i'm an idiot

[C8H10N4O2]

we'd all have 100%+ ROIs

I play more HU sng's than anything else, so I doubt I'd have 100%+... it'd be close to 100%, but the rake would hurt me

[EliminateU]

lol... you already admitted you had a meltdown and took a nosedive. you've been a losing player since then anyway. anyone can say they're a great player if they ignore their losses and only count their wins. we'd all have 100%+ ROIs

I never said that. I said I was BR-ed into some very high HU matches idiot. It cost me nothing. I am still way up. I have the guts to play real stakes. You don't because you suck.

[DeadBabySoup]

I play more HU sng's than anything else, so I doubt I'd have 100%+... it'd be close to 100%, but the rake would hurt me

if you're not counting losses, why bother counting the rake?

[EliminateU]

Having trouble pasting from pokerprolabs.com. But here are the results of a search of 360 days, SNGs, on FTP for me and DeadDogMolestorSoup (DefDumbAndBlind):

DefDumbAndBlind: 697 games, -26% ROI, -$1,403.70 profit, $7.78 avg stake, 9** rating

EliminateU: STT SNGs: 534 games, +16% ROI, +$2203.20 profit, $25.55 avg stake, A**** rating

The TOP SHARK rating starts at 2 and goeas to A. Each level has 5 stars. So a 3 no stars is better than a 2*****.

Seems like you really got me there punk. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[DeadBabySoup]

you're boring me.

[travz21]

This money talk is ridiculous. It doesn't prove how skilled a person is, it proves they manage their money well and that they COULD be fairly skilled. Many, many pros have gone broke and have dipped into red numbers, are you better than them too, DBS?

[C8H10N4O2]

if you're not counting losses, why bother counting the rake?

Oh right... dang, I forgot to figure that one in. I guess I am 100% ROI then, and with the few SnG's I've played and cashed in, now I'm 100%+. You got me there.

you're boring me.

It is interesting that EU (I'm tired of wasting time typing out "EliminateU") has a higher ability rating. He has a solid ROI and a way higher average stake, but is in the red from those HU matches. That's one really cool thing about the ROI on sharkscope, is it's the average ROI per tournament, and not overall ROI which can easily be computed based on the given stats.

I also agree with Travz on his point as well. The skill level involved in poker is important, but bankroll management skills are also highly important. There are some amazing players with no management skills that are way in the red because of it. And there are some mediocre players very positive because they have really good bankroll management skills. Purely showing money vs. money does not give a true reflection of skill. It is merely one aspect of the equation.

[DeadBabySoup]

bankroll management is a skill. i'm not that good at it actually. but i'm getting better. i've been playing the same $50 deposit for over 3 years. so i've always managed to not go bust. as for pros, most of them make their money playing cash games. so i don't read too much into their tournament stats. i've played live with some pros in tournaments who weren't very good in that format. but they kill it at cash tables. personally, i suck at cash games, so i don't even try.

the skill ranking on sharkscope is a little arbitrary. it ranks you higher the higher your average stake is. i played one guy heads up and beat him 5 times in a row. i couldn't believe how bad he was so i sharkscoped him. he had a -45% ROI with an average buy in of over $100. he was something like $60,000 in the hole. but because his average stake was so high, it gave him a skill of 65.

[EliminateU]

you're boring me.

You're boring me. It has been talked about on several sites that Sharkscope is off by anywhere from 20-80%. I guess you are too stupid to understand.

Anytime you are not too big of a pussy to play a $100 HU SNG let me know. Based on your lack of a spine I won't be holding my breath.

[EliminateU]

And the funny thing DeadDogRapingSoup, is that people who I've had serious run-ins with (i.e. Dew, travz), who normally would try just to slam me regardless of the evidence are NOT backing you up here. Hmmmmmmm.

Got $100?

[DeadBabySoup]

as a matter of fact, dew did call you on your bs in the other thread. funny you should mention it.

From what I can tell... all of these are accurate, and you would agree EliminateU.

However, something unusual happens with DefDumbAndBlind's account. Take a look at his graphs.








The second graph is where the key to this problem lies. If you notice in the second graph, his line is negative 100% of the time... there are no cashes whatsoever at any point on the entire line over a significant sample size. Even the worst players are not this unlucky in SnG's. Therefore, if you investigate this occurence further, you'd notice this when you pull up the detailed stats. This situation happens over something like 100 tournaments or so, so I pulled up the oldest 30 just to show why pokerprolabs.com's tracking is a little off on this particular account.




