|
|
#21
10-16-2005, 02:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Playing vs. \'maniacs\' - limit
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Seriously, Vu doesnt really play well after the flop. He loves to limp-reraise very light, but I will four bet and cap anything I opened w/ because it slows him down, helps thin out the field, [/ QUOTE ] Not to sound dumb .... but I don't get this. You are sitting on his right. How does he limp-reraise? He can't limp re-raise without a third person entering the pot. And this implies that I limped. I NEVER limp first in. [/ QUOTE ] I worded this wrong. I am giving you advice on how Vu plays. In my example VU limps first you would then raise and he would then three bet. Sorry for the cobnfusion. I point it out because I have seen this from alot of wild players lately at Canterbury. Its like a some kind of pot building maneuver before the flop. 
|
|
#22
10-16-2005, 02:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing vs. \'maniacs\' - limit
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I bet you'd be hard pressed to find more than like 2 people who think you are. [/ QUOTE ] Bobby, BMW Jeff, Mark. What's my prize? [/ QUOTE ] I think BMW Jeff assumes A LOT of people are Maniacs.
|
|
#23
10-16-2005, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing vs. \'maniacs\' - limit
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Seriously, Vu doesnt really play well after the flop. He loves to limp-reraise very light, but I will four bet and cap anything I opened w/ because it slows him down, helps thin out the field, [/ QUOTE ] Not to sound dumb .... but I don't get this. You are sitting on his right. How does he limp-reraise? He can't limp re-raise without a third person entering the pot. And this implies that I limped. I NEVER limp first in. [/ QUOTE ] I worded this wrong. I am giving you advice on how Vu plays. In my example VU limps first you would then raise and he would then three bet. Sorry for the cobnfusion. I point it out because I have seen this from alot of wild players lately at Canterbury. Its like a some kind of pot building maneuver before the flop. [/ QUOTE ] vu limp/rr'ed me once with KK...the little snake. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#24
10-16-2005, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing vs. \'maniacs\' - limit
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I bet you'd be hard pressed to find more than like 2 people who think you are. [/ QUOTE ] Bobby, BMW Jeff, Mark. What's my prize? [/ QUOTE ] I think BMW Jeff assumes A LOT of people are Maniacs. [/ QUOTE ] BMW jeff is a moron and has no idea how hands go down in poker. He never quits whining and always thinks everyone else plays so bad and he plays so good.
|
|
#25
10-16-2005, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing vs. \'maniacs\' - limit
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] just a general question to the ppl in this thread...do you play live a lot. im thinking of giving a shot at the live 40 or 80 game (at bay101) but im mostly worried about my age (though i have a decent ID) is there any benefit to playing live? i know i wont be able to ever get my online winrate live...but it seems like everyone's doing it and i dont know why [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] For whatever reason, my BB/100 live has got to be significantly higher than my online. The players tend to be much worse and more passive. [/ QUOTE ] doubtless this is true, but i think what he's essentially asking is why would you choose to play 30 hands an hour tops instead of 250 hands an hour for me, it's fun to play live and it's a change of pace. playing online for 8 hours straight just sounds like a nightmare to me, but playing live the time just flies
|
|
#26
10-16-2005, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing vs. \'maniacs\' - limit
PokerBob.. yes your BB/100 i'm sure is higher, but there is no way in hell you can compensate for the fact that you are getting 20-25 hand per hour in at canterbury, and you can get 250+ hand per hour online. Were talking about $$/hour for playing poker.....
|
|
#27
10-16-2005, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing vs. \'maniacs\' - limit
[ QUOTE ]
For whatever reason, my BB/100 live has got to be significantly higher than my online. The players tend to be much worse and more passive. [/ QUOTE ] doubtless this is true, but i think what he's essentially asking is why would you choose to play 30 hands an hour tops instead of 250 hands an hour for me, it's fun to play live and it's a change of pace. playing online for 8 hours straight just sounds like a nightmare to me, but playing live the time just flies [/ QUOTE ] I would also agree with this except one major problem with live games is ..... I play looser. Getting 30 hands in a row that stink on-line is no big deal, getting that in a live game makes KT look pretty attractive [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I play live just because I think I should every now and then to get better. The internet is my cash machine. ------------------------------------------------------ Mplspoker is absolutely correct. These is no way any player at Canterbury can make as much there as I do playing $15/30 on line PER HOUR. And I'm certainly no where near the best player, though I'm trying. It tells me something when 'good' live players say they don't play on the internet for whatever reason. (Mainly that they can't be THAT good.)
|
|
#29
10-16-2005, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing vs. \'maniacs\' - limit
[ QUOTE ]
It tells me something when 'good' live players say they don't play on the internet for whatever reason. (Mainly that they can't be THAT good.) [/ QUOTE ] that's me.
|
|
#30
10-16-2005, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing vs. \'maniacs\' - limit
[ QUOTE ]
PokerBob.. yes your BB/100 i'm sure is higher, but there is no way in hell you can compensate for the fact that you are getting 20-25 hand per hour in at canterbury, and you can get 250+ hand per hour online. Were talking about $$/hour for playing poker..... [/ QUOTE ] well, if i'm a loser online it can be higher, can't it?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
