Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?

[Big Limpin']

Just a random thought...if there were SnGs offered at, say, 2000+100, or 5000+250, or whatever...and in the future, there may be...

Would the best player in the world be able to beat the vig?

1) if only the 10 best players in the world were playing
2) if there is one or two sub-par players ponying up

I think you see where im going with this, but if not:

Say a very very good player can attain:

40% ROI @ 10+1
35% ROI @ 20+2
30% ROI @ 30+3
25% ROI @ 50+4
20% ROI @ 100+8
15% ROI @ 200+15
(or whatever, fabricated #'s)

Well, his return for all these is AFTER the vig. i.e. 30% ROI is more like 40% ROI from the actual poker being played (math error acknowledged, and ignored).

What im asking is, do you think there could be games where the best player couldnt beat the vigorish? Long term I mean. He would still be "winning", but his ROI may be below zero.

I think its reasonable to assume that you wont get too many whales in a $5000 tourney that lasts for only an hour. SO, probably, the worst player at theese imaginary stakes would still be ranked as an "A-" player.

This kind of assumes the sites wont put a rake cap in. If the normal limit games now are 10%, and the highest limits closer to 8%, it seems reasonable that, if offered, these games would still have a 5% vig or more.

Assorted questions:

-What do you think will be the highest buy-in next year? in 2 years? etc.

-Will there be any whales playing these games?

-Could the worlds best SNG player beat the vig versus 9 other pros? 8 pros, 1 fish?

[Superfluous Man]

I was always under the impression that ROI took the vig into account.

The world's best SNG player would probably still have a positive ROI in your hypothetical biggest game.

[Mr_J]

"I was always under the impression that ROI took the vig into account"

It does. By 'winning' with a -EV I think he means better than 30% ITM, but not enough to beat the vig.

[lacky]

I think your assumption that bad players wouldn't play is wrong. Just look at the 25 50 nl game at ub. Lots of good players, lots of fish. When people will play $100,000 hands of blackjack why do you think they would shy away from a $5000 sng?

[AlexM]

1. $5000 is way too low stakes for a SnG for the best players in the world. $50,000 would be better, but probably still too low.

2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
1. $5000 is way too low stakes for a SnG for the best players in the world. $50,000 would be better, but probably still too low.


[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, i see. Lets exchange "best players in the world" for "pretty darn good internet players"...What i had in mind was the people, many from 2+2 that are beating the 200+15 and would play higher.
[ QUOTE ]

2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.

[/ QUOTE ]
Damn! I had no idea. I guess none of them post here.

Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. $5000 is way too low stakes for a SnG for the best players in the world. $50,000 would be better, but probably still too low.


[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, i see. Lets exchange "best players in the world" for "pretty darn good internet players"...What i had in mind was the people, many from 2+2 that are beating the 200+15 and would play higher.
[ QUOTE ]

2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.

[/ QUOTE ]
Damn! I had no idea. I guess none of them post here.

Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Big Limpin', he does have a point. $5000 is much too low when you consider that the The Biggest (Side) Game can go as high as $100,000-$200,000. also, the best $215 SNG players, IMHO, are no where near the caliber of "best" players in the world" and would'nt stand a long-term chance playing in SNGs at the stakes that would warrant these players (best of the best, i.e. Barry Greenstein) time.

a $50,000 buy-in for a SNG, played by the most elite cash game players in the world, would be a good figure. however, it would be very interesting to find out how one would profit from these over the long run. an elite player against lesser players, definitely +$EV. an elite player against other equally skilled elite players, i'd say -$EV to breakeven to slight +$EV.

[adanthar]

If it's a $50K SNG the vig on it's going to max out at, like, 1%.

I think SOMEONE in that game'll have a 1% edge.

[Big Limpin']

lol. even at 1%, imagine a $500 vig. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol, maybe Jesus

maybe

[stupidsucker]

BTW FWIW When you speak of "The Best Players in the world" And you are talking about performance in a SnG And what level would they play in etc...

The best players in the world as far as SnGs are concerned can be found in one place... They are playing SNGs right now at the 215 level.. SnG is a special game, and until you have studied on special SNG strat then I dont care what poker super star you are you arent better then the ones grinding it out right now playing SnGs. Illl bet if XYZ poker star sat down at a 30+3 he would have a lower roi then me until he learned the game style.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus topped out at 23%

Seriously, 20% is about the max, and that's likely only doable single tabling very selectively.

lol, maybe Jesus

maybe

[/ QUOTE ]

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my whole impression of your post was that you were talking about the very best in the world, as that's the language you used, and the fact is, the $200+15 players at Party are very weak when compared to say Daniel Negreanu, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if players of that calibre could beat them for 40% ROI.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my whole impression of your post was that you were talking about the very best in the world, as that's the language you used, and the fact is, the $200+15 players at Party are very weak when compared to say Daniel Negreanu, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if players of that calibre could beat them for 40% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a chance in hell. I'd book that bet all day, every day, (if I wasn't currently broke...)

You stick Negraneu at a table with PP's SNG structure along with Gigabet, Dr._Gammon, ZeeJustin, Rojosox, myself, and 4 random players of varying skill, and he would have a hard time beating the rake,(as would we all).

The top players at party are among the top players in the world for that structure currently playing, period, and many excellent NL players have a hard time adjusting to them.

[AlexM]

I was talking about *average* $200 SNGs, not the ones full of all the best regulars, but even then, you guys are good, but not *that* good. Get over yourself.

[adanthar]

What would happen is this:

-Negreanu raises with two cards
-Gigabet/redsoxr1/actionmonkey reraise with two cards
-Negreanu folds
-Dr_Gammon calls and bitches about getting sucked out on

Repeat for a few dozen SNG's until he adjusts, at which point they all wind up within 5% of each other and push chips back and forth all day because none of them make all that many mistakes.

[lacky]

I think your way off on this. Many top pros play some single table satalites which are similar, but not exactly like normal sng's. The best of the best would not have a problem see the differences and adjusting.

[assron]

I'm going to agree with Daliman on this one... I'm not one of the regulars or anything, but I play some 215s when I feel my game is on point and I can make a few bucks if I catch a hot streak; I hold down a ~10% ROI, though I do it as much for sport as anything else. Anyhow, I really dont think the game can be played much better than the top 215 players play it. There's a certain way to play the game that they all understand, and I dont think any of the world's best could really find a significant edge over the strategies that the top 215 players employ. It's just too quick, and too relatively simple, of a game. I'm sure they could adjust, but the structure is such that either you're playing a winning or losing game at the 215s, there's very little gray area. The bets during crunch time are also very black and white -- I challenge anyone to put me on a hand any time I raise in level 4+, it's just not doable -- and there's also very little room to play the hands out, you either get in or get out. I do see a Negreanu getting way more 1sts than seconds, working over some of the top 215 players in heads up situations, and maybe that would be the edge, but up until then I think it's about zero sum between him and a guy like Daliman.

[Daliman]

We don't have to be *that* good, and I know you meant the average game. But we *are* that good, and it's because of the PP stucture we have broken down into a science. Gig will make more moves, I will press harder at the bubble, and Dr. will never make a mistake, but we all have the nuts and bolts down dead solid perfect. COuld Negreanu play them better than us? In time,(not much), I'm sure of it. COuld he get 2 to 3x our winrate? No chance.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol, maybe Jesus

maybe

[/ QUOTE ]

Or DonButtons
Or thehorror

[Danielih]

Ok I apologize Dali, I did not know that are such an expert player. But consider this. I know people who have over 30% ROI at 50+5 and 100+9 so why would you play the 200+15, especially with a short roll. In fact, it is possible that a situation has developed where there are so many good players at the 215s that the winrate is higher at the lower buyin tourneys.

I know there is some prestige perhaps to playing the highest tournaments available (don't mind the STEPS for now) and against good players but perhaps you should consider that your bankroll and earn would be better suited to a lower buyin.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't have to be *that* good, and I know you meant the average game. But we *are* that good, and it's because of the PP stucture we have broken down into a science. Gig will make more moves, I will press harder at the bubble, and Dr. will never make a mistake, but we all have the nuts and bolts down dead solid perfect. COuld Negreanu play them better than us? In time,(not much), I'm sure of it. COuld he get 2 to 3x our winrate? No chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd like to reference Phil Ivey's article on The Art Of Winning at www.cardplayer.com (http://www.cardplayer.com) where he discusses the differences in skill level from $400-$800 to $4000-$8000 when it comes to elite players adjusting. i think given time to adjust, i believe players like Daniel Negreanu, Barry Greenstein, Gus Hansen, and Phil Ivey would eclipse , outplay, and outperform Party Poker's current $215 gatekeepers. even then, it still comes down to whether the stakes are high enough to warrant their time.

i thinks it's easy to get overconfident about $215 SNGs where oftentimes you're playing against opponents no where near world class ability. try bringing the stakes up to $15000, $20000, $35000, and $50000 where you start to attract a whole different level of smarts, play, psychology, and bankroll...
then let's see if Dr_Gammon stays rock solid, let's see if you (Daliman) press harder on the bubble, or if Gigabet makes more moves.