Every line that has a red line on it is an SnG where DBS would have cashed. However, you'll notice that the prize awarded is $0.00. Odd how the winner of an SnG walks away with $0 huh? Therefore, I can say with nearly 100% certainty that DBS is not down as much (and more than likely, not down at all) as what pokerprolabs.com is implying.

Take some time and actually investigate some info provided for you, and you'll be amazed at what you can find. Sure pokerprolabs is a great site, but on some select accounts, they get pretty screwy. Usually it's pretty obvious that something's not right because the graph will show a line going down with no cashes over a larger sample size than what seems to even be mathematically possible.

[EliminateU]

He calls me on bs when he posts graphs of me solidly in the positive, after you post inaccurate stats from Scope...you are a colossal moron.

You are too stupid to ever make it past an Obama Death Panel.

[DeadBabySoup]

you couldn't be more of an idiot if you tried. he posted graphs that show you are in fact over $1,200 in the hole. and he explained why my stats are so far off on pokerlabs.com.

[EliminateU]

you couldn't be more of an idiot if you tried. he posted graphs that show you are in fact over $1,200 in the hole. and he explained why my stats are so far off on pokerlabs.com.

It showed me up in MTTs (not up as much as PT3 has me), and up in STT SNGs ( not up as much as PT3 has me), and around the right amount down in HU. Of course $3500 of that loss ( meaning I am actually up nearly $1k in HU) came on one night in 10 games versus incredibly bad luck and that $3500 was transferred to me on a 50/50 winnings split. Since it wasn't my money, and I didn't have to pay it back, it doesn't really count against me. When you ever get the balls to knock it down heads-up at $100, $200, $500+ levels then come talk to me. Until you can step it up STFU. You won't even man up to my HU challenge. WUSS.

[DeadBabySoup]

$2,600 is $2,600. and by all accounts, that's how much you're down heads up. and like i said, it looks like you were playing over your bankroll and ran hot for a while. since your little meltdown, you've been a consistent loser.

[EliminateU]

$2,600 is $2,600. and by all accounts, that's how much you're down heads up. and like i said, it looks like you were playing over your bankroll and ran hot for a while. since your little meltdown, you've been a consistent loser.

I am never over my bankroll, and I was running avg then. Then I hit some terrible luck and am regrouping. I know my strngths and weaknesses. I put my game up against anyone. I know theory, and when I should not use it. I am just trying to put all the different pieces together and feel it "click". Other than losing someone else's money I have been highly successful. I do feel something is fishy at times because I get sucked out on way too often. But hopefully I'll get the worm to turn...and as Hellmuth would say, if I get the cards I'll win every time. And I am due.

My degree is in Mech Engineering, and I love math/game theory. And in my limited live experiences I have made gigiantic profit. Since I consider myself a math based player (i.e. Bloch, Ferguson ) and not a big tell reader (i.e. Chan, Brunson) I honestly don't understand that. I find myself feeling nervous the whole time I sitting down, so maybe that completely disguises any of my tells. Could I be subconsciously reading people? If so, how can I make it a more conscious thing?

[DeadBabySoup]

the only way to get better at reading people is to play more live. you're not necessarily looking for stereotypical tells. you try to gauge how comfortable they are in a pressure situation. you won't get much out of experienced players. but tourists are pretty easy to read. you have to be careful about putting too much into your read. until you've played with someone over a long period of time, you don't know if their hand is shaking because they're strong or because they're weak or because they can't believe they're playing in a real casino. watch out for "hollywooding" - false tells. until you get better at reading people, i wouldn't change your game based on your reads. play your game, but make mental notes whether you're making the correct read. also, don't just pay attention when you're in a hand. you'll actually learn more about a player if you're not involved in the hand. it's easier to concentrate and you're more impartial. you'll also want to be careful about getting emotionally involved. if you get upset or frustrated, it'll show and you'll be easier for your opponents to read. and you'll start seeing whatever you want to see in your own reads.

[fake_blood]

Folding > Shoving > Limping.
Folding is absolutely the best play here. Shoving, although it may be marginally +EV, it is not really necessary as there will almost always be better spots to get your chips in. Limping, however, is hands down the worst play you could make.

YOu are both absolutely hilarious.