Do any of the other limit only players just hate NL poker?

[The-Matador]

I really can't stand no limit at all. I'm not terrible at it, but that's because I am basically a nut peddler. I just find it incredibly dull. Everyone is just sort of sitting around waiting for a big hand, and the numbers of hands I can play profitably are so severely limited that I end up being bored as hell.

I'm not trying to insult the NL players, but I am wondering if my feelings are common. I find limit really interesting, with cool strategic decisions to be made in many hands. Big NL strategic decisions tend to be always heads up and of the "is my big hand better than his big hand" variety, which is, frankly, often just a coin flip online.

Anyways, I think I'd like to be a really good NL player at some point in my life, but I don't think I could really put in the time to become so. Just too blah. Thoughts and flames?

[greg nice]

im trying to learn limit poker as im mainly a NL player. ive found limit fairly easy so far..

perhaps try 6max NL games where you can play more hands and face more decisions.

[VBM]

as a ring game, i don't think it's fun either.

tourneys w/ friends are fun tho.

[Stork]

pssssh.

And you call yourself the-matador.

[Greg J]

I like NL tournaments. You can't afford to wait as much.

For ring game I prefer limit.

[GFtheMamba]

Well, I have the opposite view. I am a mainly NL player, and I just can't seem to slow down for Limit ring-games or tournaments. It just seems that too many people chase too many hands because there isn't the risk that you may lose all of your chips in one hand. Maybe it just my make-it or break-it mentality that prevents me from liking Limit games /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[emonrad87]

[ QUOTE ]
It just seems that too many people chase too many hands because there isn't the risk that you may lose all of your chips in one hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


You DO realize this is a good thing.


Right?

[Justin A]

You haven't played enough deep stack NL. I agree about the stupid Party capped buyin games. Live deep stacked NL can be much more exciting and fun than limit.

[edtost]

[ QUOTE ]
Big NL strategic decisions tend to be always heads up and of the "is my big hand better than his big hand" variety, which is, frankly, often just a coin flip online.

[/ QUOTE ]

while these hands often wind up as coin flips over time, being able to play one pair well is often the difference between making a little and making a lot. those hands, while being smaller pots, also tend to be more interesting.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
I really can't stand no limit at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not terrible at it, but that's because I am basically a nut peddler.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
the numbers of hands I can play profitably are so severely limited that I end up being bored as hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Big NL strategic decisions tend to be of the "is my big hand better than his big hand" variety, which is, frankly, often just a coin flip online.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyways, I think I'd like to be a really good NL player at some point in my life, but I don't think I could really put in the time to become so.

[/ QUOTE ]


how's the kiddie pool?

fim

[AncientPC]

I'm inclined to second fimbul.

[The-Matador]

It's fine.

I love how NL players think they are so badass. It's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all.

[KaBoom]

Give 6 max NL100 on Party a try. It is fantastic!

It is hard to switch from limit to NL or the other way around. I tried limit last November and couldn't really beat 1/2 full table. I've never tried shorthanded limit tables, maybe they are easier.

[young nut]

I play NL tournies, but my ring game money all comes from limit games. To me, the NL ring games just seem very boring at times. It seems like you don't play any hands at all. I also don't understand why so many people prefer online NL ring games. A very important aspect of being a good NL player is being able to get reads on your opponents. It is extrememly hard to pickup any solid reads, except for betting patterns, in online ring games. I do prefer NL tournies though as they seem to satisfy that competetive drive that most people have.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
It's fine.

I love how NL players think they are so badass. It's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

your ability to completely miss the point with indignance is precious.

fim

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's fine.

I love how NL players think they are so badass. It's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all.

[/ QUOTE ]


your ability to completely miss the point with indignance is precious.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the point then, dipshit?

Oh please educate me.

[phillydilly]

eh, depends on the type of game. For ring online, i definately like the limit games better. Maybe its just because thats how i learned to play.
The casino by me just started a baby NL game. $100 max, 1/2 blinds. So far it hasn't been all that profitable for me, I think i'm down $50 overall, but its a very fun game to play in.

[jojobinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's fine.

I love how NL players think they are so badass. It's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all.

[/ QUOTE ]


your ability to completely miss the point with indignance is precious.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the point then, dipshit?

Oh please educate me.

[/ QUOTE ]

quality matador-ige!

[Rico Suave]

The Matador:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to insult the NL players, but I am wondering if my feelings are common.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess many limit players feel the same as you about NL. I do.

--Rico

[Snoogins47]

[ QUOTE ]
It's fine.

I love how NL players think they are so badass. It's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's so more hardcore man. They show it on TV.

[goofball]

right. i love the people who buy in tot he 2/5 NL for $200 at the B and think they are badasses.

Even teh 10/20 players who think they are badasses bother me, but not as much sine some of them sit there with 30k in front of them.

[jojobinks]

NL sucks if it isn't tournament. well, i guess i like to play it around town in a ring game, b/c i can play shorthanded and play is so weak. but in a reasonable ring game, NL just blows.

NL tournament play is the poo, though. take a big whiff.

[meow_meow]

I'll try for a serious reply.
Used to play exclusively 5-10 6max, but now I've switched to the 100NL 6max. It was a tough switch, but I actually enjoy the NL more, I think because there is less frustration due to suckouts. I actually think (though I don't have the sample size to prove it), that the 100NL is easier to beat, lower variance, and just as profitable compared to the 5-10 (I'm talking 6max on party in both cases), even though you only get about 65-75% as many hands per hour in the NL game.

Oh, and to answer one of your points, I think you can actually play more hands profitably at NL, rather than less. You also need to be able to get away from big hands when you're beat, stop bluffing with overcards, and respect position even more than in limit (all just my opinion).

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]
It's fine.

I love how NL players think they are so badass. It's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all, it's a more hardcore game because you can manipulate the odds, position plays a far more important role, opponents stack sizes are serious considerations that need to be taken into account, good reads on players are necessary. I've played both and I really believe that no-limit is a much more complex game. Limit really is more of a science where as no-limit, at its best, can be an art.

[jojobinks]

[ QUOTE ]
Limit really is more of a science where as no-limit, at its best, can be an art.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, what a quote, did you think it up?

here's one i just thought of: in limit you're shooting at a target. in nolimit, the target shoots back at you.

[turnipmonster]

NL is such an opponent dependent game that it really pays to watch hands you're not involved in to see how people play. I would rather shoot myself than play a B&M limit session, but I enjoy playing live PL/NL games for this reason.

nut peddling can be an effective strategy in low stakes, small games (like the ones on party), but when played with deep stacks the game can be quite interesting. you can see a lot of flops and play a lot of pots.

--turnipmonster

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Limit really is more of a science where as no-limit, at its best, can be an art.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, what a quote, did you think it up?

here's one i just thought of: in limit you're shooting at a target. in nolimit, the target shoots back at you.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I obviously didn't think that up, though I still believe it's true. There is much more to take into consideration and much more room to maneuver. I play and enjoy both games, but I definitely feel that no-limit is far more complex and was just stating that opinion.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
I really can't stand no limit at all. I'm not terrible at it, but that's because I am basically a nut peddler. I just find it incredibly dull. Everyone is just sort of sitting around waiting for a big hand, and the numbers of hands I can play profitably are so severely limited that I end up being bored as hell.

I'm not trying to insult the NL players, but I am wondering if my feelings are common. I find limit really interesting, with cool strategic decisions to be made in many hands. Big NL strategic decisions tend to be always heads up and of the "is my big hand better than his big hand" variety, which is, frankly, often just a coin flip online.

Anyways, I think I'd like to be a really good NL player at some point in my life, but I don't think I could really put in the time to become so. Just too blah. Thoughts and flames?