[Oluwafemi]

i think $215 SNGs are alot like $15-$30 Limit, whereas stakes like $30000 + $600 SNGs could attract play on par with $1500-$3000 Limit.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We don't have to be *that* good, and I know you meant the average game. But we *are* that good, and it's because of the PP stucture we have broken down into a science. Gig will make more moves, I will press harder at the bubble, and Dr. will never make a mistake, but we all have the nuts and bolts down dead solid perfect. COuld Negreanu play them better than us? In time,(not much), I'm sure of it. COuld he get 2 to 3x our winrate? No chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd like to reference Phil Ivey's article on The Art Of Winning at www.cardplayer.com (http://www.cardplayer.com) where he discusses the differences in skill level from $400-$800 to $4000-$8000 when it comes to elite players adjusting. i think given time to adjust, i believe players like Daniel Negreanu, Barry Greenstein, Gus Hansen, and Phil Ivey would eclipse , outplay, and outperform Party Poker's current $215 gatekeepers. even then, it still comes down to whether the stakes are high enough to warrant their time.

i thinks it's easy to get overconfident about $215 SNGs where oftentimes you're playing against opponents no where near world class ability. try bringing the stakes up to $15000, $20000, $35000, and $50000 where you start to attract a whole different level of smarts, play, psychology, and bankroll...
then let's see if Dr_Gammon stays rock solid, let's see if you (Daliman) press harder on the bubble, or if Gigabet makes more moves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you say, but then, I did in the first place. I guess the best way I can explain it is by saying if you have a guy who is a top 300-600 ring player who is making 1 BB an hour long term (highly unlikely, from what I hear about high limits, but either way..), Ivey is not going to come into the same game as this guy(let's say he replaces him so his EV is not dropped by having a top player at the table..) and beat it for 3BB's a hour long term. Same thing applies to SNG's. You are never going to find a situation where the best player in the world is going to have 3x better results than the best players there at the moment.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I apologize Dali, I did not know that are such an expert player. But consider this. I know people who have over 30% ROI at 50+5 and 100+9 so why would you play the 200+15, especially with a short roll. In fact, it is possible that a situation has developed where there are so many good players at the 215s that the winrate is higher at the lower buyin tourneys.

I know there is some prestige perhaps to playing the highest tournaments available (don't mind the STEPS for now) and against good players but perhaps you should consider that your bankroll and earn would be better suited to a lower buyin.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a good point about the win % in the 100's vs the 200's. Although I doubt the people you know that are at 30% are playing solely 100's, or if they are, they are likely not in long run at all yet, I DO think 30% is attainable there. And yes, 200's had reached a bit of a maximum density, but the STEPS have served to clear the waters extremely well.

WHy do I play the 200's then when I am low on BR? Because I am stubborn, vain, immature, and petulant. Other than that, I'm a great guy /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We don't have to be *that* good, and I know you meant the average game. But we *are* that good, and it's because of the PP stucture we have broken down into a science. Gig will make more moves, I will press harder at the bubble, and Dr. will never make a mistake, but we all have the nuts and bolts down dead solid perfect. COuld Negreanu play them better than us? In time,(not much), I'm sure of it. COuld he get 2 to 3x our winrate? No chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd like to reference Phil Ivey's article on The Art Of Winning at www.cardplayer.com (http://www.cardplayer.com) where he discusses the differences in skill level from $400-$800 to $4000-$8000 when it comes to elite players adjusting. i think given time to adjust, i believe players like Daniel Negreanu, Barry Greenstein, Gus Hansen, and Phil Ivey would eclipse , outplay, and outperform Party Poker's current $215 gatekeepers. even then, it still comes down to whether the stakes are high enough to warrant their time.

i thinks it's easy to get overconfident about $215 SNGs where oftentimes you're playing against opponents no where near world class ability. try bringing the stakes up to $15000, $20000, $35000, and $50000 where you start to attract a whole different level of smarts, play, psychology, and bankroll...
then let's see if Dr_Gammon stays rock solid, let's see if you (Daliman) press harder on the bubble, or if Gigabet makes more moves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you say, but then, I did in the first place. I guess the best way I can explain it is by saying if you have a guy who is a top 300-600 ring player who is making 1 BB an hour long term (highly unlikely, from what I hear about high limits, but either way..), Ivey is not going to come into the same game as this guy(let's say he replaces him so his EV is not dropped by having a top player at the table..) and beat it for 3BB's a hour long term. Same thing applies to SNG's. You are never going to find a situation where the best player in the world is going to have 3x better results than the best players there at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's debateable though, because again, you speaking about $215 SNGs...not $30600 ones. your confidence in your play/skill level and that of others like Dr_Gammon, Gigabet, ZeeJustin, spyhard, etc. is based predominately on a game at a stake that you are comfortable and familiar with. i think, IMHO, that players like Ivey would eclispe Party's current $215 crop given adjustment to their structure and if the stakes were higher. the title of this thread deals with ULTRA HIGH BUY-IN SNGs, not the $215 ones that Party's elite grind out and are confident in beating.

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]

the fact is, the $200+15 players at Party are very weak when compared to say Daniel Negreanu, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if players of that calibre could beat them for 40% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a moron. Sorry to be blunt and rude, but i cant think of any other way to respond to this tripe.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my whole impression of your post was that you were talking about the very best in the world, as that's the language you used, and the fact is, the $200+15 players at Party are very weak when compared to say Daniel Negreanu, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if players of that calibre could beat them for 40% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

My 2 cents in this thread is that you're wrong, and you're wrong for a very specific reason: the Party SnG structure is too easy to master. The reason it is easy to master is because it quickly becomes a preflop game, and a preflop only game is of limited complexity, and it doesn't take a prodigy to find optimal play, just a lot of practice and reasonably good poker smarts.

This is why I believe 40% at $215 is impossible for everybody, Daniel N. included. Now, change the structure to deep money, and I agree with you. But that's just not what the game is.

eastbay

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my whole impression of your post was that you were talking about the very best in the world, as that's the language you used, and the fact is, the $200+15 players at Party are very weak when compared to say Daniel Negreanu, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if players of that calibre could beat them for 40% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

My 2 cents in this thread is that you're wrong, and you're wrong for a very specific reason: the Party SnG structure is too easy to master. The reason it is easy to master is because it quickly becomes a preflop game, and a preflop only game is of limited complexity, and it doesn't take a prodigy to find optimal play, just a lot of practice and reasonably good poker smarts.

This is why I believe 40% at $215 is impossible for everybody, Daniel N. included. Now, change the structure to deep money, and I agree with you. But that's just not what the game is.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

...which entails a game that, IMHO, is not so much skill based as it is employing more of a luck factor. limited complexity and optimal play which anybody with poker smarts can learn does'nt involve alot of skill.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

...which entails a game that, IMHO, is not so much skill based as it is employing more of a luck factor. limited complexity and optimal play which anybody with poker smarts can learn does'nt involve alot of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody would argue that short stack poker ultimately has less skill than deep money poker, as it involves more decisions preflop. Simple as that.

On the flip side, there's additional skills in these things which require time and experience to master: playing stacks, understanding equity apart from chipEV, etc.

But your "more of a luck factor" statement doesn't make any sense. Everybody gets the same luck. It's not a factor.

But, that being said, so what? If I could earn as much money flipping coins, I'd do it. I'm not in this for the vanity of playing "the most skilled game" or whatever. If that was my bag I'd be playing chess (or something) for money.

eastbay

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
lol, maybe Jesus

maybe

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally off-topic, but when i was first starting out, i used to frequent recpoker.com (i know better now). I dont think i learned jack from reading it, but there was one post that i remember well. It was, perhaps, the hardest i have laughed after reading a poker post.

This guy, makes a post:

Subject:I could beat Jesus Christ if he played at Pacific Poker

Body Its true. He's be all "look at me i'm going to turn water into wine" and change hearts into spades so he can catch his Jesus flush, but I'd be all,"Full house bitch, now give me your f'n money"

[citanul]

So is your argument that mastering something that is simpler than the most complex game requires no skill?

There's still plenty of skill involved in the sngs, even though there is alot of brute science involved. Noticing opponents' tendencies being high amongst those that are necessary.

