MLG: Evolving
 

MLG had a good post in the Multi forum:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...0&fpart=all

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

lol, we have three metas on eight votes???

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

I am definitely a 4

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

I'm a confuzzled fo shuzzle

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

guess Zeejustin can be considered as a Meta

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

Why isn't Donk an option?

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

isnt Donk the same as Meta?

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

There you go, haha.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a confuzzled fo shuzzle

[/ QUOTE ]

stfu noob.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

Leaper describes me so well... I have no idea what hand ranges to put people on, but gimme the hand range, and I know how to play [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

Any Step 1s who have found their way to 2+2 forums have generally done so after reading about 2+2 on the back of a poker book they've read (dangerous knowledge). The passive Step 1 is sure to think he's a Step 2, the angry Step 1 is sure to think he's a Step 3 or Step 4, the interested Step 1 has probably already moved beyond Step 1, though he may still think of himself as a Newb.

The Step 2s who give in to FPS think of themselves as Step 4s and those who are just trying to "follow the rules" think of themselves as Step 1s.

Step 3s probably have a pretty good chance of recognizing their position. Though many of them will think of themselves as Step 4s and those who are really thoughtful will understand that while they may know the maths, they can't apply them at the table, so they really haven't reached Step 3.

True Step 4s in poker, as in many other walks of live, either think they are Step 5s, or recognize just how much they don't know and humbly categorize themselves as Step 2s.

Step 5s couldn't be bothered with these polls.

In short: 93.2162% of those who answer this poll will place themselves in an inappropriate Step.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

[ QUOTE ]


In short: 93.2162% of those who answer this poll will place themselves in an inappropriate Step.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that's probably close. I think the ~ 7% of those who answer correctly, are also the same 7% of 2+2ers who are winning players.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

So what step are you? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

All,

Take whatever your answer is and subtract 1.

That is much more likely to be accurate than your initial answer.

Yugoslav

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

[ QUOTE ]
All,

Take whatever your answer is and subtract 1.

That is much more likely to be accurate than your initial answer.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

What's world champion -1?

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

Its best to spell it wrld champion. Adds legitimacy to the claim.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

I would say I'm on level 3 of a Mini-Step 3 with 8 left & a slightly-below-average stack.

Seriously though I recognize a bit of my level in most of the Steps. I am like a Step 1 passive newb in that I'm sometimes too ready to tell myself that I understand the advice of good players...while in reality I am sure I often don't really understand, or at least don't fully grasp the implications of the advice.

I certainly have a lot of Step 2 in me. One example of this is that I use the ICM without fully understanding the math behind what makes it valid, applicable, & useful. I also haven't done the math that would solidify in my mind, for example, exactly what the table conditions would have to be to limp KQo profitably in EMP at a full table.

I have a good amount of Step 3 in me, definitely. I think about opponents' likely ranges & routinely make EV calculations based on those ranges. I am indeed a winning player, although in the pantheon of winning players I rank pretty low.

I do think I also have a bit of Steps 4 and 5 in me as well. I think about how a bet or a check on the turn might influence whether my opponent calls or bets on the river. I try to take into account things like how big I want the pot to be on the river when deciding on a flop bet size. I do also think about meta issues like how the way I've been playing has shaped my image, and I try to adjust my lines & calling/raising standards based on such perceptions. However, my ability to understand and apply these kinds of thinking in real time is pretty limited at this point.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All,

Take whatever your answer is and subtract 1.

That is much more likely to be accurate than your initial answer.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

What's world champion -1?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok...I don't mind this answer. But, I mean, sometimes you can answer differently depending...like sometimes I'd answer 3, sometimes 6, sometimes 15....but right. Okay, so obviously the answer is wrld champion....ok....and there is only 1....so that means wrld champion - 1...well, right, it would be curtains - 1. So, generally I fold this early in answering a question but since SNGPT gives us +.4% EV I don't think you can pass that up so I'd have to say the answer is:

Newt_Buggs.


[/ QUOTE ]

I just asked curtains and that's what popped up in my AIM window, [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img].

Yugoslav

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

this is exactly the reason i use trillian isntead of aim

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

I think I'm a three, but probably are confuzlled from time to time.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

Fair enough. Book me for Newt -3.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

SNGs require no skill, why is this question being asked in this forum? You really dont need to go past 3.5 in party sngs. There is some meta in PS 1ks and whatnot, but that doesnt apply to 99.99% of this forum.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

I voted 4 because I *should* know what I'm doing (pro), but I really multitable heavily to make up for my lack of natural talent, so I'm probally a 2.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

im a 2 , sometimes a 3, most likely a 2. Im like 1300 dollars up though..so thats y i voted 3 since thats the most objective part of the description.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

What?! 66 votes and no newbs? I'm amazed [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

I voted 3 but I think I am a 4. I just don't want to get cocky and start FPS donking.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

[ QUOTE ]
SNGs require no skill

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to the bulk of online MTTs, where a very significant portion of the event is going to be spent in the same huge blinds to average stack regime? You're clearly right that the highest levels don't really apply to SNGs, but I don't think they apply to 99% of the tournament poker that anybody here plays either. Congratulations on the self-importance, though.

EDIT: Also, why is everybody in such a hurry to categorize themselves? Does putting yourself in a neatly labeled box really help you conceive of what you should be doing to change how you play/think about poker?

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

Newbs haven't figured out how to vote.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

hmmm.....good point

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

[ QUOTE ]

Seriously though I recognize a bit of my level in most of the Steps.

[/ QUOTE ]

ditto, except for the "meta" level.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

I'm number 2, except that I've been a winning player online for about 4 months. I was break even for about 5 months before that. I think a lot of the reason why I'm a winning player now is switching to SNG's, not because I can really play poker better. I have an easier time wrapping my head around basic bubble push/fold strategy than postflop cash game strategy. In short, I suck postflop, but my bubble play allows me to be a 15% ROI player at the 22's.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

[ QUOTE ]
All,

Take whatever your answer is and subtract 1.

That is much more likely to be accurate than your initial answer.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] that. I'm only subtracting 1/2.

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All,

Take whatever your answer is and subtract 1.

That is much more likely to be accurate than your initial answer.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] that. I'm only subtracting 1/2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was a -7; then Yugo moved-in; Now I'm a -11

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All,

Take whatever your answer is and subtract 1.

That is much more likely to be accurate than your initial answer.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] that. I'm only subtracting 1/2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was a -7; then Yugo moved-in; Now I'm a -11

[/ QUOTE ]

What buy-in level do you actually play now? ROI? You only make off-topic threads. I have no idea what you play? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All,

Take whatever your answer is and subtract 1.

That is much more likely to be accurate than your initial answer.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] that. I'm only subtracting 1/2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was a -7; then Yugo moved-in; Now I'm a -11

[/ QUOTE ]

What buy-in level do you actually play now? ROI? You only make off-topic threads. I have no idea what you play? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I play $109's...Since Nov. 1 I have played 522 $109's to an ROI of (+)3.03%....It's a miracle [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: MLG: Evolving
 

[ QUOTE ]
SNGs require no skill, why is this question being asked in this forum? You really dont need to go past 3.5 in party sngs. There is some meta in PS 1ks and whatnot, but that doesnt apply to 99.99% of this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

i welcome you and all of your lil friends to come play some step 4 highers with me and jman and see how much skill they take. lock in for an even 50. thats 100k to wager. see how you do, since i mean, you dont have to be anything more than a decent poker player to do well. you should kick our ass. holla