Paul Phillips, $2-5 Mirage

[Alexthegreat]

Okay, so you asked if it would hurt your hourly in each game...You worded your question very poorly....

Anyhow...to answer your question, yes, playing in more than one game at a time is going to affect your winrate....This is obvious...

How much it affects your rate is dependant on how good you are...Very good players aren't going to lose too much from 1-4 tables...

[Niwa]

Ive never heard of him...

[Beerfund]

He's a porn star turned pro poker player, he got his start doing gay porn with John Holmes. His most famous movie was "Poker in the Rear" in which Annie Duke also makes a camio apperance.

[citanul]

as can be gleaned from the other responders, i'm assuming that the quoted post about "i don't see..." is the one where you think you asked a question.

so first off we'll start with the fact that there wasn't a question involved in your post.

second off we'll go with the fact that from your later responses, you clearly have a number of some sort, and a rate that the number should drop off as you increase tables, in your head, and when people try to give you real answers from observed information, all you do is berate them. for instance, i can tell you from having seen and talked to many good players on this forum, that 2bb/100 is very attainable for someone 4 tabling the 15/30 game on party, if that player is very good.

third, and this is just a sidenote: your question appears in entirely the wrong forum, in a thread that was not started for the purposes of answering that question. if you want to figure out what's attainable in the 15/30 game on party playing N tables, you could post a question in either poker theory, general holdem, or in mid/high limit limit holdem. or you could run a search.

all of those seem to be better options than your current tack of just insulting and berating people while posting unintelligibly and in the wrong forum.

i'm sure that any response you put here will include "idiot" or "dope" or something along the same lines, but please do note that at no point in this post, or my last, very serious post which simply asked "what question did you ask?" did i call you any sort of name or insult you.

if your "question" actually wasn't the one about win rates, please do tell me what that question was.

additionally, bisonbison is being kind enough to answer any and all questions over in OOT right now, so if you feel like asking your question there, he'll provide an answer. i don't know why you'd trust his answer more than my original answer of "2bb/100 is attainable while 4 tabling the party 15/30," but whatever. i'm still just curious about why when you "asked your question" and i responded with a post that included a very good answer to it, you're still posting raves about how no one answered your question.

citanul

[Smoothcall]

Again i don't see why it is appropiate to tell me i worded my question poorly. I'm not trying to win a writing contest just asked a question. So he(citanel) flames me and you say i worded it poorly. Who cares it was obvious i was askinga question and not trying to be a troll or flame anyone. That is what is important. Don't you see that?

[Smoothcall]

Again i don't see why it is appropiate to tell me i worded my question poorly. I'm not trying to win a writing contest just asked a question. So he(citanel) flames me and you say i worded it poorly. Who cares it was obvious i was asking a question and not trying to be a troll or flame anyone. That is what is important. Don't you see that?

[Smoothcall]

Insert a filter between your brain and posting. And learn to read are not insults? If they are then you are wrong and owe me an apology as you said you never insulted me in that first post. You say i was the insulting one, but i did not insult you in my original QUESTION. You started the insults in your first reply to me that i just pointed out. Then i insulted as i saw you as the troll that you are.

And Alex the great see's my question why can't you? How many times have you looked at it and still can't see the question? Maybe you need to insert something into your brain. See Alex the great to see there was a question as i'm tired of directingyou to mine as you do not see it. I will be waiting for my apalogy as i have proved you wrong in both circumstances. To deny would be pathetic.

[Smoothcall]

Paul Phillips is a liar and a coward! That is who he is!

[VBM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how can you dominate a game like that? if they are bad players you just have to wait for good hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a strange perspective. It is they who end up waiting for good hands... which is what gets them in the end. Not that this table was loaded with bad players, just players with a lot less experience.

In limit you can beat bad players by tightening up. In no-limit there are a LOT of ways to beat them and tightening up is nowhere near the most profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's far too much focus in this thread on PP's manners (or lack thereof) and not enough on the tactical poker.

This post was the one that got me thinking.

How to beat up on inexperienced players who wait for good hands; What are some of the ways Paul's talking about?

What are trademarks of these typical "not bad, but inexperienced players" and what gear do you switch to, to leverage these traits against them?

My guess is he's saying that this type of player is tight and plays his own cards, ie. aggressive with strong hands, passive with weak ones...? very "ABC"...?

Then, what weapons are in your NL arsenal to cause trouble for that player? Weak leads & all-in checkraises, etc...?

tia,
--oj.

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it's someone who believes that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't seriously harm others. For example, when I'm drinking and looking to dominate a small nlh game, and someone racks up and leaves with a win of a bunch of my chips, if they come back and tell me it was nice playing with me, I should have the liberty to tell them "it's a shame you left, I was gonna take all those chips of yours" without a lot of crying about it after the fact...

[/ QUOTE ]

Of all the poor descriptions of libertarianism that I've read over the years, this has to be among the worst. While libertarians do support something approximating completely unrestricted freedom of speech, no true libertarian would argue that such speech should be immune to counterspeech, regardless of whether the counterspeech took the form of crying, bitching, moaning, whining, complaining, etc. In fact, the counterspeech remedy is one of the core libertarian arguments in favor of free speech.