[/ QUOTE ]

They all call it the Cadillac of Poker for a reason. No Limit is considered to have too much of a skill gap for fishes to exist for a long time for a real reason. You can actually control the odds, protect your hands, slowplay for real, trap players for all their money, and bluff with some degree of success. If you think NL is all about nut peddling and big hands coming up against each other and folding you either have no understanding of it or have never seen a real game.

Your post shows you don't understand NL at all, so I don't see why you are attacking it.

[lucas9000]

[ QUOTE ]
You haven't played enough deep stack NL. I agree about the stupid Party capped buyin games. Live deep stacked NL can be much more exciting and fun than limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

not to mention piss-your-pants terrifying at times /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[IndieMatty]

[ QUOTE ]
You haven't played enough deep stack NL. I agree about the stupid Party capped buyin games. Live deep stacked NL can be much more exciting and fun than limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
I love how NL players think they are so badass. It's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only the stupid ones think they are so badass / better than limit players.

Like take your average baby NL game at a casino, where you can find 50 year old men jumping up and down and banging the table like monkeys.

[revots33]

I prefer limit only because I'm better at it. I suck at NL - I'm a lousy bluffer and I'm too easily bluffed out of pots by aggressive players. I actually think NL is more fun, and probably more profitable to those who are good at it. If I could somehow get better at it I'd probably play it more.

The only high finishes I've had in tournaments have been in limit tourneys. Wish there were a few more of these but most casinos just have NL tournaments these days.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
They all call it the Cadillac of Poker for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
"They"? That's a quote from one guy who happens to be a no limit player. If you ask someone who primarily plays pot-limit omaha for high stakes and makes his living at that, he would tell you that that is the ultimate poker game. If you ask someone who loves stud... and so forth. Quoting one guy who is a no limit player as the definitive word on which game is best is just silly.

[bobbyi]

I'm trying to learn it, and mostly agree. I think it is probably the best game for tournaments. Limit tournaments seems silly to me. But for ring games, which is all I play, I definitely enjoy limit holdem much more than no limit holdem. However, that's specifically if we are talking about holdem. I don't think anyone can make a credible argument that limit omaha high is superior to pot-limit omaha high, for example.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and to answer one of your points, I think you can actually play more hands profitably at NL, rather than less.

[/ QUOTE ]
By "play more hands" do you mean "see more flops". Because if that's the case, I agree. But limping in to take a look at the flop cheaply, missing it and folding is no more exciting to me than folding before the flop. There's no realy play involved there, no interesting strategic decisions, which is what I care about. I don't feel like I get more of those per hour in NL than in limit, even if I see more flops.

[Benal]

Funny, its the total opposite for me. I can't stand limit poker.

[Tosh]

I find NL cash the most dull form of poker in existence.

[Danenania]

Agree.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
I find NL cash the most dull form of poker in existence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you played much limit omaha?

[HopeydaFish]

I'm focusing on getting better at limit, but I play NL every so often whenever I get bored or burned out by limit and want a change of game. However, I'm like the OP in that I tend to find it boring after awhile. It's fun to play if you get some maniacs at the table who play a lot of hands, but it's like watching paint dry if you get a bunch of TAGs together who know what they're doing and don't give you any action.

I'll only play NL tourneys, though. I find limit tourneys horribly boring for the first 1/2 hour until the blinds get high enough that the game gets NL-like.

That being said, a couple of things that I like about NL are:

1) You can protect your hands a lot more easily in NL than in limit. If you make a significant raise with a vulnerable hand, you won't get 5 or 6 fish calling you and chasing you down with their sooted cards and belly-buster straights. You can thin the field much easier, basically.

2) You can part a fish from his money more easily in NL than in limit. In limit games, when a fish doesn't understand position, hand selection, pot odds, and so on, he'll lose at most a few BB per hand. In NL, playing poorly can cost him his whole stack in one hand.

