Jump to content

Dn Playing 100/200


Recommended Posts

LOL @ telling someone who runs his own coaching site about other sites where he can get coaching.
Opportunity to steal some talent away, imo. He's literally the best coach out there. I wasn't saying go learn from him and try to get accepted as a student of his, was just saying, look at this dude that plays the stakes you're talking about and listen to how well thought out and thorough (and genius) his thought process is.But yeah, I see the dig. It wasn't intended that way, I tried to word it very carefully :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 466
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pretty sure Giggy isn't very goodferal_cow_icon.gifConverting hands till the cows come homeFull Tilt No-Limit Hold'em $0.50/$1 ante $0.20 - 5 playersBB Bigmamaboy1: $247.15 UTG Hero: $341.80 CO nemo_le_80: $398.25 Button DrGiggy: $225.85 SB JLimbs: $100.00 Preflop: ($2.50) Hero is UTG with :ts:club: (5 players)Hero raises to $4, nemo_le_80 calls $4, DrGiggy raises to $14, 2 folds, Hero raises to $29, 2 foldsHero won $34.50(Rake: $0):4h

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty sure Giggy isn't very goodferal_cow_icon.gifConverting hands till the cows come homeFull Tilt No-Limit Hold'em $0.50/$1 ante $0.20 - 5 playersBB Bigmamaboy1: $247.15 UTG Hero: $341.80 CO nemo_le_80: $398.25 Button DrGiggy: $225.85 SB JLimbs: $100.00 Preflop: ($2.50) Hero is UTG with :ts:club: (5 players)Hero raises to $4, nemo_le_80 calls $4, DrGiggy raises to $14, 2 folds, Hero raises to $29, 2 foldsHero won $34.50(Rake: $0):4h
KJ is teh nutz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun hand for me to watch other than just the fact that Daniel won the pot since we were chatting on MSN and he was telling me his thought process the entire time.He's on the table for about $85K or so.PokerStars Game #41623709996: Hold'em No Limit ($100/$200 USD) - 2010/03/24 1:26:05 ETTable 'Phad IV' 6-max Seat #5 is the buttonSeat 1: cts687 ($41865 in chips) Seat 2: ADZ124 ($25395 in chips) Seat 3: molswi47 ($44150 in chips) Seat 4: KidPoker ($45410 in chips) Seat 5: nutsinho ($50011 in chips) Seat 6: I_WILL_MUCK ($37450 in chips) I_WILL_MUCK: posts small blind $100cts687: posts big blind $200*** HOLE CARDS ***ADZ124: raises $400 to $600molswi47: folds KidPoker: calls $600nutsinho: folds I_WILL_MUCK: folds cts687: raises $2800 to $3400ADZ124: folds KidPoker: