Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown
As stated before, my buy in range is not micro. Look for yourself. UhOh_It'sJoe on Stars and Badmonkey619 on FT. Sure, I will play anything from freerolls up to $24 buy ins most of the time. I have played in the Sunday Million a few times. Sure, my results are not good, and I am sure that a good portion of that is my fault. I am talking about what I am seeing in my hand histories. You guys told me to look at them.
Monteroy, I watched you play a few tournaments. In one of them, you sucked out three times in a row to make a final table. I'll bet a be a good portion of your upswing lately is due to you running really well. You are not nearly as good at this as your arrogance and sarcastic nature are trying to suggest. We will see what happens when your luck dries up.
Give me a break. This is the type of analysis you always do, incomplete and pointless. I did run hot in a 5 rebuy recently, but you know what, that was after literally dozens of very deep finishes in that same tournament without a FT, including some brutal beats with 10-100 people left. Look at my full record and look at all of the top 100 finishes in that tournament which usually has a few thousand people in it.
Thing is 40th pays a whopping $50, so my recent decent score helped finally offset a ton of finishes like that.
This is not arrogance, it's pure annoyance because all of my early posts genuinely tried to help and get you on a path where you could improve your game, and instead all I got hit with was weird paranoia and gimmick accounts of fake old people from you. You are totally un-coachable (from anyone - even nice people).
So yes, after that you started getting the sarcasm treatment laced with my letting you know that indeed you are number 1, and you can guess which finger is in the air to prove that.
In your use of cherry picked data, what you leave out are the ton of tournaments where I play well, get it in fine and then lose to the extremely bad players, which is sadly part of the variance of the game.
Here, from a 10 rebuy recently, unconverted to actually prove it happened. These happened deep
PokerStars Game #38186310588: Tournament #262011114, $10+$1 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level XVI (1250/2500) - 2010/01/15 2:33:40 ET
Table '262011114 106' 9-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: fugazi17 (33242 in chips)
Seat 2: Monteroy (112744 in chips)
Seat 3: civitaquana (55370 in chips)
Seat 4: maskaveli (245953 in chips)
Seat 5: IteatsCards (172631 in chips)
Seat 6: hateordie (14332 in chips) is sitting out
Seat 7: KingMercu (39198 in chips)
Seat 8: Ben436 (73809 in chips)
Seat 9: beardog1961 (47633 in chips)
fugazi17: posts the ante 250
Monteroy: posts the ante 250
civitaquana: posts the ante 250
maskaveli: posts the ante 250
IteatsCards: posts the ante 250
hateordie: posts the ante 250
KingMercu: posts the ante 250
Ben436: posts the ante 250
beardog1961: posts the ante 250
Monteroy: posts small blind 1250
civitaquana: posts big blind 2500
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [Ah Td]
maskaveli: folds
IteatsCards: folds
hateordie: folds
KingMercu: folds
Ben436: folds
beardog1961: raises 7500 to 10000
fugazi17: folds
Monteroy: raises 102494 to 112494 and is all-in
civitaquana: folds
beardog1961: calls 37383 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (65111) returned to Monteroy
*** FLOP *** [8s 8c Jd]
*** TURN *** [8s 8c Jd] [6h]
*** RIVER *** [8s 8c Jd 6h] [3h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Monteroy: shows [Ah Td] (a pair of Eights)
beardog1961: shows [Kd 6d] (two pair, Eights and Sixes)
beardog1961 collected 99516 from pot
PokerStars Game #38186324210: Tournament #262011114, $10+$1 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level XVII (1500/3000) - 2010/01/15 2:35:16 ET
Table '262011114 106' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: fugazi17 (32392 in chips)
Seat 2: Monteroy (71711 in chips)
Seat 3: civitaquana (50520 in chips)
Seat 4: maskaveli (247803 in chips)
Seat 5: IteatsCards (168781 in chips)
Seat 6: hateordie (13482 in chips) is sitting out
Seat 7: KingMercu (38348 in chips)
Seat 8: Ben436 (72959 in chips)
Seat 9: beardog1961 (98916 in chips)
fugazi17: posts the ante 300
Monteroy: posts the ante 300
civitaquana: posts the ante 300
maskaveli: posts the ante 300
IteatsCards: posts the ante 300
hateordie: posts the ante 300
KingMercu: posts the ante 300
Ben436: posts the ante 300
beardog1961: posts the ante 300
IteatsCards: posts small blind 1500
hateordie: posts big blind 3000
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [Ks Ad]
KingMercu: folds
Ben436: folds
beardog1961: raises 9000 to 12000
fugazi17: folds
Monteroy: raises 59411 to 71411 and is all-in
civitaquana: folds
maskaveli: folds
IteatsCards: folds
hateordie: folds
beardog1961: calls 59411
*** FLOP *** [6c 2s 6h]
*** TURN *** [6c 2s 6h] [5c]
*** RIVER *** [6c 2s 6h 5c] [9h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
beardog1961: shows [9d As] (two pair, Nines and Sixes)
Monteroy: shows [Ks Ad] (a pair of Sixes)
beardog1961 collected 150022 from pot
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown
No, he is a pretty good online poker player and has some pretty good results. His attitude is what really sucks. He uses the same arrogant and sarcastic approach almost everytime he posts. It is all coming from a very over inflated ego.
I post one hand here that I played badly and he has been harping on it ever since. This is just irritating and pointless to me.
Yes, I can be an arrogant putz at times, with full recognition of when I am doing that. I even pretty much make that clear that is one of my character routines here vs the standard riggedologists.
With you it is different, it is genuine frustration because I wasted time trying to be helpful (as others keep doing with you) when you are simply incapable of learning. Try to educate someone over and over and over and continue to get hit by weird paranoid replies that feel semi-fake and this is the reaction you will create. Look at this thread, you are frustrating a ton of people with your inability to accept any form of reason or logic. All you keep doing is creating fictional worlds where sites can rig the games magically against you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown
Do you agree with me that you could take separate samples of a specifc size (lets call it 50k) of two different players bust out hands (all in a row) and see that one of the players expectation should be higher than the others based on the scenarios they were in each hand?
Example:
Player A - last 50,000 in a row heads up bust outs - 25,000 coin flips, 15k dominated other player, 10k was dominated.
Player B - last 50,000 in a row heads up bust outs - 20,000 coin flips, 5k dominated other player, 20,000 dominated.
Player A's expectation should be higher even if his results are lower than player B's right?
Getting to 50,000 of these all in and busted out scenarios would take a very long time. Couldnt a site hide a good portion of their rig here?
Yeah sure, whatever, they are creating a long term evil plan to slowly screw you in 3 buck tourneys. Whatever. Other guys can waste their time and energy trying to get you to see the flaws in your "logic" as all you do is reply with even weirder rigged worlds to possibly explain your continued losses.
Hint, you lose because to be blunt
You
Suck
Suck less in these tournaments and you will lose less. Seriously.
With all of the above, add in all of your admitted gimmick account trolling, and what type of response do you really think you deserve at this point.
The ONLY reason why I think you are semi legit in your complaints is that your results actually do suck, but it is not your one hand, it is literally your ENTIRE approach to the game and people who waste time trying to help you that is flawed.
Last edited by Monteroy; 01-17-2010 at 07:45 AM.
Reason: Had an "all the best" at the end. Removed it.