3) I find a lot of the new hold'em players gravitate towards the NL tables because "that's the game they saw on TV". You can spot the new players much more quickly in NL because of the odd bet sizes they make and the fact that they don't protect their hands properly and end up letting their opponents see every street. Either that or they go "All in" way too often.

4) If you have the nuts and have another player calling you all the way, the payoff is generally much greater in NL. In limit, against a single opponent, you are limited to the size of the BB when betting. In NL, you can finesse your bet sizes to the river and then go all in when your opponent feels he is "pot committed". Slow-playing hands ends up being much more strategic in NL than in limit.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They all call it the Cadillac of Poker for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
"They"? That's a quote from one guy who happens to be a no limit player. If you ask someone who primarily plays pot-limit omaha for high stakes and makes his living at that, he would tell you that that is the ultimate poker game. If you ask someone who loves stud... and so forth. Quoting one guy who is a no limit player as the definitive word on which game is best is just silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people use the saying, and it is common for a reason. That wasn't the basis of my argument anyway.

[turnipmonster]

ever played O8?

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
ever played O8?

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed but it feels very exciting when next to NL, and I am talking about deep stack (100BB+) NL.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
I like NL tournaments. You can't afford to wait as much.

For ring game I prefer limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

NL ring bores me to tears online, and when I try it live, I realize I'm not good enough at it to play stakes that would be meaningful to me and feel comfortable. I do love NL tournaments, but hate the heartbreak involved /images/graemlins/smile.gif I just can't find a reason to get good at NL cash games.
-James

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's fine.

I love how NL players think they are so badass. It's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all, it's a more hardcore game because you can manipulate the odds, position plays a far more important role, opponents stack sizes are serious considerations that need to be taken into account, good reads on players are necessary. I've played both and I really believe that no-limit is a much more complex game. Limit really is more of a science where as no-limit, at its best, can be an art.

[/ QUOTE ]

The cliche store called, they just restocked if you are interested.
-James

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really can't stand no limit at all. I'm not terrible at it, but that's because I am basically a nut peddler. I just find it incredibly dull. Everyone is just sort of sitting around waiting for a big hand, and the numbers of hands I can play profitably are so severely limited that I end up being bored as hell.

I'm not trying to insult the NL players, but I am wondering if my feelings are common. I find limit really interesting, with cool strategic decisions to be made in many hands. Big NL strategic decisions tend to be always heads up and of the "is my big hand better than his big hand" variety, which is, frankly, often just a coin flip online.

Anyways, I think I'd like to be a really good NL player at some point in my life, but I don't think I could really put in the time to become so. Just too blah. Thoughts and flames?

[/ QUOTE ]

They all call it the Cadillac of Poker for a reason. No Limit is considered to have too much of a skill gap for fishes to exist for a long time for a real reason. You can actually control the odds, protect your hands, slowplay for real, trap players for all their money, and bluff with some degree of success. If you think NL is all about nut peddling and big hands coming up against each other and folding you either have no understanding of it or have never seen a real game.

Your post shows you don't understand NL at all, so I don't see why you are attacking it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must not understand limit hold 'em at all if you think you can't do these same things in that form of the game.
-James

[turnipmonster]

I get a litte bored with NL online also, but I think it's a great live game to play. also, a lot of mid stakes (5/5 - 10/25) B&M NL games play much much deeper than online. people talk about 100BB being deep money, but many games I've played in play way deeper.

also, how interesting the game is can really be a function of who is at the table. I defy anyone to be bored with mike makeitlooklikethis at the table in the PS 5-5.


--turnipmonster

[Voltron87]

I'll admit I don't really understand limit poker too well. But when you do slowplay someone, you do it for one or two more bets. When you do it in NL you can get their whole stack. There is nothing like having someone who is convinced you're bluffing come over the top of you all in. You can't bluff the same way in limit, it's not even close. And you can't protect your hand like in NL.

I'm not bashing limit in anyway, I'm sure at the higher limits it is a complex game, but I do think NL is more open ended.

