consolation prizes

{This post has been removed}

{This post has been removed}

[vqc]

just gambool.

[arkana]

Both those hands were horrible. You might be a good tourney player but you were the fish at this table.

[Pingviini]

Seeing you saying rolling the dice at 3/6 makes me sad, it really does I have heard you saying "no more ring, I belong to tourneys" for quite a few times and honestly, I think that is the way it should be, you are a good tourney player where your aggression gives you hell of a lot folding equity but if you are going to play stakes this high, especially with a short stack you, your biggest edge is gone.

Ripptyde, my friend: do not fuck with br management again, do not play ring at stakes too high again. You will just get burned.

Poker surely isnt a zero science, but it sure as hell also isnt about gambling (without pot odds justifying).

EDIT: WTF were you doing playing NL1k with a $252 stack!!! have you lost your friggin mind?!! I personally couldnt think of a more -EV game than playing stakes way too high for my BR and skills severely short stacked. You know that I dont intend to be an asshole even though I may sound like one because of preaching about this, but this all should be obvious. I would hate a friend busting his br again like this

{This post has been removed}

[Pingviini]

Firstly, I didnt say anything about the hands, I thought I didnt need to

second, I didnt say that you suck in ring, I mentioned that playing stakes too high short stacked isnt a good idea and that it'll burn you. Playing .25/.50 6max is a whole different thing than playing 3/6 or 5/10 full.

[arkana]

That money is significant to your bankroll, no? Where it comes from doesn't change that.

Your fold equity in tournaments are much higher than what they are in cash games, so you cant pull these stunts as successfully in cash games.

In the first hand you are betting $120 to win $90, so this needs to work 60% of the time in this situation. It won't. You have 4 outs so the odds of your hand improving is small. Plus your potstruck mentality will lead you to lose even more when the opponent does have a real hand. -EV

Look at how much I had invested already in the pot and THEN tell me I should have folded them after the reREraises

It doesn't matter how much you have invested, when the other guy is all in there is no more folding equity and its a pot odds question. You had about 3:1 pot odds which is pretty good, but your odds of winning the hand isnt that good against hands that are willing to push here.

Board: Qd 7c 3c
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 16.4646 % [ 00.16 00.00 ] { 3d2d }
Hand 2: 83.5354 % [ 00.84 00.00 ] { KcQc }

Even if he doesnt have the flush draw you dont have the odds:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 22.1212 % [ 00.22 00.00 ] { 3d2d }
Hand 2: 77.8788 % [ 00.78 00.00 ] { KcQs }

Reraise bluffing is a very expensive habit since you end up winning small pots and losing big pots. At least make sure you have decent outs if you get called otherwise you will be borrowing money from people again sooner rather than later.

{This post has been removed}

[arkana]

math schmath....I play my READS not numbers by the book...and yes I take expensive chances but more often than not my hefty reraises force folds....I play a brand of aggressive poker that you wont find on any probability chart. Playing back at someone when they lead out is often just enough to force a fold and you wont be able to execute this maneuver successfully with mini raises....a bluff is a COMMITTMENT and the reason why most bluffs dont work for many players is because they dont grab their balls hard enough

So what were your 'READS' in these two hands? Just because you are not interested in the underlying math in these situations doesn't mean it isnt valid. You will go broke making plays like these, I guarantee you. Yes you have an unique style which has its pros and its cons, but to me it seems like you don't really know what they are. Its maximising winnings and minimising losses, not just maximising winnings.

{This post has been removed}

[r8ed]

Not to be a jerk and I'm sure you've heard this before - but poker and gambling are not exactly the same thing. Those hands and some others you post look like pure gambling against all odds. I know you are playing the player, but when they play back at you - you have to recognize it. You can have some amazing sessions where everything clicks, but you can't selectively remember those ones and forget about the ones where you lose your shirt.

I know that you understand how to play great poker - you easily know more than I do. However, I think you often choose to ignore your knowledge for the thrill of the big win. You are putting yourself in situations where you either win big or lose big. But when you win, you immediately put yourself back in the same situation. I know nothing about you except for what you post here. Based on those posts, this is my perception.