calls $2800*** FLOP *** [2c Th 4s]cts687: bets $5600KidPoker: calls $5600*** TURN *** [2c Th 4s] [Td]cts687: checks KidPoker: checks *** RIVER *** [2c Th 4s Td] [5s]cts687: bets $32865 and is all-inKidPoker: calls $32865*** SHOW DOWN ***cts687: shows [Ah Kc] (a pair of Tens)KidPoker: shows [Qs Qd] (two pair, Queens and Tens)KidPoker collected $84425 from pot*** SUMMARY ***Total pot $84430 | Rake $5 Board [2c Th 4s Td 5s]Seat 1: cts687 (big blind) showed [Ah Kc] and lost with a pair of TensSeat 2: ADZ124 folded before FlopSeat 3: molswi47 folded before Flop (didn't bet)Seat 4: KidPoker showed [Qs Qd] and won ($84425) with two pair, Queens and TensSeat 5: nutsinho (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)Seat 6: I_WILL_MUCK (small blind) folded before Flop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a hand that Daniel thinks he may have played badly on.PokerStars Game #41624265390: Hold'em No Limit ($100/$200 USD) - 2010/03/24 1:54:12 ETTable 'Phad IV' 6-max Seat #5 is the buttonSeat 1: cts687 ($26190 in chips) Seat 2: ADZ124 ($20900 in chips) Seat 3: molswi47 ($46385 in chips) Seat 4: KidPoker ($74540 in chips) Seat 5: nutsinho ($61511 in chips) Seat 6: I_WILL_MUCK ($37990 in chips) I_WILL_MUCK: posts small blind $100cts687: posts big blind $200*** HOLE CARDS ***ADZ124: folds molswi47: raises $400 to $600KidPoker: raises $1400 to $2000ADZ124 said, " no"ADZ124 said, "i have chat"ADZ124 said, "i just dont really feel like saying anything"nutsinho: folds ADZ124 said, "gl all"KidPoker said, "no way!!!!! I would have lost like $100k on that bet!"I_WILL_MUCK: folds ADZ124 said, "well good, keep it"KidPoker said, "phew"cts687: raises $4200 to $6200molswi47: folds KidPoker: calls $4200*** FLOP *** [9s Qh 5c]cts687: checks KidPoker: checks *** TURN *** [9s Qh 5c] [3c]cts687: checks KidPoker: checks *** RIVER *** [9s Qh 5c 3c] [Th]cts687: checks KidPoker: checks *** SHOW DOWN ***cts687: shows [Ah Kd] (high card Ace)KidPoker: shows [6s 6d] (a pair of Sixes)KidPoker collected $13095 from pot*** SUMMARY ***Total pot $13100 | Rake $5 Board [9s Qh 5c 3c Th]Seat 1: cts687 (big blind) showed [Ah Kd] and lost with high card AceSeat 2: ADZ124 folded before Flop (didn't bet)Seat 3: molswi47 folded before FlopSeat 4: KidPoker showed [6s 6d] and won ($13095) with a pair of SixesSeat 5: nutsinho (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)Seat 6: I_WILL_MUCK (small blind) folded before Flop

