I have given up on online poker
Arlo-Payne
up trying.
Just a few weeks ago I had beat after beat with many of them being very
bad beats. It was so bad I really questioned if I had forgot how to play
poker. I packed a small bag called my hotel in Vegas and asked them to
have a room ready for me. I had reached the point where I had to play
live to see if I still had my game.
Had Jody take me to the airport and a few hours later I was in Vegas.
While in Vegas I played Omaha h/l of course along with many different
games amd limits even down to 1-2 no limit at Harrah's. Well after 4
days of play I had booked wins in every session I played. I also did not
see anything I would consider a very bad beat.
So looking back on my online results and history of bad beat after bad
beat along with some winning streaks I have had online that were flat out
not natural (like winning 10 hands in a row in a 5-10 limit game) I
deleted all online poker software from my computer last night.
Yes I am even giving up online play based on winning streaks that are just
way out of the norm. Playing nothing higher that 2-4 pot limit and winning
more than $2000 in a few hours is just not right.
From now on I will stick to live games face to face.
I am in no way saying the sites are rigged. What I am saying for me there
seems to be a ton of difference to playing online and playing face to
face. I still will say I think some sites are dealing juiced decks but
not really pointing it at anyone. It appears it takes a passive style of
play to beat online games and I just will not play that way. If I have
the best hand on the turn I am going to bet it not check and see what the
river brings. I just will not do that to my game.
I do want to give 1 example of bad beats that are just way beyond the norm
First jack 8 ver. Jack 6 with a flop of jack 8 2.
Jack 6 bet all in I called it came 6 6.
Well as I say online is just not for me. Even being a omaha player which
lives under the norm of getting rivered it just seems getting rivered
online is a fact of life whenever it is possible to be rivered. Also
because I do not play hands to the river in hopes of a big suckout I never
suckout big against other players.
See you at the tables face to face.
During parts of Feb I can be found at the 30-60 1/3 kill omaha h/l game at
the B in Vegas or perhaps the 75-150 game in LA.
_______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Vince
Hi Arlo:
It appears it takes a passive style of play to beat online games and
I just will not play that way.
This example is not passive play by you or him.
>
> I do want to give 1 example of bad beats that are just way beyond the norm
> First jack 8 ver. Jack 6 with a flop of jack 8 2.
> Jack 6 bet all in I called it came 6 6.
>
Vince
Arlo-Payne
It was a sample of a bad beat not passive play. Passive play is more than
one hand it is an overall mindset of play.
--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Vince
"Arlo-Payne" <arlo_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ve136x...@recgroups.com...
> On Jan 2 2009 5:26 AM, Vince wrote:
>
>> Hi Arlo:
>>
>> It appears it takes a passive style of play to beat online games
>> and
>> I just will not play that way.
>>
>> This example is not passive play by you or him.
>> >
>> > I do want to give 1 example of bad beats that are just way beyond the
>> > norm
>> > First jack 8 ver. Jack 6 with a flop of jack 8 2.
>> > Jack 6 bet all in I called it came 6 6.
>> >
>> Vince
>
> It was a sample of a bad beat not passive play. Passive play is more than
> one hand it is an overall mindset of play.
Understood. But why do you feel that passive play can win online? I have
heard many times from various sources that passive players get crushed
online.
Vince
Porsche_Dan
I agree with you 100%. Online poker isn't poker. Online poker is
entertainment. Just like fantasy sports and porn, it is not real.
Do you really think random number generators shuffle the same as
cards? NO! I also think online poker cheating is rampant which fucks
with variance as well. Do the math on a thousand mid-stake RNG hands
and you will see, 4:1 dogs will be even money. PokerStars or FTP just
do the math. Money goes in good 80% of the time and you still can't
beat the rake?
Entertainment. Somebody prove otherwise please.
CincinnatiKid
> I agree with you 100%. Online poker isn't poker. Online poker is
> entertainment. Just like fantasy sports and porn, it is not real.