If you ever took a hard look at things and made (even minor) changes to your outlook, you could be big in poker. I think everyone here knows that.

[edudlive]

First hand, you got lucky that your gutshot hit your bluff, but nh anyway

Hand 2, wow, you got very lucky lol

Congrats on your win!

[CrunchyNuts]

math schmath....I play my READS not numbers by the book

reads shmeeds....I play by what ODDS are on the table and not what I believe my opponents are holding.

The better player, naturally, is the one that uses both.

[DaHorror]

Unbelievable...I see this type of play all the time (and sometimes fall victim to it) at the $10 NL tables...I label this type of player "Overaggressive lucky fish".

Interesting gambling...the second one in particular.

[biondino]

So you owe people money but when you came into some that would have paid your debts, you went and gambled with it, then boatsed about the fact?

I hope you've paid your debts with your lucky winnings.

{This post has been removed}

[Rondavu]

Not to be Captain Advocate, but why are you guys slamming rip? He's a grown man for christ sakes. He's a gambler at heart. He set aside a certain portion of his bankroll to stay safe with and pay people back or whatever, and rolled the dice with some recent winnings on a chance to really break through a new level. Dwarfman, you invented the dwarfman challenge. It's not too far removed in philosophy from the technique rip employed. He used winnings to move up.

As for these hands, I think he was showing the acception not the rule. I do think you misenterpret the meaning of committment in cash game however rip. I'm referring to the second hand where you called an extra $82 after putting $120 in on overaggression with bottom pair of 3's with a 2 kicker. In order to call the extra $82, you have to win that hand at least 22% of the time you call if my math is close ($357.pot/$82.call = 22%). Do you see that realistically happening with bottom pair shit kicker? I'm thinking you might win here about 8% of the time against random confident holdings off the top of my head. I think you're liberal with aggression already, so you really can't afford to be liberal with your math as well. It's a bad combo. I'm just saying think about it. The image advantage you gain doesn't seem to justify, but I could be wrong. Find a fold here.

I'm just laying out my perspective. You are your own man, albeit one with a dangerous sort of hunger.

{This post has been removed}

[ake]

I'm pretty sure if it was a nobody posting these hands everyone would rag on him. Just that it's rippy changes peoples attitute, "he has his own style" and what not...

Oh well, atleast I enjoyed those hand histories and the poor sobs comments

[Rondavu]

I think people are just worried about you man. They know you're a gambler. I'm sure many people in here shave the sheep once in while playing above their roll. I've played 400NL with a $1500 roll before buying in short. These people aren't you though. I'm a low variance player. You're a variance machine. It's the nature of your style. Some kids play closer to the pool. It makes it more dangerous to play over your head.

[Kiriath]

I love the losers comments, makes me smile!

about ur play though... I see the points in hand 1, but u cant just ignor the fact that ur fighting math when u make the call in hand 2. Bad call!!

That being said, I knew excatly where its coming from, when ive been grinding for a few hours and one of the cash games gets shorthanded, sometimes I just say fuck it and go TAG to LAG in 1 hand, its extreemly funny to call shortstack allins preflop with 67s, just to have a laught when u suck out on em every thierd time.

And its not even that expensive, just a different style =)

[DaNutsInYoEye]

I understand the way some people feel, but I don't understand the severity of some of the responses. What happened to us being a community of constructive criticism? Venomous comments are not necessary and do nothing to help the situation. They only perpetuate animosity.

As for financial arrangements (staking, owing money, being owed, etc.), you'd be better served discussing them in private and not displaying them for public viewing. If you are not involved in any such arrangement then you should keep your mouth shut. You have no more right to critique someone's financial dealings with others than you do their religious affiliation or family life. Simply put... mind your own damn business.

Rippy, over the past few weeks I have seen you play $6 SNGs, $11 SNGs, 0.10/0.25 ring, 0.25/0.50 ring, and $10+0.50 HU matches. I was happy to see you playing within your bankroll. I was hoping that you were finally getting your BR issues under control. You get a nice win last night though and the first thing you do is splash around in 3/6 NL. You yourself referred to it as "rolling the dice." This is what many of us have problems with. Good BR management is necessary at all times. It is not just to conserve your money when you're running bad. It's applies when you're grinding it out, when you're swinging up and down, and it applies after a big win as well.