[Danenania]

Next person to say "get their whole stack" in a melodramatic way... is retarded.

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's fine.

I love how NL players think they are so badass. It's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all, it's a more hardcore game because you can manipulate the odds, position plays a far more important role, opponents stack sizes are serious considerations that need to be taken into account, good reads on players are necessary. I've played both and I really believe that no-limit is a much more complex game. Limit really is more of a science where as no-limit, at its best, can be an art.

[/ QUOTE ]

The cliche store called, they just restocked if you are interested.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

The jerk store called...

Look, I was just being honest.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
but that's because I am basically a nut peddler. I just find it incredibly dull. Everyone is just sort of sitting around waiting for a big hand, and the numbers of hands

[/ QUOTE ]

Mattydory,

Your post is contradicting to itself. Limit is more the nut peddling game because you have more chasers who usually do have correct odds to chase and thus forces you to either nut peddle or draw to nut peddling.

NL is another but sitting around waiting for big hands.

Lawrence

[edtost]

nl ring online is awful, but i think you'd be able to beat decent sized live games in a short period of time as long as the lineup wasn't awful.

not to say that it's worth your time to do this instead of playing 40 or whatever, but its something to consider.

[Piers]

I think NL can be interesting but there are two big problems with NL as I see it.

First the bet sizes and stack sizes are important to decisions. This means that you need to spend more time analysing information before making a decision. Which basically means that you cannot mutitlable anywhere near same number of NL games as limit games.

Secondly I use auto click mouseless software, which means you just make a mouse click just by stopping the mouse. This is excellent when you just have three big buttons BET, RAISE or FOLD to hit. I reckon using the software has added an extra ten years to the lifetime of my fingers. However it just does not work so well at NL when you have to move a slider or enter a number.

The other thing about NL cash games is that I cannot help feeling that they are dominated by NL tournaments. The argument here is that the opponents play a lot worse in tournaments than in cash games. So just treat tournaments as a series of cash game, taking into account the smaller stack sizes and modifications when near the end. When you get knocked out, just enter another tournament. The payout variance is higher but I suspect the money is as well.

Where NL shines I think is in live games, where you can get the money from weaker players more quickly then with any other betting structure.

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll admit I don't really understand limit poker too well. But when you do slowplay someone, you do it for one or two more bets. When you do it in NL you can get their whole stack. There is nothing like having someone who is convinced you're bluffing come over the top of you all in. You can't bluff the same way in limit, it's not even close. And you can't protect your hand like in NL. I'm not bashing limit in anyway, I'm sure at the higher limits it is a complex game, but I do think NL is more open ended.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, you CAN bluff in limit and you CAN protect your hand. It is harder to do these things, and that is one reason so many people find limit more interesting (challenging?). They have to be creative with their protection and manipulation. Anyone can just say "all in", when they have a decent hand. Have you seen Celebrity Poker Showdown?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying one game is more challenging than the other. In fact, from what I have read, NL does give the skilled player a greater advantage. The reason for this is what you said, you have greater ability to manipulate the odds.

On the other hand, many people like limit better because they get to play more hands and have to be more creative in that manipulation.


For what it's worth, Howard Lederer, one of the greatest NL players in the world says that NL is best for tournament play and limit is best for ring play. THat is just one man's opinion but it goes to show that it is not always a question of either/or.

Anyway, I am interested in both games.

[me454555]

Not even close. In limit you have to push smaller edges much more often b/c you can't rely on stealing someones stack in one foul swoop.

That is the reason I find NL ring games much more boring. There is not nearly as much action throughout the hand. The big bet usually limits it to 1 or 2 bets/hand.

[Isura]

I think that certain games have a naturally appealing structure. 7 card stud and hold'em ring games are naturally limit games. NL is inherently a tournament game. I think PL is a far more interesting game to play ring than NL. I used to play strictly limit but I'm now hooked on NL tourneys. There is so much besides cards to consider in each decision I find it more appealing to my interests. I also was never a big fan of multi-tabling ring games, it got too dull for me.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's fine.

