Durrrr playing 10-20nl

[restrikt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
durrr: why did you drop down? Is it true that you being backed by Raptor?

[/ QUOTE ]

i am not backing durrr. hes v smart with his bankroll, and he will not ever go busto. he is still 'rolled' for 100-200, but theres a lot of things to consider in playing bigger games. apparently a lot of you seem to miss this concept. just because hes playing smaller doesnt mean hes busto. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell Durrrr to play LuckyULSA 2/4 NLHE gogogogogogog

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i know his roommate raptor isnt.

[/ QUOTE ]

eh? as far as i remember ive never talked to you in my life about anything like this. dont post stuff u dont know about. my taxes will be handled for april 15th. holla

[/ QUOTE ]


well, i guess u can say we never talked about it, technically u didnt respond: holla.


to which i responded(to your post and to illisure's): [ QUOTE ]
there are lots of otherwise smart kids who are doing exactly what u said in your post, and it couldnt be more off.

gl if u get audited and havent paid taxes on your 300k bankroll. they will laugh at you if u tell them that you havent paid taxes on it bc you havent 'cashed it out' yet. then they will fine you thousands of dollars in penalties.

that info is very wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
yeah [censored] it. people seem to have different opinions on this, so why not choose what suits you best?

raptor, plz see a good accountant.

[/ QUOTE ]


and in regards to the PM you sent me: nothing i posted about hasnt already been posted on 2p2(by you no less!!). I was merely using u and durrr to make a point about high stakes players and taxes and why sometimes u can get really [censored] depending on when in the year u run good and bad. i even said that i made up the #'s in my example. truthfully, i dont have any idea what durrr or u actually made this year, nor do i care much. next time i bring up the topic, ill just say high stakes player X and Y, you have my word.

[mntbikr15]

[ QUOTE ]
fsu he was 100% wrong in the big NVG thread discussing Durr's PLO strategy in a HU hand - despite being called out on it many times he has failed to admit he was totally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dean...this sounds much like you in your "variance" thread.

[Pudge714]

BluffThis,
Who has a better idea of aba's 5betting range durrr or you?

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you drop down and rebuild after you get your tail kicked for a few sessions in a row?

I know I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

if u follow good BR guidelines, u should at least be rolled 20x...so dropping down after just a couple of sessions is not always/usually required...imo...

[/ QUOTE ]


wow, you know nothing of bankroll or omaha if you believe that. 20 buyins is a bad week.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm down almost 20 buyins in the past 5k hands. That was a bad weekEND.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Bluffthis!,

I'm curious about something. Lemme say that I've watched Durrrr play for about two years, going back a ways on UB at first, but I wouldn't say I'm a fanboy. I will rail him when he's on because, from my perspective, the guy seems like a damn good, tricky player, period. Not that that means a whole lot, but you also see some players around here who have actually PLAYED durrrr complimenting his play, etc. I take it as an axiom that durrrr is above average at NLHE and is probably +EV HU against just about anybody, at any stakes up to at least 50-100 online atm; if you reject this postulate then perhaps my next question doesn't interest you... But what I'm wondering is, is it possible that the guy *plays* really well, but doesn't *explain* stuff really well? Like maybe he is an (trying to avoid vaguaries and cliches but I just can't) "intuitive" player to some degree, and so there is really not much that translates in the way of strategy advice? (I have no idea if this is actually why Durrrr doesn't share a lot, just find it a fascinating tangent to this discussion...tell me, do you think there is conceivably such a thing as a very good HSNL player who can't or doesn't have the inclination to really explain much of anything because of simple verbal communication deficiencies and such?)

My real point here tho is, if Durrrr is a very good, perhaps even world class player (in terms of his *performance* at the tables, not necessarily his ability to explain theory), then wouldn't we probably be better served by having something of his participation (even if it's somewhat cryptic) than NOTHING?

To make a really crude analogy that hopefully still manages the point, if Stu Ungar were still alive and were a participant in HSNL, would you rather have one-word answers ("raise", "call", "fold") or nothing of his input when you post hands? (Obv Durrrr has not proven himself the world's greatest yet but most ppl accept he's pretty damn good; if there's a line somewhere of accomplishment, for when someone is allowed to post one word answers, and in your opinion he has not passed it, that's fine too).