It's good to reward yourself, but when you're trying to build up a BR (which I assume you are) perhaps investing 20% of your winnings is a bit too much. Instead of putting $120 into a short buy-in at 3/6 NL, why not play a $50 SNG instead? You still have the opportunity to play for bigger money, but you're investing considerably less. You need to find a way to balance your craving for higher stakes with the need to preserve your bankroll.

We worry about you Ripp, that's the reason we give you a hard time. When you're seemingly regularly risking more than you should it frustrates people. No one wants to see you fail, but your actions are increasingly alienating yourself from people that otherwise would want to help you. Your antics have even gone as far as to become a joke to some people.

What's done is done though. Luckily you came out ahead. It would be nice to see you make better decisions in the future. You should be able to play the $15+1's and $20+2's now. Eventually you'll reach the $30+3, then the $50+5's... You're a good enough player to do it, but give yourself a fucking chance. The biggest obstacle holding you back is yourself. Realize that if you're smart about it, 3/6 NL can eventually become your regular game and not just the occasional "roll of the dice" with a short buy-in. We keep trying to pound that into your stubborn head. Eventually though people will quit pounding.

{This post has been removed}

[Fnord]

I play my READS not numbers by the book...

So why don't you collect stats? Do you feel your reads are better than knowing for a fact how a particular player has played for the last 100, 1000, more hands?

{This post has been removed}

{This post has been removed}

[CrunchyNuts]

thanks for a well thought out reply Nutz.

np mahn. Give them tourists hell

[ilikeaces86]

Rippy,

First of all Congrats on the 3rd place finish last night. I think you could be a great player if you just stay within your roll. Why not just grind out tons of sngs that you know you can beat and make thousands of dollars of those before you move up? Im worried about you man. Stay out of the ring! You cant steal and resteal in the ring like you can in tourneys. I hope you the best.

[Fnord]

I'm providing feedback under the assumption that you post here in an effort to make more money. You and I are past picking apart individual hands, there are bigger conceptual issues costing you money.

I think looking up a players betting habits and tendencies on a computer program is counter productive to the essense of the game and/or situation in front of you. Ive stated this dozens of times before in case you dont remember...I play my stack...my position......my cards and my opponents stack...PERIOD. Whether or not poker tracker tells me that player A is likely to mini raise under the gun is irrelevant and quite frankly I could care less.

You're giving up a lot here. Particularly when you're often getting the worst of it pre-flop. Once you're sold that knowing the other guy is extremely important, we'll address the thousands of players problem.

[Fnord]

Oh and another thing...Im playing much more LIVE poker now at various casinos here in Vegas and its a little tricky to collect 'stats' on players that blew in for a 3 day weekend.

Live poker is very different as you have hands going at a slower pace, overall looser and more passive play and a wealth of information to work with. Online, I'm playing 3-4 tables and 2-3x more hands per hour per table. Having help gathering information is key and lets me focus on stuff the program doesn't pick up on.

What's the difference between "I don't think this guy has raised pre-flop yet" and "this guy has raised pre-flop once in the 97 hands I have with him"? Which makes you feel more comfortable cutting off his action?

[LeFou]

I think a lot of the criticism in here is totally missing a few points:

Playing hands like this, and playing them "badly" is an integral part of their value as advertisement. Nobody has a clue what to make of ripptyde at the table.

:Qc: :Th:
Mike Caro says this is the most profitable hand you can play in draw poker. (The profit comes later)

One of the cute things about hold 'em is that the profit can come now -- i.e. via suckouts. So the ripp puts in a couple funny examples of this and everyone jumps on his case??!

{This post has been removed}

[Fnord]

Why didn't you think he was paired up? How does deeper money and the inability to threaten busting out change the texture of that hand?

