NegroPls

If Dreamclown had 50 million on the table and DN had 250k, would the thought of him risking 200 times as much even cross his mind? The only argument that is of any substance is that being able to go all in before the river potentially negates some of Dreamclown's advantage, and he doesn't want to play under those conditions. If Dreamclown happens to read this, I have a proposition for you. We'll set a program to pick a number from 1-100 at $1/per, with me taking 1-51 and you taking 52-100. I'll put up $1 million you put up$100 and we'll have freezeouts until you say stop. You could win 1

I'll take all 5k or whatever is left. Contact me and we'll work out what intermediary we'll use to hold the money.

So you either can't remember things you say several hours previous after devoting several posts to a back and forth, or you're lying. Either way, I feel pretty stupid for arguing on the internet. If this was a place of discussion in real life you'd have to admit your mistakes or sullenly run away from the argument in defeat, like every bully I've ever confronted. Unfortunately, I'm the fool since you're behind the safety of a computer to inure yourself against any kind of accountability for your words.

Don't take it out on him just because I savaged you so badly in our argument you gave up on giving hubris chockalockfull "People I wouldn't get along with get their ego wrapped up in petty things" responses. =(

Considering amongst all the proclamations of how off those figures are, without anyone that I saw giving the actual numbers of this answer, how am I to know it's widely known without a shadow of a doubt? Poker players, especially forum members speak confidently and in hyperbole about all sorts of ambiguous things. Why would I ask why it's not sustainable? The only possible reason it's not sustainable is that you can expect a lower maximum hourly rate when you beat that game. I addressed the issue of the hourly rate, making someone's only constructive contention "This is what the maximum hou

It's one thing if you're explaining to ignorant people what the facts are, and they're infuriatingly arguing with you and not listening and learning, but that is not the case. Maybe that's what has happened many times before and has gotten you to this point. But if you're so impatient with people who don't know things that have been made clear to you, and don't want to take time to teach them these things, why even reply at all? Do you really think saying "Wrong. I know." is satisfactory to people curious about something? When someone goes "Is the answer 15?" and people say "No." and I sa

I doesn't take omniscience to say this is unsustainable. It just takes a brain.Poker is about the LONG RUN' date=' not a couple hundred or even a couple thousand hands.The sooner you understand this, the sooner you will be able to be a successful poker player. Until then, you can feel good about that 2000 dollars you made "one time." (You know, right before you lost 4000 the next week, because you were playing over your head.)[/quote']Not sure how to make it all show up in the box, I'm new to this, but that was the quote and this is where my post begins:Well here's what my non-existent brai

Even I didn't address the fact that your analogy implies that a 10-15$ win rate of successful low max buy in no limit hold em players is something with PILES AND PILES of documented insurmountable evidence against it that EVERYONE EXCEPT TOTAL RETARDS knows of, or the fact that judging from your analogy you regard anything you know as such, you STILL are posting a conversation where you say nothing except 'Wrong it's this' repeatedly without explaining or being constructive in any way. Why makes these posts? THIS is what I addressed with this statement: 'Do you understand now why some of you

This is the progression of the discussion so you understand what you just posted.You: That's totally ridiculous.Me: I have heard evidence to the contrary. I might be off some, but ridiculous?Likeminded Poster: It's totally ridiculous. Me: Well, I'll get results and we'll find out.You: No reason to, it's totally ridiculous.Do you understand now why some of your unproductive contrary posts with implied omniscence might rub some people the wrong way?

thats $10-15/hour PER TABLE. thats ridiculous. these numbers are perfectly believable. im sure hes made this money. this is not the question. the question is can he SUSTAIN this rate. the answer is no. to suggest otherwise would require ignoring pretty much every mathematical principle relating to poker. you find me one player who is making 15bb/hr/table at any limit over a sample size >20k hands. find me one. i dare you. i double dog dare you.I edited this because I thought you were saying 15 BIG BETS and didn't understand that he was playing no limit, not limit. But from a later post you

I don't understand how so many of the posters find these numbers to be so unbelievable. Maybe some of the people replying (with totally inappropriate aggression, by the way. Why instigate negativity when there is none?) didn't note that he is playing 3 games at once. As someone before posted, that's 10-15$ hour. That's totally consistent with the results my friends who play these limits professionally report. Even if I'm mistaken and it is somewhat high, it's far from "astronomical."

I can't think of a single reasonable explanation for why you should ever check on the river if you feel you're beating your non-all-in opponent.