Quote:
Originally Posted by King Spew
I am a break even player dp. I have also made several thousand dollars playing online poker. The reason I am a breakeven player in my eyes is because I have played ~2 million hands. In fact without rakeback... I think I would be a slight loser at the tables...while other people (you) will say I have to be a winner since I have (after the dust has settled) more money than I started with.
You ARE being a NIT when you say that it has to be precisely zero loss/gain.
"what do ppl usu put that range in - w/i $1,000? $5,000?" does not make sense. Would you clarify please.
I get the strong feeling that the actual answer to your question is "It depends"
|
LOL, I thought that being a nit meant playing super-tight, not asking 'silly' ques in this *dumb* thread. Maybe you're being sensitive because of something else, who knows.
Anyway, even in my 1st post I already clarified and asked what would be the acceptable range below 0 to be considered b/e.
All I wanted to know is what is considered a b/e player, because obviously if you were a winner (i.e. above 0), you'd just say it w/o qualification. Conversely, if you were always down, then it's stupid to say you're a b/e player when you've never gone back above 0. However, I wanted to know even though one is technically a losing player (i.e. below 0), would it be acceptable to be called a b/e player if he is w/i a certain range from below 0...obviously if he's always, say, $100,000, below 0, then he should be a losing player and can't honestly label himself as b/e. I suppose the gap from below 0 should be closer....$1,000? $5,000? Who knows? That's why I'm asking. If he's alternating above and below 0, then that is a valid claim for being a b/e player.
There's nothing 'nitty' about my asking this ques, but if the topic is too touchy, then that's another issue.
Two Plus Two
I'm definitely not a nit, seems like others just don't like to be labeled losing players, so they invent this term of b/e player.
Linear Mode
