Durrrr playing 10-20nl - Page 9

BluffTHIS! · #81 01-21-2007, 08:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Durrrr is back at 100-200 NLHE on Full Tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

His bud raptor has a lot of confidence in him, even if it has proven misplaced in the past few months.

BTW, did you spot him buying in full or short?

Daddy Warbucks · #82 01-21-2007, 08:37 PM

Where did you find out Raptor is backing him?

JMa · #83 01-21-2007, 08:42 PM

this raptor, is his screen name public? if so, what is it?

BluffTHIS! · #84 01-21-2007, 08:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Where did you find out Raptor is backing him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Daddy,

Why don't you work out the math, even given a generous assumption of playing 12 hours a day 8-tabling, what is the minimum reasonable time it would take to move up from 10/20 to 100/200, for a given sized roll specified in buyins.

Daddy Warbucks · #85 01-21-2007, 08:46 PM

Why wouldn't he just bankroll him straight into the 200 game?

Eagles · #86 01-21-2007, 08:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Where did you find out Raptor is backing him?

[/ QUOTE ]
He made it up with no evidence to support it other than speculation.

BluffTHIS! · #87 01-21-2007, 08:52 PM

eagle,

It's true that it is just an assumption. Nonetheless it is a reasonable one.

Daddy,

Looks like he did now subsequent to the questions raised in this thread. But of course it could be he only got staked into 10/20 and durrr thinks something on the order of a 4-6 buyin roll is enough to move up. Given how fast he moved down, i.e. through not exercising prudent roll management even if you assume he wasn't playing bad during any of that, that isn't an unreasonable alternative supposition either.

Eagles · #88 01-21-2007, 09:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
eagle,

It's true that it is just an assumption. Nonetheless it is a reasonable one.

[/ QUOTE ]
It may be reasonable but it is incorrect, I guarantee.

snagglepuss · #89 01-21-2007, 09:10 PM

bluff,

your assumptions of durr's financial situation are pretty ignorant. while i agree with you a lot in strategy posts, you would do yourself a good service by reigning in making claims such as this.

it makes you look bad, and it is understandable that many members consider your opinions to be worthless, because of said ignorant claims.

bogey · #90 01-21-2007, 09:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
b,

Zero applicability on a quarterly basis. You are correct, however, that there may be some carryover benefits in the case of having a losing year. My error there, I had simply not even considered the possibility of an entire losing year for an online poker pro.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeh, the only real place I think it may be pertinent is at these uber high stakes shorthanded where it seems like fortunes are won and lost on a weekly basis, and a really bad week or month could do some serious damage.