What's the difference between getting lucky and having a read when we discuss a single hand in isolation with results? If he had AA and you had 66, then we'd both say that you had a "bad read" and "got lucky." However, did you get lucky here? By the same line of thought, if he happened to have AA, is it really a bad read?

87,120 games 0.020 secs 4,356,000 games/sec

Board: 7d 5h Td
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 55.6072 % 55.61% 00.00% { 6d6s }
Hand 2: 44.3928 % 44.39% 00.00% { JJ+, AJs+, KQs, AJo+, KQo }

Why are you so hostile towards looking at the hand this way?

How different is this than your on the fly decision making?

What if we knew more about his raising range?

[arkana]

I think a lot of the criticism in here is totally missing a few points:

Playing hands like this, and playing them "badly" is an integral part of their value as advertisement. Nobody has a clue what to make of ripptyde at the table.

As long as your returns are bigger than what your advertisements cost you. When you are advertising at the cost of 3x for what you bought in its fucking stupid, its not like he can reload now is it. Stop trying to be nice guys, you all know this was bad poker.

One of the cute things about hold 'em is that the profit can come now -- i.e. via suckouts. So the ripp puts in a couple funny examples of this and everyone jumps on his case??!

I have seen more than a few of these type of hands from him.

Rip: Take what DNuts said to heart, if i was a nice guy i would have said the same. You know you have potential, so stop this self destruction and work on becoming the best you can be. You can be a lot better than this.

[0live]

Standard...

[Fnord]

Standard...

O'rilly? Would someone like Aces, Soupie or DavSimon agree with that assement of the hand? My thought was that it's the kind of spot where a little information can go a long way.

87,120 games 0.020 secs 4,356,000 games/sec

Board: 7d 5h Td
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 55.6072 % 55.61% 00.00% { 6d6s }
Hand 2: 44.3928 % 44.39% 00.00% { JJ+, AJs+, KQs, AJo+, KQo }

[donkquestion] Fnord, what program is that you're using which does the cool range of hand percentiles like that? [/donkquestion].

[Fnord]

www.pokerstove.com

www.pokerstove.com

Thank you, Sir.

[0live]

Standard...

O'rilly? Would someone like Aces, Soupie or DavSimon agree with that assement of the hand? My thought was that it's the kind of spot where a little information can go a long way.

Fnord, have you ever heard of sarcasm? Oh, me neither.

[lamaros]

I have to disagree with Fnord here, although I can't really agree completely with ripptyde either.

I havn't got PT yet, though I am thinking about it, and I do collect notes of sorts on other players. However none of these things will affect my decision as much as what I have observed from the player during the current session. Not only are players able to deviate from their established patterns on purpose, they can also be affected in the spur of the moment. Their are indications that help you pick up on these kind of things (even online), and if you pay too much attention to other things and ignore this then you wont pratice the ability to get these reads.

Every time you act on one of these reads you train yourself at it. If it goes wrong you look back at what might have indicated that, or what threw you off, and you catologue it in your extensive library so as next time you make a similar decision you have more examples to filter through.

'Reading' is, in a sense, a skill picked up through osmosis. If you make the decision to push AI based off some stastical information then you don't really know if your read was correct or not.
The result is most useful in examining and refining the decision making process; if you dont act on reads, you wont train your reads.

But that doesn't mean yo uhave to do it to the exclusion of all else.

[Fnord]

*shrug* it's hard to speak from a position of autority on the value of a tool without having used it.

[LeFou]

I think a lot of the criticism in here is totally missing a few points:

Playing hands like this, and playing them "badly" is an integral part of their value as advertisement. Nobody has a clue what to make of ripptyde at the table.

As long as your returns are bigger than what your advertisements cost you. When you are advertising at the cost of 3x for what you bought in its fucking stupid, its not like he can reload now is it.

I guess I just feel like that's for the ripp to work out. He's a big boy, and if this approach isn't paying off for him he'll acknowledge that. Or not. But he'll deal with the consequences.

What I keep seeing is advice that he should play according to rules that he doesn't acknowledge -- ABC poker, as it were. It's like an appeal to authority (like, say the Bible) when the person you're talking with doesn't consider that to be authoritative.

