grass Da 55

hey hey hey, smoke weed everyday.

this shiet's been going on at primapoker for yrs. i guess other networks are hopping onto it for a quick buck.

a suit w/ a fancy tie trying to steal his client's money. ya don't say.

troll alert.

But you have forgotten to mention the other side of this issue...You can only lose 1k chips in any one hand. yes, i can only lose 1k in any one hand. But you have forgotten to mention the other side of this issue... the opponent w/ 3k can also only lose 1k against me in any given hand therefore certain decisions are different when playing against a small stack than a big stack.lets say player A, B, and C are at the same table. players A and B has a 3k stack while player C only has 1k. are you saying that in every situation at a nl poker table that player A will play his big stack against playe

Are you guys even considering yourself pokerplayers??? you are clearly lost on the argument and haven't the slightest clue what is going on in here. pls go take a nap and leave the poker discussion to the few of us who had actually comprehended the subject at hand. really, pls go away. and keep telling people they can't become professional poker players like it's an impossible feat or something while they take your money.

and a well known person who NEVER played the game before sits down with $10k... look, even if i were stupid enough to take $500 up against a $10k uber-donk, his chip stack will lower my edge against him. this is where his advantage is.

Now if you sat at a $5/$10 NL game with $500........anyone sitting at my 5-10 nl game w/ $500 not planning on doing a hit and run is a fish.and a well known person who NEVER played the game before sits down with $10k...yeah, i'm pretty sure this apllies to daniel negreanu. "look ya, a donk w/ $125k. wooooohoooooooo."

quoted: daniel negreanuthere is NO ADVANTAGE to buying in for moredoesn't matter if daniel's buy-in was 125k, 3k, or 4k. as long as he was one of the biggest stack at the table, there will be an advantage, and the statement quoted from him above is false.

Let's suppose Daniel sat down at the table with precisely one dollar more than the biggest stack. He just plopped down said "I'll have what he has, and another white."Does he have an unfair advantage? not especially. It's his right to buy-in for that much. does he have an unfair advantage? nodoes he have an advantage? of course he doeseverytime you sit down at a nl cash game table where you have the biggest stack of 3k or 125k where he can win the maximum amount of money from any particular player in any particular pot, it's an advantage. a player w/ a stack size of 1k in a 5-10 nl game can no

i admit tgavin99 seems like a complete douchebag but if daniel couldn't take a little criticism, he wouldn't had a forum called full contact poker. there's no need to bytch and moan everytime someone steps on his toe.

i honestly don't think you would be a favorite daniel. although i believe i could be wrong in this assumption but one assumption i won't be wrong about is that when two players of equal skills sit at a nl table, one w/ 2k the other w/ 125k, clearly you will agree that the player that has 125k will have an advantage over his equally skilled opponent who has 2k. now lets take it back to the wynns some days ago. daniel negreanu sits down at the 5-10 nl table w/ 125k. are you suggesting that you were the worst player at the table and that your opponent could actually taken advantage of your big st

There is no advantage- the only person/people who it makes a difference to is people who understand simple math and simple logic.fyp

WHAO........................speechless.

If there is no advantage to buying in for more...than why does everybody (including Doyle Brunson) advise that you buy in for the maximum...... So you win the maximum when you get big hands you nitwit. Next question. THIS THREAD IS FUNNY.