>
> Do you really think random number generators shuffle the same as
> cards? NO! I also think online poker cheating is rampant which fucks
> with variance as well. Do the math on a thousand mid-stake RNG hands
> and you will see, 4:1 dogs will be even money. PokerStars or FTP just
> do the math. Money goes in good 80% of the time and you still can't
> beat the rake?
>
> Entertainment. Somebody prove otherwise please.
It's been proven time and time again.
There is no doubt that people collude, though.
_____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
La Cosa Nostradamus
by WHO
steve brecher and lee jones say it isnt rigged and that is proof for you?
they are EMPLOYEES
> There is no doubt that people collude, though.
Atheism is drawing dead
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
CincinnatiKid
Pretty sure Morphy did a study.
-----
DonkeyBanAA
but cant beat A6
77= 88 99 10 10
JJ cant win
Ak is = kk
low sooted connectors are better the AA -- how many times have you gone
broke with soooted connectors vs how many time u bust with AA
if there are 2 all-ins call with any 2 -- your about 40% to 3x your chips
________________________________________________________________________
CincinnatiKid
> On Jan 2 2009 11:39 AM, DonkeyBanAA wrote:
>
> > its not rigged you just have to play it diffrent-- like AJ is a monster--
> > but cant beat A6
> > 77= 88 99 10 10
> > JJ cant win
> > Ak is = kk
> > low sooted connectors are better the AA -- how many times have you gone
> > broke with soooted connectors vs how many time u bust with AA
> > if there are 2 all-ins call with any 2 -- your about 40% to 3x your chips
>
> How do you play K6 on the K922 board? with 5x the pot in your stack?
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
All in, of course.
------
FellKnight
> its not rigged you just have to play it diffrent-- like AJ is a monster--
> but cant beat A6
> 77= 88 99 10 10
> JJ cant win
> Ak is = kk
> low sooted connectors are better the AA -- how many times have you gone
> broke with soooted connectors vs how many time u bust with AA
> if there are 2 all-ins call with any 2 -- your about 40% to 3x your chips
How do you play K6 on the K922 board? with 5x the pot in your stack?
Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
________________________________________________________________________
XaQ Morphy
> Pretty sure Morphy did a study.
I didn't do a study, but I do have over 1 million hands in a poker tracker
database of PLO that I've offered to give to anyone that is interested in
running the numbers.
I have much more online experience than live (like probably 95/5), but
I've seen the exact same things in live game than I've seen online. Those
who say the online shuffle is different simply don't understand how the
game works.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
FellKnight
> On Jan 2 2009 11:59 AM, FellKnight wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2 2009 11:39 AM, DonkeyBanAA wrote:
> >
> > > its not rigged you just have to play it diffrent-- like AJ is a monster--
> > > but cant beat A6
> > > 77= 88 99 10 10
> > > JJ cant win
> > > Ak is = kk
> > > low sooted connectors are better the AA -- how many times have you gone
> > > broke with soooted connectors vs how many time u bust with AA
> > > if there are 2 all-ins call with any 2 -- your about 40% to 3x your
chips
> >
> > How do you play K6 on the K922 board? with 5x the pot in your stack?
> >
> > Fell
> > --
> > Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
>
> All in, of course.
Yeah. That's what he did. ;)
Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
____________________________________________________________________
da pickle no spam
It seems no one has told you the truth so I will. What you describe
indicates that you are a fair to slightly above average player but not
an excellent player. The truth is that online games are much tougher
than live games; especially live games in Las Vegas. The hassle of
downloads, deposits, withdrawals, and more means that the average (not
all) online player is more skillful and more aggressive than the
average Las Vegas tourist. (Las Angeles games are tougher (less
tourists) to beat than Las Vegas but still not as tough as online.)
Instead of blaming the ‘dealer’ for your losses get some good poker
books and work on your game. Once you learn to consistently win online
then go to Las Vegas and you will do very well indeed.