Now that I've said that, I would like to see more ripptyde HHs where he was playing the player and can explain why and what was up and how he figured out this-and-that, and in general the kind of things that go through his mind when he's on. Should be part of everyone's game.

Stop trying to be nice guys, you all know this was bad poker.

See above, rippy doesn't need people being nice. Poker is more multi-faceted than a lot of us think, and yes there are people who don't care dick about the math but make bank by manipulating image, stirring up action, and reading the damn opponent.

I personally give up that hand with the deuces. I don't know how to leverage that call into a profit that will cover the short-term loss, considering I'm going to lose this 9 times out of 10. But that's me. It's not my poker, but I can't quite bring myself to say it's bad poker.

[ilikeaces86]

I personally give up that hand with the deuces. I don't know how to leverage that call into a profit that will cover the short-term loss, considering I'm going to lose this 9 times out of 10. But that's me. It's not my poker, but I can't quite bring myself to say it's bad poker.

Well in poker there is usually a right and a wrong way to play a hand. The right way will produce the most +EV over time and the wrong way will end up being the most -EV to play a hand over time. ITs ridiculous to say there is not a right or a wrong way to play a hand.

[jmontis]

you just gotta seperate the card playing situations from poker situations man, some of these are just pure gambles. You'd be a beast of a player if you could go from super-tight to spotting weakness in a heartbeat and hitting the "ripp" switch.

A semi bluff in hand 1 may have been ok, but seeing how he had 2 pair, he would have invariably raised the bet. Hand 2 was just crazy imo. Uncalled for gambling

[Greedo017]

Well in poker there is usually a right and a wrong way to play a hand. The right way will produce the most +EV over time and the wrong way will end up being the most -EV to play a hand over time. ITs ridiculous to say there is not a right or a wrong way to play a hand.

i think the point he's making is that poker isn't made up of discrete hands, a game of poker is continous from start to finish, and how you play each hand will affect every subsequent hand. it is possible that a -EV play on a hand might be +EV long term.

{This post has been removed}

[DogOnMySide]

I know what you mean about PT robotics... i have made a couple of calls based purely on someone's high VP$IP and post flop aggression and been de-stacked by a monster.

in MTT poker...as far as I am concerned a poker database is essentially worthless.

completely true. PT isn't designed for this though.

(in) mid to high stakes no limit ring games ...as far as I am concerned a poker database is essentially worthless

not sure about this one - you're meeting a finite number of educated, serious players time and again and it will definitely help to know as much as possible about them, even if you don't use it in "game time"



Has anyone got any PokerTracker stats on Ripptyde that they would like to share?

I know what you mean about PT robotics... i have made a couple of calls based purely on someone's high VP$IP and post flop aggression and been de-stacked by a monster.

in MTT poker...as far as I am concerned a poker database is essentially worthless.

completely true. PT isn't designed for this though.

(in) mid to high stakes no limit ring games ...as far as I am concerned a poker database is essentially worthless

not sure about this one - you're meeting a finite number of educated, serious players time and again and it will definitely help to know as much as possible about them, even if you don't use it in "game time"



Has anyone got any PokerTracker stats on Ripptyde that they would like to share?

57% VP$IP, 28% PFR and an AF of 15 (NL ring 6 max).

[DogOnMySide]

6 max, but still.... difficult and mentally tiring to play against. The "Will. You. Please. Stop. Raising. Me!" syndrome. How's man meant to know if his pair of kings are any good when you raise back equally with 72o as you do with AA.

Ripp - I image you get a lot of players taking out vendettas on you at the table and tilting the hell outta there.

I guess the downside is falling into a few traps now and again.

Also - do you 'hit & run' tables for medium/short sessions, so people don't have enough time to properly set up traps?

You must have faced the "i'm going to deliberately let you run over me a few times before i kick your ass" trap once or twice.

[Fnord]

I think few players at the levels Ripp plays at have run into thinking LAggs. He makes a lot of pretty good laydowns. You're really forced to check/call him a lot, however I think there is a part of people that just can't help check/raising the bully when they have the goods. After a crazy call + suck-out it makes it very difficult to play back at him with air.

