now you think youre theoritically very good, but in half year if you do the work youre going to laugh on this knowledge.

That soul-crushing 250k breakeven stretch though.

This

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue

Yeah but can he defend properly vs overbets ott at 200z like OP can?

Lmao

woops:





insane what my wr could be if I had a fold button and was halfway decent at this game

Not a big enough sample, clearly sun run.

I mean that's nice and all but you're prob just a statistical sunrunner.

Tiggity's style of play is heavily correlated to how good he runs, I've seen a lot of hands in his thread and the amount of potential "theoretical spew" he does is just insane. Sure that if he is on top of his game he will print an extra 2-3bbs if his exploits are always on point, but there's a very thin line between that and spewing 10bb/100 and turning into a massive whale.

It's easy for him to always make the right exploits in the exactly right spots when he is running good, now if he starts running bad and starts second-guessing himself, that's when he will go busto.

Btw, I think I will finally quit stars for good, that software change was terrible and I have now 0 reasons to play in there -.-

You're describing yourself.

What change?

One could argue that I'm more exploitable than tggity and I'm pretty sure I make myself more exploitable than he does, since overfolding is a bigger mistake in theory than overcalling. But our difference is that I play like that because I want to. If the time comes when his BS moves won't work anymore, then he won't have other strats to use, because he doesn't know better, on the other hand, I will have all my pio knowledge and theory to fall back on.

Tbh, after I got pio and studied it, most of my thought process while playing was something like "well, in theory I should do this, but in practice I will do this because of [insert some microstakes/fish logic]".

This thread is hilarious. Bad players blaming variance and rake on their lousy winrate and stagnating skill. Tale as old as time.

Tgiggity I'm pretty sure I was talking about 50 zoom. I doubt you could beat 25z to be honest. You should be focusing on not going broke rather than Boasting about your sun run anyway.

Have you posted any results of you being a winning player yet? Would love to see what backup you have for all your trash talk lately.

C'mon man, show at least a liiiiiittle grace. That graph is fire!

everyone says the same about your hands. we both post unusual hands/lines and we both overestimate our skill (although I admit I have never used pio or studied theory) the only difference is that I win a little more

Let's make a big enough bet and I'll beat stars 50z for 5+ bb/100 over 200k hands easy. or ignition zoom if you prefer, since you think there's so many bots there lol

You got it wrong. The try to convince themselves that they are better than OTB because they can exploit the population better.

You guys got it wrong, we are trying to explain that being better at poker doesn't translate into a higher winrate at a certain stake. Some very good HS regs had a mediocre winrate in the micros/small stakes, There are 2 guys like that from here in p&g that I can recall.

gotta move up to where they respect your raises obviously

You are so ignorant, man. Why is it so hard to understand that some environments require totally different skillsets?

Do you think that a phd in math that wrote countless papers will be the best elementary school teacher ever?

You are the ignorant one Rapi.

we're talking about execution not teaching

a better analogy is do I think that a phd in math could solve mathematical equations better/faster than an elementary math teacher

It would take a few hundred hands for any winning HS reg to adjust to any game you play, surely you understand this? On top of that, because the money is peanuts, they'd take way more risks and figure things out quicker as a consequence.

They could be, they certainly have the subject knowledge. What they might lack is one of the several other skills required to be a good teacher.

If you put 100 math PhDs through a teaching course vs 100 regular math graduates, I'd put my money on the DPhils producing a greater number of better teachers, simply because they understand the topic on a deeper level.

Whether they can communicate that effectively is as unknown as whether the non-PhDs could or not.