|
|
#31
12-12-2006, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Quest for NOVA, 53k points in 20 days
[ QUOTE ]
Given I was on slight tilt when I made that post as I was down about 230 bb in the last 3 sessions, which is why my WR had dropped so low. Since making the post I have had 2 rediculously good days winning 150 bb. Which I also beleive is very unrealistic. [/ QUOTE ] Take a calculus-based statistics course. 
|
|
#33
12-13-2006, 12:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Quest for NOVA, 53k points in 20 days
[ QUOTE ]
People live are bad. People online are good. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. Well...relatively speaking anyway. [ QUOTE ] 8-tabling can't help either at limit (NL I guess it looks like many can do it). [/ QUOTE ] I would think 8 tabling would be much easier with limit than with NL
|
|
#34
12-13-2006, 12:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Quest for NOVA, 53k points in 20 days
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 8-tabling can't help either at limit (NL I guess it looks like many can do it). [/ QUOTE ] I would think 8 tabling would be much easier with limit than with NL [/ QUOTE ] Have you ever tried playing short handed limit on a lot of tables? I'd die of boredom trying to 4-table NL, but it would be OK with limit. I could probably 16 table NL with the right monitor set up. Much more than 8 limit tables gets to be a bit much. Maybe 10 max.
|
|
#35
12-13-2006, 01:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Quest for NOVA, 53k points in 20 days
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] People live are bad. People online are good. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. Well...relatively speaking anyway. [ QUOTE ] 8-tabling can't help either at limit (NL I guess it looks like many can do it). [/ QUOTE ] I would think 8 tabling would be much easier with limit than with NL [/ QUOTE ] That last sentance is 1000% wrong.
|
|
#37
12-13-2006, 01:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Quest for NOVA, 53k points in 20 days
If you want to continue to 'question the integrity' of the site and actually believe that they set things up so as to help the fish win then that's up to you.
But how you are coming to this conclusion in the first place should be questioned before you jump to some of those ridiculous types of conclusions. You see a bad player win and you assume that it is the site that is making that happen? An obviously more correct assumption would be to question whether your ability to correctly judge a player's poker-skill is adequate. "How is this player winning? Is there something I'm missing? Is he really as bad as I think he is? Is sample-size adequate? Is the stuff that I think is pretty weird really all that weird?" etc etc. I've had players with decent stats tell me in the chat-box that I was a total fish and the worst player ever because I open-raise the button with K9s or something. I'll hear for the rest of the session, "K9 for a raise?? Man, you suck." Similarly, I usually conclude (without blabbing about in chat) that any opponent of mine who open-limps in the cut-off probably isn't THAT strong a player. BUT, I'm willing to be flexible in my assessment because I know that there is more than just one correct way to play and there are some players who are just way too passive about blind-steals who can still be very dangerous opponents post-flop. The fact is, if there are a lot of players in your database who are winning over thousands and thousands of hands and you can't figure out how they are doing it then the problem is far more likely to be with your ability to assess the situation than it is the site's fault for supposedly giving fishier players better cards because they want them to win. After awhile such discussions about, "they give better cards to the fishy players because there's no other way they can win" become kind of boring. You seem like a decent guy and I wish you good luck on your SN quest. I just get really surprised (STILL) when somebody with a really mediocre win-rate blames the site instead of their own play.
|
|
#38
12-13-2006, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Quest for NOVA, 53k points in 20 days
The thing that surprises me is that people who think that online poker is fixed still continue to play online. "Hmmm . . . I think I'm being cheated here. Oh well, go on and deal the next hand."
|
|
#39
12-13-2006, 03:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Quest for NOVA, 53k points in 20 days
yes, this boggles my mind as well.
In onlinepro's defense though he only SUSPECTS that the game is somehow fixed but is waiting until he has more hands before his final conclusions.
|
|
#40
12-13-2006, 04:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Quest for NOVA, 53k points in 20 days
So, when your winrate hasn't improved after your next 80K hands and you believe the site is rigged, will you play like a fish so that you can cash in too?
Yeah, didn't think so. M. p.s. Good luck on the Nova quest. After you've achieved it you should try playing only 2 tables and watch your winrate septuple as compared to playing 8. It's also more fun than playing HUDbot poker.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