[LeFou]

Well in poker there is usually a right and a wrong way to play a hand. The right way will produce the most +EV over time and the wrong way will end up being the most -EV to play a hand over time. ITs ridiculous to say there is not a right or a wrong way to play a hand.

i think the point he's making is that poker isn't made up of discrete hands, a game of poker is continous from start to finish, and how you play each hand will affect every subsequent hand. it is possible that a -EV play on a hand might be +EV long term.

First of all, ilikeaces and Fnord can both crush me in prolly any form of poker at any time. I know and respect the idea of "correct" play in terms of EV. That said, I think the EV mystique can be taken too far, and this is my general point here:

There are more things in the EV equation than are dreamt of in your philosophy. It is not possible to include every factor. For straightforward poker, it suffices to include the most important factors (cards, bet sizes, opponents' range) -- but for play that is largely or predominantly built on reads/mindgames, the margin of error is huge.

I'll take the running boat as the example hand, because it seem "obviously" outright bad/incorrect. A number guy might figure that you lose avg $70 each time you make that last call.

If that were all there was to it, this would be "incorrect". But if you're able to turn that advertisement into $70 then it gets hazy. Think about how valuable it is that this table thinks:

-ripp will call AI with any pair
-ripp pushes with gutshots
-ripp will call a PFR with 32

And let's not forget that at least two people are now Really Pissed Off.

I, personally, don't think I could exploit these enough to tip the balance back over. But they are factors, and in LAgg style they're important factors.

[arkana]

57% VP$IP, 28% PFR and an AF of 15 (NL ring 6 max).

A guy with these stats wont be a long term winner.

[Fnord]

57% VP$IP, 28% PFR and an AF of 15 (NL ring 6 max).

A guy with these stats wont be a long term winner.

Perhaps the way you currently understand the game. However, you are horribly mistaken.

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...fpart=all&vc=1

See Ulysses' (aka El Diablo) posts in the topic too.

[CrunchyNuts]

I'll take the running boat as the example hand, because it seem "obviously" outright bad/incorrect. A number guy might figure that you lose avg $70 each time you make that last call.

If that were all there was to it, this would be "incorrect". But if you're able to turn that advertisement into $70 then it gets hazy. Think about how valuable it is that this table thinks:

-ripp will call AI with any pair
-ripp pushes with gutshots
-ripp will call a PFR with 32

And let's not forget that at least two people are now Really Pissed Off.

I, personally, don't think I could exploit these enough to tip the balance back over. But they are factors, and in LAgg style they're important factors.

The big problem here, is you have to still be at the table after the hand for an advert to be any good to you. In this case, Rip has ~$50 behind, and had better not rebuy 'cause, well, you know that part. That's what makes that hand clearly a mistake. In order for there to be future value in a play, there has to be a future.

[LeFou]

good point.

my thoughts go more generally to the reckless (looking) style and how it gives the lie to some of our preconceptions -- e.g. that a certain set of stats "can't" be profitable, or that the +EV move (calculated without these factors) is always the right one.

Oh and thanks Fnord I love the paul phillips thread.

[LeFou]

Speaking of Paul Phillips, is writing a web server just part of the normal poker education nowadays?

[Fnord]

Speaking of Paul Phillips, is writing a web server just part of the normal poker education nowadays?

lol

http://datatone.com/mirrors/xiaomu/W...n95/server.htm

(look under Fnord)

[arkana]

57% VP$IP, 28% PFR and an AF of 15 (NL ring 6 max).

A guy with these stats wont be a long term winner.

Perhaps the way you currently understand the game. However, you are horribly mistaken.

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...fpart=all&vc=1

See Ulysses' (aka El Diablo) posts in the topic too.

You couldn't find a longer thread? I read all El Diablo's posts but I didn't find anything supporting the theory that a player with a 57% VP$IP and 28%PFR can be a long term winner (I might have missed it since I didn't read the whole thread, so please correct me if this is the case). All I found was a discussion of a guy who managed to come out a big winner in ONE SESSION by creating a big LAG image. Yes good LAG players can achieve higher win rates than your TAG players but if you think you have to play 57% of your hands to be a LAG (thats not counting the times where you get a free flop from the BB) then you are mistaken.

