Jump to content

Dn Playing 100/200


Recommended Posts

I think part of the differing view is that Daniel may not realize how wide a limit range some of the winning regular players will play. A lot of the players who have been playing with Daniel at 100/200 also put in a lot of hands at 10/20.
While this may be true it may also goes to show another facet of the online game that Daniel may be out of touch with.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 466
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is everyone taking crazy pills today??? Gosh, my point is clear and valid and shouldn't be seen as condescending in the least. Of course a 5-10 player could beat the game. Most 100-200 players once played 5-10. My point is that you can't possibly know unless they actually play. Why is that condescending or insulting? I didn't ever say the winning 5-10 grinders suck. My point was that I don't want to learn from them when I have the option of learning from the players playing at the stakes I want to succeed at. Yes, I get it. 5-10 is hard. What the hell does that have to do with my point?
Awesome threadMichael%20Jackson%20Jackson_popcorn.gif
Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't ever say the winning 5-10 grinders suck. My point was that I don't want to learn from them when I have the option of learning from the players playing at the stakes I want to succeed at.
This seems like it should really be the end of any debate, though I doubt it will be. :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
This seems like it should really be the end of any debate, though I doubt it will be. :club:
Yeah, I think I agree. DN's opinion about it being the 'fastest' way to learn could be debated, but I don't see how we can debate his preference to learn at higher stakes. And I doubt the rest of the table will either.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole debate has undercurrents of the recurring online vs live players.The online players have a serious short guy syndrome where they are so quick to take offense to any live player who doesn't buy that online players are better than live players.It's funny that DN is one of the old guys though.Besides we all know that live players are better at live games, and online players are better at online games

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the obvious. The player is risk averse and not too interested in trying to maximize his profits if it means risking ruin. I wouldn't say a nit, but along those lines. If someone was well rolled, enough to play 100-200 but stuck to 5-10 instead the only logical reason is that they are afraid of ruin and/or don't think they could beat the game for as much as they could a 5-10 game.
Ty for explaining, it honestly wasn't that obvious to me. I thought it was more of a game selection issue rather than this. It's obvious others took your comment out of context too, lol. That's why i asked.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This whole debate has undercurrents of the recurring online vs live players.The online players have a serious short guy syndrome where they are so quick to take offense to any live player who doesn't buy that online players are better than live players.It's funny that DN is one of the old guys though.Besides we all know that live players are better at live games, and online players are better at online games
:club:i_live_to_stir_the_pot_tshirt-p235758243249441515t5tr_400.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I think I agree. DN's opinion about it being the 'fastest' way to learn could be debated, but I don't see how we can debate his preference to learn at higher stakes. And I doubt the rest of the table will either.
One thing I have wondered is are these players who line up whenever DN sits down really good people to learn from?They are largely filled with people who don't play that level regularly aren't they?I mean you kind of pointed it out, they think DN is a fishcake and are willing to play higher levels to take his easy money.Or do these guys play higher levels at other sites that spread the game regularly?
Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing I have wondered is are these players who line up whenever DN sits down really good people to learn from?They are largely filled with people who don't play that level regularly aren't they?I mean you kind of pointed it out, they think DN is a fishcake and are willing to play higher levels to take his easy money.Or do these guys play higher levels at other sites that spread the game regularly?
It's a mix of players.You get guys like ADZ who probably shouldn't be playing 100/200 who jump up from smaller games and you'll get guys like Cole South who are willing to play even bigger.100/200 doesn't run enough to really be anybody's main game.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a mix of players.You get guys like ADZ who probably shouldn't be playing 100/200 who jump up from smaller games and you'll get guys like Cole South who are willing to play even bigger.100/200 doesn't run enough to really be anybody's main game.
So really if DN wants to get to the Ivey/Pa/Durrr level he is going to have to go to fulltilt?
Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing I have wondered is are these players who line up whenever DN sits down really good people to learn from?They are largely filled with people who don't play that level regularly aren't they?I mean you kind of pointed it out, they think DN is a fishcake and are willing to play higher levels to take his easy money.Or do these guys play higher levels at other sites that spread the game regularly?
many of those guys have 15 or more times as many hands at 25/50 than 100/200, and are still regularly playing that limit. a big part of that is because 25/50 actually RUNS though, not because they're nits and/or risk averse.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So... patrik said you need a $50M bankroll to be properly rolled for $500-1000 online.Assuming he was talking mostly about PLO which is higher variance, what size bankroll would you need to correctly play 100-200 NL / PLO? $3M? $5M? $10M?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So... patrik said you need a $50M bankroll to be properly rolled for $500-1000 online.Assuming he was talking mostly about PLO which is higher variance, what size bankroll would you need to correctly play 100-200 NL / PLO? $3M? $5M? $10M?
Do you really need the same bankroll management numbers at levels you don't actually grind at?I mean if you want to make a living and it is your job etc and you play $1/$2 I can understand the intelligence behind bankroll management.But when you are playing levels that 5 BBs can pay your overhead for the month, and one where you are not going to put in the same number of hands/hours that you need, can't you lessen your BRM requirements a lot?
Link to post
Share on other sites
many of those guys have 15 or more times as many hands at 25/50 than 100/200, and are still regularly playing that limit. a big part of that is because 25/50 actually RUNS though, not because they're nits and/or risk averse.
If this is the case, than playing the $25/$50 level should be EXACTLY the same thing as playing the $100/$200 level.I mean it's the same players...It would seem to me you would want to play that level so you can experiment a little. You can call people just to see what they had for future knowledge etc at a greatly reduced price.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really need the same bankroll management numbers at levels you don't actually grind at?I mean if you want to make a living and it is your job etc and you play $1/$2 I can understand the intelligence behind bankroll management.But when you are playing levels that 5 BBs can pay your overhead for the month, and one where you are not going to put in the same number of hands/hours that you need, can't you lessen your BRM requirements a lot?
it's the difference between being rolled to play the game regularly and being rolled to take a shot in it. if you want to take a shot, all you need to be able to lose x amount without affecting your ability to play your regular game optimally
Link to post
Share on other sites
it's the difference between being rolled to play the game regularly and being rolled to take a shot in it. if you want to take a shot, all you need to be able to lose x amount without affecting your ability to play your regular game optimally
Yea but we all know none of those guys are rolled properly.Durrrr lost it all to Isuludr1 didn't he?I mean sure he had a couple million in cash laying around, but he lost his online roll
Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is the case, than playing the $25/$50 level should be EXACTLY the same thing as playing the $100/$200 level.I mean it's the same players...It would seem to me you would want to play that level so you can experiment a little. You can call people just to see what they had for future knowledge etc at a greatly reduced price.
I think Lanky hit it on the head.Daniel playing at 25/50 against Player A is not the same as Daniel playing at 100/200 versus the same Player A if player A is 'shot taking' to play at 100/200.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Lanky hit it on the head.Daniel playing at 25/50 against Player A is not the same as Daniel playing at 100/200 versus the same Player A if player A is 'shot taking' to play at 100/200.
If it wasn't for 'shot takers' at every level then the regulars would lose all their money to the rake.So that is 100% normal at every level
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Lanky hit it on the head.Daniel playing at 25/50 against Player A is not the same as Daniel playing at 100/200 versus the same Player A if player A is 'shot taking' to play at 100/200.
... So he would theoretically learn more from the same players at 25-50 where they are more comfortable and the money isn't affecting their judgement?
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...