haha busto

[inferno]

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.

[nickg1532]

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.

[Guy McSucker]

[ 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.

[celiboy]

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

[ILOVEPOKER929]

[ 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]

[TheHip41]

[ 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.

[ILOVEPOKER929]

[ 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]

[Oink]

[ 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

[yourface]

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]

[sethypooh21]

[ 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...