I knew it!!!! GG llama!

Scotty-

Can you elaborate on this? Why wouldn't this be a good idea? (I think I understand what you mean, but want to clarify.)

someone get SFCellman a cookie

Supernova Elite is like running a marathon. Some people don't understand this when they start. They've played enough hands for a single week or month and think it's not that big of a deal. It is! You can feel the pain from the 2007 Elites in their blogs and posts. Hundreds of people set out to be Elites in 2007 with only 39 reaching the goal.

Scotty

I interpret this as Scotty saying get the vasoline out because there will definately be chafing.

Okay, that's what I thought you meant. Thanks for the replies. I'd still like to know the breakdown of cash/SNG/HU SNG players in the SNE pursuit, or even from the ones who did it last year, if that info. is available to you.

Am I the only one that thinks that ^^^^^ is a little much to ask for?

put me in the category of wishing i could play more, but not being able to (basically the opposite of burnt out). full time student, and my room is full of drunken partiers every weekend, so i have no choice but to join them haha. but yea, 114k vpps, so still in the hunt

Very nice thinly veiled brag post pattay. Please tell me the drunken partiers include females...

nope just a buncha dudes doing the elephant walk all night 'ery night

scotty can there be some kind of super bonus for elites?
like trade 5 million fpp in for 100,000$ like big joe did??

details? dont know anything about this

since SFCellman outted me and all, the great llama was down 6k today, and is now down only $550 holla. that 30/60 game is bananas im going back to my 10/20 roots now tyvm.

He used the consierge service to put a 100k downpayment on a house/mansion.

Oh and 30/60 is the nuts. I always run good when I tilt and go and play there.

http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/2008/0...-to-house.html

Doesnt say it cost 5m fpps though - I guess thats in his blog or something.

If they gave him $100k for 5 million FPP's then that's a better rate than regular concierge service.
I think that such stuff is warranted on bigger purchases like that. But it's already been mentioned that Stars would NOT give you a better rate if it's a bigger purchase.

So I would kind of like to know which is it. Not that I'm considering something this big or anything. But it's nice to officially know one's options.

5 million FPP's for $100k is 2 cents per FPP.
Regular concierge rate of 1.612c I think would be $81k.

Now maybe this is all way off. I haven't read his blog so don't know how much he really paid.

To ty to make it this year, if you began now, is not unreasonable at all.
Leatherass made it to Elite last year and he had 0 points in freaking April.
And when he started doing it at 1/2 NL the maximum number of tables was 12.

um, if it has been done that means it is available.

I've done the last part of your plan of 'started moving up regularly' before. A year or two later I still regretted having done it. It was something I didn't like.

Not all of us are the same. Some people have to be worse at poker than others.

Somebody's plan to 'move up and play as high as you can so you can win more' might work fine for some and not so great for somebody else.
It's not even bankroll nitting. I just don't like it. And, more importantly, I believe I earn more doing it the way i am now. And I even enjoy playing much more which leads to be sitting down and actually doing it a bit more also although I'm behind where I would like to be for 2008 mostly from spending too much stupid time posting on here.

Anyway, I'm perfectly comfortable grinding out the kind of money I make currently which I think most people grossly underestimate. People assume I'm only getting $15/hr worth of FPP's or something because they don't know how to do the math.

Even with a similar or better win-rate I believe I would make less on 8 tables of higher stakes than I would on 20+ tables of my lower stakes.
No, I'm not kidding. I would have to put in MORE hours because at higher stakes I would have to decrease the number of tables I play significantly to have any chance of being a winning player. And the tougher games combined with relative lack of VPP's would add up fast.

Maybe as I continue to learn NL and gain confidence I'll take some shots in the future. But the peer-pressure around here that you practically have to do that is really silly.
It doesn't work the same way for everyone.
And I'm not the only one that does it this way.

I've done the variance bouncing before. Moreso than many of the players here because I have played 6-max limit...and was trying to move up...and the variance there is generally going to be worse than NL although I guess that's somewhat debateable.

