|
|
#51
05-31-2007, 04:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm done wasting my time arguing with people that don't want to observe the game. [/ QUOTE ] you have two pros who have played thousands of hours in the game and hundreds of hours with those two individual players (one of which plays once a week at most) and are telling you you're wrong, and yet we're the ones not observing the game? [/ QUOTE ] No offense... but my definition of "PRO" is something a little higher than a guy playing 30-60 and squeeking by. I know the cost of living out here is WAY lower than LA... but I don't see how a "pro" could live in a state that allows the MAX bet of any poker game to be $60??? You'd have to play a ridiculous amount of hours or get absurdly lucky to make a living playing at this limit. [/ QUOTE ] 
|
|
#52
05-31-2007, 04:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] b.) you are the only one on 2+2 who think i win. c.) myself and vehn have already said that we do not think there is collusion in this game. i will ask bk, schneids and worm33 to give their opinions as well, but i suspect that they will agree with us. if (more likely WHEN) they do, i will be anxious to hear your response, as some of the best limit minds around will have disagreed with you. as far as your buddy, i know he doesnt play that game. i only played with him because my friend was playing 6/12 and came over to tell me about an idiot/table coach who was in his game, so i decided to play in it with him. he was right. [/ QUOTE ] I do think you're probably a winning poker player (small sample size of observation of course)... However... your statement about my friend is ridiculous. Why would you possibly play 6-12... or ANYTHING lower than the biggest game available just to see if my friend was being an obnoxious A-hole??? That doesn't make any sense. He likes to play poker and blow off steam... and yes... he doesn't play great cause he's used to LA and NL... but your statement about changing games makes NO sense. [/ QUOTE ] i like to play with my friend sometimes. he likes me to comment on his play. i had already played a few hours of a bigger game. besides, blowhards crack me up.
|
|
#53
05-31-2007, 04:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
Just to be clear... other than me being suspect about a couple bad apples.... I had a blast at the Canterbury.
Good dealers (and being from LA I was shocked when they all spoke english)... OK floormen. Good service. and overall nice room (except the sub-zero tempatures). I hope I'm not detering anyone away from playing at this local action junkie hangout... thanks to the wins I booked at the 15-30... I'm still up for the week. HOWEVER... please do keep an extra eye peeled for possible shenanigans at the higher limit games.
|
|
#55
05-31-2007, 04:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm done wasting my time arguing with people that don't want to observe the game. [/ QUOTE ] you have two pros who have played thousands of hours in the game and hundreds of hours with those two individual players (one of which plays once a week at most) and are telling you you're wrong, and yet we're the ones not observing the game? [/ QUOTE ] this is a great point. these guys in question don't even play all that often, and they are not a 'package deal' by any means.
|
|
#56
05-31-2007, 04:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You'd have to play a ridiculous amount of hours or get absurdly lucky to make a living playing at this limit. [/ QUOTE ] that or just be good at poker. [/ QUOTE ] yeah... but even a winning player who books a win at 2 out of 3 or even 3 out of 4 sessions, minus the rake, minus the cost of playing, 30-60 is a real stretch to make a living at. Then again... "living" is a relative term. Maybe those pre-embargo Party poker winnings were enough to payoff a house here in MN... in CA it was only enough to put a down payment on a condo [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
|
|
#57
05-31-2007, 04:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
[ QUOTE ]
In addition, I have NO vested interest in making any of this up. [/ QUOTE ] your vested interest is to make yourself feel better after felting in the game. Its a common enough complaint that I have seen over the years when a semi-good player cannot handle the level of aggression thats found in a game like the 30/60 at Cantebury (perhaps the most agressive yet spew-tastic 30/60 in the country). Blaming the game rather than blaming yourself, I think we need Dr. Al in this thread. [ QUOTE ] I posted several examples of what are KNOWN to be amateur colluder moves, and the best you can do is explain that I played K-6 from under gun. What kind of defense is that? [/ QUOTE ] I read every post in this thread, and I see no evidence of collusion. The moves you described are par for the course in that game. In my 4 years of regular live play I have only come across colluders 3x, and only one time did the floor agree with me. But I must have heard accusations at least 40-60 times, and twice I was accused of colluding too (both times the floor laughed it off, the guy was just a stuck monkey looking to pass the buck). [ QUOTE ] I don't know of any of the other 2+2er's you're talking about. [/ QUOTE ] Spend more time in the strat forums and you would... 1/2 of them are world class players, the other 1/2 he mentioned are very good. I trust their opinions. And since I have played at Canterbury I can see how a tourist who isn't used to this level of aggression can assume there is collusion, but I sure as hell didn't see any collusion while I was playing in that game. [ QUOTE ] You can talk about how horrible my limit game is, or how horrible the limit poker play of my friends are. That's not the issues. The issue is that there was obvious best-handing and whip-sawing going on at that table... PERIOD. [/ QUOTE ] I would guess you have never played a high limit game before, this is a standard play at the higher levels, and it gets even wilder short handed. where you will see someone go 5 bets on the flop just to fold the river because they couldn't get you to fold. I hate to say it Bicycles_Biatch, but your evidence is inconclusive, and there seems to be more evidence that your likely wrong.
|
|
#58
05-31-2007, 04:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
you do realize that if someone played 30 hours a week, took a two week vacation, and made one big bet an hour, they would make 90k right? just checking.
|
|
#59
05-31-2007, 04:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You'd have to play a ridiculous amount of hours or get absurdly lucky to make a living playing at this limit. [/ QUOTE ] that or just be good at poker. [/ QUOTE ] yeah... but even a winning player who books a win at 2 out of 3 or even 3 out of 4 sessions, [/ QUOTE ] this statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding about being a pro. 'book a win'????
|
|
#60
05-31-2007, 04:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe a late night HU grudge match at the CC can settle this? You guys can also watch the action from your table. [/ QUOTE ] I would be up for that... but the floormen WON'T spreak a heads up game (I asked)... they won't start a mixed game (I asked)... you legally can't play for more than $60 (state law)... However, next time any of these players are in LA... I'll have one of the boss-men at the Bike set up any game we want to play.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
