Again just showing how out of touch you are. There are many reasons why someone who dedicates their life to beat 200nl or even 50 does not want to move up. Firstly they prefer to be comfortable in life and don't want to risk huge money on the tables. They don't need to do it when they can be rich in their country just from 200nl. They maybe tried to move up but variance shot them down each time and they gave up. Many reasons other than simple not being good. The higher stakes is where the whales are who punt money to nit regs who think they crushers while paying basically no rake. easy game.

gtowizard is free for pre flop. Where is the edge? postflop obv more edge but even there even fish today know decent strat and you can't just run them over like 10 years ago. Plus you are also fighting the rake trap.

1/2 zoom aint nothin to f with, 1/2 zoom aint nuthin to f with

You're being absolutely absurd. With proper bankroll management there is literally no risk if they are as good as you people are claiming. Apparently the games would be easier as well, so it would actually reduce their variance to a degree. In my experience the regs play much looser at higher stakes, lmao. Yeah im the one out of touch.

This just encapsulates it all, to these guys beating 1/2 is literally the poker dream... and they find it barely attainable... and all the high stakes pros are just luckboxes. This is some serious glass tapping we gotta stop.

All the people who think 200 blitz can't be beat are hard stuck micro stakes break even bad regs. Roger Ramjet laughs at people who think 200blitz can be beaten like it's 2008. He admits he has played zero hands at that stake. He probably also started playing poker after 2008 so he's making a reference he doesn't actually understand. Hey Roger, stop talking out of your ass and from a place of ignorance. You started playing poker 6 months ago and you're talking to 20 year pros with decades more experience than you. Just accept that you're both not as smart as some of us and also way less experienced. Try to fathom you might not be the poker cognoscente that you think you are buddy. And now try to realize how much better Phil Galfond is at poker including no limit holdem than anyone in this thread. Stop embarrassing yourself and sit down.

You really can't understand how some people are simply not mentally comfortable or capable dealing with huge $$ swings regardless of their skill level?

Dude you play 11/5 stats on full ring iggy reg tables and your talking like you know something about real poker. lul.

+1 Eskaborr's posts ITT

Not even close. What stakes do you play btw?

Lol.

No. Not being a proven 100/hr winner and apparently one of the worlds best at their craft. The variance is actually really low in NL when that is the case. If they had the tools to become one of the best NL players in the world (lol by evidence of them beating 1/2) they are certainly equipped to handle mental stress/swings.

Even if they wanted to be very conservative they wouldn't be playing that game for more than 6 months.

And even still ALL of them wouldnt be like that, how many 2bb+ winners are there at that game? There should be a bunch of new crushers coming from those cutthroat breeding grounds.

So you are not even aware that 30-40bi swings are standard for solid winners on fast fold NL tables? lol. And you are actually dictating to others about how equipped they are psychologically to handle poker swings? Like I said totally out of touch.

Wait people seriously think if Galfond actually wanted to he couldn't beat 200 zoom?

That's amazing.

40 bi swings is nothing. I have 100+ bi swings all the time. What made you think I wasnt aware of it? lmao

If they are making 100/hr and play 5 days a week they will have over 50 bi for 5/10 in... what do ya know.,. about exactly 3 months.

So yeah their risk of ruin would be very low, and they could play the stakes in between 1/2 ad 5/10 earlier and just move down if they lose some.

I've won 100 bi in a day multiple times, lmao at 40bi being a swing too big to handle.

that's cool but I've won 101 bi in a day multiple times.

Yeah im lying.... for 2p2 clout..... lmao. Im pretty sure its literally documented. But yeah I've lost 80bi in a session before too.

No. We just don't think he would roll in and be beating it easily within a week. The edges are super small in reggy 6max 200nl fast format games. Its 2022 not 2013. Edges in HU are much bigger.

Again you are unaware that most regs get broken by 40bi swings at their normal stakes let alone higher stakes. You obviously have the mentality to play big, most people don't, regardless of their skill level. Lots of really good players are just happy to play at comfortable levels and not lose their mind in bigger games. You clearly just cannot relate to others at all.

How many top winning players do you know at any stake? I've never met someone who could be described correctly by my previous sentence sweat 40bi. I've seen good players not play tougher competition when it increases their effective hourly but also increases variance, but I've never seen someone be a huge winner and be scared to move up especially if the competition is softer.

Most players may act how you said, but we are not talking about them... we are talking about top winners.

Also 5/10 is not that big...... especially for someone who can reliably make 100/hr

Youre basically saying these guys could make 10x as much money with nearly zero increase to their risk of ruin per year but these elite pros are shook or don't care about the money since they have enough for their country. Absurd.

Roger, what stakes do you play and when did you start playing poker?

I agree with your stance in general, gotta ask though what games are you playing where you are swinging 80-100bi super regularly? And not following the 10x hourly part at the end, are you saying the guy making $100/hr at 1/2 could be making $1000/hr playing 5/10?

I'm guessing when you're saying 80-100 buy ins eskaborr you mean each buy ins is 100bb and you're often playing deepstack PLO or something? or maybe I'm just unfamiliar with PLO variance but I know in holdem when you're crushing the games you're playing in there are no 80-100 buy ins downswings, and I mean in one session that seems... unhealthy to say the least

I think he means a standard and uniform buy in size, in which case maybe he is playing a lot of HU or short handed. If he's playing 6 max or more and is a good player / has an edge over the line ups then he is probably playing a very aggressive, pressurising style where when it comes off he sometimes builds 10x to 20x stacks from starting.

If he's playing a more balanced style and having 80 to 100 BI downswings, then he might be sitting in the wrong games! I say this because looking at the pure maths of standard deviations and deriving the probability of outlier occurrences and streaks is fine, and correct. However, if you have a decent edge in the games you are playing in, it will obviously dampen (flatten out a little) some of the extreme downswing probabilities.

It is of course also all relative to volume, so if he's played high volume for many years then statistical aberrations will inevitably occur from time to time.

Another valid point might be, what is the time frame period of a downswing?

Is there a convention for this?

E.g. If a player is net down 60 buy ins across 20 consecutive days of play, then in the next 20 days is up 30 buy ins for that 20 day period, and in the following 20 days is down 70 buy ins for that 20 day period, is their downswing 70 buy ins, or 100 buy ins?

Where does the timeline measurement start and end, and what criteria have to be met for the player to deem the downswing to be over, do you have to win at least 50% back, or something like that?

I wouldn't know, because I have never been in a big downswing, primarily because I have never played huge volume and I have always been in games where I have had a decent or very good edge. That is not to say that I am top level, my edge was relative to the line ups I was in.

I feel like a downswing should always be measured from highest high to lowest low on a graph, so 100 buy ins downswing would be the answer to your question

I'm saying you have no idea how tough 200 blitz is and you can't beat it neither could PH without a lot of hard work. Not interested in your hot air, you don't even play the game and totally ignorant to the pool. Unless you can prove me wrong not wasting time going back and forth with you. You are still not sure whether Robbi cheated or not, so not the brightest spark anyway.

deep plo 4 card and 5 card hu/6m with antes. So not the most fair comparison, but this 40bi being some hair pulling event is absurd anyways for a huge winner.

But you have no idea either how hard the games are either and haven't' played them? You've likely never been a winner at any stakes over 50 cent 1 dollar so what are we talking about here?