Best Full Tilt 5/10 Regular?

[razorbacker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would like to see it resorted by bb/100 with a minimum of 10,000 hands. a lot of those players on that list are average at best. they've just played a lot of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

theres nobody that is beating the game for more than the biggest winners on that list (bb/100) over large samples.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is only 6 people on that entire list with bb/100 at 5 or higher. 2 - 3 bb/100? seriously? whats so good about that? not everyone wants to play 8 tables at a time. that doesn't mean you can't be one of the best players. i thought the question was who were the "best" players, not who played the most hands, winning 2bb/100 over the past couple of months.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you think the "best" means anything besides "makes the most per hour" than more power to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think of the "best" as players that are way better than me who i would rather not have at my table. most of the people playing 8 tables and winning 2bb/100, i could care less if they are at my table or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the 8 tablers from that list decided to play 2 tables instead of 8, I can assure you they would become the biggest pain in your ass at the tables. However, since it is more profitable to grind 8 tables than it is to focus on 2 tables, that won't happen any time soon.

[AcTiOnJaCsOn]

the best players, are cts, actionjeff, poopintoilet and tdogg

[king_of_drafts]

[ QUOTE ]
i wonder how these regs compare to the stars 5/10 regs. the only names i recognize are wyteazn and cumicon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stars players are far far worse

HAAANH FTW BTW

[mj2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would like to see it resorted by bb/100 with a minimum of 10,000 hands. a lot of those players on that list are average at best. they've just played a lot of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

theres nobody that is beating the game for more than the biggest winners on that list (bb/100) over large samples.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is only 6 people on that entire list with bb/100 at 5 or higher. 2 - 3 bb/100? seriously? whats so good about that? not everyone wants to play 8 tables at a time. that doesn't mean you can't be one of the best players. i thought the question was who were the "best" players, not who played the most hands, winning 2bb/100 over the past couple of months.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you think the "best" means anything besides "makes the most per hour" than more power to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think of the "best" as players that are way better than me who i would rather not have at my table. most of the people playing 8 tables and winning 2bb/100, i could care less if they are at my table or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

The players who are winning over a VERY large volume of hands ARE the best players. The games are pretty tough right now. Someone winning at 6ptbb/100 over 10,000 hands doesn't mean a thing - literally. Basically, I have no idea what your point is. Those are the best players - far and away.

[/ QUOTE ]

look, i'm not the one who posted a poker tracker screen shot of the past couple of months and said pick who the best players are. make it 50,000 hands or 100,000 hands but then go back 6 months so you are not just looking at the players who 8 table.

my point is, i play those games every day and you are missing some of the best players on that list. and some of the players on that list just aren't that good. just because you decide you enjoy poker more if you are only playing 2-3 tables 25 hours a week, doesn't automatically make you a fish.

[mj2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would like to see it resorted by bb/100 with a minimum of 10,000 hands. a lot of those players on that list are average at best. they've just played a lot of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

theres nobody that is beating the game for more than the biggest winners on that list (bb/100) over large samples.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is only 6 people on that entire list with bb/100 at 5 or higher. 2 - 3 bb/100? seriously? whats so good about that? not everyone wants to play 8 tables at a time. that doesn't mean you can't be one of the best players. i thought the question was who were the "best" players, not who played the most hands, winning 2bb/100 over the past couple of months.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you think the "best" means anything besides "makes the most per hour" than more power to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think of the "best" as players that are way better than me who i would rather not have at my table. most of the people playing 8 tables and winning 2bb/100, i could care less if they are at my table or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the 8 tablers from that list decided to play 2 tables instead of 8, I can assure you they would become the biggest pain in your ass at the tables. However, since it is more profitable to grind 8 tables than it is to focus on 2 tables, that won't happen any time soon.

[/ QUOTE ]


it is also "more profitable" to play 80 hours a week. that doesn't mean i'm going to do it. it doesn't do you any good to play 8 tables if it is going to make you hate poker in 6 months. i have no interest in playing 8 tables of anything. i make plenty of money playing 2-3 tables. and i enjoy my life much more. i would much rather try to move up faster. besides it doesn't take much math to figure out that winning 5bb/100 playing 2 tables of 10/20 is more profitable then winning 2bb/100 8 tabling 5/10.

[cumicon]

There is no way someone that sounds as retarded as you could be one of the best players. Care to share your screen name?

[razorbacker]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way someone that sounds as retarded as you could be one of the best players.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFMFT

[mj2]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way someone that sounds as retarded as you could be one of the best players. Care to share your screen name?

[/ QUOTE ]

so because i don't enjoy playing 8 tables or playing 80 hours a week that makes me retarded? ummm....okay. but i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one. also, i never claimed to be one of the best players. i'm not even close to one of the best players. but i'm also not one of the people who keep complaining how tough the games are getting. that is hilarious by the way. i quit my investment analyst job over 3 years ago so i must not be doing too bad. i've only played a little over 56,000 hands this year. my bb/100 isn't great but it is 4.3/100 spread over 3/6, 5/10 and 10/20. and my hourly rate is over $100/hr for the year. i think a lot of people forget how important table selection is. if you played less tables and were more selective, your bb/100 would go way up and your variance would go way down. i'm amazed at how many times i've opened a 5/10 table to see 6 pros sitting there when at the exact same time, there is a huge fish playing 10/20 with no wait list. that makes no sense to me.

all that is important is what you are comfortable with personally. if you enjoy playing 8 tables or if you enjoy playing 80 hours a week, then good for you. but how many tables you play or how many hours a week you play, doesn't necessarily determine your skill level. how many stories have you heard about winning players getting burned out. do you really want to play 8 tables for the next 20 years? no thanks.

[Melchiades]

$100/hr? Basically what a solid 200NL grinder makes in other words?

[mj2]

[ QUOTE ]
$100/hr? Basically what a solid 200NL grinder makes in other words?

[/ QUOTE ]

you totally missed my point. my point was you obviously can live very comfortably off of that kind of money. and obviously that number would be a lot higher if i filtered out my 3/6 hands. i only started playing 5/10 and 10/20 a couple of months ago.

i don't get why people care so much that i prefer to play 2 tables. lol. who cares? it is what i enjoy. it is relaxing and stress free and it pays well. it feels like i'm on a permanent vacation. i play way under my bankroll. i never tilt. i just play solid poker and use good game selection and try to slowing work my way up the higher limits.