Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RayPowers

  1. They are obviously intimidated by your presence.Ray
  2. Did it have a card with paint on it? :PPM me neteller account Royal. Ray
  3. You realize I'm changing your custom title to "Lost me $20" ?Ray
  4. This whole thing is so depenadant on how fast your table is moving. Funny stuff. Are you guys counting by hands or time?Ray
  5. $20 via neteller SBriand lasts longer than you? Anything less makes a neteller exchange not worth it. :PRay(No, I don't have a gambling problem, why do you ask?)
  6. I'll take some action on SBriand, Royal. PM?Ray
  7. Second point first, Grooms actually talks about why he left on 2+2. Here's a thread started by him where you can probably do some reading between the lines.First point, I am not sure that I can really say that more bracelets means that a bracelet is less prestigious. I can agree they are less scarce, but I am not sure that's the same thing. Here's how I look at it. Let's say we run one and only one Hold Em tournament ever, and give out a bracelet for it. Is that bracelet scarce? Yes! Is it prestigious? Yes, but actually in a strange way, slightly less so than one would think because one and on
  8. Hey Jade, glad to see such a response from you!I think I am trying to wholly segregate the basic populations belief in the prestige value of a bracelet versus that of the winner's view of that bracelet's value. I think that you are completely right that the personal value of a bracelet is prety much unquantifiable. I know if I win my first bracelet this year, it will be, to me, the most prestigious thing I have ever done. But to the general population, I will be "some shmo no one has ever head of who must have gotten lucky." :)I don't think quantifying the meaning of a bracelet based on size o
  9. But, there was also less people to go through to get the bracelet.... I think a truly interesting debate (and likely one with NO right answer) is whether the added difficulty of more players to have to fight through in a single event is more or less difficult than trying to win bracelet when there were less available to win.Ray
  10. I 100% agree here. If a significant number of the pro's start actively boycotting the events, the prestige certainly goes down. But right now... *shrug* the events may suck, but winning them is just as prestigious as it ever has been, if not moreso.Ray
  11. Hurmm, that's interesting points. Let me try to address them...High # of events, high % being NLHE:I'm extremely disappointed about this as well, and we all know that this is very much due to the influence of television on the event. Most people only understand NLHE. Many players only play NLHE, so the monetary drive is there for Harrah's to make more events NLHE. But, as an example, let's take the first $1500 NLHE event. Here's the results. It had 2776 players. In it was Carlos Mortensen, Jennifer Harmon, Devilfish, Paul Darden, Al Krux, Bill Gazes, Phil Gordon, and Eric Seidel, just to name
  12. .....This post is worse than the first one, do you see why?:(Feel free to not respond. I'm not here to argue either. I'm here to have a discussion. You're here to say 'Daniel is right because he's a name.' You had two chances to actualy respond with a reason why you felt Daniel was right, and skipped it both times, the second time to call my post asinine and flaming, which ironically, is all your post is. :)To anyone else (like IveyFan who had a similar opinion, or even Daniel himself), WHY do you feel its less prestigious than 4-5 years ago? What makes it more prestigious before? I suppose pe
  13. ... Did you really just respond with essentially 'Dan said it so it must be right?" :(I think Daniel is great and have been on his site a long time, but his "watered down" comment seems like its coming from his frustration with the WSOP management and not any actual logic about the events and players themselves. For your entire response to be that is pretty bad. :(Ray
  14. While I agree the WSOP this year seems to be riddled with problems, I'm not sure I follow along with everyone's logic that this makes the bracelet's less prestigious or "watered down." I think its disrespectful to some amazing players out there to say their bracelets are not as impressive because Harrah's has screwed some things up. These players still had to fight through a large number of pros and huge fields of players. The fact that these players won this year despite the problems that we have seen in the WSOP should, if anything, give the players MORE respect for dealing with such issues
  15. Someone sent me their stats after part two came out, and since it's a good example, I am going to repost my responses to them here, name removed. This isn't to agree or disagree with my specific advice for this person, or to apply it to the original poster, but to show how other numbers can affect the % as an example. I kind of took two emails I had sent and combined them, so I apologize if it sounds slightly confusing.
  16. This is one thing the columnist tried very hard to state: this number is not fixed on its own. There's several factors that contribute to this number, and "trying to fix this number" is a recipe for disaster. Instead, identify what common leaks may cause this number to vary, look for issues with other numbers, and fix those, and this number should "right itself" naturally.Ray
  17. Ok, to stop kidding around.. Winning 78% at Showdown is normally an indicator that he is playing too tight, and only going to showdown with nuts or near nuts hands, when pot size or other situations (such as player type) indicate he probably should have called with more hands. His % may be less, but his money in pocket should be more.Another thing that idiot columnist did was not mention that the number is mainly oriented towards limit play, but in all honesty, No limit is not that different, its just dictated much more by pot size.I have meetings most of today, but I'll check back in on th
  18. The guy who wrote that obviously had no idea what he was talking about..Ray
  19. Michael Mizrachi supports your new rule.RayBrent Blake Busts Michael MizrachiNo Limit Hold'emJul 10, 2006 / 16:18:00 EDTA player from middle position pushed all in for 250, Michael Mizrachi pushed all in for 175, Brent Blake raised to 550 and another player called. The flop came 9diams7diams4diams, Blake bet 400 and the player who had called, folded. The players showed:Michael Mizrachi KdiamsKspadesMiddle Position Jhearts10heartsBrent Blake AheartsAspadesThe last two cards were 3clubs10clubs, Blake took the hand with his pocket aces and eliminated Mizrachi and his other opponent. After the han
  20. Everything you ever wanted to know, and tons you didn't:Ask Jean GluckRay
  21. That one beats mine for sure.Yoda's answer was excellent as well.Ray
  22. Go see Online Poker Forum. Last time was AKQJT board, no flush possible. One guy bets, I call, next guy RAISES, call, I call, cursing that I just added two bets of raked pot for no reason at all.To the other guy saying its worth it when people fold, *I* will never fold to it, so it's a pet peeve when it happens to me. :)Ray
  23. My current one (see online poker forum):Betting when the board *IS* the nuts, which does nothing but feed the rake.Ray
  • Create New...