|
|
#31
08-31-2005, 05:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound like a dick...but.... I laugh at your $200. [/ QUOTE ] It's not the money. $200 doesn't bug me. 50 big bets does. It's the LOSING that bugs me, y'dig? And at 2/4, no less. [ QUOTE ] It does suck having big hands go down. Last night some monkey called 2 cold on 3rd, a double on 4th from me showing AA with 2 4 A 6. He won. The fact that you could lose 50 BB in just 100 hands is good though. Because it means you are getting action, and perhaps some lose raises. Just keep at it. [/ QUOTE ] I'll probably come back because I am determined to become world-class at all the games. But I'm going to take some time off and study some more. Maybe stick to hi/lo for awhile. 
|
|
#32
08-31-2005, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
If you are "eternally" running bad at low-limit stud, AND, as you insist, you are playing well, then I can come to only one conclusion...you are delusional. It's not possible to play well at low limit stud and lose on a consistent basis. [/ QUOTE ] Duh. I was exaggerating.
|
|
#33
08-31-2005, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
Ahh...the old ad hominem attack. I would have respected your reply far more if you had not implied that I was an "idiot". How did that add to your argument? [/ QUOTE ] Dude, just back off. jon_1van > you.
|
|
#35
08-31-2005, 06:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
I seldom have a losing session and is seems to me that I can say the same about most of my respected opponents. [/ QUOTE ] OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love these people. They are the Mike McDermott's of low limit tables. Always making the right folds, and never behind in a hand. If you are as good as you say you are at low limit stud, you wouldn't play low limit stud. Just from making a statement like that, I know you have no understanding of poker.
|
|
#36
08-31-2005, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I seldom have a losing session and is seems to me that I can say the same about most of my respected opponents. [/ QUOTE ] OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love these people. They are the Mike McDermott's of low limit tables. Always making the right folds, and never behind in a hand. If you are as good as you say you are at low limit stud, you wouldn't play low limit stud. Just from making a statement like that, I know you have no understanding of poker. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know who Mike McDermott is and I never said I was never behind and always made the right fold. I also admitted that I have a much harder time winning at higher limits. All I really said was that I can regularly beat low limit stud. Why is that so hard to believe? I play with other folks who can as well. I really don't understand the vituperative attacks based on those statements. I apologize if I've offended. I won't post again. PS...I also wouldn't blow the inmates of any cell block no matter how far down I was. Classy!
|
|
#37
08-31-2005, 07:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
Ahh...the old ad hominem attack. I would have respected your reply far more if you had not implied that I was an "idiot". How did that add to your argument? [/ QUOTE ] Oooooh a big word - ad hominem - wow, I'm impressed. To answer your question, implieing you were an idoit did not add to my augument. However, you still have not provided the information that you implied you would when you wrote "you first". So I'm still waiting to see some numbers. However, impling you were and idiot did not change that fact that making assumptions based on small sample sizes is ill-advised.
|
|
#38
08-31-2005, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
It's the LOSING that bugs me, y'dig? And at 2/4, no less [/ QUOTE ] I definetly feel for you here. The difference in "happiness" I feel when I book a +10-15 BB win vs booking a -5 BB lose is soooo much bigger than the difference between +10-15 vs +50-70. Even though this should not be the case. I play to "win" (However much that will bother Jeffage and a 2nd poster I respect that I can't remeber right now (beta or Blumpkin))
|
|
#39
08-31-2005, 07:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
I beg your pardon. So did you have a valid point or were you just whining about losing? [/ QUOTE ] Whining about losing. That should have been obvious from the NO CONTENT remark in the subject line.
|
|
#40
08-31-2005, 08:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
Whining about losing. That should have been obvious from the NO CONTENT remark in the subject line. [/ QUOTE ] It DID make for an interesting thread. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
