i remember jochee crushed my friend's soul for 30k or something.

i just took a nice one outer in PLO for 4k. <3 PLO.

maybe im mistaken but didnt u make the overwhelming majority of your money over like 25k hands and because of that are qualified to say u are +ev against most 25/50 regs?

i just think you talk about fullflush winning x amount of money in a small amt of hands and that doesnt mean hes good or bfl4me while ur playing history is a farrr better example of what u talk about.

i don't even know what bfl4me, and i don't know if some of you have reading comprehension problems, but i emphasized the point that my playing history is evidence of how strong variance is. i don't understand why so many people are coming here trying to look like they are proposing a counter point when they are just restating what i've been saying this entire time.

you also completely missed the point about where i said i thought i was +EV for more reasons than actually just playing 25/50 over 25k hands cuz players play different limits obv.

i'm not going to reply to any more of these ignorant posts that have probably ready 10% of what i wrote and decide present an argument that i already presented.

Colts, at what point are you no longer considered a fish/or bad/or w/e your calling FullF? He's won several million (estimating low here) across other sites such as betfair and ipoker over a ton of hands, He's played everyone across all the sites (which takes alot of courage imo)

inb4peoplesayeurositesaresoft

b/c at high stakes they're just as tough as FTP/Stars (when it runs)

the only fish at betfair was the luckexpress guy, who is also at ftp, the rest are a bunch of tough aggro scandi's.

not so sure about ipoker, but ya, i've obviously never played w him, just a few thoughts fwiw.

all this actually reminds me of when everyone though ben grundy was a huge plo fish, until they realised he is good and people like hastings/cole etc started to quit playing him hu so much.

when his 200k hand plo graphs started to appear on the forums of him winning 5mil at omaha, people changed there opinons fast.

that's not for me to judge. there are players who have made 50k lifetime who I consider better than me and would not want to play.

i think everybody except pasterbator, masterLJ, jungleman, etc. are missing the point.

Variance can make a bad player look great, and can make a good player look terrible. it's bad to judge solely based on empirical winnings.

I've never played mastr before, but I'd say he's very very good because he's made a ton of money and has a very solid rep. However, let's assume mastr isn't good (inb4 "lol u said mastr wasn't good idiot") and 3-bet 75% of hands in HUNL. Would you still consider him good after playing him? If forced to answer honestly, you'd say no, but the rest of the world would say yes. The rest of the world would also say yes having no experience playing with mastr.

It's not about $$. Just b/c you've won money doesn't make you good, and just because you haven't won money doesn't make you bad.

If player A has made 10 million and player B has made 80k lifetime, does that automatically make player A better than player B?

Is Phil Hellmuth better than Internet Pokers because he has made more money? Is Gus Hansen better than sauce because he's made more money? Is Gus Hansen even better than your average MSNL HU player?

THAT'S the point I'm driving at here. I'm measuring fullflush as a player from experience, not based solely on his reputation. If I had never played fullflush and was sitting at 25/50 today and he sat with me, I would insta-sitout and say "no thx you're too good." Does this make more sense now?

why does gay ****in stars give you like no vpps for HU? i seriously made at least twice as many vpps per hand of 25nl fullring with a VPIP of like 7% than i do for 50nl HU. they must use the same formula that doesnt account for how many players are at the table. with the ferocious rake on nl50 HU youd think theyd give you more incentive to play.

yea fwiw, i would call out cftw on all his ridiculousness in the past, but the last couple days his posts have been very good and accurate. I get the feeling people are reading the first couple lines and assuming its the same old stuff you used to post when you were on your sick heater.

Anyway, to sum up cftw's last post for those that don't want to read it:

- Phil Hellmuth is better than all online players.
- Gus Hansen would beat Sauce over 100k hands 100% of the time because he's that damn good.
- CFTW is genuinely afraid of FullFlush and would sit out against him even at 1/2nl.
- 3betting 75% is a good strategy because mastr does it.

Also, I do consider myself better than most 25/50 regs these days, but that's not even close to me saying I'm the best. Players exist at more than the 25/50 level.

From my coaching, I'd consider a few 2/4 - 5/10 players to be better than me. I'm sure there are 1/2 players better than me too, but I don't play 1/2 so I can't say that w/ 100% certainty.

Anyways, finished a brutal PLO marathon 3 hour session. Burned out for now. If anybody wants to bet on the lakers vs. rockets, give me a reasonable line for it.

get a life

LOL you've got be ****ing kidding me. You don't even PLAY heads up?? Laughing my ****ing ass off. The number of posts of yours I have read about HU games dying the last few months. Get the **** out of here lol.

CFTW, is there a reason you sat with me yesterday on AP with 40 blinds at 5/10? I didn't sit in cause I was leaving very shortly (and obv super tilted from another match on stars i was losing) but I thought it was strange. Didn't really know it was you, as i assumed you would buy in full...but w/e.

I think there has been a lot of good discussion the last few pages and I read all the posts.

