respondents to questions

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you people all (well, not all, but most) need to calm down and realize this isn't an entirely dumb question.

and because the poster is new, how's about we all act normal?

i don't think certain threads would have been killed if made by certain posters

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought the answers were good. OP asked if there was a way to "determine the skill level and profitability" of posters. How would you answer that question?

We can start a "respected poster" thread if you want. It'll probably end up similar to the archive one. Maybe people are just being coy and waiting for someone else to start listing people so they can see if they're included.

Regardless, OP never asked for a list. And his tone left much to be desired, hence our responses.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure.
i think it was tonal too.
just trying to point out what i pointed out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It realy boils down to the fact that in most threads, even on those where there is no definative consensus, there is something that will be benificial. Just because someone says something that is incorrect does not mean it is entirely meritless. The discourse itself is beneficial. In trying to explain that to OP he turned into a total ass, and demonstrated what I found to be intellectual laziness (it's right or it's wrong, and wrong = bad, gamesetmatch, stfu). And he was correctly smacked down.

[aargh57]

While the question may not be a bad one and may have some merits discussing from reading the few posts that this guy has he comes off as abrassive and very arrogant. In this post he asks for some honest answers to WR and such. He's very long winded and explains about how he supported himself through sports betting and how he's got a doctorate in classical literature. for someone with a literature degree i would expect one or two capital letters. Sorry, I guess this is petty but he comes in here and insults Wookie and other posters. I just don't like the guy. I don't think this thread would've been killed by other posters either but that's because most other poster's wouldn't have responded like this guy.

i will struggle hard to be appropriately servile in the future. will servility suffice to locate the winners?

[aargh57]

[ QUOTE ]
i will struggle hard to be appropriately servile in the future. will servility suffice to locate the winners?

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it back. You are not a sarcastic jerk. I'm sure your attitude will make everyone here bend over backwards to help you out.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
i will struggle hard to be appropriately servile in the future. will servility suffice to locate the winners?

[/ QUOTE ]

(F**k, I really wanted to stay out of this thread. Meh.)

To lyingthief: from reading the post referenced by aargh, you clearly don't believe that it's possible to win at poker. So, all I can believe is that this is some sort of attempt by you to get everyone on the forum to admit that they aren't winning, and slink away in shame, salaaming all the way to your intellectual might. That can't work, because it isn't true.

To everyone else: don't feed the troll.

[adsman]

[ QUOTE ]
i will struggle hard to be appropriately servile in the future. will servility suffice to locate the winners?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, with all due respect,

You seem to want instant answers. You seem to think that knowing who are 'the best' posters, or 'the most knowledgeable' or 'the biggest winners' will help you in some way.
The more you put into these boards, the more that you get out of them. The more you read, and post, and see how your thinking may be incorrect, the more you will learn. And by doing that you will begin to gather your own favourite group of posters. The ones that help you the most. I have my own. I'm not going to list them here. Suffice to say that some posters who don't help me very much, help others in many ways. Of that I have no doubt.
A lot of posters here put a great deal of time and energy into these boards, not only to help themselves, but to help others. When we get someone who arrogantly demands to know who are 'the best' posters, without contributing anything of real value to the boards, the posters here are apt to get a bit touchy.
I love the micros. I'm playing above it's supposed limits now. But I have developed a relationship with a lot of the guys and gals on here. So this is where I stay. You would be wise to do the same.

[Obliky]

[ QUOTE ]
from reading the post referenced by aargh

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol...thats so python-esqe. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

apology means "defense".

in my defense, i should like to make a few comments.

comment 1) the desire to know who wins is natural to any sensible man wishing to learn how to win. i suppose one may approach the problem in a contrarian way, and ask the losers how they win, and then do the opposite. this is machiavellian, however, and apt to lead the practicioner of it into the trap of incorrect deduction.

comment 2) in my cited post, i asked for a measure of honesty. in this post i asked bluntly, "who wins?". IN NEITHER POST WAS ANY ANSWER FORTHCOMING THAT IDENTIFIED WINNERS. a great number of, to be charitable i will not call them preposterous, claims about 15bb per hour, and never a losing week, etc, were offered, but not the evidence to support them. i met these claims with, i hope, a very dampened and polite skepticism; but some of the claims were certainly dubious. highly dubious. for me, it is difficult to determine the meaning of the bb/hr or bb/100 method of describing one's win rate. ROI is succinct and deadly. tell me your win% and your ROI, and i will give you a mathematically exact determination of your profitability, and the number of cases necessary to validate it. i dont see that here.