I love how NL players think they are so badass. It's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all, it's a more hardcore game because you can manipulate the odds, position plays a far more important role, opponents stack sizes are serious considerations that need to be taken into account, good reads on players are necessary. I've played both and I really believe that no-limit is a much more complex game. Limit really is more of a science where as no-limit, at its best, can be an art.

[/ QUOTE ]


no. wrong.


In addition,
my original post was made to get shitty on the indignant ignorance that is matador. nothing more.

fim

[wuwei]

As someone who also primarily plays limit HE, I agree with the original poster that it's a more interesting game in my experience.

However, I've been screwing around a bit at the 25 NL 6max tables at Party. These are pretty fun games with some horrible competition. If you want to explore NL, this is a good place to do it. Nut peddling doesn't work as well here. You have to get out there and play more poker.

I haven't read the entire thread yet, so if this has already been mentioned you can ignore me /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Aytumious]

Being able to read your opponents betting patterns is perhaps the most important skill in NL, live or online. Physical tells are extremely overrated.

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's fine.

I love how NL players think they are so badass. It's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not a more hardcore game just because you can bet it all, it's a more hardcore game because you can manipulate the odds, position plays a far more important role, opponents stack sizes are serious considerations that need to be taken into account, good reads on players are necessary. I've played both and I really believe that no-limit is a much more complex game. Limit really is more of a science where as no-limit, at its best, can be an art.

[/ QUOTE ]


no. wrong.



[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, very insightful.

How about you tell me what aspect of my response is "wrong"?

[dokomoy]

I hate NL because I'm much much worse at it than I am at limit.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but that's because I am basically a nut peddler. I just find it incredibly dull. Everyone is just sort of sitting around waiting for a big hand, and the numbers of hands

[/ QUOTE ]

Mattydory,

Your post is contradicting to itself. Limit is more the nut peddling game because you have more chasers who usually do have correct odds to chase and thus forces you to either nut peddle or draw to nut peddling.

NL is another but sitting around waiting for big hands.

Lawrence

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know absolutely nothing about poker, Lawrence? Seriously, this is about the dumbest post I have read on here in weeks. Do you see why?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, this is about the dumbest post I have read on here in weeks. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a bad short-term memory, don't you? Do you see why?

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, this is about the dumbest post I have read on here in weeks. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a bad short-term memory, don't you? Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I thought *you* made the dumbest post in weeks only a few days ago? Lawrence's was dumber, but nice to see you're defending your own dumbassery.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]

Because I thought I made the dumbest post in weeks only a few days ago? Lawrence's was dumber, but nice to see you're reminding me of my own dumbassery.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fixed your post for you.

[Lawrence Ng]

Matador just got PWNeD!

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know absolutely nothing about poker, Lawrence? Seriously, this is about the dumbest post I have read on here in weeks. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do I know absolutely nothing about poker? Well if I knew nothing, then technically I wouldn't know it, so then I would really know nothing now would I?

Not to jump to conclusions or assess any pre-mature decisions here, but in less than a month you've managed to hit over 600 posts, which averages more than 24 posts a day if you posted everyday.

Now apart from the guys who troll the OOT section to rack up their post count, you probably have one of the highest post count rates going right now.

Now tell me, how do you manage to get in so many posts a day, read all these posts, have time to play, have time to learn, have time to read, and (if you even have one) have time for a social life?

But for now, let's ignore the last 3 shall we.

So this leaves me with the question: How the hell do you manage to post so much, yet keep up with the rate you post at?

Here's my guess.

1. You type 1000 words a minute
2. You can 8 table and surf 2+2 at the same which makes you a true multi-tasker.
3. You don't actually play poker.

There's only 1 poster I know who manages to really the first 2 above and that's Microbob.

I think you fall in the 3rd category.

Lawrence