La Cosa Nostradamus
mY STUDIES DO NOT AGREE WITH THE STUDIES THE EMPLOYEES HAVE DONE
Atheism is drawing dead
_______________________________________________________________________
CincinnatiKid
> On Jan 2 2009 12:01 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2 2009 11:59 AM, FellKnight wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 2 2009 11:39 AM, DonkeyBanAA wrote:
> > >
> > > > its not rigged you just have to play it diffrent-- like AJ is a
monster--
> > > > but cant beat A6
> > > > 77= 88 99 10 10
> > > > JJ cant win
> > > > Ak is = kk
> > > > low sooted connectors are better the AA -- how many times have you gone
> > > > broke with soooted connectors vs how many time u bust with AA
> > > > if there are 2 all-ins call with any 2 -- your about 40% to 3x your
> chips
> > >
> > > How do you play K6 on the K922 board? with 5x the pot in your stack?
> > >
> > > Fell
> > > --
> > > Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
> >
> > All in, of course.
>
> Yeah. That's what he did. ;)
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
Wait. Was this on FTP? If so, I retract my statement.
________________________________________________________________________
pokerknave
I tend to stick to tournament poker online simply because it is less
likely to be affected by collusion play. Think of it why shouldn't people
with mobile phones tell their friends what had they have got?
The life and times of a poker playing reprobate and degenerate
---
da pickle
continues to be afraid of his own opinions.
Porsche_Dan
> On Jan 2 2009 9:53 AM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
> > Pretty sure Morphy did a study.
>
> I didn't do a study, but I do have over 1 million hands in a poker tracker
> database of PLO that I've offered to give to anyone that is interested in
> running the numbers.
>
> I have much more online experience than live (like probably 95/5), but
> I've seen the exact same things in live game than I've seen online. Those
> who say the online shuffle is different simply don't understand how the
> game works.
My poker experience is closer to 25/75. Here is why online shuffle is
different, because it can be easily and consistently manipulated. Just
like slots and video poker in Vegas, only they are closely regulated?
You do realize that some of these poker sites are owned by the same
tribe that regulates them? Or closely associated thereof. Conspiracy
theories are posted here all the time: Bad players must be rewarded to
keep them playing, Shills, Bots, etc... Not to mention back door
cheats (proven), colluding (proven), and multiple accounts (proven),
just to mention a few.
An independent statistical study caught the Absolute and Ultimate back
door cheaters. Where are the studies to prove online shuffles are
consistent and comparable to live? Where are the studies to prove
online play is fair? I'm Agnostic here so prove it.
RussGe...@aol.com
DELETETHIS
is rigged - it is just different. Over the years I have seen far more
HORRIBLE beats on line than in live games. I seem to take a lot more
bad beats on line too. People say it is because you play more hands and
I just laugh. I play Omaha8 live and a little on line and I see a lot
of beats in that game so when I say HORRIBLE beats - I have an idea what
that means
Jason Pawloski
Wow, I never noticed this before, but you're kinda crazy.
--
"Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
-------
XaQ Morphy
> An independent statistical study caught the Absolute and Ultimate back
> door cheaters. Where are the studies to prove online shuffles are
> consistent and comparable to live? Where are the studies to prove
> online play is fair? I'm Agnostic here so prove it.
I don't have an issue with it so I'm not on the side that would need to
prove it. Seems to me if there's so many people that insist that the
online shuffle wasn't fair that they would go out of their ways to try and
prove it, and so far there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to prove
that the shuffle is not 100% fair.
I'll throw it out again, I have a pokertracker database with over 1
million hands in it. I can set up a private download for anyone that
wants it. There should be enough data there to determine if things are
fair or not.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
______________________________________________________________________
I eat donks
> "Arlo-Payne" <arlo_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7ve136x...@recgroups.com...
> Understood. But why do you feel that passive play can win online? I have
> heard many times from various sources that passive players get crushed
> online.
>
> Vince
I think you might have heard wrong. In my experince, the average online
player tend to be too aggressive, and calling too loosely. Therefore
passive play 'usually' wins the most. You will have the odd suck-outs of
course, but most of the time you will take their money.