Downswings suck. Losing sucks. Variance sucks. That being said, it's something you have to accept if you want to play poker day in and day out. I find it interesting that it took you losing a lot, Colts, for you to figure this out. I mean, I thought you said you played a lot of MSNL before your "run good" at 25/50, so I figured you would have had a better understanding of variance.

In the last few days I've lost like, meh 15 buy-ins or so to people I viewed as a complete donks. I don't think they would have a chance at beating me in the long run, but obviously in the short sample of hands anything can happen. Even though I understand this, losing to them still is incredibly annoying, as I'm sure anyone can attest to. I don't really know what you can do to get past this other than just accept it, play within your limits, and move on.

I think it's pretty common sense to assume that the larger your bankroll/net worth, the less stress variance will have on you. Someone that plays 25/50 with a 100bi roll and years of poker behind their belt, probably deal with winning and losing much better than someone with a 60bi roll and only a few months, maybe year of consistent play.

That's not really directed at anything in particular...but to speak to you specifically, CFTW, don't you think this is more or less correct, and that you could play 24, 36, 510 if you wanted with relative little risk to your mental well being, or w/e you wanna call it?

looks like we may learn the truth sooner than later

http://www.blackbeltpoker.com/Commun...ookieSupport=1

hmmmm good points, i retract my statement.

This is a good non-abrasive post. To answer your question, I recently discovered I had money on UB that I couldn't move. I previously thought I was UB busto and well, I buy in for 40 bb because that's UB's default buyin and chip up if I think my opponent would be fun to play.

Also, I was using myself as an example of a player who didn't understand variance even though I did have a decent amount of hands under my belt at MSNL. It's hard for somebody to understand what negative variance is without really experiencing it firsthand to really relate to it, and at the time I thought I knew what negative variance is but honestly didn't really understand it.

Also, in my case I was caught between the "either make a million or go bust because anything in between is insignificant" mindset after my dad and I had a talk about poker, so grinding MSNL now would be boring and grinding 25/50 would be stressful. That's why I decided to cash a big portion out and just freeroll the rest. Tilt cashing out is better than tilt losing it m i rite?

On the flip side, maybe I just don't want to come to terms with the fact that maybe I'm just not good at da pokers.

i mean, didn't you just say prior that the $ wasn't a big deal to you?

i can't remember how you put it exactly...but something about you were enjoying playing (probably cause you were winning more consistently) but when you downswing, that fun ceased to exist. I mean, i think that's pretty standard...no one likes losing.

but just cause you can't make a million or w/e in a year playing 24 36 510, doesn't mean you still can't make a ridic amount of money for something you would have to do in the "real world" that would most likely earn you much less monies.

but again, if money isn't a big deal, then it isn't a big deal and you can do w/e and be content. maybe i just misinterpreting what you said.

and im asking outta general curiousity...so if u dont wanna go on u dont ahve to. im also typing from my bed, so excuse grammar and spelling for a bit

Tbh, I just let all the success get to my head, posted on BBV way too often, and became a person I didn't really want to be. I don't know whether I ended up making more threads to spite people who used to say I'd go busto or because I was still unable to get over the fact that I had somehow come into so much money, but either way it's something I won't do again.

25/50 became all about money, and that wasn't something I wanted either. Now, I think I'm back to the point where money has real value for me but not a focal point of what my goals are.

basically the heater turned me into somebody i'm not, and in the future i'll learn to handle large sums of money in a much more mature manner. and i have always believed that if money is your only goal, you're doomed to failure even if you get to your "goal" because of all you miss on the way there.

so anything else to talk about? If i see one more 2 paragraph attempt at informing all us noobs about what variance really is like by the all knowing i played 67 hands at 25 50 and talk about it all the time cftw im going to gouge my eyes out.

fwiw fullflush is better than just about anyone who has posted in this thread.

2+2 breed players tend to look too much at fundamentals that they will often misinterpret eurobreed players as being bad, loose, calling stations, w/e. some of you may, in a vacuum, play preflop better than fullflush, but he plays his style much much better than any of you are able to counter his style.

it's pretty obvious that the guys who think fullflush is bad either never really played sites other than stars/ftp or are bumhunters.

the dog has spoken

What are your thoughts on him vs durrrr hu nl?

1. FullFlush is v v v good.

2. I have gone on insane downswings like one couldn't even imagine.

3. I think cftw and I should play at some point. Maybe I 3-bet 75 % and am terribad!

elaborate? bad would be a gross exaggeration obv but vvgood seems just lol from my experience, at least certainly not good even enough to maintain 5+ptbb/100 vs the best

he apparently thought doing things such as calling 85o to a 3bet vs me and floating the flop with COMPLETE AIR would be profitable (it will never be), in spite of catching me trip barrel >_<

fullflush doesn't play like a euro player really, or does he? At a glace it would seem he's a looser, cockier version of a player that plays strongly postflop, is there something I'm missing?


On a somewhat related note, i actually think mirttinur is one of the toughest i've played. I initially thought fullflush was some random donk :P

i want to play you mastr, and i would if i didn't lose 90 k and have school to worry about :C

C is a laughably more difficult/tedious than java...