Plainly put, if EVERYONE involved with the game perfectly mastered all the skills used, then the results would be entirely determined by luck. Since they don't, there is skill. The existence of +ROI long term players is proof enough of this.

citanul

[citanul]

Apparently I should read whole threads more often. I apologize.

citanul

[citanul]

I think that amongst the other clear implications of earlier questions posed in this thread is that if:

Dollar Return on a 50 = Dollar Return on a 100 = Dollar return on a 200 > 0

for a given player,

and this player has a rechargeable bankroll, this player may want to play the 200s, since variance can be your friend, in some ways.

citanul

[wmajik]

[ QUOTE ]

I was talking about *average* $200 SNGs, not the ones full of all the best regulars, but even then, you guys are good, but not *that* good. Get over yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your statement makes it glaringly obvious that you don't play at the $200+15 level. Try not to lecture others on things you know nothing about.

[Danielih]

nope sorry you are wrong and wrong. In current game conditions with good table selection winrates at 2-4 and 3-6 can be close to one big bet an hour. AND if you put Phil Ivey at those games he destroys them. Maybe not 3BB per hour, thats the upper bound of what anyone can make in any great loose passive game. But 2BB? without a doubt. In fact, If I may reference Barry Greenstein he rates the majority of players who at least semi regularly may be in the big game. He mentiones that a lot of these people who may not even be beating the game or may be close to break even are killing the limit just below. And that limit is everything above 3-6 and below 4k 8k. Several years ago, 3-6 was the big game. Things have changed. 3-6 is now often a joke just like all the other games.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
nope sorry you are wrong and wrong. In current game conditions with good table selection winrates at 2-4 and 3-6 can be close to one big bet an hour. AND if you put Phil Ivey at those games he destroys them. Maybe not 3BB per hour, thats the upper bound of what anyone can make in any great loose passive game. But 2BB? without a doubt. In fact, If I may reference Barry Greenstein he rates the majority of players who at least semi regularly may be in the big game. He mentiones that a lot of these people who may not even be beating the game or may be close to break even are killing the limit just below. And that limit is everything above 3-6 and below 4k 8k. Several years ago, 3-6 was the big game. Things have changed. 3-6 is now often a joke just like all the other games.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sir, are wrong and wronger.

1. Dali is not talking about 2/4 3/6 games (where average skill is almost infinitely lower than a 300/600, the limit he mentions).

2. In a 2/4 or 3/6 game you seem to be assuming that the grinding experts are only making 1BB/hr. If the upper limit is 3BB/hr (as you also simply assume -- it's most likely higher) then I'd bet cash money that those expert grinders are making close to it (say 2-2.5BB/hr rather than 1BB/hr). So, sure, Daniel H or Phil I may beat it for the maximum (or closer to anyay) but it's still not going to be 2x or 3x as much as the expert grinders.

This is if you're talking about limit. In NL at a level like 2/4, then perhaps your right as stacks would be quite big and skill between very good and great would play a much larger role. But in limit, the best PP grinders are making surprisingly close to (but I'll admit probably lower) what the big game players would make once adjusting.

Yugoslav

[Ezcheeze]

It's pretty clear to me that when he says 2-4 3-6 he means 200-400 and 300-600 and not the super low limits. Also, I have to agree with him. Not only would Phil Ivey be beating the worse players for more than the regular 300 600 players, but he would be beating the regulars themselves for a significant amount.

-Ezcheeze

[Danielih]

[ QUOTE ]
You sir, are wrong and wronger.

1. Dali is not talking about 2/4 3/6 games (where average skill is almost infinitely lower than a 300/600, the limit he mentions).


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I apologize for not being clear. Generally in my circles people refer to 100 200 200 400 300 600 as 1-2 2-4 3-6.

[ QUOTE ]
2. In a 2/4 or 3/6 game you seem to be assuming that the grinding experts are only making 1BB/hr. If the upper limit is 3BB/hr (as you also simply assume -- it's most likely higher) then I'd bet cash money that those expert grinders are making close to it (say 2-2.5BB/hr rather than 1BB/hr). So, sure, Daniel H or Phil I may beat it for the maximum (or closer to anyay) but it's still not going to be 2x or 3x as much as the expert grinders.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok well my comments were about Phil I winrates at 300 600. Since I wasnt talking about $3/$6 Im not going to respond to that. But many people have theorized that the upper limits in full table limit ring games is around 3BB per hour. Clearly game situations will develop where there could be a maniac who adds so much money to every pot that the earn is higher.. Also shorthanded the win rates are much much higher.

[Small Stakes]

Party has $1000 buy in singles. A lot of people buy directly into the step 5 and some even multi table them.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
nope sorry you are wrong and wrong. In current game conditions with good table selection winrates at 2-4 and 3-6 can be close to one big bet an hour. AND if you put Phil Ivey at those games he destroys them. Maybe not 3BB per hour, thats the upper bound of what anyone can make in any great loose passive game. But 2BB? without a doubt. In fact, If I may reference Barry Greenstein he rates the majority of players who at least semi regularly may be in the big game. He mentiones that a lot of these people who may not even be beating the game or may be close to break even are killing the limit just below. And that limit is everything above 3-6 and below 4k 8k. Several years ago, 3-6 was the big game. Things have changed. 3-6 is now often a joke just like all the other games.

[/ QUOTE ]


Did I run over your cat or something?

No matter, your argument is COMPLETELY off base.

#1, I don't remember saying ANYTHING about 2-4 and 3-6. I said 300-600. TOTALLY different game And MANY people beat 2-4 and 3-6 for 2 BB's an hour, and 3 BB's is likely too,(I;m talking live play, not online; lots higher is possible live.). Buut, if you were paying attention, you would notice I said the top players are not going to be doing 2 and 3 times better than the current top players already in that game, period. Ivey ain't popping off 9 BB's an hour in ANY game the best players there aren't already beating for more than 3.


OK, I just realized you are using 2-4 and 3-6 as shorthand for 200-400 and 300-600. Not really proper posting, but whatever. Point stands there. But you are very wrong about how much people make at the high limits. 2BB's an hour would be almost impossible to sustain unless a VERY soft continous field, and again, getting back to the original point, the structure of PP's SNG's dictate what is earnable. As many others have stated, if you were to deepen the stacks and lengthen the rounds, top players edge become that much bigger. But they aren't, and they haven't, so they can't.

[Daliman]

OK, why exactly is David Schwimmer holding a basketball trophy in yer avatar?

[Daliman]

I have never heard of anyone live at limits above 100-200 sustaining winrates anywhere NEAR 3BB's an hour in full ring games. SH, maybe, ring, I doubt it.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Party has $1000 buy in singles. A lot of people buy directly into the step 5 and some even multi table them.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't you mean 2-Tables?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Party has $1000 buy in singles. A lot of people buy directly into the step 5 and some even multi table them.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't you mean 2-Tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

They have both 1- and 2-tables now.

eastbay

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
OK, why exactly is David Schwimmer holding a basketball trophy in yer avatar?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see a Yugoslavian who just found the Holy Grail, and appears to be quite happy with it.

[Danielih]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with what you say, but then, I did in the first place. I guess the best way I can explain it is by saying if you have a guy who is a top 300-600 ring player who is making 1 BB an hour long term (highly unlikely, from what I hear about high limits, but either way..),

[/ QUOTE ]

So you Dont play that high....


[ QUOTE ]
OK, I just realized you are using 2-4 and 3-6 as shorthand for 200-400 and 300-600. Not really proper posting, but whatever. Point stands there. But you are very wrong about how much people make at the high limits. 2BB's an hour would be almost impossible to sustain unless a VERY soft continous field, and again, getting back to the original point, the structure of PP's SNG's dictate what is earnable. As many others have stated, if you were to deepen the stacks and lengthen the rounds, top players edge become that much bigger. But they aren't, and they haven't, so they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this. I do play that high. Several years ago 300 600 was the highest game and you could not make that much money. Today the situation is completely different. A great player can make close to 1BB an hour at 300 600 mixed games. What I was saying was that Phil Ivey would make 2BB an hour at the 300 600. This is certainly accurate. He would destroy the game.

When I said 3BB per hour is the upper limit I was generally referring to lower limit holdem ring games. Again 3BB an hour is a theoretical earn in the best game conditions. I am not saying that anyone regularly makes anything like that. But 2BB can be done at a lot of middle limit holdem.

And if you think Phil Ivey wouldnt make twice as much as you at party sngs if he wanted to then you are seriously delusional about how good a player you are AND how much the structure limits a truly world class player.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

And if you think Phil Ivey wouldnt make twice as much as you at party sngs if he wanted to then you are seriously delusional about how good a player you are AND how much the structure limits a truly world class player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you played a few K PP SnGs?

eastbay

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with what you say, but then, I did in the first place. I guess the best way I can explain it is by saying if you have a guy who is a top 300-600 ring player who is making 1 BB an hour long term (highly unlikely, from what I hear about high limits, but either way..),

[/ QUOTE ]

So you Dont play that high....