(i have found indications of a .05 ME for the better limit players. this is a very small edge, and hardly better than random, which is why so very many trials are necessary prior to adducing that this figure is an edge at all. and which is why i am further skeptical of the assertions here: if that's the ME of the best players, and by admission, YOU are not the best players, your statistics are bereft of valid support, unless you have an extraordinary number of trials. and if i should wish to listen to those with statistically valid sample size and positive ROI.? well g.damn, ain't that a crime!??!!!)

comment 3) i have made a living "gambling". i am a winner. and i'm proud as hell of that, you betcha. i became a winner by hard work, determination, self control, and talent. i have known very few winners, and many, many pretenders to the claim. many, indeed. it has raised a concern in me, if you dont mind my saying so, for when i ask after those who win, to model their reasoning patterns, i am met with a gamut of non-answers, derisions, even villifications. perhaps you monitors should, as several have suggested, post this thread in a permanent place. entitle it, CAVEAT EMPTOR. as my self image is robust, i am not at all bemused by the tone or personal character of your statements to me. i remind myself that it is a method of the snake-oil specialist not to answer the skeptic, but to insult him. this is another symptom which, to me, makes your claims questionable. perhaps new posters, if they are remotely capable of removing the stars and gaga of easy money from their eyes, would be enlightened to learn that the merest question of the claims of infinite riches made with such saccharine testimonial here, are met with resounding and escalating abuse of the questioner.

comment 4) i do not at all doubt that there are winners at the game. substantial winners. i have won at the .25/.50 level, but not any higher. i break even at the .5/1 level. i have been playing two months. i have played roughly 20k hands. i studied a number of works--i admit that i did not read the pantheon at 2+2 exclusively, but i hope that small heresy will be forgiven me, as i think no man or party in complete possession of the truth--and practiced with wilson's software prior to playing. again, i hope you will pardon my saying so, but i remain skeptical of the extolled illuminatory nature of SSH. far too many of the players at these lower limits have read the book; and if any thing is true, the dissemination of knowledge tends in time to nullify the edge that knowledge may have provided prior to its wide spread adoption. this is a principle stay in the "random walk" hypothesis, so famous in arguments about the financial markets. SSH is very probably applicable to the most rudimentary limits ONLY, which is where the majority of the ignorant settle; and if it's not, it shall be soon enough.

comment 5) despite the bad weather come my way, i am oblivious to the majority of comments posted here. i am basically appealing not to the approval of the lackwit but to the consideration of the winners. i would pay for their help.

so, in summation, i do not feel an apology is necessary. and to the unprejudiced few who have read or will read this thread, i caution you to take note; take very careful note. this kind of treatment is undoubtedly reserved for anyone who dares to question the veracity of the claims, and those who claim them. this is a warning sign, friends. a very, very important warning sign, and one to be weighed carefully.

yea, by their fruits shall ye know them.

(oh, and lastly: consistEntly is the preferred spelling. it is derived from a latin verb root of the e-stem class. google "consistAntly" and see what it says. you see, when it comes to word origins and grammar, YOU DONT KNOW AND I DO. and i know when YOU dont know. and that pretty much describes who im looking for in the poker playing ranks, thank you; the one that knows when i dont. and any man who'll wager significant sums on what SEEMS to be true, or what is ARGUABLY or RATIONALLY apparent, has little hope of survival. perhaps this is why "truth" founded on argument and conjecture has the odor of the dinosaur about it? and why scientific method was developed to replace it?

[milesdyson]

allow me to unequivocally own you, oh mighty user of the thesaurus.

[ QUOTE ]
tell me your win% and your ROI, and i will give you a mathematically exact determination of your profitability, and the number of cases necessary to validate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
i am a winner. and i'm proud as hell of that, you betcha. i became a winner by hard work, determination, self control, and talent... i have won at the .25/.50 level

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
i have played roughly 20k hands

[/ QUOTE ]

[mmbt0ne]

[ QUOTE ]
Shillx

[/ QUOTE ]

Fish

[ QUOTE ]
Entity

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucky

[ QUOTE ]
btspider

[/ QUOTE ]

Donkey

[ QUOTE ]
Jaran

[/ QUOTE ]

Italian

[ QUOTE ]
deathdonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

ACTUAL Donkey

[ QUOTE ]
Grunchcan

[/ QUOTE ]

OH-ver-RAY-ted


Basically, you can trust me to be right.

Oh yeah, and Chipotle is the antipwn. It's a glorified Moe's.