To anyone who read fimbulwinters tirade about me

[Rotating Rabbit]

I voted for the second option cos ice usually has something worth hearing. But this poll is silly i mean as edge says nobody aside from fim/ice cares, and as kane says its moot anyway. That said, now that its kicked off, this can only really be decided with a fight, so how about heads up a 1k nl freezeout on party pvt table we can get popcorn and watch?

[thabadguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I voted for the second option cos ice usually has something worth hearing. But this poll is silly i mean as edge says nobody aside from fim/ice cares, and as kane says its moot anyway. That said, now that its kicked off, this can only really be decided with a fight, so how about heads up a 1k nl freezeout on party pvt table we can get popcorn and watch?

[/ QUOTE ]
I second.

[Niwa]

Folding KK preflop in a game where his handrange could be all the way from 88-AA,AK. As Fimbul stated 29% would be enough for him not to have it to justify a call.

Iceman, I respect you as a poster but why on earth would you disagree with a hand that is so readdependent? Only a player sitting at the table could put him on a handrange.

You say 99% of the time this is AA. YES it is on 1/2, 2/4 NL full ring.
You should take in consideration that this is highstakes poker.

[RydenStoompala]

Really? If someone agees with Fimbul you "disappaear from this forum forever?" Bullcrap. And, for the record, his reply to your post was as far from a "tirade" as a comment can get. Look it up in the dictionary. It's not close.

There may have been a dorkier, less mature, brazenly moronic and inconceiveably egotistic thread written somewhere in the archives, but I sincerely doubt it.

[iceman5]

[ QUOTE ]
Folding KK preflop in a game where his handrange could be all the way from 88-AA,AK. As Fimbul stated 29% would be enough for him not to have it to justify a call.

Iceman, I respect you as a poster but why on earth would you disagree with a hand that is so readdependent? Only a player sitting at the table could put him on a handrange.

You say 99% of the time this is AA. YES it is on 1/2, 2/4 NL full ring.
You should take in consideration that this is highstakes poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Diablo opened to $150...villian minimum raised to $250. Another guy called the $250. Diablo reraised to $1075 and villain minimum raised AGAIN to $1900.

Ive seen a guy minimum raise liek this maybe 10 times and he had AA every time. If you know of a hand where someone min raised twice preflop and didnt have AA, please post it.

29% was the cutoff they came up with. Thats 3.5:1. The odds have to be closer to 50-1 that he has AA. Diablo didnt want to fold since he was in so deep even though he knew deep down the guy had AA and you wont convince me otherwise. Did you read the thread and see how many people were sure he had AA? I dont think this is tough to see at all.

[MikeL05]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no lack of confidence. In fact, he just called me arrogant and I dont think its possible to be both.

Hes insinuating that I have no clue and I want to know if thats the general consensus around here. Thats all.

Its amazing what happens in this forum when you disagree with one of the masters. There is more than one way to play winning poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are, most certainly, arrogant. See my post on W$SD for an example of how you added nothing to a discussion while also being annoying.

If you'd cut that [censored] out of your posting repertoire, however, I do tend to like what you post. And, for what it's worth, I like the check-raising article... ESPECIALLY if you have the sample size and winrate to back up the fact that it works.

Sadly, I did enjoy seeing fimbulwinter's posts too, until he has proven himself to be even more immature than someone who is just plain arrogant. FYI, the whole "pretending to ignore someone" hasn't worked since 1995.

Let's cut the crap and talk poker. If someone's insulting your rep here, just try to assume that people will read what you each write and come to their own conclusions.

[iceman5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no lack of confidence. In fact, he just called me arrogant and I dont think its possible to be both.

Hes insinuating that I have no clue and I want to know if thats the general consensus around here. Thats all.

Its amazing what happens in this forum when you disagree with one of the masters. There is more than one way to play winning poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are, most certainly, arrogant. See my post on W$SD for an example of how you added nothing to a discussion while also being annoying.

If you'd cut that [censored] out of your posting repertoire, however, I do tend to like what you post. And, for what it's worth, I like the check-raising article... ESPECIALLY if you have the sample size and winrate to back up the fact that it works.

