100-200 against stoxtrader

[astroglide]

65 replies since last night lol. this seriously could be a shorthanded 10/20 15/30 or 30/60 post. everybody's spazzing about the limit, but the limit is irrelevant because we're dealing with 2 known players here and we know their background. it's not a "100/200 hand" in the "i am playing against random 100/200 players" sense.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
it is certainly eaiser to critique those on the battefield than enter yourself

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah he's just playing in that cakewalk 25-50 ub nl game. maybe one of these days he'll come out of the sandbox.

i'm pointing it out because i know he wouldn't.

[Lestat]

I also really agree with what you said and very often think in these exact terms.

But short handed, the properties of what goes into the proper amount of action tend to become warped and distorted in much the same way time and light get displaced in a black hole. Things are more fluid than in a full game where it becomes easier to trust leaning upon something that of which appears to be solid.

[mike l.]

"Diablo, while cute. hasn't added much in the way of strategy - it is certainly eaiser to critique those on the battefield than enter yourself."

great point. it was far more interesting when he gave solid useful advice under his previous moniker.

what about my contention this thread stinks? i think that deserves some praise. this hand is just not very interesting at all, im sure some more interesting situations/decisions came up at that table.

[J.A.Sucker]

I agree totally with you, of course. Since I know nothing about the game dynamic and little, if anything, about these players, this is my stock line.

[mike l.]

"he's just playing in that cakewalk 25-50 ub nl game."

and this helps me how???

id rather he lose a bunch and struggle along at mid limit online limit hold em so i can start learning stuff daily from him again. i think that reflects many poster's thoughts on the el diablow matter.

[astroglide]

i agree that the thread sucks, it only got response because of it being 100/200 but the limit is irrelevant as far as the discussion goes. about diablo giving advice, i was responding to the assertion that he hasn't "entered the battlefield."

[stoxtrader]

I am not contending at all that he is not a great player.

I am pointing out the fact that he has chosen criticise others, without unveiling his thoughts for public scrutiny.

It was not meant as a challenge. I have no reason to attempt to pick a fight with him, nor do I want to. I would appreciate it if he posted a bit more of substance. Maybe I could have asked more nicely.

[mike l.]

"the assertion that he hasn't "entered the battlefield."

oh what he meant was he's not entering the battlefield on here. meaning he's being all glib and not posting opinions and being involved on 2+2 except in a silly jokey way. everyone knows he's a top online hold em player.

actually i got irate at him one time for this and he pmed me and said something about an impending headlock so i backed off, but now here i am again rattling his chain.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]

I am pointing out the fact that he has chosen criticise others, without unveiling his thoughts for public scrutiny.


[/ QUOTE ]

even though written in rhyme
my thoughts were clear this time
if you both have such narrow ranges
your game is in need of some changes

[ QUOTE ]

In a shorthanded 100-200 game

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

lmao, there was one really bad player making the game worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

a large part of my retort
was because james first called the game short
but when he further described the playing
i'm not sure what's left to be saying