Does anyone recognize anyone in the top 500 or so? the Raymer/Moneymaker phenomenon continues. It looks like Kalee is going to be a big story if she holds her place.
I see Fossilman in there at about 40K in chips but no top pros that I can recognize. No Dan Harrington, no Hellmuth, Cloutier, Brunson, or even any of the young guns of the last couple years. And thank God no assholes like Joshie Boy Arieh this year.
Well, his name was already mentioned. I guess I missed it.
Fullem is playing tomorrow. I hope he kicks ass and, despite staggering odds, brings home a win for Bucknell!
rupprecht wrote:
I see Fossilman in there at about 40K in chips but no top pros that I can recognize. No Dan Harrington, no Hellmuth, Cloutier, Brunson, or even any of the young guns of the last couple years. And thank God no assholes like Joshie Boy Arieh this year.
Please re-read privious post. Those results are for one flight. If you look at the results of the games of the last month in the series, it's littered with "names"
XChamp wrote:
My online play is going pretty well. My handle on PartyPoker is ninjaferret. I actually play on a Party skin, Empire Poker, but it is the same site. Recently you can find me at the NL$200 tables. I played 1,000 $50 sit&goes a few months ago, but dropped them when I wasn't making an acceptable hourly rate.
Empire has a slightly better rake schedule than Party Poker, the downside is that you aren't getting exposure to all of the Party Poker tables.
Email me, I'll hook you up with Eurobet, which shows all of the PP tables, you'll pay the PP rake schedule, only you'll get 10% rakeback every month.
one can get around 27% rakeback from eurobet
poker guy wrote:
one can get around 27% rakeback from eurobet
Whutchutalkinboutwillis?
Yes, Empire doesn't have all the tournaments that Party does, but they do have their own which usually feature overlay.
I already get 25% rakeback, and if I can get off my ass and put in enough hours to bring my gross rake up to $3,000/month it would be 30%. Thanks for the offer though.
www.letsPlayCards.commalmo wrote:
poker guy wrote:one can get around 27% rakeback from eurobet
Whutchutalkinboutwillis?
XChamp wrote:
Yes, Empire doesn't have all the tournaments that Party does, but they do have their own which usually feature overlay.
I already get 25% rakeback, and if I can get off my ass and put in enough hours to bring my gross rake up to $3,000/month it would be 30%. Thanks for the offer though.
XChamp: SUP BRO!!!
malmo wrote:
Carnivore, I know of at least two runners that I know of (three if you count Doyle) competing in the WSOP this year. Both have visited Letsrun.
6600 players, first day is actually three separate days (flights) of 2200.
they didn't quite get the 6600 they were expecting-- looks like something in the 5600-5700 range (just under 1900 each day)...
btw, if you know doyle then you probably know todd (his son, he won a PLO bracelet this year), so that would make four (although todd got busted yesterday: short-stacked, he ran AQ into AA)...
Any runners currently in Vegas (for WSOP or otherwise) that might be looking to get a decent run in tomorrow morning (Sunday July 10) before it gets toooo hot out? I've been sticking to the treadmill so far this week and it's starting to kill me.....
malmoDOTGOESHEREemailATGOESHEREverizonDOTGOESHEREnet
Send me an email, I'll get you hooked up.
XChamp wrote:
I've only been playing poker (NL hold'em mostly) for a few years but I think I have a good bad beat story.
I was playing in a NL tournament with around 1250 people. I started with 1000 chips and after about 5 hours I had 40,000. I had been watching this maniac at my table for a while because he had 50k in chips and I planned to double up off of him. It was going to be pretty easy because he liked to call huge preflop bets with hands like 57o.
Soon enough I get dealt AKo. I put it to 10k and the maniac calls. The flop comes JQ2. Now normally I shut down right here with the J and Q out, but this guy is so readable that I decide to bet another 10k. If he had a draw or a pair or better he would go all in (maybe call with a set) or if he had nothing (which he probably does) he would fold. I had been watching him go all in with every pair he hit for about an hour so I knew him pretty well. So the guy thinks for a while and then does the wierdest thing; he raises it to 20k. I think for a while and remember that he's capable of bluffing. I decide my AK is still good (very unlike me) and move all in for an additional 12k. He thinks long and hard and then finally calls...with ATo. He needs a king to win and I have one of them. Instead of a king an 8 and a 9 come on the turn and river and I lose to a ridiculous straight and bust out of the tournament.
Had I won i would have had 80k in chips and been in a solid 3rd place (1st at 100k, 2nd at 85k, 4th at 60k and avg stack at 20k). with 1250 entrants i was looking at some serious cash, but instead walked away with a few hundred and tried to sleep.