Sadly, I did enjoy seeing fimbulwinter's posts too, until he has proven himself to be even more immature than someone who is just plain arrogant. FYI, the whole "pretending to ignore someone" hasn't worked since 1995.

Let's cut the crap and talk poker. If someone's insulting your rep here, just try to assume that people will read what you each write and come to their own conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I most certainly added something to your thread. You asked what a good WSD rate was and I averaged some of the best players in my database and gave you the results.

I also said my rate was higher than that, which isnt really a good thing. I think I may be weak tight and fold the best hand too often because I win a few TOO MANY showdowns in my opinion

I will make a sincere attempt to cut back on sounding arrogant. Thats really not me and not how I want to be perceived

[ML4L]

My thoughts on the matter, for whatever they are worth:

re: iceman5

My honest assessment is that you have an average understanding of the game. You have a good working knowledge of the basics, but the conceptual framework that you use to make decisions seems a little flawed. Thus, the advice that you post regarding easy/common decisions is generally good. However, you seem to lack the tools and perspective to analyze complex situations.

You also seem to be a little on the weak-tight side.

re: the forum

The good news is that I'm fairly certain that what I wrote above would have applied PERFECTLY to me about a year and a half ago. And, the thing that has helped me improve my game is 2+2. Why on earth you would consider giving up what is, without a doubt, the best tool in existence for improving one's game on account of what people think of you and your posts is beyond me...? So, regardless of the outcome of your poll, I hope that you stick around, for your own sake.

As to staying for the sake of others, I find it hard to believe that any poster who posts poker content could be a net negative to the forum. Even if someone gives out bad advice pretty consistently, people around here are generally pretty good about jumping on people when they give bad advice... And, as KKF pointed out, "caveat emptor" applies to any advice found on a public forum.

And, of course, giving bad advice and getting called on it is part of the learning process.

re: internet drama amongst strangers

See: title of my post.

ML4L

[iceman5]

[ QUOTE ]
My thoughts on the matter, for whatever they are worth:

re: iceman5

My honest assessment is that you have an average understanding of the game.

Change that to above avg and I agree with you. Avg, would mean Im probably around break even for a middle stakes games like $1/$2 and $2/$4 and Im far from that.

You have a good working knowledge of the basics, but the conceptual framework that you use to make decisions seems a little flawed. Thus, the advice that you post regarding easy/common decisions is generally good. However, you seem to lack the tools and perspective to analyze complex situations.

Agree completely. There are alot of hands posted that someone gives advice, alot of people agree and Im left shaking my head because I dont understand how that is correct. Hence, the main reason Im still playing $1/$2 and $2/$4 when I have the bankroll for the $10/$20NL game.

You also seem to be a little on the weak-tight side.

Agree, but I like low variance, so its a fairly good trade off for me.
re: the forum

The good news is that I'm fairly certain that what I wrote above would have applied PERFECTLY to me about a year and a half ago. And, the thing that has helped me improve my game is 2+2. Why on earth you would consider giving up what is, without a doubt, the best tool in existence for improving one's game on account of what people think of you and your posts is beyond me...? So, regardless of the outcome of your poll, I hope that you stick around, for your own sake.

As to staying for the sake of others, I find it hard to believe that any poster who posts poker content could be a net negative to the forum. Even if someone gives out bad advice pretty consistently, people around here are generally pretty good about jumping on people when they give bad advice... And, as KKF pointed out, "caveat emptor" applies to any advice found on a public forum.

And, of course, giving bad advice and getting called on it is part of the learning process.

re: internet drama amongst strangers

See: title of my post.

ML4L

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your comments. Its nice to get an unbiased persons review every now and then.

[BZ_Zorro]

I know you're trying to let this thread die, had to add my bit.

I'm a lurker here, and for the record, your advice is good reading. Unlike some of these jokers, you offer your own common sense and experience openly, which is what this forum is about. Any idiot can say 'but Ray said...' and be correct, but no one learns anything.

Regarding fim, what you said in the other thread summed it up pretty nicely.

BZ