[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I know who Yugo is talking about. Sometimes someone's thinking will seem clear and convincing because they are good at either debate, or have expertise in another strategy game. Therefore, they may seem like they know what they are talking about because they are used to discussing strategy. But in the case of SNG game theory they may be completely wrong.

I can think of one particular duo who almost always disagree with one another(I'm not one of the two, btw.) One of them has been beating poker for almost as long as the other one has been alive. It seems like most people think the youngling is a winning player. Now, he may become a winning player because he's smart and good at games... but his SNG thinking is flawed and his ego will prevent him from figuring that out any time soon.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]


I have been a professional poker player for well over two years now and have done just fine (Meaning I have no source of income besides poker for the last 2 years, aside from the very occasional chess lesson).


"Now, he may become a winning player because he's smart and good at games"

Now this is a total joke. Even I understand that many of those that I disagree with on 2+2 win at poker despite making some mistakes or having some flaws in their understanding. Sit and go's really arent that hard to beat, you can play relatively poorly yet beat them anyway. I mean do you really think I lose money playing sit and go's?


But you are right, maybe if I work hard and listen to all the players on 2+2 whom are much better than me and have an obviously superior understanding of poker, despite the fact that there is zero evidence to back up this claim, I might just learn how to finally win.



"One of them has been beating poker for almost as long as the other one has been alive."

Another ridiculous statement that has no relevance whatsoever.