Regardless, I'm not so afraid of moving up just from never having tried it as some seem to be assuming.
I've done it all kinds of ways and this way currently of playing so many tables of lower stakes NL is so much more relaxing and stress-free. I freaking love it even though it's boring. I love it so much that I'm sitting here asking myself why I didn't do it before. Why was I making myself play higher on fewer tables just because others on 2+2 were telling me too? I'm glad I've gotten out of that.

It felt really silly.

This way is so wonderfully easy.

Microbob-

You're playing 25NL and going for SNE? Seriously? I don't play cash games, but maybe I should if you can get there playing at the kids tables. How many hours/tables do you play?

Also, LOL at you spending too much "stupid time" posting here. Dude you have 30K+ posts! You don't get SNE for posts! Although, hey, not a bad idea 2p2...

You know you can play the same amount of tables at higher stakes, right? I mean.. not inevitably, and I'm not suggesting you try and move up all the way to 200/400. But it's not like 2/4 is a particularly tough limit, and if you're beating NL100 or whatever for 4 PTBB, I'm sure you could squeak out better than 1 PTBB at NL400 playing the exact same game and the exact same number of tables. There are plenty of people beating 2/4 6-max on stars right now who are basically just set miners.

Anyway, I dunno why I'm arguing with you. You're obv pretty set on this.

I'm fairly certain you cannot play the same number of tables at higher stakes.

I think bigjoe took the downpayment instead of an Aston Martin he had already ordered. IIRC he would have had to wait several months for the car to be delivered.

So it was not really a concierge purchase.

ryanj is correct. At NL400 there are only 21 full-ring tables running right now.
A couple appear to be dying so they might be down to 18 or fewer in a few minutes I imagine.

At NL600 there are 12 tables running right now.

I mean, I guess I could mix NL400 and NL600 if I really wanted to.
But I've done the math. I would make less at higher stakes. And when I have taken shots at higher stakes before WHICH I HAVE i ended up making way less.

Plus, I thoguht the argument was to play fewer tables at higher stakes and somehow make more money that way. If I was going to move to higher stakes it would likely not be on the same number of tables although it's not completely impossible for me to go that route eventually.
It's also not impossible for me to be playing 8 tables of NL1k by the end of the year for all I know. Whatever. I'm pretty open-minded about it actually. So open-minded about it that I've decided that one way I've done it before, similar to the way some people think I shoudl be doing it, is really not for me no matter how many people insist that I should love it and I would somehow be stress-free.


I enjoy playing the way I am doing it now. I hated doing it the way you think I should back when I tried doing that.
This is pretty simple really.

Different people are different.
I don't know why people are arguing with me on this either. It's like people are offended that I'm not moving up stakes or playing in the same way that THEY think I should.
I'm telling you, I've already done it that way thanks at least in part to a little bit of peer-pressure on here.

I am sorry I didn't start doing it the way I'm doing it now SOONER. It's so easy that I really regret not switching to my current way a long time ago.
I don't really regret completely bowing to some of the peer-pressure and trying to make it work by moving up gradually or taking shots, etc. But I do regret trying to stick with it for so long when I hated it and it wasn't working.


And the fact remains, I suck at poker.
I don't care if you think I'm wrong or not. I know what my win-rate is and you don't. I know how much I suck. And I know how hard I struggle with the concepts in the strategy forums and how badly I misapply them.

I have some strengths. One of them is being able to interpret the Elite and milestone stuff and being able to figure out different ways to best take advantage of what Stars is offering.
Other people who can beat 30/60 limit or NL1k or whatever somehow are unable to figure out their RB% on Stars.
It's as incorrect for me to say, "If you can beat the games that high you should be able to do this other stuff" as it is for somebody else to say, "Bob...you're a genius on the FPP stuff...thus you should obviously be a winning player at higher stakes."

Sorry to disappoint you. But I'm not. Really. Seriously. I suck at poker and I have the win-rate to prove it.
I've tried to get better and the more I try the worse I get sometimes.

but I'm really happy grinding out my points for a significant income and I don't want to make equal or less money on fewer tables at higher stakes with more variance.
IMO that would be incredibly stupid for someone in my position.
And it would most likely be worse money.



Austiger - The math isn't hard. You can figure out how many points you can make at NL25 or NL50 or whatever.
Short answer: No, I don't believe it's possible to make Elite at NL25.

Isn't there always 20+ 2/4+ games running?