'So donkeys, come rally,
And the last hand let us raise!
The miracle suck-outs will tally,
And save the donkey race!'
------
Jason Pawloski
> On Jan 2 2009 1:09 PM, Porsche_Dan wrote:
>
> > An independent statistical study caught the Absolute and Ultimate back
> > door cheaters. Where are the studies to prove online shuffles are
> > consistent and comparable to live? Where are the studies to prove
> > online play is fair? I'm Agnostic here so prove it.
>
> I don't have an issue with it so I'm not on the side that would need to
> prove it. Seems to me if there's so many people that insist that the
> online shuffle wasn't fair that they would go out of their ways to try and
> prove it, and so far there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to prove
> that the shuffle is not 100% fair.
>
> I'll throw it out again, I have a pokertracker database with over 1
> million hands in it. I can set up a private download for anyone that
> wants it. There should be enough data there to determine if things are
> fair or not.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> "SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
For the record, I still plan on doing something with the download... I am
a serial procrastinator though.
--
"Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
____________________________________________________________________
Will_gamble
too often.
All the individual occurrences add up to nothing, but your gut tells you
differently. That is why it can be nothing more than entertainment. I
knew the moment he called that I was toast and expected K 10. It has just
happened over and over.
PokerStars Game #23500743128: Tournament #131237549, $4.00+$0.40 Hold'em
No Limit - Level VII (125/250) - 2009/01/02 16:03:18 ET
Table '131237549 2' 9-max Seat #8 is the button
Seat 2: duhwhat (4115 in chips)
Seat 3: Ramms (4135 in chips)
Seat 4: DevilShark (2130 in chips)
Seat 5: mattwhite00 (9635 in chips)
Seat 6: Seddie1989 (11048 in chips)
Seat 8: fpenlin (9428 in chips)
Seat 9: Nordw1nd (6705 in chips)
duhwhat: posts the ante 25
Ramms: posts the ante 25
DevilShark: posts the ante 25
mattwhite00: posts the ante 25
Seddie1989: posts the ante 25
fpenlin: posts the ante 25
Nordw1nd: posts the ante 25
Nordw1nd: posts small blind 125
duhwhat: posts big blind 250
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to duhwhat [Ad Ah]
Ramms: folds
DevilShark: calls 250
mattwhite00: folds
Seddie1989: folds
fpenlin: calls 250
Nordw1nd: calls 125
duhwhat: raises 1000 to 1250
DevilShark: calls 1000
fpenlin: folds
Nordw1nd: folds
*** FLOP *** [Jh 4h Qc]
duhwhat: bets 1000
DevilShark: calls 855 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (145) returned to duhwhat
*** TURN *** [Jh 4h Qc] [2d]
*** RIVER *** [Jh 4h Qc 2d] [9h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
duhwhat: shows [Ad Ah] (a pair of Aces)
DevilShark: shows [Kd Td] (a straight, Nine to King)
DevilShark collected 4885 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 4885 | Rake 0
Board [Jh 4h Qc 2d 9h]
Seat 2: duhwhat (big blind) showed [Ad Ah] and lost with a pair of Aces
Seat 3: Ramms folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: DevilShark showed [Kd Td] and won (4885) with a straight, Nine to
King
Seat 5: mattwhite00 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Seddie1989 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: fpenlin (button) folded before Flop
Seat 9: Nordw1nd (small blind) folded before Flop
----
I eat donks
I dont think its the sites, but horrible players like these that push-up
the suck-out and win rates. I know its only 1/2, but what horrible play,
from both donks.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26330804@N03/?saved=1
'So donkeys, come rally,
And the last hand let us raise!
The miracle suck-outs will tally,
And save the donkey race!'
______________________________________________________________________
XaQ Morphy
> For the record, I still plan on doing something with the download... I am
> a serial procrastinator though.
