Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Well: ATC The Well: ATC

01-24-2010 , 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by strateco
aspirations for this game in next 2-3 years? longer term goals?
Only to have made/saved enough money so that I don't HAVE to play any more. The shaky legal status of online poker makes it a really poor choice as a career path, and I'd caution anybody against dropping out of school to "go pro."
01-24-2010 , 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goertsy
Why did you move to Stars?
The short of it is that FullTilt's customer service is a disgrace. Here's the much longer answer I gave LC when she PM'd me about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTheCheese
FTP's customer service is garbage all around (e.g. it takes them weeks to respond to the simplest query, and then when they finally get around to answering you, it's always some seemingly automated mass response that doesn't solve your problem in the least), but basically my leaving boiled down to a dispute I had with them over rakeback. You see, I started my account a long time ago before I knew about HUDs, rakeback, and all the other standard 2p2 fare, so I had no rakeback attached to my account. I had heard from a friend who was in the same boat that after emailing FTP about it, they hooked up his preexisting account with a rakeback affiliate. So naturally, I tried the same thing, but they told me that my account was already linked to some affiliate who didn't offer rakeback.

Now, I don't have the best memory in the world, and it had been a long time since I'd signed up for FTP, but I did not recall ever signing up through an affiliate. Like I said, I didn't know anything back then, so it would not have occured to me that there were better routes to starting an account than simply downloading the client and opening one up. I didn't accuse them of lying though; I just told them straight up "I don't remember signing through an affiliate, can you tell me who the affiliate is? Maybe that will refresh my memory." Their reply: "No, sorry."

So I hit them with another e-mail, the gist of which was like "Look, I mean, this is a problem for me since most players of my volume receive rakeback and poker is my primary means of earnings. How can I address the problem if I don't even know the source?" and again, they respond "No, sorry it's against our policy to release that kind of information." And keep in mind the time between me sending these e-mail requests and me receiving their one-sentence refusals is a matter of weeks, so I'm getting pretty peeved. To compound the issue, at the same time I was having a software problem with one of THEIR new updates, where the client would just lock up entirely about once every three hundred hands and fold whatever I happened to have at the time (on several occasions, sets and flushes). Once again, after weeks of trading e-mails, it came down to it being "against policy" to compensate me for losses that were clearly the fault of the software.

But returning to the rakeback issue, what was getting to me about the whole thing was this: If I had really signed up through an affiliate, potentially, I could remember the affiliate's name and potentially I could have written it down. So why would that information be classified, when technically, I should have access to it already? It makes me feel like they were giving me the runaround or trying to conceal some shady business in which they involved my account behind my back. At that point, it seemed obvious to me that they did not give two ****s about me as a customer and would gladly sacrifice my patronage to protect whatever back-alley "affiliate" my account was supposedly linked to. So... eff 'em. I grabbed my money and left.

Okay, yeah tl;dr, cool story brah, etc etc, but there is a moral here. The above should act as a cautionary tale if you're thinking about signing up for FullTilt. Yes, FullTilt's interface is a breath of fresh air when compared to Stars, and it is true that FTP has softer competition. Rakeback, as well, if you can get it, will probably benefit you more as a low-volume reg than Stars' point system. But if you do decide to sign up,

(1) Hope that you don't run into problems, since they won't be solved.

(2) Be aware that some of their business practices are highly suspect, and protect yourself accordingly (e.g. prob wise to withdraw any extra money that's not needed for bankroll requirements).
01-24-2010 , 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTheCheese
The short of it is that FullTilt's customer service is a disgrace. Here's the much longer answer I gave LC when she PM'd me about it.
Lol exactly the same here.
They didn't give me rakeback and the support was really unfriendly. Also their software tilts the **** out of me.

God, a love stars support.
01-25-2010 , 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoSmeets
why do you only play low volume?
Poker is boring and I live a pretty austere life (e.g. no fancy car, no bling, no expensive traveling), so I don't really need the money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HundredsOfStuff
srsly, ban
It's a bad movie, and worse yet, it's a self-important bad movie. One of the most unintentionally comic parts of the film (and there are many) occurs at the end where the "news" is holding interviews on the street, taking in the Boston public's varied opinions on the Boondock Saints' brand of vigilante justice. It's as if in this part the filmmakers were trying to say "VIEWER, LOOK, THERE IS AN ETHICAL CONFLICT HERE! DO YOU SEE THE DEEP PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THIS FILM (which co-stars Ron Jeremy)?!" There's a reason it got a 20% rating on RottenTomatoes or whatever the bad rating was, and it's not because critics are out of touch or haters. It's because they've seen enough films to recognize Boondock Saints for the overblown pile of dog**** it really is.
01-25-2010 , 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
what % of your strat post are absolute levels
Bout tree fiddy. Although, all my levels have the correct answer embedded in them somewhere.
01-25-2010 , 02:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutti
Tell me about one or two "aha moments" you've had.
Hmm, these are always really tough. At first I thought you had asked about one or two "haha" moments, and I had a couple of those good to go, but the question as you phrased it is difficult for me because I learn in baby steps. If I had to put a box around one realization and call it an "aha" moment, it's probably to stop thinking in terms of hands that beat me. For a good year and a half after I started playing online poker, I was a SUPER nit. That was style that was taught to me, and unfortunately I internalized it well. I did all kinds of dumb stuff like raise/folding TP for "info" and checking behind the turn with big overpairs against morons. This was during the last months of the Party Poker era, so you could nut peddle and still win a then-pitiful winrate of like 4ptBB/100 (although I didn't have tracking software at the time).

After the ban, I moved to FTP and proceeded to get destroyed hand after hand by the much better quality regs there. Never went broke, but I must've been grinding BE for tens of thousands of hands. Took a break, returned to the games with tracking software and a new perspective afforded to me by time spent lurking on forums (oddly enough, 2p2 wasn't one of them). I think once I could put a number to a player's tendencies, it was a small step for the math part of my brain to figure out that certain opponent-types just couldn't possibly have me beat that often. For example, I would c-bet Kd8c7d with KQos and get raised by a 55/30 with 90bbs and a 40% fold to c-bet. The old, pre-HUD AllTheCheese would say to himself, "Well, I don't beat AK, I don't beat 87, I don't beat a set, most flush draws are a flip with me anyway, I guess I fold." The new me just crunched the numbers, figuring that if this guy plays more than a third of his hands preflop, and folds less than half the time on the flop, he's simply not gonna have a better hand than mine often enough. The new me makes the easy conclusion that shoving is +EV. Pokerstove also helped a great deal in this department, providing all those true but unintuitive percentages like 40% equity with Ace King against QQ+/AK.

So yeah, that's my "aha" moment. Now, they can't get me to fold K high to their shoves.

Poker Stars $1/$2 No Limit Hold'em - 9 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

UTG+2: $64.30
MP1: $200.00
MP2: $493.00
CO: $267.45
BTN: $145.45
SB: $239.45
Hero (BB): $310.00
UTG: $219.10
UTG+1: $228.75

Pre Flop: ($3.00) Hero is BB with K Q
2 folds, UTG+2 calls $2, 4 folds, SB calls $1, Hero raises to $10, UTG+2 calls $8, 1 fold

Flop: ($22.00) 5 3 A (2 players)
Hero bets $14, UTG+2 raises to $54.30 all in, Hero calls $40.30

Turn: ($130.60) 9 (2 players - 1 is all in)

River: ($130.60) Q (2 players - 1 is all in)

Final Pot: $130.60
UTG+2 shows K T (a flush, Ace high)
Hero shows K Q (a pair of Queens)
UTG+2 wins $127.60
(Rake: $3.00)
01-25-2010 , 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTheCheese
So yeah, that's my "aha" moment. Now, they can't get me to fold K high to their shoves.

Poker Stars $1/$2 No Limit Hold'em - 9 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

UTG+2: $64.30
MP1: $200.00
MP2: $493.00
CO: $267.45
BTN: $145.45
SB: $239.45
Hero (BB): $310.00
UTG: $219.10
UTG+1: $228.75

Pre Flop: ($3.00) Hero is BB with K Q
2 folds, UTG+2 calls $2, 4 folds, SB calls $1, Hero raises to $10, UTG+2 calls $8, 1 fold

Flop: ($22.00) 5 3 A (2 players)
Hero bets $14, UTG+2 raises to $54.30 all in, Hero calls $40.30

Turn: ($130.60) 9 (2 players - 1 is all in)

River: ($130.60) Q (2 players - 1 is all in)

Final Pot: $130.60
UTG+2 shows K T (a flush, Ace high)
Hero shows K Q (a pair of Queens)
UTG+2 wins $127.60
(Rake: $3.00)
Standard
02-04-2012 , 02:16 PM
bump

Last edited by LirvA; 02-04-2012 at 02:16 PM. Reason: ALLTheCookies >

      
m