Someone who is playing 2/3s (will be about 2/3 with the free flops) of his hands and raising half of those will not be a winner.

[Fnord]

how can you dominate a game like that? if they are bad players you just have to wait for good hands.

What a strange perspective. It is they who end up waiting for good hands... which is what gets them in the end. Not that this table was loaded with bad players, just players with a lot less experience.

In limit you can beat bad players by tightening up. In no-limit there are a LOT of ways to beat them and tightening up is nowhere near the most profitable.

This is why capped buy-in games suck. When a lucky fish like Phillips triples up w/ T7s, you want to be able to pull out $1500.

Someone earlier talked about throwing a party. Just the other night I played in a $.50/$1NL game online. It was mainly to blow off steam after a crap run at $25/50NL. But that didn't mean I didn't want to win. I always want to win when I play, and I imagine that's the same for you. Even for low stakes, it's not fun for me to just give away money like an idiot. In that game, I played and min-raised 100% of my hands pre-flop. And early on, I gave unlimited action to all the short buys at the table. But I played great post-flop and was busting people left and right. I left the table w/ about $650, up about $450. And every pro $.50/$1 player there was talking about the idiot lucksack fish.

Now throw this into the mix...
http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ic.php?t=19103

If you take what Diablo and Paul said at face value (I've yet to see a reason to believe otherwise), then it leads you down many of the lines of thought I've been exploring over the past few months.

[arkana]

Long term Fnord. Do you know what VPIP 57% looks like? I am far from convinced. If you can make a post on 2+2 and get the majority of people to agree with you that its possible to be a long term winner with a VPIP of 57 and a preflop raise (of 4BB) of 30% at 100NL and upwards then you can change my title to 'Fnord's bitch'

[Fnord]

For what it's worth,

1bb/100 with a shit ton a variance is a long-term winner.

[arkana]

For what it's worth,

1bb/100 with a shit ton a variance is a long-term winner.

??

[Fnord]

The target we're aiming for is not really that high...

[arkana]

The target we're aiming for is not really that high...

Ahh ok, you do have a point there. So what do you think would be the highest VPIP someone can have while maintaining a 4PTbb/100 winrate?

[Fnord]

Ahh ok, you do have a point there. So what do you think would be the highest VPIP someone can have while maintaining a 4PTbb/100 winrate?

I'm pretty sure it can be done at around 40-50% (6 handed.) A reasonable 2 hands per orbit gets you to 33%. You're also not considering table texture, etc. If the other 6 players have a 2% PFR, then maybe even 100% is feasible.

BTW: Have you ever played with Micheal1123?

[arkana]

Ahh ok, you do have a point there. So what do you think would be the highest VPIP someone can have while maintaining a 4PTbb/100 winrate?

I'm pretty sure it can be done at around 40-50% (6 handed.)

PFR%?

[Fnord]

PFR%?

Certainly the more active you are, the less you're going to want to raise in terms of amounts. Maybe you could min-raise just about everything up....

[arkana]

PFR%?

Certainly the more active you are, the less you're going to want to raise in terms of amounts. Maybe you could min-raise just about everything up....

You would have to be one tough cookie to pull this off, the swings will be insane.

[Fnord]

57% VP$IP, 28% PFR and an AF of 15 (NL ring 6 max).

A guy with these stats wont be a long term winner.

Now you understand? I agree, that when I see stats like this I'm looking at stack sizes and counting chips and 98 times out of 100 he's dropping over 20xbb per 100 onto the table.

{This post has been removed}

{This post has been removed}

{This post has been removed}

[Fnord]

Tourney poker and ring poker are very different beasts. In a tourney environment many of your plays have (greater) value because of the large amount of money in the pot via forced bets and the ability to threaten someone with mutually assured destruction. Soupie commented on the few orbits he tried of 5/10 NL and said "I'm so used to playing without a hand", "you really got to show them something."