true, there are even occasional TWO WEEK periods where my acct balance is higher at the end!

IHaiaNI is pretty terrible imo

lol that site is a joke

Anyone play with legspin? Played with him last night at he seemed really random. He'd threebet most hands for a while, then be a nit, bluff all three streets, etc. Very odd, almost bipolar.

So, I've been playing .5/1 for a couple days while I work on some stuff.
EVERYONE there is way worse than everyone at 1/2.
The nits are worse. The donks are worse. It's crazy.

Of course I'm running a bazillion buyins below expectation.

Stop snitching!

who is the_flute at 200nl.

plays like ****e, runs like god.

saw him get AIPF with k6 and a4 for full buy ins.

I'm sure you had a chance to play EVERYONE in the last couple of days.

I'M GENERALIZING LDO

EDIT: and frustrated and complaining.

Despeler seemed like one of the best SSNL regs for the very short amount of time i played with him at 400NL. At least i tihnk thats who he was, not totally sure

imo despeler is the biggest son of a whore on ssnl :<

people think the rankings site is a joke probably because they are jealous

they think of themselves as good, but just not with the results they could have recently

then they see a 'nitty' or 'bad' player on the rankings and lash out.

and its funny the people here saying "oh man theres no real good 200nl players" its like, of course the great players move up since they're killing it. the logic on this kind of comment is just astounding. Many of the players making these comments bash others logic in hands, yet in a non-poker context have terribly flawed logic.

can we start saying "good or bad" in the regs thread based on *the players that play* and not vs. the higher stakes players you admire? Let's compare regs vs. regs, not regs. vs. poker community. Because of course 200nl players suck compared to the big winners at higher stakes. Why even have a regs thread if we're just gonna sit around and say everyone sucks or that a player with great results is just "ok"? What is the point? Why can't we give players with good results props? Do they have to just be running hot? I'm sure some people are, but if you continue to show up on the leaderboard, you're doing something right.

frankly I welcome the leaderboard so we can keep some of the egos in check who only post graphs when they're running hot and act like they do really well when they actually average nominal winrates if anything.

I don't mean to call out the courteous, respectful people here at all however.

I would respect that leader board if I could figure out what it is based on, how it is calculated, how the site gathered their info, etc. I looked over the site, and couldn't find how they came to their conclusions. Are they data mining every hand played on Stars?

so instead of "oh he's just a bad tag" or whatever it becomes "yeah he's a winner"

ok great

abacabdonkey is on one of those lists so I know the site is stupid.

what list? link pls. dont know what ur talking about but I am interested

post #2036

uhm okay, just wanted to defend that site but I got a question in my mind..

When I look at other player's hands in pt it only show's the hands with showdown. the site prolly has the same problem and cannot calc how much ppl lose postflop w/o showdown..

then it would be pretty much senseless :/

edit: unless the total winnings are right though ... then it would make sense and like that board.. obviously one month does not say much about if a player is good or bad but if you're listed a couple of times then, as shrunkviolet has already figured, you're doing something right

Yah I agree, from what I've seen he's quite teh horrible. But he's got godmode enabled it appears, so...

Hope I'm there when the variance catches up with him.

pretty much every single one of the 'cash game databases' that has appeared in the past has been total BS, and captures only a very small sample of the hands at a given limit.

There are expections, notably the 'high stakes' ones, but those has a very limited number of tables/games to watch.

Until I see some proof, I'll just assume this database is no different from the rest.

This is kind of a newb question but can anyone tell me an efficient way to datamine hands on Stars? I've been playing on FT for forever.

I tend to agree with your first point. Even if the rankings are based on samples (as opposed to an all encompassing datamine), so long as the samples are nonbiased and it's at least a fairly large sampling - it's going to be at least a fair indicator of who's doing well. And it's just meant to be for fun. There's alot of e-peen contests between SSNL regs. It kind of shatters some pseudo-realities when people see sweet.kr making more than most people posting in this thread.

Your second point I disagree with, because we do all suck. I mean if somebody could always play solid ABC ego-free tilt-free poker, there's just no reason he'd be playing at 200 for any extended period of time. We all have issues: bad play, big egos, tilt, a little of each, whatever. The best crappy player is still a crappy player and there's no real need to sugar coat it.

how long does it usually take for stars to mail checks? I usually use epassporte but did this for some reason.

I get checks within a week.

what hand did you actually have?