[/ QUOTE ]


1) durrr may very well be a top-notch nlhe player. However whether he is such in all possible game conditions instead of the former ones where he has done well, remains to be seen. The long term in LONG. See Sklansky's threads in Feb and Mar of last year in the HSNL forum for more on certain types of "ante players".

2) Even if one grants the premise that a player has a very high level of ability in nlhe, that doesn't automatically translate into being able to just jump into plo and being an expert there even with an otherwise expert knowledge of nlhe. This is because the maths in plo are different, as are many of the strategy conclusions they lead to. Of course if someone is truly an expert in nlhe, he would understand this and could quickly bone up/study same for plo. The fact that durrr has indicated a much less than expert knowledge of plo therefore actually makes a partial rebuttal to his being a nlhe expert, with the conclusion that his results there have more to do with either good game selection (playing with even worse players) and short term positive variance associated with those games condidtions (but without his realizing that is the case).

3) "cryptic" responses as you call them without ANY reasoning behind same, contribute NOTHING to strategy discussions and in fact hinder them when posters take as gospel based on results only that such play recommendations must be correct. However if you search the archives for Ray Zee's strategy postings, you will see he gives very short posts with strategy advice *almost* to the point of being cryptic. The difference is that he most often identifies what is the predominant factor among many such theoretical/math/player dependant ones, that should control one's action in a given situations. BIG difference AND you can be sure Ray is right not just based on a LIFETIME (i.e. more than 3-4 years) of results, but on his writing/posting/theory history as well. The only times Ray might be off is not understanding what are typical online game conditions for a given stakes, because he doesn't play them.

4) Stu Ungar is a BAD example to use for an analogy for the purpose you are trying to use it, but actually a good one regarding durrr. If that seems contradictory to you, search the archives for Ray's views on Ungar.

[Eagles]

Bluffthis,

I have one question and I would like you to answer it, do you seriously think that someone's ability to discuss poker theory is a better measure of their skill at poker than their results? Because judging by your posts that's what you are suggesting.

Also please do not bring sample size into the discussion because

1. You do not have sufficient sample of Durrr's strategy posts
2. Durrr has likely played enough hands that his results are not short term variance

[Eagles]

[ QUOTE ]

The difference is that he most often identifies what is the predominant factor among many such theoretical/math/player dependant ones, that should control one's action in a given situations. BIG difference AND you can be sure Ray is right not just based on a LIFETIME (i.e. more than 3-4 years) of results, but on his writing/posting/theory history as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bluff you realize it is entirely possible that durrr and many other online pros who have only played for a few years have played more hands than ray zee because online they can literally play 20x the hands per hour. The number of hands played is far more important than time.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I have one question and I would like you to answer it, do you seriously think that someone's ability to discuss poker theory is a better measure of their skill at poker than their results? Because judging by your posts that's what you are suggesting.

[/ QUOTE ]


Better players answer YES to the above question. Lesser ones and fanboy nuthuggers answer NO and prefer to guage abilities on results alone.

And I have in fact read enough of durrr's so-called strat postings as to have read a representative sample of same sufficient to draw the inferences I have. And the number of hands he has played is STILL in the short term, AND doesn't account for a prime factor even if the case is otherwise, which is the game conditions in which they were played.

[PartyGirlUK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have one question and I would like you to answer it, do you seriously think that someone's ability to discuss poker theory is a better measure of their skill at poker than their results? Because judging by your posts that's what you are suggesting.

[/ QUOTE ]


Better players answer YES to the above question. Lesser ones and fanboy nuthuggers answer NO and prefer to guage abilities on results alone.



[/ QUOTE ]

OK so if it was somehow shown that moving in pre in that hand is categorically inferior to calling and seeing a flop, which you have denied and claimed was an example of Durrrr's lack of PLO ability, would you accept that your PLO theory was deficient and you werent as good as player as you think you are? Would you accept that Durrr is better than you? As I have been most insistent that calling is superior to shoving, would you accept that I am better at PLO than you?