Re: I was wrong, you were right, but that\'s why i joined 2+2, 80K hand
 

You had 16 straight losing sessions and only lost 150 BB? No [censored] way.

Re: I was wrong, you were right, but that\'s why i joined 2+2, 80K hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
congratulations. i am have played far less hands and am down far more money. please keep your bragging to yourself from now on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rather be in your shoes. He's much more confident he's not a winner.

Re: I was wrong, you were right, but that\'s why i joined 2+2, 80K hands...
 

hi it's 700,000 hands you need to really know something fairly definitive.

Re: I was wrong, you were right, but that\'s why i joined 2+2, 80K hands...
 

"it's 700,000 hands you need to really know something fairly definitive."

Just in case you're serious, consider that if I play 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, it takes me TEN YEARS to play that many hands. Are you saying that during year number 8 or thereabouts, I still shouldn't look to my results for "something fairly definitive?"

Tommy

Re: I was wrong, you were right, but that\'s why i joined 2+2, 80K hand
 

C'mon Barron

Many folks came here thinking that they knew a lot and would like to argue their point of view, so there is no harm in that. At least his arguments made a little more sense then the other person, who is now on my ignore list.

Tx had an epiphany and has publicly stated so. You should be congratulating him, not beating him up on his old posts.

Re: I was wrong, you were right, but that\'s why i joined 2+2, 80K hands...
 

well you got The Publisher to respond, that must be worth something [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] and at least you aren't down 580 BB like this fellow . [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: I was wrong, you were right, but that\'s why i joined 2+2, 80K hands...
 

....< one small bet after 80K.

Re: I was wrong, you were right, but that\'s why i joined 2+2, 80K hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
"it's 700,000 hands you need to really know something fairly definitive."

Just in case you're serious, consider that if I play 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, it takes me TEN YEARS to play that many hands. Are you saying that during year number 8 or thereabouts, I still shouldn't look to my results for "something fairly definitive?"

Tommy

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike came up with that number pretty randomly. Many of us "internet guys" think it is probably a bit lower like 300-400K hands. Enjoy the next 4 years and then get back to us.

Re: I was wrong, you were right, but that\'s why i joined 2+2, 80K hands...
 

[ QUOTE ]
well you got The Publisher to respond, that must be worth something [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] and at least you aren't down 580 BB like this fellow . [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, it would be awful to be as big a loser as BK [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: I was wrong, you were right, but that\'s why i joined 2+2, 80K hands...
 

Mason-

Thanks for taking the time to respond, and i am in agreeance with you that 9K is not an unreasonable amount to lose in 30-60. However, I think that I am not ready to play at that level yet, and I wonder where I would be right now had I not had immediate success in the 30 game. I am going to take about two weeks off from the game and try to go over my weaknesses and strengths and asses <sp> each. I think that there are decisions that are very obvious to a good player that are not obvious to me, yet.


In response to whoever said 16 losing sessions and losing 9K no f'ing way<<< Yes way. And while any losing session is a bad experience, the kind where you play for six ir seven hours and lose 10 BB's are very hard to deal with, because if two or three pots go your way they become winning sessions.


I plan on submerging myself in literature for the next two weeks (i'm considering a month) before I play another hand of poker.




Tex