#21
|
|||
|
|||
Re: haha busto
Miles you'll get out of this, you are the best poster besides ILP. I made allot of money without even knowing halve about the game as you do.
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Re: haha busto
jesus miles. judging by the typing i'd guess you are drunk. drunk + tilt + move up 10x stakes + run bad = busto
sucks if it's true. p.s. this thread in SSSH makes everyone depressed. this exact same thread in BBV makes everyone happy. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Re: haha busto
[ QUOTE ]
Bad site selection: If youre playing 5-10 or below you should not be playing at pokerstars. You should be playing at a site that gives you rakeback. My best friend (thehip41) is down around 300BB's over the last 2 months yet he has still made money due to rakeback and bonuses. [/ QUOTE ] Hmmm.... except that according to my figures, Stars rake costs you 2.3BB/100 at $5/10 while for example Full Tilt costs 2.7BB/100. The Stars games are more numerous and softer, too, so I think Stars beats FTP even with 27% rakeback. My numbers could be off though. Small sample etc etc. Other sites may be better of course. I totally agree with your psychological point, though: getting an actual cash payment mid month takes the edge off a losing streak. Guy. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Re: haha busto
Thank god
You are a perfect example of 90% of the "pros" out there. You spend hours discussing the best plays on particular hands and then ignore rule #1 - bankroll management and go bust in a matter of hours. LOL People wonder where the dead money comes from at the higher levels...I think this answers it Good luck finding a job after burning your bridges |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Re: haha busto
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Bad site selection: If youre playing 5-10 or below you should not be playing at pokerstars. You should be playing at a site that gives you rakeback. My best friend (thehip41) is down around 300BB's over the last 2 months yet he has still made money due to rakeback and bonuses. [/ QUOTE ] Hmmm.... except that according to my figures, Stars rake costs you 2.3BB/100 at $5/10 while for example Full Tilt costs 2.7BB/100. The Stars games are more numerous and softer, too, so I think Stars beats FTP even with 27% rakeback. My numbers could be off though. Small sample etc etc. Other sites may be better of course. I totally agree with your psychological point, though: getting an actual cash payment mid month takes the edge off a losing streak. Guy. [/ QUOTE ] I did not factor in the true rake costs as you did so my opinion may be flawed on this issue. Also, thanx for teaching me how to spell psychological. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Re: haha busto
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Bad site selection: If youre playing 5-10 or below you should not be playing at pokerstars. You should be playing at a site that gives you rakeback. My best friend (thehip41) is down around 300BB's over the last 2 months yet he has still made money due to rakeback and bonuses. [/ QUOTE ] Hmmm.... except that according to my figures, Stars rake costs you 2.3BB/100 at $5/10 while for example Full Tilt costs 2.7BB/100. The Stars games are more numerous and softer, too, so I think Stars beats FTP even with 27% rakeback. My numbers could be off though. Small sample etc etc. Other sites may be better of course. I totally agree with your psychological point, though: getting an actual cash payment mid month takes the edge off a losing streak. Guy. [/ QUOTE ] I did not factor in the true rake costs as you did so my opinion may be flawed on this issue. Also, thanx for teaching me how to spell psychological. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, because of the extra rake, playing at Absolute and Full Tilt is a waste of time. Bonuses at AP are done, rakeback sucks, just stick with poker stars. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Re: haha busto
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, because of the extra rake, playing at Absolute and Full Tilt is a waste of time. Bonuses at AP are done, rakeback sucks, just stick with poker stars. [/ QUOTE ] You also forgot to mention that AP is rigged. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Re: haha busto
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, because of the extra rake, playing at Absolute and Full Tilt is a waste of time. Bonuses at AP are done, rakeback sucks, just stick with poker stars. [/ QUOTE ] I havent seen a reload at AP in ages. The overall value from rb+bonii+vip is not as good as it has been, but I disagree that playing there is a waste of time. The games have gotten a lot better and the vip points are worth more. BTW UB have been generous with reloads 3 weeks in a row. With their "points for money" promo its definetely the cheapest place to play these days. rb+bonii+vip is close to 2BB/100 at 5/10. Oh, and they have some sort of prop scheme going on with 100% RB |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Re: haha busto
rofl thanks miles. at hand 9400 I bet you just wanted to win one more pot and get your money back. then it all went to [censored] of course.
ps wow a 9k breakeven stretch is enough to send you into monster tilt? [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Re: haha busto
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Bad site selection: If youre playing 5-10 or below you should not be playing at pokerstars. You should be playing at a site that gives you rakeback. My best friend (thehip41) is down around 300BB's over the last 2 months yet he has still made money due to rakeback and bonuses. [/ QUOTE ] Hmmm.... except that according to my figures, Stars rake costs you 2.3BB/100 at $5/10 while for example Full Tilt costs 2.7BB/100. The Stars games are more numerous and softer, too, so I think Stars beats FTP even with 27% rakeback. My numbers could be off though. Small sample etc etc. Other sites may be better of course. [/ QUOTE ]Also, from what people tell me, once you hit SN, it's the equiv of ~23% RB, or so they tell me... |
|
|