OT: Excerpted by Citanul: Proving I'm not a bot

[KennyBanya]

I have no idea if unreal/juicy is a bot, but I would be curious to know why he did not answer the popups.

It seems like it would have made his life much simpler.

Peace,

KennyBanya

[PartySNGer]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea if unreal/juicy is a bot, but I would be curious to know why he did not answer the popups.

It seems like it would have made his life much simpler.

Peace,

KennyBanya

[/ QUOTE ]

Party isn't stupid, they wouldn't just close the account of a big money player and member of 2+2 boards if there wasn't something fishy going on with his account. The guy plays $22s and he's higher on the leaderboard than ppl who are playing $215s and $109s 40+ hours a week. That is virtually impossible unless someone is playing shifts on his account (prob also illegal) or he is a bot. Also, why wouldn't he just move up instead of playing this many $22s? It's probably possible for a bot to do well with a basic push/fold strategy in the $22s, but this prob wouldn't work at higher levels. That is likely the reason he's stayed at $22s. No sane person would play that many $22s without moving up or going broke.

[Degen]

[ QUOTE ]
No sane person would play that many $22s without moving up or going broke.


[/ QUOTE ]

This whole thing smells fishy, but this statement is very very untrue. I think a REALLY sane person would play the 22's if they were just after the money and felt their hourly was better 10 tabling them continous than say 4 tabling the 109's in sets. I sometimes wish I had control of my ego enough to play at a lower level than my bankroll will allow to have a more stable stream of income.

Many top posters here have tried to do this, some are trying to do it right now.

[PartySNGer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No sane person would play that many $22s without moving up or going broke.


[/ QUOTE ]

This whole thing smells fishy, but this statement is very very untrue. I think a REALLY sane person would play the 22's if they were just after the money and felt their hourly was better 10 tabling them continous than say 4 tabling the 109's in sets. I sometimes wish I had control of my ego enough to play at a lower level than my bankroll will allow to have a more stable stream of income.

Many top posters here have tried to do this, some are trying to do it right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming all you care about is cash I refuse to believe it isn't more profitable moving up the SNG ladder. If you have played a few thousand $22s and you are doing reasonably well and are a solid player it is crazy not to attempt to move up. Your ROI doesn't have to be near as good in the 55s to make more than the 22s, and there is no way the competition is twice as good. I have a double digit ROI at the 55s and as soon as my BR is sufficient I'm definitely moving up to 109s. There is no way the 109s are twice as tough as the 55s so it would make no sense for me to stay at the 55s longer than I had to. The only players who SHOULD stay at the 22s after 5000 or so SNGs are ones who have a ROI of under 10%. They probably wouldn't fare very well in the 55s. Even then I would recommend playing the 33s. Keep in mind if you have a 10% ROI at the 22s and have played 5000 you will have over $10,000 in profit (not including RB). You're saying that this person should stay at 22s instead of moving up to 33s? That is crazy advice.

[ QUOTE ]

Party isn't stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you a bot [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]