Cool let me know how things go.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
--------
Porsche_Dan
> On Jan 2 2009 1:41 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 2 2009 1:09 PM, Porsche_Dan wrote:
>
> > > An independent statistical study caught the Absolute and Ultimate back
> > > door cheaters. Where are the studies to prove online shuffles are
> > > consistent and comparable to live? Where are the studies to prove
> > > online play is fair? I'm Agnostic here so prove it.
>
> > I don't have an issue with it so I'm not on the side that would need to
> > prove it. Seems to me if there's so many people that insist that the
> > online shuffle wasn't fair that they would go out of their ways to try and
> > prove it, and so far there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to prove
> > that the shuffle is not 100% fair.
>
> > I'll throw it out again, I have a pokertracker database with over 1
> > million hands in it. I can set up a private download for anyone that
> > wants it. There should be enough data there to determine if things are
> > fair or not.
>
> > ---
> > Morphy
> >http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> > "SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
>
> For the record, I still plan on doing something with the download... I am
> a serial procrastinator though.
>
> --
> "Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
> Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com
Plus you are a drunk, one of your better points actually.
RussGe...@aol.com
crooked.
On Jan 2, 12:41�pm, "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Jan 2 2009 1:09 PM, Porsche_Dan wrote:
>
> > An independent statistical study caught the Absolute and Ultimate back
> > door cheaters. Where are the studies to prove online shuffles are
> > consistent and comparable to live? Where are the studies to prove
> > online play is fair? I'm Agnostic here so prove it.
>
> I don't have an issue with it so I'm not on the side that would need to
> prove it. �Seems to me if there's so many people that insist that the
> online shuffle wasn't fair that they would go out of their ways to try and
> prove it, and so far there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to prove
> that the shuffle is not 100% fair.
>
> I'll throw it out again, I have a pokertracker database with over 1
> million hands in it. �I can set up a private download for anyone that
> wants it. �There should be enough data there to determine if things are
> fair or not.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmor...@donkeymanifesto.comhttp://www.donkeymanifesto.com
Arlo-Payne
You are so full of shit it is not funny.
For over 30 years I have been a winning player.
I dont know all the reasons I cant beat online poker but I do know a few
of them. A key one is online poker bores me to death. Another is the
lack of reads on other players and not being able to put forth an image.
I also dont go for the suckouts others do so I get bad beats but do not
give them.
As far as LA games being hard to beat get real LA games are the softest
games in the world.
Vegas is harder to beat because of the collection of good players while LA
has a ton of money moving around.
--------
RussGe...@aol.com
the players since most REAL pro's don't play. Online poker is like a
slot machine with their robots integrated into the system to replace
the proposition players they had when they first came on. Passive play
is far better in online games, but it shouldn't be. Cash games are
where the money should be, yet under the disquise of 195,000 players
(not telling you that almost all are playing in at least two games),
you can't even get people to play you $100 or $200 stud type games
(heads-up sit & goes) on either site. Most of you play for fun or mini
stakes, unlike myself and Arlo, so how could you be a poker source who
knows what the F he's talking about?
> then go to Las Vegas and you will do very well indeed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Monty_Burns
therefore makes for a different game? Live, when the dealer shuffles,
he often gets cards in pairs from the prior game. Oftentimes these
cards stay next to each other after shuffling. Or maybe they get 1 or
2 cards apart and, therefore, go to different players (i.e. you have
an Ace but so does the guy next to you).
MZB
check them out on Poker Rankings or something similar and I find they are
indeed bad players. They are ranked very low.
So, you should be delighted that bad players get rewarded. Ultimately,
that's the attraction of poker to them and it keeps them coming back, which
is good for me.
Mel
"Porsche_Dan" <Porsc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f51ec78c-d498-4ea1...@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Patti Beadles
I've heard lots of people say that they can't beat online
games although they do well live. In most cases I believe
them, but I think that the causes are different than what
they think they are.
I believe that the texture of online games is significantly
different than in live games. People just play differently,
and that causes hand rankings to change dramatically. If
the player doesn't know how to adjust for this, he's screwed.
