|
|
#21
07-23-2005, 08:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why SS is not as good as it could have been (rant content)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You are an idiot. Keep posting, you are the reason SS is not what it could be. [/ QUOTE ] Lol, I think I have only 10 posts here. I lack the experience to post qualitatively about hands. On creating a culture for learning though, I consider myself an expert. [/ QUOTE ] Yes - create a culture of learning by coming on here and insulting the small stakes posters. Nice work. I bet you can learn a thing or two here mr. expert. It is well documents that post count has nothing to do with poker skill. [/ QUOTE ] As I tried to point out, most posters are better poker players than me. I was not trying to be an expert, just wanting people to stop looking at themselves as experts when they are posting here. I want them still to post, but if they realize they don't know much about the game (compared to where we most want to go) the discussion will be more fruitful. |
|
#22
07-23-2005, 08:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why SS is not as good as it could have been (rant content)
[ QUOTE ]
do you mean people whose responses to questions are more or less brush offs? Or do you mean that a reply like e"easy 3-bet" should come with an explanation why? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, often answers like "easy 3-bet" is brushing people off and even if 3-bet is correct the brushing off stops a good discussion, especially when the one who brushes off is joined by others. |
|
#23
07-23-2005, 11:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why SS is not as good as it could have been (rant content)
This one-liner thing has been discussed a lot and a lot of reasonable people think that saying "easy 3-bet" and then having others think about why is a better learning tool than spoon-feeding. No one is discouraged from asking why, and no one is ignored when they do.
|
|
#24
07-23-2005, 11:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why SS is not as good as it could have been (rant content)
I know I suck at poker. Thanks for pointing that out though just in case I woke up and mistakenly felt otherwise. I'm OK with that though because I don't even like poker.
|
|
#25
07-23-2005, 11:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why SS is not as good as it could have been (rant content)
[ QUOTE ]
You suck at poker. If you had been good you would have played higher! [/ QUOTE ] There are a lot of possible rebuttals to this but let me just throw out an illustration for what is worth. Player 1 and Play 2 each play Party $3/6. Player 1 is in college and her parents pay all of her tuition and costs. Player 1 beats the game for 1BB/100 but rolls all winnings into her bankroll so she can move up. Player 2 multitables the $3/6 game as a living and supports a family. He beats the game for 2.75BB/100 and maintains an adequate roll for the game after paying living expenses. He builds his roll but it goes slowly due to all of his expenses. After a year, Player 2 is still at $3/6 but thinks he may dip inot the $5/10 game when it looks particularly juicy. Player 1 decides to jump into the Party $15/30 game since she has the roll and she hears it is stocked with fish and that she can likely beat the game for at least a little. Is Player 1 better than Player 2. She is now officialy a "$15/30 player" unlike Player 2, who is still "stuck" at $3/6. |
|
#28
07-23-2005, 11:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why SS is not as good as it could have been (rant content)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You suck at poker. If you had been good you would have played higher! [/ QUOTE ] There are a lot of possible rebuttals to this but let me just throw out an illustration for what is worth. Player 1 and Play 2 each play Party $3/6. Player 1 is in college and her parents pay all of her tuition and costs. Player 1 beats the game for 1BB/100 but rolls all winnings into her bankroll so she can move up. Player 2 multitables the $3/6 game as a living and supports a family. He beats the game for 2.75BB/100 and maintains an adequate roll for the game after paying living expenses. He builds his roll but it goes slowly due to all of his expenses. After a year, Player 2 is still at $3/6 but thinks he may dip inot the $5/10 game when it looks particularly juicy. Player 1 decides to jump into the Party $15/30 game since she has the roll and she hears it is stocked with fish and that she can likely beat the game for at least a little. Is Player 1 better than Player 2. She is now officialy a "$15/30 player" unlike Player 2, who is still "stuck" at $3/6. [/ QUOTE ] nh You just reminded me that it's time to pay my student loan bill I accrued over ten years ago. There goes 1/5 of my bankroll yet again! |
|
#30
07-23-2005, 01:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why SS is not as good as it could have been (rant content)
In my situation, I agree - I suck at poker. Everytime I sit at a 1/2 6-max table, I am humbled time and again at how bad I suck at poker (I know - how bad is that). Seems I can play only one thing well - full ring 2/4. But, I crush the hell outta that. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
