who are the SSNL readers/posters that actually win?

[unlucky513]

over the past month or so i've become more of a "regular" to this forum. i think there have been some things on this forum that have helped my game a great deal.

i've posted more hands, and also posted my thoughts on other's hands. i'm beginning to notice that you only get 1 or 2 quality replies. the rest are donkified replies that advise terrible play.

so my question is, who are the consistent winners on this forum? or if you don't want to brag, give me the names on who you believe to be winning players.

[Ghazban]

There's a big difference between posting well and being a winning player. A person who understands the game exceptionally well could also be tilt-prone and incapable of winning in the long term. I am a winning player up to 1/2 (with a small sample size of hands that have me winning at 2/4 as well) online but I have tons of room for improvement. I think I post better than I play.

[gulebjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I post better than I play.

[/ QUOTE ]
And I don't even post that well. It's just easier when you have time to think about a situation, put it in a certain perspective. If I played half the hands at the table as well as I would advise when I read about them, I would be a rich man.

Edit: I am a winning player, but certainly not killing the game.

[Los Feliz Slim]

I apparently post much worse than I play, because I'm 7BB/100 over 10,000 hands and my posts, IMHO, usually suck. Interestingly, my posts usually run contrary to the advice given by extremely knowledgable posters without whom I wouldn't be a winning player. Go figure.

[lawrence]

I win. I don't pay attention too much to my winrate, winrates are generally overrated.

edit: generally, I fell this forum (2+2 as a whole) really, really, overestimates the predictive value of winrates and misuses them. Don't do this.

[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I win. I don't pay attention too much to my winrate, winrates are generally overrated.

edit: generally, I fell this forum (2+2 as a whole) really, really, overestimates the predictive value of winrates and misuses them. Don't do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting post. I imagine 90% of the people here have at least thought about one day being able to go pro, or at least do well enough that they can rely on poker as a partial source of income. In this case you almost have to use your winrates and forecast your income to some extent.

[lawrence]

And then people say "Ok I can win at 20$/hr/table, so if I 4 table, I can win 80$/hr, and if I play 6hr/day 5 days/week, I can earn x a month..."

Which is faulty logic.

True, professionals have to be able to expect to win a certain amount over a period of time but a responsible pro will keep a large savings, etc, so this isn't as big an issue as most people think.

[jkkkk]

I would of thought the majority of people that post here are winning players, I am one of them.

[kurto]

I'm a winning NL player at low limit. Starting at $10 tables on Pokerstars and mostly $25 on PS and Party... I turned $400 or so (split between the 2 sites) into a bankroll of just under $4K.

2 months or so ago I switched to $50 NL (and have been toying with playing $100NL). I am just about even at $50 NL but I confidently think its been the bad end of varience instead of bad play.

FYI- I'm probably less aggressive then most people here. I'm a former rock peddler (which worked real well) who's gradually getting a little more aggressive.

Did I say too much?

[unlucky513]

what is a winrate for someone that is killing the game? i've only got about 5k hands at PStars 100NL.. i started sunday w/ 7BB/100, now i'm around 22BB/100. i've been on fire these past few days.