This is much the same phenomenon as middle- and high-stakes
limit players saying that they can't beat a California
no-foldem 3-6 game. They can't if they insist on playing
the same way as they do in a 30-60 game. Often they'll say,
"They don't respect my raises!", and that's true. It can
also be wildly profitable, but in a 3-6 game you raise for
very different reasons than you would in a 30-60 game.
If you're used to seeing 2-and 3-handed flops, and you start
seeing 6- and 7-handed ones, there will be a lot more suckouts.
It's not that the game is rigged, but rather that you're playing
a different game.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pattib~pattib.org | All religions are equally
http://www.pattib.org/ | ludicrous, and should be ridiculed
http://stopshootingauto.com | as often as possible. C. Bond
Arlo-Payne
Very well stated.
I know one problem for me is the fact that I get real bored playing on
line with no direct contact with the other players.
-------
Raider Fan
>
> Very well stated.
> I know one problem for me is the fact that I get real bored playing on
> line with no direct contact with the other players.
I'm just the opposite Arlo. Live is terribly boring to me. I like the
speed and the multiple tables from online. I was at a sales meeting at
the Borgota in August. I came back and told my wife I'm never playing
live again.
--------
da pickle no spam
wrote:
< You are an idiot. The games online are not harder to beat, neither
are
< the players since most REAL pro's don't play.
You’re right Russ. REAL pros don’t play online. LOL. (Except for the
list below (from http://www.pokerscout.com/).
Do you never get tired of making a fool of yourself? You live in the
past posting info that’s 20 and 30 years old. You couldn’t beat a
$2/$4 limit game today.)
Poker Pros that play on PokerStars:
----------------------------------
Andre Akkari
Josh Arieh
Aaron Bartley
Noah Boeken
Humberto Brenes
Richard Brodie
Chad Brown
William Chen
Vicky Coren
John Duthie
Alexandre Gomes
Barry Greenstein
Gavin Griffin
Bertrand Grospellier
Joe Hachem
Phil Hellmuth
Marcin "Goral" Horecki
Hevad Khan
Alex Kravchenko
Tuan Lam
Tom McEvoy
Isabelle Mercier
Dario Minieri
Chris Moneymaker
Daniel Negreanu
Lee Nelson
Luca Pagano
Steve Paul-Ambrose
Raymond Rahme
Victor Ramdin
Greg Raymer
Vanessa Rousso
Katja Thater
William Thorson
Wil Wheaton
Poker pros that play on Fulltilt:
----------------------------------
Brandon Adams
Dario Alioto
Patrik Antonius
Josh Arieh
Richard Ashby
Amanda Baker
Isaac Baron
Aaron Bartley
Joe Beevers
David Benefield
David Benyamine
Thomas Bihl
Sascha Biorac
Andrew Black
Andy Bloch
Ross Boatman
Farzad Bonyadi
Brad Booth
Alan Boston
David Bradley
Leandro Brasa
Steve Brecher
Richard Brodie
Bruce Buffer
Taylor Caby
Erik Cajelais
"Miami John" Cernuto
Lynette Chan
Morris Chestnut
David Chiu
Scott Clements
Dave Colclough
Diego Cordovez
Michael Craig
Allen Cunningham
John D'Agostino
Ryan Daut
Roland de Wolfe
Bill Edler
Eli Elezra
Nikolay Evdakov
Peter "Nordberg" Feldman
Chris Ferguson
Scott Fischman
Perry Friedman
Eric Froehlich
Rafe Furst
Julian Gardner
Bill Gazes
Kristy Gazes
Markus Golser
Phil Gordon
Clonie Gowen
Maciek Gracz
David Grey
Svetlana Gromenkova
Jared Hamby
Gus Hansen
Jennifer Harman
Brian Hastings
Matt Hawrilenko
Gabriela Hill
Rob Hollink
Matt Hughes
Phil Ivey
Niki Jedlicka
Peter Jepsen
Chip Jett
Karina Jett
Berry Johnston
Gary Jones
John Juanda
Kelly Kim
Martin Klaeser
Chris Klecz
Erich Kollmann
Christian Kruel
Howard Lederer
Suzie Lederer
