2006, Beal was down $3.3 million (USD). He then returned to the Wynn a week later, and won approximately $13.6 million from the Corporation during daily poker sessions from February 12–15. The games resumed February 21–23, with Phil Ivey representing the Corporation against Beal at limits of $30,000/60,000 and $50,000/100,000. During these three days, Beal lost $16.6 million to Ivey. end of topic.

tbh its not even 2 buyins~~

On September 01 2010 20:15 wobbly_au wrote: Show nested quote + On September 01 2010 13:27 RyanKrait wrote:   On February 5, 2006, Beal was down $3.3 million (USD). He then returned to the Wynn a week later, and won approximately $13.6 million from the Corporation during daily poker sessions from February 12–15. The games resumed February 21–23, with Phil Ivey representing the Corporation against Beal at limits of $30,000/60,000 and $50,000/100,000. During these three days, Beal lost $16.6 million to Ivey. end of topic. tbh its not even 2 buyins~~

it was fixed limit (i believe)

Phil Galfond made a short video talking about some of the interesting hands happening so far into the challenge:

http://www.pokerstatic.com/static-tv/durrrr-challenge-breakdown-by-phil-galfond/

except it is the most uninteresting video ever

On September 01 2010 21:17 Highcard wrote: except it is the most uninteresting video ever

nothing galfond ever does is uninteresting, but yeah its not the most indepth/long video ever, but at least you get to see some of the biggest pots played between them if you didnt rail it all live.

On September 01 2010 16:27 Helmet wrote: Show nested quote + On September 01 2010 10:37 ShLiM wrote: thats why i like isildur hes 100% on his own after making billions with cirque de soleil he should be.

lol

raszi if you have always had 100% of your own action no matter the stakes than I applaud you cause that is baller

I don't know if any of you guys have any money but I'll be taking xbooks (a percentage, of the whole thing) with me betting on jman, all reasonable odds will be considered

excludes all hands currently played up until now
does not include sidebet
-deldar182

On September 02 2010 04:52 dandydolly wrote: I don't know if any of you guys have any money but I'll be taking xbooks (a percentage, of the whole thing) with me betting on jman, all reasonable odds will be considered excludes all hands currently played up until now does not include sidebet -deldar182

will vouch this is infact deldar

thats pretty sick raszi and indeed sounds like a huge thrill, but for most ppl taking that ballsy approach going broke often has to be inevitable right? Am i correct in assuming you have quicker ways of getting back on your feet than an avg player like me perhaps

On August 31 2010 18:02 RaSZi wrote: Because it makes the thrill less. I thikn the fact people have to play that high and risk getting in a bad spot is half the fun of the challenge. If some prodigy plays him and has 10% of his own action I couldn't care less about the results. Some people in big live games play for 10%-20% of themselves. Such grinding.

being +ev is all that matters to most people.

edited cuz first response was a little rude.

On September 02 2010 16:59 RaSZi wrote: I'm not saying it's right or cool, it's just the way I enjoy poker the most and I feel i'm improving a lot. People posting graphs and blowups everywhere is so childish and none of their business really. So yeah it's stupid sometimes, but I like the heartbeat too.

really sounded like you were.

just informing of how you came off, not trying to hate.

in the post i quoted sounded you said thats just how you like to play poker but before it sounded like you were looking down on people who " % nit "

well when i found out that even durrrr takes % i was let down a little bit but i mean it makes sense when taking shots at games which you cannot afford but probably beat longterm

tbh i don't feel that durrr or jungleman should have sold off %, it takes away from the challenge but it isn't a critical flaw

the durr fractional million dollar challenge wherein backers can also dictate if play occurs

On September 02 2010 16:10 Stim_Abuser wrote: Show nested quote + On August 31 2010 18:02 RaSZi wrote: Because it makes the thrill less. I thikn the fact people have to play that high and risk getting in a bad spot is half the fun of the challenge. If some prodigy plays him and has 10% of his own action I couldn't care less about the results. Some people in big live games play for 10%-20% of themselves. Such grinding. not everyone is a huge degenerate. it would really suck to like mass grind and make like 250k just to lose it all plus 150k taking a shot with 100% of yourself.

so durr and galfond who took a shot at railheaven underbankrolled is a war hero since they ran like god and raszi is a degen because he ran bad and went on life tilt after? lol irony...

I really could care less one way or another I'm just happy to be able watch such an awesome matchup