[ QUOTE ]
OK, I just realized you are using 2-4 and 3-6 as shorthand for 200-400 and 300-600. Not really proper posting, but whatever. Point stands there. But you are very wrong about how much people make at the high limits. 2BB's an hour would be almost impossible to sustain unless a VERY soft continous field, and again, getting back to the original point, the structure of PP's SNG's dictate what is earnable. As many others have stated, if you were to deepen the stacks and lengthen the rounds, top players edge become that much bigger. But they aren't, and they haven't, so they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this. I do play that high. Several years ago 300 600 was the highest game and you could not make that much money. Today the situation is completely different. A great player can make close to 1BB an hour at 300 600 mixed games. What I was saying was that Phil Ivey would make 2BB an hour at the 300 600. This is certainly accurate. He would destroy the game.

When I said 3BB per hour is the upper limit I was generally referring to lower limit holdem ring games. Again 3BB an hour is a theoretical earn in the best game conditions. I am not saying that anyone regularly makes anything like that. But 2BB can be done at a lot of middle limit holdem.

And if you think Phil Ivey wouldnt make twice as much as you at party sngs if he wanted to then you are seriously delusional about how good a player you are AND how much the structure limits a truly world class player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I get it.

Pissing match because you play high limits and I don't, gotcha.

Well, I play $200 SNG's for a living, and, given your lack of understanding of the difference in it, YOU don't. Your lack of understanding of how badly games can be beaten by differing skill levels makes me think you didn't gring your way up to 300-600. I know plenty of guys who have played there after running up a 50K BR, go fully broke in 3-4 months, and say they play 300-600. Doesn't add to their credibilty. I guess you could say the same about me being broke online at the moment, but it wouldn't be true; I am a proven, long term winner in SNG's.

I'm not delusional. I am VERY good. The structure DOES limit truly world class players, of which in these, I feel I can make a strong case of being one.

I would bet any amount of money that if PI and I both played 5000 SNG's at Party's 200+15 structure over the same timeframe he would not double my earnings.

[The Yugoslavian]

The picture is of Peja Stojakovic (basketball player for the Sacramento Kings) holding the NBA championship trophy (he hasn't actual won one but posed with it for NBA commercials I think).

The reason it is my avatar is because Peja is how I got the nickname 'The Yugoslavian.' When I haven't shaved for a few days I look very very similar to him (looking at my avatar is a bit eerie b/c it could easily be me) except I'm not really really tall and have a smaller nose. Anyway, my friends in college noticed the resemblance and started calling me The Yugoslavian as Peja is from Serbia (formerly Yugoslavia). I'm sure I have some Yugoslavian ancestory too but have never verified it as I'm adopted and don't know my biological parents.

BTW, your avatar has always sort freaked me out a bit. I'm a big fan of the Simpsons and in that respect is' quite cool but it's just a bit twisted enough to throw me off when I see your posts.

Why this particular Simpsons image?

[The Yugoslavian]

Meh. Your circle of friends and an online internet forum are very different contexts. I apologize for not adding zeros to your numbers. FWIW, it looks as though Dali's circle may not drop off the zeros either as you confused him in the same way.

3BB/hr at 300/600?? Wow, not that *my* circle of friends plays these but I doubt the big gamers could beat them for that much. Sklanksy plays a regular 300/600 game (so think of him as your 300/600 regular expert). You are implying that the big gamers (Ivery, Doyle, etc) can switch places with Sklansky and beat his game for 2 or 3 times as much???? I think this is extremely unlikely although what do I know, my circle of friends are 2/4 & 3/6 crap ass fishes.

Yugoslav

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with what you say, but then, I did in the first place. I guess the best way I can explain it is by saying if you have a guy who is a top 300-600 ring player who is making 1 BB an hour long term (highly unlikely, from what I hear about high limits, but either way..),

[/ QUOTE ]

So you Dont play that high....


[ QUOTE ]
OK, I just realized you are using 2-4 and 3-6 as shorthand for 200-400 and 300-600. Not really proper posting, but whatever. Point stands there. But you are very wrong about how much people make at the high limits. 2BB's an hour would be almost impossible to sustain unless a VERY soft continous field, and again, getting back to the original point, the structure of PP's SNG's dictate what is earnable. As many others have stated, if you were to deepen the stacks and lengthen the rounds, top players edge become that much bigger. But they aren't, and they haven't, so they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this. I do play that high. Several years ago 300 600 was the highest game and you could not make that much money. Today the situation is completely different. A great player can make close to 1BB an hour at 300 600 mixed games. What I was saying was that Phil Ivey would make 2BB an hour at the 300 600. This is certainly accurate. He would destroy the game.

When I said 3BB per hour is the upper limit I was generally referring to lower limit holdem ring games. Again 3BB an hour is a theoretical earn in the best game conditions. I am not saying that anyone regularly makes anything like that. But 2BB can be done at a lot of middle limit holdem.

And if you think Phil Ivey wouldnt make twice as much as you at party sngs if he wanted to then you are seriously delusional about how good a player you are AND how much the structure limits a truly world class player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I get it.

Pissing match because you play high limits and I don't, gotcha.

Well, I play $200 SNG's for a living, and, given your lack of understanding of the difference in it, YOU don't. Your lack of understanding of how badly games can be beaten by differing skill levels makes me think you didn't gring your way up to 300-600. I know plenty of guys who have played there after running up a 50K BR, go fully broke in 3-4 months, and say they play 300-600. Doesn't add to their credibilty. I guess you could say the same about me being broke online at the moment, but it wouldn't be true; I am a proven, long term winner in SNG's.

I'm not delusional. I am VERY good. The structure DOES limit truly world class players, of which in these, I feel I can make a strong case of being one.

I would bet any amount of money that if PI and I both played 5000 SNG's at Party's 200+15 structure over the same timeframe he would not double my earnings.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're good dude, you're just apparently no DanielH, /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Too bad we can't all be DanielH and hang out with all of his uber cool friends who drop of zeros when the talk numbers -- wouldn't that be sweet!

Yugoslav

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, why exactly is David Schwimmer holding a basketball trophy in yer avatar?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see a Yugoslavian who just found the Holy Grail, and appears to be quite happy with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo!

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

And if you think Phil Ivey wouldnt make twice as much as you at party sngs if he wanted to then you are seriously delusional about how good a player you are AND how much the structure limits a truly world class player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I have a better question:

Put Daliman against Phil Ivey HU in a PP SnG with blinds 300/600 and even chip stacks. How often do you think Ivey would take it down?

eastbay

[adanthar]

Exactly 52.5% /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly 52.5% /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

But Ivey's a pro, way out of Daliman' league. Surely he must do much better than that?

eastbay

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
The picture is of Peja Stojakovic (basketball player for the Sacramento Kings) holding the NBA championship trophy (he hasn't actual won one but posed with it for NBA commercials I think).

The reason it is my avatar is because Peja is how I got the nickname 'The Yugoslavian.' When I haven't shaved for a few days I look very very similar to him (looking at my avatar is a bit eerie b/c it could easily be me) except I'm not really really tall and have a smaller nose. Anyway, my friends in college noticed the resemblance and started calling me The Yugoslavian as Peja is from Serbia (formerly Yugoslavia). I'm sure I have some Yugoslavian ancestory too but have never verified it as I'm adopted and don't know my biological parents.

BTW, your avatar has always sort freaked me out a bit. I'm a big fan of the Simpsons and in that respect is' quite cool but it's just a bit twisted enough to throw me off when I see your posts.

Why this particular Simpsons image?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I slipped a couple past the Yugoslavian! Good thing you play poker and not goalie.

#1. Of course I know it's not David Schwimmer, but don;t you think it look smore than a bit ike him. I knew it was akings player, kinda knew it was Peja, but was wondering why HE had it. Also figured he was yugoslavian, therefore, your avatar.

#2. It is the Simpson;s version of "The persistence of memory" a painting by Salvador Dali, thus, Daliman, thus my avatar.

Dali's "The Persistence of Memory";
http://www.moma.org/collection/depts/paint_sculpt/images/large/162_34_dali_persistence_v2.jpg

Groening's "The Persistence of the Simpsons"
http://www.homestead.com/breitman/files/Big_Simpson.jpg

[The Yugoslavian]

Ummmm, isn't there a Nash equilibrium at pushing the top 65% hands and calling with the top 58% hands? In this case can't *I* (and believe me, I'm no Daliman /images/graemlins/wink.gif )acheive 50% vs. Phil Ivey (or whomever) the big game wants to match me up with?

