Clamps

What I'm trying to say is that nobody has an edge in the Big Game. The only edge anyone could have is specializing in a certain game, but that's offset by not being as good in a different game. So basically, even if you do have an edge, it's very minimal because you still have to play the toughest players in the world. Of course the game is beatable, but it's going to be leagues tougher than the games at lower stakes that are easier to beat. Anyway, the original argument was that Johnny Chan wasn't a top cash game player because he doesn't participate in the Big Game. My argument is that he no

Actually, the truth is that you have no idea how much money they've made/lost, so saying that they've been consistent winners is just a complete guess from you. The actual fact is that it's the toughest game in the world, and like I said multiple times before, some of the best cash game players in the world prefer to play weaker opposition because they have a significant edge. And once again, like I said before, Johnny Chan has obligations that keep him from playing cash games all the time. I can't see why you're having a hard time understanding.

You still don't get the point. The Big Game is almost strictly made up of professionals, which means that it is a tough game where noone is going to have a real advantage. I'm getting sick of repeating myself, but I might as well try again. Some of the best players in the world don't want to play the toughest games in the world because they can make more money playing weak players. Just because the stakes are higher does not mean that it's a more profitable game.

How is it a no-lose investment opportunity? I don't understand how playing poker with the toughest players in the world is a "no-lose investment". Like I said earlier, some of the best in the world would rather play slightly lower stakes with weaker players to make more money. Is this concept really that difficult to understand? Maybe when Chan has free time he likes to play in soft games where he can make the most money, does it really make him any less of a world class player because he isn't in the Big Game every day?

When did I say that Chan was one of my heroes? Anyone with half a brain can come to the conclusion that he has other endeavors that make him more money than he can get playing at the big game. And even if he didn't, why does he have to play there to prove he's one of the best in the world? You do understand that some of the best players in the world play in cash games with weak opposition for a reason, right? Not everyone wants to to play in a game where they don't have an edge.

I'm gonna "guess" that because he has a family and is now one of the biggest celebrities in poker that he has obligations that get in the way of playing side games. What else do you have to base your opinion on than short term results? If you want to make that criticism then you have to make it about every player at the table, since they were all playing on a short term. Just because Laak played tight/aggressive and didn't make a bunch of risky plays doesn't mean that he's a weak player.

Laak was one of the best players at the table. The fact is that he walked away as one of the biggest (if not the biggest) winners in the game. Last time I checked, poker was about making money, not making cute plays to impress people. And if you honestly think Antonio isn't a good player then you have your head up your ***. He was one of the best players out of both seasons, regardless of the bad beats he took.

I should've added that there were two pre-flop limpers, which is why I decided to play the hand in the first place. They both folded when the pot was raised.

I don't have any hand histories saved, but I think that I'm losing a good deal of bets in situations where I'm raising someone with mid pair, for example;I have the button with T9o, I limp in and the SB raises preflop, I call the raise and we're heads up. Flop is JT4 rainbow, and he bets out. He's playing relatively loose and is raising a decent amount, and has bet out at the last 4 pots that he's raised preflop, regardless of what he's had. Knowing this, I raise him and he calls. He checks the turn as the turn is a blank and I bet, once again he calls. River is a Q and he checks, I check beca

I've been playing 2 3 hour sessions and then an extra 2 hour session if I have time, and I find that it helps me retain my focus. Maybe I should try stop loss, might help even things out a little.

Recently I've started playing limit instead of no limit to grind out my bankroll, and I've noticed that when I lose in NL, I tend to suffer heavy losses in short periods of time, while in limit I seem to lose for days straight. This week I've had a loss of about 100 bb's (2/4 10-handed), and I've got a couple questions about controlling your losses for the people who've been grinding out limit for a while;1. What's the avg. amount of losing days that you have in a winning week?2. How do you combat the losing sessions? Do you play for a # of hours, set a goal for the day and stop when you meet

I hear that you can get rakeback through Bodog from another player, is this true?

I'm talking about the limit games, not NL.

I don't have problems with games like that, my point is that you have to constrict your play even more than a normal full game because of the extra person, which is a bad thing when you're trying to make a profit in a loose game.

Look at the stats yourself. There's only two 2/4 games running right now, both with 31% and 32% players per flop, both with avg. pots of $10 and $16. Plus, factor in the fact that all of Bodog's limit tables are 10 man at 2/4 and 3/6, no shorthanded tables, so you're forced to play only premium cards and positions (if you want to make a profit at all). While this somewhat adds to the overall juicyness of the game, it's mostly going to harm you in the long run if your big hands don't hold up. I'm looking at Full Tilt's 2/4 games right now, they have 5 full games going and 8 shorthanded games r