|
|
#21
10-09-2005, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pokerstars 10/20NL right now (no cont.)
[ QUOTE ]
"2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer" [/ QUOTE ] Poker is always played for money, golf is not. So while it is easy to label amateurs in golf, I say there is no clear distinction between amateur and professional in poker. If you want to stand by this definition and assert that poker is "often engaged in by amateurs" then how do you define amateur? I guess you could say players who don't know the rules are amateurs, or that players who lose money are amateurs, but then you are taking the position that all winning poker players are "professionals". [ QUOTE ] That having been said, I agree with your general point (i.e. there are a ton of "recreational" players, El Diablo being one of them, who are far better than the poster). [/ QUOTE ] So it sounds like you accept a basic dichotomy between the "recreational" and "professional" player in poker. I'm curious what your criteria are. Especially since you call El Diablo a recreational player even though by the definition that you posted it seems he is a pro (he participates for [monetary] gain in the endeavor of poker). 
|
|
#22
10-09-2005, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerstars 10/20NL right now (no cont.)
How much have you played with these players?
Based on my understanding of the term "fish", especially coming from someone who plays primarily on partypoker (correct if i'm wrong), I would say your comments come off as rather arrogant. I'm not saying any of these players should be "run from", but Twin and Tillerman are not worse than Bbuddy especially when you factor Bbuddy's drunken tilt phases of moving all in preflop every hand for hours. I'm curious what experience makes you label Tillerman an "uberfish" lol.
|
|
#23
10-09-2005, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerstars 10/20NL right now (no cont.)
Kane was unfairly harsh on twin.
"buddy = good player, who does does dumb things." I would apply exactly this to twin as well. As for Tillerman, I've only played with him a few times, but he just seems to be a rock. Oh, and he lost that AAAA hand, haha.
|
|
#25
10-09-2005, 06:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerstars 10/20NL right now (no cont.)
I think ML4L was simply saying that there are guys who play poker for a living (professionals) and guys who do something else for a living and have poker as a hobby (recreational players, like me). I don't think it's very hard to distinguish between the two, and it doesn't have anything to do with skill level.
|
|
#26
10-09-2005, 06:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerstars 10/20NL right now (no cont.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer" [/ QUOTE ] Poker is always played for money, golf is not. So while it is easy to label amateurs in golf, I say there is no clear distinction between amateur and professional in poker. If you want to stand by this definition and assert that poker is "often engaged in by amateurs" then how do you define amateur? I guess you could say players who don't know the rules are amateurs, or that players who lose money are amateurs, but then you are taking the position that all winning poker players are "professionals". [/ QUOTE ] I have no real thoughts on what label certain individuals use with regard to themselves and others. I was merely pointing out that you were incorrect when you said: [ QUOTE ] "Professional" literally means someone who is paid. [/ QUOTE ] It "literally" does not. With regard to poker, I think that there are many reasonable/arbitrary definitions of what it means to be a professional, yours being one of them. All I was pointing out was that your alleged definition of the word "professional" was off-base. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] That having been said, I agree with your general point (i.e. there are a ton of "recreational" players, El Diablo being one of them, who are far better than the poster). [/ QUOTE ] So it sounds like you accept a basic dichotomy between the "recreational" and "professional" player in poker. [/ QUOTE ] The reason that I used quotation marks was because I thought OP's distinction was ridiculous. There are a ton of people on this forum, such as Diablo, who could make a nice living at poker if they wanted to. But, they choose not to. Therefore, Diablo is a "recreational" player by most definitions. Whereas, some guy who 16-tables $50 NL and makes $30,000 a year is a "professional" if he doesn't have a job. Certainly, the recreational/professional label has minimal correlation with a player's skill level. Which I believe was your point. And I agree. [ QUOTE ] I'm curious what your criteria are. Especially since you call El Diablo a recreational player even though by the definition that you posted it seems he is a pro (he participates for [monetary] gain in the endeavor of poker). [/ QUOTE ] With regard to poker, it should be obvious that the emphasis in the dictionary definition should be on "livelihood" rather than "gain." A lot of people dabble in the stock market with their savings, which like poker, inherently involves money. That does not mean that such people are "professional" stock traders. Hopefully that clears things up. ML4L
|
|
#29
10-09-2005, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerstars 10/20NL right now (no cont.)
[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious what experience makes you label Tillerman an "uberfish" lol. [/ QUOTE ] um...his reputation on these forums and the fact that he managed to lose all of his previous tourney winnings and put himself in debt???????
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