Yugoslav

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And if you think Phil Ivey wouldnt make twice as much as you at party sngs if he wanted to then you are seriously delusional about how good a player you are AND how much the structure limits a truly world class player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I have a better question:

Put Daliman against Phil Ivey HU in a PP SnG with blinds 300/600 and even chip stacks. How often do you think Ivey would take it down?

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I could guarantee no more than 53% of the time!

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly 52.5% /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

But Ivey's a pro, way out of Daliman' league. Surely he must do much better than that?

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Daliman is a pro too, you must be forgetting. Obviously this all factors in to why Ivey is dodging me in the 200's.....

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And if you think Phil Ivey wouldnt make twice as much as you at party sngs if he wanted to then you are seriously delusional about how good a player you are AND how much the structure limits a truly world class player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I have a better question:

Put Daliman against Phil Ivey HU in a PP SnG with blinds 300/600 and even chip stacks. How often do you think Ivey would take it down?

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I could guarantee no more than 53% of the time!

[/ QUOTE ]

Grr! I set the trap and you guys can't let him walk into it?

eastbay

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And if you think Phil Ivey wouldnt make twice as much as you at party sngs if he wanted to then you are seriously delusional about how good a player you are AND how much the structure limits a truly world class player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I have a better question:

Put Daliman against Phil Ivey HU in a PP SnG with blinds 300/600 and even chip stacks. How often do you think Ivey would take it down?

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I could guarantee no more than 53% of the time!

[/ QUOTE ]

Grr! I set the trap and you guys can't let him walk into it?

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

MMM, trap cheese, nummy!

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]

LOL. I slipped a couple past the Yugoslavian! Good thing you play poker and not goalie.

#1. Of course I know it's not David Schwimmer, but don;t you think it look smore than a bit ike him. I knew it was akings player, kinda knew it was Peja, but was wondering why HE had it. Also figured he was yugoslavian, therefore, your avatar.

#2. It is the Simpson;s version of "The persistence of memory" a painting by Salvador Dali, thus, Daliman, thus my avatar.


[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif. My long lost brother Peja got all the atheltic ability so pretty much any puck/basketball/anything gets by me.

Also, for the record, I never said I thought you actually thought it was David Schwimmer, so there /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. Frankly I was just looking for an excuse to talk about how I look like Peja (which perhaps isn't really a good thing as he is usually runnin' around with his mouth wide open looking like a huge dork).

I get your avatar now, much more appropriate/cooler than I originally thought!

I always guessed that 'Daliman' had something to do with the Dali Lama. Thus, it would be a somewhat inside joke because you're always b*tching about bad beats, stupid fishes who suck out on you, and sandbagging bowling -- all very unlike what the actual Dali Lama would do. Guess I did all of that careful thought-out conjecturing for nothing.

FWIW, Peja has said that he wanted to be on Friends and play Schwimmer's long lost brother. Frankly I think it would be way cooler if *I* go on the Sacramento Kings and play as Peja's long lost brother (this would be high comedy/entertainment, believe you me).

Yugoslav

P.S. So, did Salvador Dali do any other pictures or are you going to just keep this avatar for all time? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Daliman]

always guessed that 'Daliman' had something to do with the Dali Lama. Thus, it would be a somewhat inside joke because you're always b*tching about bad beats, stupid fishes who suck out on you, and sandbagging bowling -- all very unlike what the actual Dali Lama would do.

Not true. The lama was a notorious steamer. Plus, he could never pick up a 10 pin...

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. So, did Salvador Dali do any other pictures or are you going to just keep this avatar for all time?

[/ QUOTE ]

HE did a few(.....) others, but I happen to like this one, and am one of the few posters who has never changed his avatar that I know of. Mebbe I will tho soon.

[Danielih]

There is no pissing match. I said I played 300 600 because YOU said that no one could make 1BB an hour there and I am saying you are wrong. Also I never said 3bb could be done there although shorthanded its surely possible. I simply said that an excellent 300 600 player now makes 1bb an hour than Phil I can make 2bb. thats it. that is the end of what I have to say about 300600. Also I did not say I am a regular 300 600 player. I regularly play lower than that. But I know of a couple friends who over the past 2 year period have made that much at 200 400 and 300 600.

And well according to your posts you dont play the 200 SNGs for a living. You said your wife pays the bills as a pharmaceutical rep and you pay for the luxuries. Frankly I think your situation is sad and you need to take a step back and re-evaluate how good you really are.

And I am quite familiar with the 200 SNGs.

Frankly if you could bet enough and we could put the money in escrow then I could get a top name pro to beat you up. But since you are broke I find it hard to believe that there could be a bet of any significance. Especially given the actual earn over 5000 SNGs. So take your bet and go home to your family.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no pissing match. I said I played 300 600 because YOU said that no one could make 1BB an hour there and I am saying you are wrong. Also I never said 3bb could be done there although shorthanded its surely possible. I simply said that an excellent 300 600 player now makes 1bb an hour than Phil I can make 2bb. thats it. that is the end of what I have to say about 300600. Also I did not say I am a regular 300 600 player. I regularly play lower than that. But I know of a couple friends who over the past 2 year period have made that much at 200 400 and 300 600.

And well according to your posts you dont play the 200 SNGs for a living. You said your wife pays the bills as a pharmaceutical rep and you pay for the luxuries. Frankly I think your situation is sad and you need to take a step back and re-evaluate how good you really are.

And I am quite familiar with the 200 SNGs.

Frankly if you could bet enough and we could put the money in escrow then I could get a top name pro to beat you up. But since you are broke I find it hard to believe that there could be a bet of any significance. Especially given the actual earn over 5000 SNGs. So take your bet and go home to your family.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this isn't a pissing match why are you pissing all over the place? /images/graemlins/confused.gif
Hell, I can smell it from all the way over here.

Also, wouldn't a big bouncer-type guy 'beat up' Dali more effectively than say, Doyle Brunson?? I mean, sure Doyle is frisky for his age but I just don't think that would be worth your hard earned cash.

Oh wait, you must mean at poker! Ha! I guess my circle of friends don't say 'beat up' when referring to poker.

Yugoslav

[Danielih]

In this case my circle of friends who use 1-2 2-4 3-6 simply refers to high limit players in casinos. If you live on the internet then I guess you wouldnt hear about it because you can 8-12 table any of those limits to make decent money. (more than Daliman makes at 200 SNGs)

I did not say anyone could make 3BB at 300600.

First of all, You know nothing about what Sklansky plays or how much he makes. He plays everything from 1-2 to 4-8 and does NOT play very many hours. He will play usually when the games are very good and often walks around and only plays 20% of the hands per hour.

Secondly, Maybe Sklansky is beating the games for 2BB an hour? How could anyone know how he does. Everything I wrote in here is either personal opinion/observation/experience.

Thirdly, Sklansky is nothing like the average 300600 player? What kind of assumption is that? You are marking David as the average 300600 player? Clearly he is better than most 300600 players or he would not play in the game.

I have played with David before at 1-2 150300 and 2-4. Do you have any idea how much better he is than the average 100200 player. It's ridiculous.


Cheers

[Daliman]

OOh, big man. I'd venture my earn per hour is better than yours, danny boy, and i have 1/20th the swings you do. Yeah, at the moment, i've gotten broke. Nothing most of the best players in the world havent done 100 times before. Care to wager on whether i make 40k my april 1?

[ QUOTE ]
And well according to your posts you dont play the 200 SNGs for a living. You said your wife pays the bills as a pharmaceutical rep and you pay for the luxuries. Frankly I think your situation is sad and you need to take a step back and re-evaluate how good you really are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you have no idea of what you speak. I made more playing 25 hours a week last year than she did working full time, and she makes near six figures, son.

FUnny how you avoided my Q of how you GOT to thos elimits, bt. And what;s yer screenname on party if you know the 200 SNG's? If you play there, I'd be interested to know if i have you down as a fish. I;d even post my honest notes of you if I have any.

Care to divulge?(I'm guessing not)

P.S. I posted about this in High stakes area, respondants so far agree w/ me, although an admittedly small amount.
High stakes Q (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1507646&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1)

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
In this case my circle of friends who use 1-2 2-4 3-6 simply refers to high limit players in casinos. If you live on the internet then I guess you wouldnt hear about it because you can 8-12 table any of those limits to make decent money. (more than Daliman makes at 200 SNGs)

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no. You can't.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
In this case my circle of friends who use 1-2 2-4 3-6 simply refers to high limit players in casinos. If you live on the internet then I guess you wouldnt hear about it because you can 8-12 table any of those limits to make decent money. (more than Daliman makes at 200 SNGs)


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're trying to say Dali makes less than the very good multi-tabling 2/4 (without the zeros) or 3/6 (without the zeros) limit ring players, then I don't know how anyone can take anything you're saying seriously.