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOLKidPoker: I have never played this much online poker in my life. I'm totally addictedDealer: Game #41624961315: ZeeJustin wins pot ($4,095)Dealer: Game #41624978106: ZeeJustin wins pot ($500)nutsinho: soon you will discover that you can play more than one table at a time

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fun hand for me to watch other than just the fact that Daniel won the pot since we were chatting on MSN and he was telling me his thought process the entire time.
Bob. Enough.The guy is clearly old, outclassed and sucks.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I get what you are saying and I think it makes fine sense, but what you said about the bolded quote is ridiculous. There are plenty of grinders at 5/10 who are just as good as those guys you are playing.
Nah, I just don't buy that and I never, ever will. They may have the potential to be just as good, but unless they actually play in the 100-200 games there is no way to know if they'd be successful against the other top players in that game. If a player WAS good enough to beat 100-200 but still chose to play 5-10 that says a lot about the type of player he is.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, I just don't buy that and I never, ever will. They may have the potential to be just as good, but unless they actually play in the 100-200 games there is no way to know if they'd be successful against the other top players in that game. If a player WAS good enough to beat 100-200 but still chose to play 5-10 that says a lot about the type of player he is.
grab-a-beer-some-popcorn-demotivational-poster-1251488347.gif
Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed, i do nt see how anyone can argue with that point, players of potential but without moving up and playin the highest limits thats all it is. I know there are many good 5/10 players but there are not many bad 100/200 players etc, unless they have more money than sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, I just don't buy that and I never, ever will. They may have the potential to be just as good, but unless they actually play in the 100-200 games there is no way to know if they'd be successful against the other top players in that game. If a player WAS good enough to beat 100-200 but still chose to play 5-10 that says a lot about the type of player he is.
And what is that? Please explain what that would say about the player imo
Link to post
Share on other sites
And what is that? Please explain what that would say about the player imo
I think it means that the player sucks because he views poker in a way that allows him a way to make a significant income with relatively little risk of ruin, as opposed to daniel who is awesome because he was self admittedly relatively "poker broke" a few years ago after losing a shit ton in the big game playing a huge predominately PLO game that was out of his bankroll thanks to his ego.I think.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, I just don't buy that and I never, ever will. They may have the potential to be just as good, but unless they actually play in the 100-200 games there is no way to know if they'd be successful against the other top players in that game. If a player WAS good enough to beat 100-200 but still chose to play 5-10 that says a lot about the type of player he is.
I've pretty much just left the posts alone in this thread, but this post comes off as pretty ignorant to me and is probably insulting to a lot of good winning players who play mid to high stakes.Do you know what 5/10 and 10/20 NL plays like these days? Do you know what it takes to grind out tens of thousands of hands in a 6max game with 4 other regs and a fish (or 5 other regs) and still win day after day? It's fine that you don't. It's not your job to know and it obviously doesn't say anything positively or negatively about you whether you know or not... ...until you start talking like you do know the skill level of those players and you're not speaking too highly of them. Then it makes you look bad imo.Every poker player has a ceiling in their development. Some players are willing to acknowledge this ceiling and realize that the best that they might ever do is regularly beat a 5/10 game. For some people, they'll never beat 1/2. Some people will beat $1k/$2k. Some people will have their ceiling at 10/20 and will regularly keep trying to play 25/50 and it won't work. Just because a player is regularly playing 5/10 NL, it doesn't mean that they can't beat 100/200 NL and it doesn't mean that they couldn't sit in the game today and beat it. There are other factors involved that have the players playing the limits that they are playing.I'm not saying Mike (no not baxter) is right here because I don't know. I don't know which 5/10 players would or could beat a 100/200 game right now. I know that the good and great players at 5/10 have the mechanics to beat any limit. Poker is still poker and ranges are still ranges. Maybe they grasp the other psychological things that are going on right away and maybe they don't. But I will say that it's completely wrong for you to say so absolutely that a person grinding 5/10 cannot beat a 100/200 game right now unless he hops in and proves it. It doesn't have to say anything about them as a poker player if he can beat 100/200 but is playing 5/10. Maybe he usually plays 25/50 and will sit 100/200 when it's going, but he happened to go on a 75k hand break even stretch at 25/50. You know that winning players do that online? The best players grind out hands day after day and don't get to win. That's one reason. Maybe he just doesn't have the BR for 100/200 cause he just bought a house or invested a lot of money away from poker. There are dozens of reasons why poker players play lower stakes than they are capable of beating.I just think that you should state your opinion a bit more as opinion than fact.You don't even know if you're beating this game. You've played under 3k hands at those stakes and that's what most of these guys play in the first half of the day. I just don't think you should be talking down to established winning players about a game that nobody knows if you're beating as if your voice is the voice of experience about anything related to online poker.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it means that the player sucks because he views poker in a way that allows him a way to make a significant income with relatively little risk of ruin, as opposed to daniel who is awesome because he was self admittedly relatively "poker broke" a few years ago after losing a shit ton in the big game playing a huge predominately PLO game that was out of his bankroll thanks to his ego.I think.
Quoted so you can't have a change of heart :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, I just don't buy that and I never, ever will. They may have the potential to be just as good, but unless they actually play in the 100-200 games there is no way to know if they'd be successful against the other top players in that game. If a player WAS good enough to beat 100-200 but still chose to play 5-10 that says a lot about the type of player he is.
The skill gap between limits is much closer than you think + most people aren't huge degenerates like Isildur.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, I just don't buy that and I never, ever will. They may have the potential to be just as good, but unless they actually play in the 100-200 games there is no way to know if they'd be successful against the other top players in that game. If a player WAS good enough to beat 100-200 but still chose to play 5-10 that says a lot about the type of player he is.
No offense DN but this is so far from the truth.....WOW.Edit-Great post Acid.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...