make up, meaning she's down a good bit of money, that doesn't mean she's a losing player live though, maybe she lost playing much much higher stakes than usual, like if you play NL50k and lose 1 buy in then go grind that back down at NL1k and win 40 buy ins you're down 10k but you're not a losing player

Regardless of the stakes she's playing, if she was winning then she wouldn't be in makeup. If you earn more than you lose, you're winning. If you lose more than you earn, you're losing. Players who profit, keep their profits. Players who owe must makeup the losses before they see any of the money.

Amazon was in makeup the first several years of its existense. So was Tesla, Airbnb, and Uber.

You seriously comparing a messed up, losing poker player to companies built by visionaries? Man, you guys need to get out more if watching a 5/10 chick play zoom poker on twitch makes you this delusional.

Meisner, I don't agree with a lot of what you have said, but you are pretty good at debating, so credit where credit is due.

May I ask what specifically I have said that you do not agree with? Clearly sometimes I am a bit facetious, but is there anything factual I have said that you feel is inaccurate? I'm human, capable of being mistaken and gladly admit when I'm wrong.

winning/losing player in poker is usually measured in bigblinds, also you need to take sample size into account, if you were to isolate parts of every top players journey through poker you'd think they're all braindead whales based on results, PB from what I've seen has a good grasp of poker theory but she tends to be a little too aggressive/sticky in certain spots, it's still better than the other way around though

but yeah her being in makeup doesn't mean in any way, shape or form that she is a losing player, that only means that she is currently down money which are 2 very distinct things in poker

When I play $5-$10, if I'm lucky I break even, however, I'm probably down overall a bit. However, at $2-$5 I'm definitely up. No doubt. Combined, I'm still up. In other words, I've made far more at $2-$5 to compensate for what I've lost at the higher level. I'm a net WINNER. As you can see, part of what contributes to me being a winner is proper game selection. If someone were backing me, which is not the case, that person would be earning money on his/her investment. As PB is an overall LOSING player, she owes her backer. Had she exercised proper game selection, maybe she'd be up, but she's not, because, contrary to how you want to twist things, SHE'S A LOSER AT POKER.

Her net losing money means by definition she is a losing player. It does not mean she will always be a losing player.

snowie, let's assume you're correct and she's terrible at everything

did that stop you from obsessing over her and talking about her nonstop? did that stop you from fangirling her and stealthily taking super creepy photos of her when you saw her in line?

for someone who sucks so much, she sure has captured all of your attention

a losing player means you're -EV in the games you play, whether you are up or down over a given period of time is irrelevent

Based on the studying, experience, and emotional maturing that she has developed and built from the beginning of her poker career up to the present point in time, it is safe to assume that Poker Bunny will be a winning player from here on out even if she may not have been a winning player before today. Therefore, any debates about her being a winning or losing player is irrelevant because the past is passed and the only thing that matters is what happens from this point onward, and she will be a winner based on the intellectual and emotional base that she already carries within her.

the thing is that so many people underrate is being strong mentally and not tilting is worth so much. Live is so slow and you can run bad for a while time wise when it isn't that long statistically. There is no way she's going to handle running bad live well and continue to play her A game. It's really easy to torch 5-10 times your win rate playing like an idiot on tilt.

Long term give me the guy who always plays pretty well vs the guy who plays better at his best but can't handle the swings and other bullshit that comes with live poker.

That part of the tweet reads like sarcasm anyway.

The importance of this cannot be understated yet it is nearly always underappreciated, especially on poker forums where most have never swam in the waters they're pontificating about.


SenorGuzman has not played with PB, but his experience tells him that this is most likely correct.

This is where SenorGuzman's money would be as well.

I have no doubt that someone who is related to LLinusLLove will become a good poker player with time and practice.

Also lets agree that she is pretty cute.

She is indeed highly questionable as a person/horse.. But i really think you guys should stop hating on her poker skills, unless you are completely broke i don't think it makes sense. She clearly both through having a backer, being a reasonably attractive female, young and so on gets some quite good opportunities where you don't have to be a genius to be winning.

On top of that she also plays reasonably well. I think both from watching some random hands she played and her results might make her appear like a stronger player than many of these broke fishes that criticize her.

What ? I disagree.

If you are down $10K, you are a losing player at that point overall. If you manage to win that last $10K +$1, you then, and only then, are no longer a "losing player".

That is close, but NOT how a typical staking deal works.

I believe a player being staked generally earns some portion of winning play while in make up. They got to see some money, they got to eat.

You can’t disagree with something that is factually correct. If you are +EV you are a winning player. If you are -EV you are a losing player.

An extreme example. Linus Love plays Dan Bilzerian heads up. Dan opens the btn in the first hand. Linus folds. Dan quits the game. Is Dan better than Linus? Is Linus losing to Dan? Of course not.

Tbf in USA people disagree with things that are factual correct all the time to the point that nobody knows what the truth is anymore

I don't think she can get into these good private games for long. Yes she's nice to look at but her stupid bunny ears schtick and grating personality in general isn't going to go well with her nitty play. That doesn't even take into account the often inappropriate comments she's gonna have to deal with in private games off camera.

no you're wrong, you can be up money while being a losing player, and you can be down money while being a winning player

Hang on, hang on, hang on... you mean you are somewhere in between the haters and the fanboys? And that there are times when she does some really good things? And other times when she plays horribly?

That simply makes too much sense. No wonder you rarely come by 2+2/NVG anymore.

By the way, a part of me wants to take this quoted part of your post, replace all of the relevant words to reference Daniel Negreanu instead, then otherwise paste it verbatim into the DNegs NVG thread. Assuming none of the super-regulars from both threads blow up the spot, I'll bet it would garner a good amount of discussion even though it is not actually about him.

Then again, your haters-vs-fanboys stance could also probably apply to many players, ranging from Hellmuth to durrrr to Bilzerian to any Main Event winner to the goddamn "I wont millon" guy.

So you believe your view on whether a player should be winning matters more than whether they are winning? A winning player is one that is net winning money. A losing player is one that is net losing money. You can believe that a player should be winning or they should be losing but in the real world facts matter more than your beliefs.