[ QUOTE ]

First of all, You know nothing about what Sklansky plays or how much he makes. He plays everything from 1-2 to 4-8 and does NOT play very many hours. He will play usually when the games are very good and often walks around and only plays 20% of the hands per hour.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do know something about what limit Sklansky plays and I stated it. He posted on this very website that he plays in a regular 300/600 game. I never pretended to know anything more than this.

[ QUOTE ]

Secondly, Maybe Sklansky is beating the games for 2BB an hour? How could anyone know how he does. Everything I wrote in here is either personal opinion/observation/experience.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree but this just further damages your original claim that a big game player can come in and double or triple the winrate of a lower stakes expert.

[ QUOTE ]

Thirdly, Sklansky is nothing like the average 300600 player? What kind of assumption is that? You are marking David as the average 300600 player? Clearly he is better than most 300600 players or he would not play in the game.

I have played with David before at 1-2 150300 and 2-4. Do you have any idea how much better he is than the average 100200 player. It's ridiculous.

Cheers

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually read my post?!? For that matter, did you read your own previous post?!?! How does 'expert' start to mean 'average.' I consider Dali an 'expert' of the 215 SNGs. So, talking about an average 100/300 player doesn't really do anything for the whole discussion taking place. There is only one 'expert' player who I know plays 100/300: THAT IS WHY I REFERRED TO A CLEARLY EXPERT 100/300 PLAYER! In fact, I even used the word 'expert' when referring to Sklansky. True story, you can look it up.

Yugoslav

[Danielih]

Sorry I cant participate in this ridiculous discussion anymore so these are my last thoughts.

I didnt notice that you wrote Sklansky as an expert. I know he has written that he plays cash games because he makes more than in tournaments. Well maybe he doesnt play that many cash games because he makes more from writing books now? Did that occur to you.

Regardless he is certainly one of the best 300600 players and I would venture that his winrate is quite high so while I am not saying PhilI would double his winrate I think David would happily concede that PhilI would make a bunch more money than him at 300600. I just dont know about double. DOUBLE the average player is what im saying.

Since you dont want to understand I am not sure why I am explaining this to you but at 12 3/6 full tables one is getting approximately 700 hands per hour. If you give them 3bb/100 WHICH IS DOABLE 12 TABLING. Dont doubt it because you cant do it or you dont know someone who has. That comes out to 18*7=126 an hour plus rakeback is about 160 an hour.

According to Dalimans ROI he makes approximately the same amount and claims it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to make more.

Also Bankroll requirements are lower for the 3/6 player.

Cheers

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I cant participate in this ridiculous discussion anymore so these are my last thoughts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lucky for us, I can, /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]

I didnt notice that you wrote Sklansky as an expert. I know he has written that he plays cash games because he makes more than in tournaments. Well maybe he doesnt play that many cash games because he makes more from writing books now? Did that occur to you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about non sequitor -- I said that Sklansky has publicly stated he plays 300/600. I assume he's a good example of an 'expert' 300/600 player so I used him as an example of one. I don't really know what tournaments and other such nonsense you're talking about have to do with any of this. And btw, yes, that thought has occured to me but doesn't really have anything to do with the topic in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]

Regardless he is certainly one of the best 300600 players and I would venture that his winrate is quite high so while I am not saying PhilI would double his winrate I think David would happily concede that PhilI would make a bunch more money than him at 300600. I just dont know about double. DOUBLE the average player is what im saying.


[/ QUOTE ]

The average player is losing money in these games due to rake and has a profit of $0 long term. I'd hope Phil Ivey is able to more than double this figure.

[ QUOTE ]

Since you dont want to understand I am not sure why I am explaining this to you but at 12 3/6 full tables one is getting approximately 700 hands per hour. If you give them 3bb/100 WHICH IS DOABLE 12 TABLING. Dont doubt it because you cant do it or you dont know someone who has. That comes out to 18*7=126 an hour plus rakeback is about 160 an hour.

According to Dalimans ROI he makes approximately the same amount and claims it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to make more.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do believe you're putting words into Dali's mouth here. I think he was referring to the upper bounds of ROI -- not absolute earn potential.

[ QUOTE ]

Also Bankroll requirements are lower for the 3/6 player.

Cheers

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure but not for the $33 SNG player (who could be pulling in as much per hour 12 tabling as the 12 tabling 3/6 limit player).

Yugoslav

[Danielih]

Daliman you know nothing about what I play or how much I make and I am happy keeping it that way. This will be my last post on the topic.

I am sorry I missed your question about my biography. I care not to share that for a variety of reasons.

I also care not to share any of my party/affiliate screen names for a variety of reasons.

Concerning your other post. So far the two responses are devoid of any information. Regarding your intent, you can believe whomever and whatever you want, that doesnt make it right.

Cheers

[Daliman]

3 BBs/100 12 tabling? News to me. nothing I have ever heard anything similar to. I doubt there are too many people at all that do that, or even could do it.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
3 BBs/100 12 tabling? News to me. nothing I have ever heard anything similar to. I doubt there are too many people at all that do that, or even could do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I was a regular 3/6 player six-eight months ago I knew most of the Party 3/6 4-8 tablers. None of them were even close to 3 BB an hour and I doubt more than a couple of them broke 2.

Hell, only a few of the non-2+2'ers were better than me, and I don't pretend to be anything but a slightly above mediocre ring game player.

[The Yugoslavian]

Daniel put that part in caps though, doesn't that make it true?

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Yugoslav

[Daliman]

from a post by Danielih at 12:24 pm CST
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I cant participate in this ridiculous discussion anymore so these are my last thoughts

[/ QUOTE ]
From a post by Danielih at 12:47

[ QUOTE ]
Daliman you know nothing about what I play or how much I make and I am happy keeping it that way. This will be my last post on the topic.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yo can't even keep your posts straight withen 23 minutes of each other. How can you possibly win a pissing match with me? I'm king urinator here.

It's becoming glaringly apparent you are a fraud, sir. I've played 80-160 and 25-50 NL. Doesn't make me an 80-160 player or a 25/50 NL player. I've beaten Tom keller for 8k mostly hu over a 4 hour period on UB, with Spirit rock losing 2k to me thrown in there too. Doesn;t make me better than them. Keep talking the talk, son, cuz I;m thinking you can;t walk the walk. My record is open for public perusal. Yours, well, reminds me of the Wizard of Oz;

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

[Danielih]

[ QUOTE ]
When I was a regular 3/6 player six-eight months ago I knew most of the Party 3/6 4-8 tablers. None of them were even close to 3 BB an hour and I doubt more than a couple of them broke 2.

Hell, only a few of the non-2+2'ers were better than me, and I don't pretend to be anything but a slightly above mediocre ring game player.

[/ QUOTE ]

ack I wasnt gonna reply anymore but what is this. I guess this means that you and the people you know suck. I am not sure what else to say. Search the archived for astroglides 100k hand 3/6 PT databse 8-10 tabling.

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, only a few of the non-2+2'ers were better than me, and I don't pretend to be anything but a slightly above mediocre ring game player.

[/ QUOTE ]

So whats your point? You should have put that at the beginning of your post and I could have skipped the rest. So a mediocre player can make 2bb/100? What can we learn from this?

Best of luck to all you. You need it.

Cheers

[Danielih]

I was writing two last posts. One of them to you and one of them to Yugoslavia. If you made this post to get me to write one more you won. Did I ever say anything about making a lot of money, playing with somebody famous, playing in an ultra high limit game? Nope.

I am merely disputing your thoughts, opinions, and playing ability.

Am I going to say anything about where and what I play now? nope. But I am happy for you that you occasionally get a thrill out of beating some tv names in online games you have a huge negative EV in.

[lacky]

I hope I can build that kind of confidence some day. A often lose but never wrong additude would make things so much easier. I'd definatle sleep better during times like last week, where I hit a high of +$5500 ahead on tuesday and by the end of the week last night was at -$600.

Steve

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I was writing two last posts. One of them to you and one of them to Yugoslavia. If you made this post to get me to write one more you won. Did I ever say anything about making a lot of money, playing with somebody famous, playing in an ultra high limit game? Nope.

I am merely disputing your thoughts, opinions, and playing ability.

Am I going to say anything about where and what I play now? nope. But I am happy for you that you occasionally get a thrill out of beating some tv names in online games you have a huge negative EV in.

[/ QUOTE ]

*sigh*

That's all ya got, huh?

pwn3d.....

