OT: [censored] thread, OCTOBER, READ RULES IN TOP POST

[vixticator]

[ QUOTE ]
They might not be completely meaningless, but you are focusing on the wrong thing if you pay too much attention to them. Go through hands and post the situations you arent sure about. This is what you should be looking at.

[/ QUOTE ]Been doing that. Not enough hands prob. I know my end game is a bit flawed, think I might be *too* aggressive. I'm getting close to a decent sample though--500 is "decent" yeah? Or is it more like 1k?

[MikeMcQ1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this standard or am I bubbling out too much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the reality of it is that if you're still at the $3.40 level, you will definitely have some leaks. So just work on plugging your leaks and move up as you become more successful. Don't focus on stats because most of the time they're meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true. Just because someone is playing at a low-stakes level doesn't mean he automatically has leaks. Bankroll management is a big part of the picture.

I didn't do the percentages but it's a good start when 1sts>2nd. And like Paul and Cha said, don't analyze stats as much as analyze individual hands and situations.

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this standard or am I bubbling out too much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the reality of it is that if you're still at the $3.40 level, you will definitely have some leaks. So just work on plugging your leaks and move up as you become more successful. Don't focus on stats because most of the time they're meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true. Just because someone is playing at a low-stakes level doesn't mean he automatically has leaks. Bankroll management is a big part of the picture.

I didn't do the percentages but it's a good start when 1sts>2nd. And like Paul and Cha said, don't analyze stats as much as analyze individual hands and situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Fight the power.

Plus it's only 300 tourneys. He could be the best poker player in the world right now, without needing to improve at all.

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't true. Just because someone is playing at a low-stakes level doesn't mean he automatically has leaks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't true. Just because someone is playing at a low-stakes level doesn't mean he automatically has leaks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't true. Just because someone is playing at a low-stakes level doesn't mean he automatically has leaks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jennifear = you're wrong.

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't true. Just because someone is playing at a low-stakes level doesn't mean he automatically has leaks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you are telling me it's possible for someone playing low stakes sngs to play perfectly?

[MikeMcQ1]

Wow, this turned into something unexpected. I thought we were just having some fun leveling.

Statement: Yes, it is possible for someone who plays low stakes to play perfectly.

True or False? It is impossible for someone who plays low stakes to play perfectly.

[cakewalk]

operational definition of "play perfectly"

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't true. Just because someone is playing at a low-stakes level doesn't mean he automatically has leaks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you are telling me it's possible for someone playing low stakes sngs to play perfectly?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if this is semantics/leveling or not, but if you believe it's possible for anybody to play "perfectly" then yes of course it's possible that for whatever reason one of those perfect players could be temporarily playing low stakes.