|
|
#31
10-27-2005, 10:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Fish at 100/200?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I am up in the game in the long run. [/ QUOTE ] So...How long is the long run ? [/ QUOTE ] Good lord I don't know. I've played a lot of hands on pokerstars. I don't think I'm up big or anythign. If I had to guess, I'd guess i'm at .5 bb/100 over 150k hands. [/ QUOTE ] that's pretty good 
|
|
#32
10-27-2005, 10:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fish at 100/200?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I have no idea how i found this post. [/ QUOTE ] impossible. [/ QUOTE ] edit- i was looking through scheids' old posts and didn't realize how old this one was.
|
|
#33
10-27-2005, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fish at 100/200?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I am up in the game in the long run. [/ QUOTE ] So...How long is the long run ? [/ QUOTE ] Good lord I don't know. I've played a lot of hands on pokerstars. I don't think I'm up big or anythign. If I had to guess, I'd guess i'm at .5 bb/100 over 150k hands. [/ QUOTE ] Actually there is no way this is true. I just realized that would mean I was up 150k in the game. That just isn't true. I'm going to change my estimate to .3 bb/100 over 100k hands, which would be 60k. I'm up somewhere between $50k and $100k in the game, and I'd guess I've played somewhere between 40k and 80k hands. I think my first estimate on how many hands I had played was way too high. Most of the money I won was a long time ago- I'm talking 2003.
|
|
#34
10-30-2005, 03:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fish at 100/200?
[ QUOTE ]
I have watched the 100/200 at Stars on and off and it seems like there are fish. I understand there are fish at every level but it seems no tougher to beat than a 10/20 game. What do you guys think? [/ QUOTE ] (1)Most limits higher than you play look easier from the rail than they are from the table - that I am sure of. (2) at 100/200 I suspect there are not as many true "fish". Moreso, it's probaly the very good players making some "average/good" players look weak. I'm not sure what the life expectancy of a true "fish" would be at 100/200. I know I can't afford to find out [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
|
|
#35
10-30-2005, 04:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fish at 100/200?
[ QUOTE ]
gus hansen is a high stakes limit fish. so is phil helmuth. [/ QUOTE ] You ain't kidding. I took a shot at 150/300 on UB the other day because Hellmuth was in there chasing QJo on Axx board (called flop and turn bet), limp-2calling K3s, etc. He left and the table went from 10 to 4 handed within an orbit... 2nd
|
|
#36
10-31-2005, 02:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fish at 100/200?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I am up in the game in the long run. [/ QUOTE ] So...How long is the long run ? [/ QUOTE ] Good lord I don't know. I've played a lot of hands on pokerstars. I don't think I'm up big or anythign. If I had to guess, I'd guess i'm at .5 bb/100 over 150k hands. [/ QUOTE ] Actually there is no way this is true. I just realized that would mean I was up 150k in the game. That just isn't true. I'm going to change my estimate to .3 bb/100 over 100k hands, which would be 60k. I'm up somewhere between $50k and $100k in the game, and I'd guess I've played somewhere between 40k and 80k hands. I think my first estimate on how many hands I had played was way too high. Most of the money I won was a long time ago- I'm talking 2003. [/ QUOTE ] I am convinced that the Stars 1/2 game has gotten a LOT tougher since 2003. While I wasn't playing it back then, I knew people who were beating it at the time and some of them did not impress me very much at all. Plus almost none of these guys play it with any regularity today. I would characterize the Stars 1/2 game today as having a variance/EV ratio that makes it almost not worth playing. Ocassionally tho, the game is good when certain famous players are in the game.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