The good part is that the man in 3rd place took my spot and ten minutes later he took out the maniac. The moron decided to slow play AA and then call all-in on a rag flop to the BB (the dude in 3rd place). I guess he thought AA was invincible...ha.
Not a bad beat, just a stupid play on your part going all in with AK after that flop, no matter how you read him. Suckers like you overplaying AK after the flop have won me many a dollar.
I'm not sure whether you are trying to goad me or not. I made a good play and read, and lost with thousands of dollars on the line when I was at a heavy advantage. My read was right and so was my play.
I'm with "not a....". I have no idea how you can read anyone online at the flop? When he's raising all day on 5-7 he's got to have a real hand at some point. The "stop and think about it " move doesn't mean much to me. In fact, it's one of the most predictable online tells of a real hand. The fact that he came over top with nothing doesn't mean squat when you have nothing too. I think your 10k on the flop was a mistake, and certainly the call on his raise.
If you flopped a set of deuces and went anything less than all-in at the flop, the result would have been the same and then you could have sang bad beat dirges to the bartender.
A-K is really not that good without a flop in your favor. Let go when it doesn't come home.
Whenever you say, "They're not supposed to do that" you should immediatly finish the sentence with "isn't that great?" If you cannot append your statement that way, you're going to make yourself miserable.
Embrace their bad play, don't mimic it.
To tell you the truth, I don't think your first bet $10k was bad, actualy a decent probe, but as soon as he came back over you should have cut bait.
Well then take up the argument with Sklansky and his Fundamental Theorem of Poker.
"Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose." (The Theory of Poker, David Sklansky, p17)
If I knew his cards I would have played the hand in the exact same way.
I am not prepared to argue with a man who is directly responsible for the majority of decent written instruction on poker.
XChamp wrote:
I'm not sure whether you are trying to goad me or not. I made a good play and read, and lost with thousands of dollars on the line when I was at a heavy advantage. My read was right and so was my play.
OK, maybe I was too harsh, but I still think the play was wrong, even if your read was right. Just my opinion.
XChamp wrote:
Well then take up the argument with Sklansky and his Fundamental Theorem of Poker.
"Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose." (The Theory of Poker, David Sklansky, p17)
If I knew his cards I would have played the hand in the exact same way.
I am not prepared to argue with a man who is directly responsible for the majority of decent written instruction on poker.
The problem with following the theorists, as in your Sklansky example, is that you have to be playing with a decent level player who is actually paying attention to the moves you make. The player you describe in your bad beat story doesn't sound like that type of player.
I've found that the best players have learned from experience, not books. I'm not saying don't read the books, I've read a lot of them, but I don't rely on them and I certainly don't quote them. I've seen a lot of guys in my local cardroom quoting Sklansky, especially since the boom, and they rarely win.
No, you do not have to be playing with decent players. It doesn't matter who you are playing: dog, computer, idiot, genius, etc, the fundamentals to the game are the same.Why do you think it was a bad play? I clearly explained why I thought he had absolutely nothing and I was right. Every time he hit a pair on the flop he moved in regardless of what the flop looked like. Did he move in this time? No. Therefore he does not have a pair, so I make my move and guess what, he didn't have a pair.Some people are incredibly readable even in an online environment. They are rare, but my opponent was one of them.I am not some punk, poker-boom amateur as you seem to imply.
Not a Bad Beat wrote:
The problem with following the theorists, as in your Sklansky example, is that you have to be playing with a decent level player who is actually paying attention to the moves you make. The player you describe in your bad beat story doesn't sound like that type of player.
I've found that the best players have learned from experience, not books. I'm not saying don't read the books, I've read a lot of them, but I don't rely on them and I certainly don't quote them. I've seen a lot of guys in my local cardroom quoting Sklansky, especially since the boom, and they rarely win.
XChamp said: "Every time he hit a pair on the flop he moved in regardless of what the flop looked like. Did he move in this time? No. Therefore he does not have a pair, so I make my move and guess what, he didn't have a pair."
Neither did you.
Xchamp. A couple of points. First, I don't see the connect to the Sklansky quote. Which leads to the crux of my main point: regardless on how you read your opponent (even if you actually knew what he had); you put your tounament life on the line on a broken hand -- a coin toss. There are much better ways to exit a tourney.
You're going to get AK 1 out of 82 deals. Let em go when they don't deliver. Certainly don't marry the hand, especially when you are not yet in-the-money.
Does that make sense?