|
|
#12
08-12-2005, 05:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: This may be Dan Druffesque...
[ QUOTE ]
the high limits especially test your ability to "be" with yourself without going nuts. [/ QUOTE ] really well put. 
|
|
#13
08-12-2005, 07:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This may be Dan Druffesque...
[ QUOTE ]
me too.. say it ain's so paluka. poor game selection? every time i see the game going, it's full of donkeys and jokers. i'd say that if you sat in a random 1/2 game going on stars there's at least a 70% chance you're the best player sitting. [/ QUOTE ] I have to admit I sorta threw game selection in there. I also have a problem where I try to play NL some times, but I think I tilt at NL because I'm not that strong of a NL player and it is easy to justify bad plays to myself. Mostly I'm just on a losing streak, and I'm not good at handling them. So it is best for me if I drop down to lower limits until I have a nice little run and feel good again. Then I can give myself a "damn, you are so good" speech in the mirror in the mornign the way guys like Bicylcekick, Phil Hellmuth, and El Diablo do.
|
|
#14
08-12-2005, 08:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This may be Dan Druffesque...
SORT of on topic but a bit of a hijack...
Is there anyone on this board who has a substantial number of hands at Party Poker PLUS at least another site or three all at the same stakes with substantially bigger wins at the non-PP sites...? It seems from how most talk (and from my own results) that PP really is the place to be. EVEN if you're playing micro-limit $1-$2, aren't you giving up profits by chasing bonuses...? Random early morning tangent complete. As an aside, just remember, Chris, next time you starting losing on UB, challenge anyone to a heads-up Solomon draft. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
|
#15
08-12-2005, 08:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This may be Dan Druffesque...
Agreed. If you haven't played 50-100 or above, you really wouldn't understand. It tests your mettle. It makes you question who you are, how good you are, and everything you thought you knew about yourself.
It results in you playing 84o. It is very, very challenging mentally. TSP
|
|
#16
08-12-2005, 08:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This may be Dan Druffesque...
He rules nothing. From what I hear about Clark, he's kinda like W . . . . All hat, no cattle.
TSP
|
|
#17
08-12-2005, 09:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This may be Dan Druffesque...
Another thing I think that messes me up:
I am not a full time player. I have good job that I'm happy with, so I don't play that much poker. If I go on a 15k hand losing streak, it lasts a long time. So I go through some prolonged periods of time where I feel like I'm losing, but really it isn't that many hands.
|
|
#18
08-12-2005, 10:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This may be Dan Druffesque...
[ QUOTE ]
me too.. say it ain's so paluka. poor game selection? every time i see the game going, it's full of donkeys and jokers. i'd say that if you sat in a random 1/2 game going on stars there's at least a 70% chance you're the best player sitting. [/ QUOTE ] Some of those seemingly donkish players play surprisingly well, especially post-flop. There are quite a few regulars or semi-regulars there whose only major weakness is they play too many hands. Most posters on these forum would not have much of an edge over them post-flop (if at all). And if your only edge is that you play better (tighter) pre-flop, you are going to have a small expectation relative to your variance. Can make for prolonged dry spells and losing sessions. And remember, even if you're the best player at a table, it doesn't mean the game is worth playing. It really is how BAD the worse players play that matters, not whether you're the best or 3rd best. And if you're playing 4 handed with a bunch of guys whose primary weakness is that they're too loose pre-flop, well, your edge is simply not very great.
|
|
#19
08-12-2005, 10:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This may be Dan Druffesque...
Yea, you certainly play better than I do. But I left BOTH of these sites for the same reasons lol. The 80-160 on UB is like crack and I got killed at it. 3-tabling 20-40 and 30-60 is much less stressful and plenty profitable.
Jeff
|
|
#20
08-12-2005, 10:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This may be Dan Druffesque...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] me too.. say it ain's so paluka. poor game selection? every time i see the game going, it's full of donkeys and jokers. i'd say that if you sat in a random 1/2 game going on stars there's at least a 70% chance you're the best player sitting. [/ QUOTE ] Some of those seemingly donkish players play surprisingly well, especially post-flop. There are quite a few regulars or semi-regulars there whose only major weakness is they play too many hands. Most posters on these forum would not have much of an edge over them post-flop (if at all). And if your only edge is that you play better (tighter) pre-flop, you are going to have a small expectation relative to your variance. Can make for prolonged dry spells and losing sessions. And remember, even if you're the best player at a table, it doesn't mean the game is worth playing. It really is how BAD the worse players play that matters, not whether you're the best or 3rd best. And if you're playing 4 handed with a bunch of guys whose primary weakness is that they're too loose pre-flop, well, your edge is simply not very great. [/ QUOTE ] This thread pretty much summed things up perfectly. Great post.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