[adanthar]

Astro wasn't 12 tabling (wasn't it 4?) and he's long since gone past 3/6. I don't think he was around when I played unless I don't know one of his screen names, and he played when the tables were significantly fishier (they've tightened up since then).

No doubt Astro/anyone else good could still beat those games 12 tabling but not for 3 an hour or even close. The whole reason they've tightened up is because 3 people per table are eight tablers now.

If you said 5/10 6 max, we could talk. Maybe. But the swings in that game make the BR requirements just about equal.

[ShamaLamDingDong]

[ QUOTE ]

-What do you think will be the highest buy-in next year? in 2 years? etc.

-Will there be any whales playing these games?

-Could the worlds best SNG player beat the vig versus 9 other pros? 8 pros, 1 fish?

[/ QUOTE ]

-Right now 5k heads up matches are available as are 1k sit n gos. I'd imagine the sit n gos will get up to the 5k level but I don't see them going higher than that in the next few years.
-whales player every game. they will be rare at these limits but will still play.
-Yes and Yes.

SHAMA LAMA...DING DONG!

[ShamaLamDingDong]

This is crazy talk. You think the best sng players in the world play 215 sngs? Why would they possibly play such low limits. It would be a waste of their time and talent.

[ QUOTE ]
Illl bet if XYZ poker star sat down at a 30+3 he would have a lower roi then me until he learned the game style.

[/ QUOTE ]

If XYZ poker star = world class player then you need to get a SERIOUS reality check. I would venture to guess that most if not all world class players who play regularly have played more than a few 1 table sit n gos. Even if they hadn't it would take them all of less than 100 to be crushing the 30+3's for enough to make your earn seem laughable in comparison.k They are called world class players for a reason...because they outclass everyone else in all aspects of poker. All the little bets they save and pots they win here and there that you don't add up to a huge ROI.

SHAMA LAMA...DING DONG!

[ShamaLamDingDong]

Are you for real? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

SHAMA LAMA...DING DONG!

[ShamaLamDingDong]

Ok so you aren't being sarcastic.

[ QUOTE ]

The top players at party are among the top players in the world for that structure currently playing, period, and many excellent NL players have a hard time adjusting to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone said something similar earlier and I just can't agree with this. The top palyers in the world at sngs don't waste time with 215's. A player of Daniel Negreanu's caliber would beat teh 215's for much more than you and the other players you listed (I'm assuming none of you come close to his natural talent which is a pretty safe assumption). He wouldn't just run over the game or anything like that. But in certain situations he would be making slightly better decisions (mostly earlier in the tournament but also later in the tournament with a big stack vs Big stack) All these little decisions spread out of many sngs add up to a huge ROI boost. Do you not agree?

SHAMA LAMA...DING DONG!

[ShamaLamDingDong]

I'm not sure about 3x as much but 2x as much seems completely reasonable for the best of the best.

SHAMA LAMA...DING DONG!

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok so you aren't being sarcastic.

[ QUOTE ]

The top players at party are among the top players in the world for that structure currently playing, period, and many excellent NL players have a hard time adjusting to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone said something similar earlier and I just can't agree with this. The top palyers in the world at sngs don't waste time with 215's. A player of Daniel Negreanu's caliber would beat teh 215's for much more than you and the other players you listed (I'm assuming none of you come close to his natural talent which is a pretty safe assumption). He wouldn't just run over the game or anything like that. But in certain situations he would be making slightly better decisions (mostly earlier in the tournament but also later in the tournament with a big stack vs Big stack) All these little decisions spread out of many sngs add up to a huge ROI boost. Do you not agree?

SHAMA LAMA...DING DONG!

[/ QUOTE ]

You misread my post. I never said the best players in the world are pl;aying $215's. I said the best players inthe world for that structure are playing there currently; there is a defference. Would Ivey or Negreanu do better? I'm sure of it. Take them 50-100 to get the strategy changes down, i'd think, but yes, either coulda definitely be the best there. Many decision late strictly come down to pot odds and aggressiveness gauging, and many plays are either right or wrong, period. There is not as much time to "outplay", nor as much opportunity, as often, even at level 1, players are willing to go or call allin with top pair or worse. This ain;t like WSOP, where players usually try to protect their stack like their children. Huge ROI boost? Sure, but incrementally huge, not (DAMMIT! I'M COMPLETELY BRAINLOCKING ON THE PERFECT WORD HERE! I USE IT ALL THE FRIGGIN TIME! AAUGH!) huge by a multiple. I'd liken it to a marathon runner. A good marathoner can run it in 3 hours; the best in the world may be 100X the runner, but 2 hours 6 minutes is about as good as you can get, period. At no time ever in the next 1000 years will anyone run one 2x as fast as the "good" marathoner, cuz the difference just ain't there.

I'd liken myself to being a top marathoner comparatively, consistantly running 2:12-2:15 marathons. Now, If i'm running the greater hartford marathon, i'm likely top 3 or so, but if the kenyans come over, I'm dead. You'd likely never hear my name, as they are 10x the runner I am, but there is only so much faster they can go, and they will.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure about 3x as much but 2x as much seems completely reasonable for the best of the best.

SHAMA LAMA...DING DONG!

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not reasonable, or possible. 25% is as high as i can imagine anyone ever beating these for long term, and even that is stretching it BIG Time. 20% is max theoretical earn.

[ricochet420]

I read this whole dam thing!?

[lorinda]

A good marathoner can run it in 3 hours; the best in the world may be 100X the runner, but 2 hours 6 minutes is about as good as you can get, period. At no time ever in the next 1000 years will anyone run one 2x as fast as the "good" marathoner, cuz the difference just ain't there.

I'd liken myself to being a top marathoner comparatively, consistantly running 2:12-2:15 marathons. Now, If i'm running the greater hartford marathon, i'm likely top 3 or so, but if the kenyans come over, I'm dead. You'd likely never hear my name, as they are 10x the runner I am, but there is only so much faster they can go, and they will.


Great stuff.

Make sure Elysium gets to see this /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Lori

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure about 3x as much but 2x as much seems completely reasonable for the best of the best.


[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who believes the above statement is true (with regard to the difference between the top current $215 playes and the top known poker players in the world), does not understand the nature of the edge one has, or could have, in an SNG structure. And I suspect that he/she probably does not understand the nature of edge one has in poker at large, since IMO, not understanding the nature of one's edge in one poker format (after playing and/or thinking/reading about it enough), is not understanding the nature of the edge in poker at all.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure about 3x as much but 2x as much seems completely reasonable for the best of the best.


[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who believes the above statement is true (with regard to the difference between the top current $215 playes and the top known poker players in the world), does not understand the nature of the edge one has, or could have, in an SNG structure. And I suspect that he/she probably does not understand the nature of edge one has in poker at large, since IMO, not understanding the nature of one's edge in one poker format (after playing and/or thinking/reading about it enough), is not understanding the nature of the edge in poker at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif...was more than one "not understanding the nature of the edge in poker" needed?

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
(DAMMIT! I'M COMPLETELY BRAINLOCKING ON THE PERFECT WORD HERE! I USE IT ALL THE FRIGGIN TIME! AAUGH!)

[/ QUOTE ]

order of magnitude!

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure about 3x as much but 2x as much seems completely reasonable for the best of the best.


[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who believes the above statement is true (with regard to the difference between the top current $215 playes and the top known poker players in the world), does not understand the nature of the edge one has, or could have, in an SNG structure. And I suspect that he/she probably does not understand the nature of edge one has in poker at large, since IMO, not understanding the nature of one's edge in one poker format (after playing and/or thinking/reading about it enough), is not understanding the nature of the edge in poker at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif...was more than one "not understanding the nature of the edge in poker" needed?

[/ QUOTE ]

reading this thread, it appears so.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
...was more than one "not understanding the nature of the edge in poker" needed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Please show me why it wasn't, in order to make the same points.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure about 3x as much but 2x as much seems completely reasonable for the best of the best.


[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who believes the above statement is true (with regard to the difference between the top current $215 playes and the top known poker players in the world), does not understand the nature of the edge one has, or could have, in an SNG structure. And I suspect that he/she probably does not understand the nature of edge one has in poker at large, since IMO, not understanding the nature of one's edge in one poker format (after playing and/or thinking/reading about it enough), is not understanding the nature of the edge in poker at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

my head asplode

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure about 3x as much but 2x as much seems completely reasonable for the best of the best.


