Re: WPEX Regulars thread (lc)
 

So apart from 1 or maybe 2 people, no-one on WPX is very good. Yet it's apparently one of the toughest limit sites to win on pre-rakeback. Does not compute!

Who / how good is Nemo_Blaaberg (sp)? Some Norwegian player often seen playing Da_Enigma HU at 100/200. Any good, a bot or a fish?

Re: WPEX Regulars thread (lc)
 

Anyone have thoughts on imsohigh? This character claims to be a winner but only plays sporatically and, imo, awfully. Confirm/deny? I want to play this jerk HU for rollz.

Re: WPEX Regulars thread (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
So apart from 1 or maybe 2 people, no-one on WPX is very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

y does everyone keep saying this, atleast a dozen good players have been named at the mid stakes and lower( off the top of my head goingdownslow daenigma MJ mrmumsan illogic ect) and a few playres listed as overaggro tards are definitely winners after rb which most wont deny ( ie unomero bigdog twayankee a few others im forgettin ect)

fwiw one of the players who was listed as a fish by one player then confirmed a fish by another and was supposedly busto is probably one of the bigger winners in these games and the player whos play I respected/feared the most, yet noone rebutted that he wasnt a fish (no its not me, someone who plays higher than myself as well as 5/T). I wont out either his 2p2 name or his name on wpex but this again just proves how vulnerable poker players are to underestimating their opponents ie the thread where someone called dean not very good or tricky lolol

Re: WPEX Regulars thread (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So apart from 1 or maybe 2 people, no-one on WPX is very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

y does everyone keep saying this, atleast a dozen good players have been named at the mid stakes and lower( off the top of my head goingdownslow daenigma MJ mrmumsan illogic ect) and a few playres listed as overaggro tards are definitely winners after rb which most wont deny ( ie unomero bigdog twayankee a few others im forgettin ect)

fwiw one of the players who was listed as a fish by one player then confirmed a fish by another and was supposedly busto is probably one of the bigger winners in these games and the player whos play I respected/feared the most, yet noone rebutted that he wasnt a fish (no its not me, someone who plays higher than myself as well as 5/T). I wont out either his 2p2 name or his name on wpex but this again just proves how vulnerable poker players are to underestimating their opponents ie the thread where someone called dean not very good or tricky lolol

[/ QUOTE ]


actually, about 90% of solid TAGs at high stakes even are not good. they may win a little bit though. i would venture to say that i only know of around 10-20 players who i consider "good" at shorthanded limit holdem

Re: WPEX Regulars thread (lc)
 

ummm maybe you have a different definition of good, but to me, if you are a winner then you are, by definition, "good". I think the word you're looking for might be expert.

For example, I rarely play higher than 30/60, but I am a long term winner. I would qualify myself as being *good* at texas hold them, but certainly not an expert.

Re: WPEX Regulars thread (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So apart from 1 or maybe 2 people, no-one on WPX is very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

y does everyone keep saying this, atleast a dozen good players have been named at the mid stakes and lower( off the top of my head goingdownslow daenigma MJ mrmumsan illogic ect) and a few playres listed as overaggro tards are definitely winners after rb which most wont deny ( ie unomero bigdog twayankee a few others im forgettin ect)

fwiw one of the players who was listed as a fish by one player then confirmed a fish by another and was supposedly busto is probably one of the bigger winners in these games and the player whos play I respected/feared the most, yet noone rebutted that he wasnt a fish (no its not me, someone who plays higher than myself as well as 5/T). I wont out either his 2p2 name or his name on wpex but this again just proves how vulnerable poker players are to underestimating their opponents ie the thread where someone called dean not very good or tricky lolol

[/ QUOTE ]


actually, about 90% of solid TAGs at high stakes even are not good. they may win a little bit though. i would venture to say that i only know of around 10-20 players who i consider "good" at shorthanded limit holdem

[/ QUOTE ]



BZ is world class and lives up to sick standards of excellence at all times.

Re: WPEX Regulars thread (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]

actually, about 90% of solid TAGs at high stakes even are not good. they may win a little bit though. i would venture to say that i only know of around 10-20 players who i consider "good" at shorthanded limit holdem

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement.

However, I also agree that there are varying definitions of good. And I also agree that poker players are almost always too quick to dismiss somebody after they see one or two things they don't agree with -- because poker players are, by definition, narrow-minded individualists.

Player Capsules
 

czar1111 - weak tight vag, won't tilt

dadevil - same basic player as czar except devil tilts

weveGotAWinr - decent player, a whiner, nothing special

mrmumsan - solid

goingdownslow - weak tight nit who's running well - loves to fold

keep_at_it - solid, mixes things up

jonthefox - a lagro / lagtard / whatever you want to call them

annihilator - total weak tight vag

bigdog07 - just bad all around

More later...

Re: Player Capsules
 

after reading this thread and all the comments about the players it forces me to thinking that poker playing ego maniacs like most of us have lots of flaws in his or her game and we have a hard time changing and adapting. I love it , long tive the meta game...

Re: WPEX Regulars thread (lc)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

actually, about 90% of solid TAGs at high stakes even are not good. they may win a little bit though. i would venture to say that i only know of around 10-20 players who i consider "good" at shorthanded limit holdem

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement.

However, I also agree that there are varying definitions of good. And I also agree that poker players are almost always too quick to dismiss somebody after they see one or two things they don't agree with -- because poker players are, by definition, narrow-minded individualists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would casually define "good" as someone who can beat the game pre-rakeback. It appears that Baronzeus's definition of good is what I, like the other poster, would define as "expert".

Question for Schneids or any other top limit pro: what percentage of your profit do you think comes from "solid TAGs" (good / competent players who are inferior to you but not "expert"), vs outright fish? I ask because I am interested in how this compares to a no limit expert's edge against solid but not expert players. My instinct is that a no limit expert has a greater edge against solid players than his limit counterpart will due to the nature of the respective games, but I could be totally off on this.