$215: With all the 17%+ ROI winners, where are the losers coming from?

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand him. I'm not moving up without at least 100 buy-ins. Oh, ok, you can do that on lower buy-ins. I guess $500 is ok for 11s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just curious. Why are you waiting to move up? I'm not saying I think you're wrong, everyone has their preferences. But if you're a winning player, losing 50 buy-ins is about as improbable as they get (even for a marginal winning player I would assume). At least 50 I could understand, but with 100, if you're a winning player, it seems to me you're missing out on ALOT of value.

[Myst]

Well for one, I dont have a 100 buyin roll.

Second, though 50 buyin drops are improbable, they arent impossible, and if you are gonna live off your roll, you want to have a 0% ROR.

[chisness]

i can think of a couple reasons:

1) double the swings
2) tougher competition, possibly much tougher for a multitabler

i've got enough to do the 100s but don't think i'll ever go past the 50s (and i'm still at the 30s) because i don't like the idea of losing $1000 in a day and think i'd only make nominally more in the $100s than the $50s

[treeofwisdom7]

[ QUOTE ]
Well for one, I dont have a 100 buyin roll.

Second, though 50 buyin drops are improbable, they arent impossible, and if you are gonna live off your roll, you want to have a 0% ROR.

[/ QUOTE ]

curtains said to keep 80 buy ins. he also said to play 3games in the lowerbuy in and 1 game in the 109's. i dont know why he wants me to do this but curtains is a very smart poker player.

[Daliman]

Only 1 player you listed is getting 17%, and i know of a LEAST 2 that aren't at 15%. There are plenty of crappy players out there.

[ilya]

So, generously, that's a dozen 15% winners. There don't need to be very many -2%/profit-with-rakeback players to support such a tinormous* elite.

*extremely tiny

[vindikation]

[ QUOTE ]
tinormous*.

*extremely tiny

[/ QUOTE ]

nice