[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who believes the above statement is true (with regard to the difference between the top current $215 playes and the top known poker players in the world), does not understand the nature of the edge one has, or could have, in an SNG structure. And I suspect that he/she probably does not understand the nature of edge one has in poker at large, since IMO, not understanding the nature of one's edge in one poker format (after playing and/or thinking/reading about it enough), is not understanding the nature of the edge in poker at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

my head asplode

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess that's why i asked if there was a need for more than one.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my head asplode

[/ QUOTE ] i guess that's why i asked if there was a need for more than one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry if what I'm saying makes your heads explode, but that has nothing to do with the best way to express my thoughts on this subject, unless you show me otherwise.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(DAMMIT! I'M COMPLETELY BRAINLOCKING ON THE PERFECT WORD HERE! I USE IT ALL THE FRIGGIN TIME! AAUGH!)

[/ QUOTE ]

order of magnitude!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hate to break it to ya but that's three words not one word, /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

You're not slippin' anything by this Yugoslavian ever again!

Oh, until the next time you post something probably.

Yugoslav

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my head asplode

[/ QUOTE ] i guess that's why i asked if there was a need for more than one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry if what I'm saying makes your heads explode, but that has nothing to do with the best way to express my thoughts on this subject, unless you show me otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

whatever floats your boat. do you.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...was more than one "not understanding the nature of the edge in poker" needed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Please show me why it wasn't, in order to make the same points.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take a stab, /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

<font color="red"> Let 'Danielh is a moron' = nature of one's edge: </font>

Anyone who believes the above statement is true (with regard to the difference between the top current $215 playes and the top known poker players in the world), does not understand <font color="red"> that Danielh is a moron</font>, or could have, in an SNG structure. And I suspect that he/she probably does not understand <font color="red"> that Danielh is a moron </font>at large, since IMO, not understanding that <font color="red"> Danielh is a moron </font>in one poker format (after playing and/or thinking/reading about it enough), is not understanding <font color="red"> that Danielh is a moron </font> at all.

I hope this stops everyone's head from exploding.

Yugoslav

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my head asplode

[/ QUOTE ] i guess that's why i asked if there was a need for more than one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry if what I'm saying makes your heads explode, but that has nothing to do with the best way to express my thoughts on this subject, unless you show me otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you could have made your point in a more concise fashion.
Also, if you have long sentences like that following each other, paragraphs can help.
Just easier to read and understand quickly, that's all.
FWIW, I agree with you.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...was more than one "not understanding the nature of the edge in poker" needed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Please show me why it wasn't, in order to make the same points.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take a stab, /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

<font color="red"> Let 'Danielh is a moron' = nature of one's edge: </font>

Anyone who believes the above statement is true (with regard to the difference between the top current $215 playes and the top known poker players in the world), does not understand <font color="red"> that Danielh is a moron</font>, or could have, in an SNG structure. And I suspect that he/she probably does not understand <font color="red"> that Danielh is a moron </font>at large, since IMO, not understanding that <font color="red"> Danielh is a moron </font>in one poker format (after playing and/or thinking/reading about it enough), is not understanding <font color="red"> that Danielh is a moron </font> at all.

I hope this stops everyone's head from exploding.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, i'm thinking why did you need to respond in the way you did? this is a poker discussion, no need to get juvenile.

[Scuba Chuck]

I think this is now the second funniest thread I've ever read on 2+2.

DanielH is a moron. Good stuff.

Scuba

[PrayingMantis]

Does working for the advertising industry have anything to do with your ability to present things in their most blatant form?

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you could have made your point in a more concise fashion.
Also, if you have long sentences like that following each other, paragraphs can help.
Just easier to read and understand quickly, that's all.
FWIW, I agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could be right, of course, but sometimes I prefer being less concise than possible, for a few reasons. Being clear and concise is sometimes overrated, IMO.

Another thing is that English isn't my best language, so there's another reason for being hazy at times. I usually like using paragraphs, though, as you have suggeseted. They are very nice, but I didn't think it was really necessary there...

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
You could be right, of course, but sometimes I prefer being less concise than possible, for a few reasons. Being clear and concise is sometimes overrated, IMO.

Another thing is that English isn't my best language, so there's another reason for being hazy at times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi PM

Long time, FWIW 99.9% of people who have English as a first language speak it worse than you, and you are right being concise is just another way of saying half-baked. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Regards Mack

[DonButtons]

These numbers are only using a 400 sng sample size. Pretty small, because depending on my day, when I add another 30 sngs to it, it usually changes by 1-2%, 2-4% when it was 200 deep.

I only played the $200 sngs because I was on break from college (from dec. 11-jan. 10), and actually had time to do them, now since Im back for my spring semester, Ill leave them free to zjustin and the others to have fun with.

But like dailman says, I think 25% is the max roi%, 20% being realistic for about the max roi % one can pull out at the 200 sngs for around 5000 sngs. I was fortunate enough to have only one lil' bad run in my 400 sngs which lasted about 60-75 games but was quite frustrating. Ended 400 sngs with a mid 30s roi %. But soo many 200 sngs in one day can get you burnt out, and I think my real passion is in multi tables.




[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. A very, very good player should be able to beat $200+15's for at least 30% ROI, probably closer to 40.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol, maybe Jesus

maybe

[/ QUOTE ]

Or DonButtons
Or thehorror

[/ QUOTE ]

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
Does working for the advertising industry have anything to do with your ability to present things in their most blatant form?

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. It's definitely not my Continental Philosophy background, /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

Maybe it's because I look like someone who looks like David Schwimmer!

Yugoslav

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you could have made your point in a more concise fashion.
Also, if you have long sentences like that following each other, paragraphs can help.
Just easier to read and understand quickly, that's all.
FWIW, I agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could be right, of course, but sometimes I prefer being less concise than possible, for a few reasons. Being clear and concise is sometimes overrated, IMO.

Another thing is that English isn't my best language, so there's another reason for being hazy at times. I usually like using paragraphs, though, as you have suggeseted. They are very nice, but I didn't think it was really necessary there...

[/ QUOTE ]

"suggeseted"? i believe when you say English is'nt your Best language. i hear being LESS than clear and concise is also overrated, but then, i do tend to hear that from people who are trying to overdo it with twisted and complex explainations and who tend to be inept at the English language.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you could have made your point in a more concise fashion.
Also, if you have long sentences like that following each other, paragraphs can help.
Just easier to read and understand quickly, that's all.
FWIW, I agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could be right, of course, but sometimes I prefer being less concise than possible, for a few reasons. Being clear and concise is sometimes overrated, IMO.

Another thing is that English isn't my best language, so there's another reason for being hazy at times. I usually like using paragraphs, though, as you have suggeseted. They are very nice, but I didn't think it was really necessary there...

[/ QUOTE ]

"suggeseted"? i believe when you say English is'nt your Best language. i hear being LESS than clear and concise is also overrated, but then, i do tend to hear that from people who are trying to overdo it with twisted and complex explainations and who tend to be inept at the English language.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like your English is perfect, congrats!

(I'll let others elaborate)

Yugoslav

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you could have made your point in a more concise fashion.
Also, if you have long sentences like that following each other, paragraphs can help.
Just easier to read and understand quickly, that's all.
FWIW, I agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could be right, of course, but sometimes I prefer being less concise than possible, for a few reasons. Being clear and concise is sometimes overrated, IMO.

Another thing is that English isn't my best language, so there's another reason for being hazy at times. I usually like using paragraphs, though, as you have suggeseted. They are very nice, but I didn't think it was really necessary there...

[/ QUOTE ]

"suggeseted"? i believe when you say English is'nt your Best language. i hear being LESS than clear and concise is also overrated, but then, i do tend to hear that from people who are trying to overdo it with twisted and complex explainations and who tend to be inept at the English language.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like your English is perfect, congrats!

(I'll let others elaborate)

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

Gracias, Senor! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Marcotte]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is now the second funniest thread I've ever read on 2+2.

Scuba

[/ QUOTE ]

What, pray tell, is the funniest, because I've just got to read it. (However, I don't think either can hold a candle to the 5 Aces thread on the PokerRoom forum. Don't know if its still active, but about 6-8 months ago it was going strong.)

[PrayingMantis]

Hey Mack,

Yes, it's been a while. Nice to see you're around! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
"suggeseted"? i believe when you say English is'nt your Best language. i hear being LESS than clear and concise is also overrated, but then, i do tend to hear that from people who are trying to overdo it with twisted and complex explainations and who tend to be inept at the English language.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think it's going to be fun. I missed Desdia, but it looks like there might be a good substitute (I double checked the spelling of this one, and edited it!), and (maybe?) even some better-than-Desdia stuff! So thanks for noticing I've mistakenly put one more "e" in "suggested". Man, you have some eye! Unreal. Yes, my English sucks, considering the fact I've spent 95% of my life and am living in a non-Enlish speaking country, and that English is not spoken at all in my family and around me. I wonder how is *your* 2nd or 3rd language, sir?

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif