|
|
#31
03-21-2007, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] An interesting claim. Better players are in a position to get sucked out on more often than bad players. A novel concept, and probably beyond my level of understanding. [/ QUOTE ] This isn't novel at all and most professionals understand it p.s. I have no idea if you're being serious or not but based on the general level of stupidity exhibited in this thread I'll assume you are p.p.s. I can't believe I read this thread, I feel that much stupider for it [/ QUOTE ] I was being sarcastic. There's certainly a lot of stupidity in this thread, but I dare you to find something I said that's stupid. 
|
|
#32
03-21-2007, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
[ QUOTE ]
If we can find someone just as skilled as Phil Ivy but who is getting luckier who is going to come out on top? All I have been trying to say is that if you have someone who is VERY skilled and VERY lucky. They are going to dominate the poker world. [/ QUOTE ] Such a person exists; his name is Patrik Antonius.
|
|
#33
03-21-2007, 07:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
[ QUOTE ]
Phil Ivey is lucky [/ QUOTE ] So, Phil Ivey making an incredible read in a poker hand is relevant to this argument? Phil Ivey is a very good player. Nobody is saying otherwise. edit: Okay, maybe it's relevant, but it sure doesn't contribute much evidence to the cause.
|
|
#34
03-21-2007, 08:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] We get it man, get lost. James [/ QUOTE ] Lol . Why don't you get lost sparky. You have a gizzzilion posts and I am sure you have said things people don't agree with. I am sure you have overtalked certain topics. But "get lost" . You get lost. Anyhow my thought that might get lost is that it seems to me, quite often , the loser of a hand got unlucky and the winner won. Next hand please. [/ QUOTE ] you are not smart. [/ QUOTE ] oh, does that mean you are or are you just James whippin boy. i figure he can speak for himself...... can't he? hey i have an idea.... be a good little helper and PM him. [/ QUOTE ] i have no idea if james can speak for himself, although i assume he can. i was speaking for me, and am doing so again when i repeat the fact that you are not smart. [/ QUOTE ] and why is that pray tell......
|
|
#35
03-22-2007, 12:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] We get it man, get lost. James [/ QUOTE ] Lol . Why don't you get lost sparky. You have a gizzzilion posts and I am sure you have said things people don't agree with. I am sure you have overtalked certain topics. But "get lost" . You get lost. Anyhow my thought that might get lost is that it seems to me, quite often , the loser of a hand got unlucky and the winner won. Next hand please. [/ QUOTE ] you are not smart. [/ QUOTE ] oh, does that mean you are or are you just James whippin boy. i figure he can speak for himself...... can't he? hey i have an idea.... be a good little helper and PM him. [/ QUOTE ] i have no idea if james can speak for himself, although i assume he can. i was speaking for me, and am doing so again when i repeat the fact that you are not smart. [/ QUOTE ] and why is that pray tell...... [/ QUOTE ] why are you not smart? i have no idea. could be a variety of things; genetics, education, environment during your formative years , etc.
|
|
#38
03-22-2007, 11:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
[ QUOTE ]
Such a person exists; his name is Patrik Antonius. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know much about him, but I do know there's a great video on youtube, a hand between him and Brunson and Brunson chaps his hide with pocket 3's to Antonius' A-2 offsuit. I love it. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
|
|
#39
03-22-2007, 01:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
Justin,
"Wtf you read this forum?" I was mislead by the title "interesting" take on Poker Pros. I was further mislead by the interesting take on poker pros, part 2, which I thought would be an equally hilarious and yet different 'take on poker pros.' When I found that it was the same exact thread but with a different title, I figured I'd let the OP know that what he is saying is not new, and certainly not 'interesting.' All poker pros got lucky at some point. Some of the most successful were the luckiest. Or at least they weren't the unluckiest. I read the forum from time to time, usually only long enough to remember how sad it is that forums like this have become a waste of time! James
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