Markus Lehmann
Toto Leonidas
Marco Liesy
Erick Lindgren
Eric Liu
J.J. Liu
Hal Lubarsky
Vitaly Lunkin
Jeff Madsen
Craig Marquis
Rino Mathis
Mike Matusow
Jim McManus
Nenad Medic
Dag Martin Mikkelsen
Robert Mizrachi
Scott Montgomery
Jordan Morgan
Greg "FBT" Mueller
Ali Nejad
Adam Noone
Raul Oliveira
David Oppenheim
Stuart Paterson
Max Pescatori
David Pham
Stefan Rapp
Ben Roberts
Roberto Romanello
Eddy Scharf
Mike Schneider
Erica Schoenberg
Adam Schoenfeld
Nick Schulman
Huck Seed
Erik Seidel
Keith Sexton
Paul Sexton
Matt Sexton
Beth Shak
David Singer
Gavin Smith
Jeremiah Smith
Cole South
Roland Specht
Sigi Stockinger
Mike Swick
Brian Townsend
Kenny Tran
Marco Traniello
Jon Turner
Ram Vaswani
Luis Velador
Cyndy Violette
Jens Voertmann
Hans Vogl
Mark Vos
Thomas Wahlroos
Paul Wasicka
Lee Watkinson
Andrew Wiggins
Robert Williamson III
Roy Winston
Paul Wolfe
Chris Wolters
Steve Yea
Steve Zolotow
danc...@yahoo.com
> I do want to give 1 example of bad beats that are just way beyond the norm
> First jack 8 ver. Jack 6 with a flop of jack 8 2.
> Jack 6 bet all in I called it came 6 6.
I have had far worse beats than that in live poker with alarming
frequency.
This one time in live poker I flopped quad threes and some donkey hit
a freaking one outer to make a straight flush wheel. Unreal.
Then this other time I flopped a set of aces. Some donkey made quad
kings on the turn! Another one fucking outer! Of course I thought my
boat was good but it wasn't.
Live poker is freaking rigged.
Of course, I hit bad beat jackpots on both those hands and cleared 60
grand between them. Still...it's gotta be rigged.
XaQ Morphy
> I have had far worse beats than that in live poker with alarming
> frequency.
>
> This one time in live poker I flopped quad threes and some donkey hit
> a freaking one outer to make a straight flush wheel. Unreal.
>
> Then this other time I flopped a set of aces. Some donkey made quad
> kings on the turn! Another one fucking outer! Of course I thought my
> boat was good but it wasn't.
>
> Live poker is freaking rigged.
>
> Of course, I hit bad beat jackpots on both those hands and cleared 60
> grand between them. Still...it's gotta be rigged.
<insert nonsense post from some old fucker about how you were cheated here>
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
------
FellKnight
> As far as LA games being hard to beat get real LA games are the softest
> games in the world.
Incorrect.
Softer than Vegas, I agree, but I have personally seen about 4 places, 2
of which play for comparable or higher stakes, which play worse (Costa
Rica and Atlantic City, with Vancouver being close but mostly played for
lower stakes).
Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
____________________________________________________________________
da pickle
Why do you fear your own opinion?
Old Wolf
>
> It appears it takes a passive style of play to beat online games and
> I just will not play that way.
Passive play with good hands beats people who
regularly fire bets with nothing or weak hands.
Calling with a draw where you have correct odds,
is a good play.
Aggressive play beats people who fold too easily.
Aggressive play with good hands beats people
who call too much.
Adjust your style to take advantage of your opponents'
weaknesses! Saying "I will not play passively" would
be like Tiger Woods saying "I will not use my
seven iron!"
La Cosa Nostradamus
Well said, Thanks
Atheism is drawing dead
_____________________________________________________________________