A combination of a very good player in this structure and some very kind variance would be my explanation. He posts on 2p2, so perhaps ask him yourself, maybe he's running really high above EV. I'd doubt any higher than 5-6% is even possible in these for a true ROI, if that. Maybe with certain game selection, but I really don't see 8% being viable long term (though his 3400 sample size in the 100s is large, but hardly true if you look at other people's graphs over 3k samples).Take Primo's graph, for example (ignore the first part bc that was under the old structure). He has 3k game stretches where his ROI is very high, and others where it is very low. In the long run it's going to be a very consistent ROI, but isolating 3k game stretches really shows you how you can actually come close to breakeven (pre rb) or win a tremendous amount. Also keep in mind that graphs that go straight up (or look consistently straight up) do not necessarily indicate a consistent ROI/edge and low variance play being realized. You can play around with the variance calculator here on husng.com to get better examples, but some people will get from point A to point B with tons of swings, and the same edge player will get there with no swings.
'Also keep in mind that graphs that go straight up (or look consistently straight up) do not necessarily indicate a consistent ROI/edge and low variance play being realized. You can play around with the variance calculator here on husng.com to get better examples, but some people will get from point A to point B with tons of swings, and the same edge player will get there with no swings.'Rypac, could you a little bit deeper into this? I find this very interesting.
Sure.So I used the husng.com variance calculator (found under the free > tools section of the site) to demonstrate this.Note: Swings will likely be more pronounced in real play than in this calculator, as the calculator I believe assumes a consistent winrate throughout each match. In reality, you may be playing better than average players for 100 games, where your winrate is smaller against them, then you might end up playing 200 more games against weaker than average opponents, where your winrate is higher. This will make up and downswings even more pronounced than the calculator shows, I believe. This should give you an idea of what I am talking about, however.So I plugged in a 55% winrate for the $200 super turbo level buyin/rake parameters, which is a 8.1% ROI in these games, similar to Wray's results. I showed 5 total graphs, here are three particular ones: The above graph shows over 30k profit in 3k games, but with a 1k+ breakeven stretch.The above graph shows the same edge, same # of games but makes over 50k in profit with no more than 500 game breakeven stretches anywhere. Quite a contrast from the first graph's 3k game success (though obviously both are strong graphs with very solid end result profits).The final graph has hardly any breakeven stretches and makes 70k in the 3k games. That's over $20 a game, over 10% ROI. If there are/were people with 55% winrates in these super turbo games, we would see 3k game stretches that looked like this at some point. Now, since I believe it may very well be possible that numbers closer to 3-4% ROIs may be the top level achievable (particularly at the $200+ level), I changed the input to have a 53% winrate instead of a 55% winrate. This should be around a 4.1% ROI, give or take, for the $200 super turbo level. Rakeback is not factored in (you can figure you'll pay about 10.5k in rake here, so on FTP that would be about $2800 in rb added to these graphs).You can see that this graph is super swingy over 3k games and ends up with 10k profit. Same edge, same # of games, but besides one 500 game rough patch, it's all success on this graph. In the end, over 30k, which is 3x that of the last one.Again, same winrate, same # of games, but even less variance (and 25% more profit) on the graph above.And finally, look at this swingfest of (un)fun! Same parameters as the previous 3 graphs, a lot less success than the previous two and some swings that will put hair on your chest (if they don't kill you).I didn't even check more than a dozen examples for these last four graphs, and we can see a 30+ buyin downer for a true 4%ROI type edge player in these super turbos. If I did a few dozen more examples, I'm sure I could find a sinister 50+ buyin swing, and considering 4% ROI is likely the highest true edge (or close to it) in these games (particularly at higher stakes levels, though lower stakes shouldn't result in a much larger edge due to higher rake + lesser knowledge) you can imagine what smaller edge players can experience during rough bouts.What's this all mean? That swings can be horrendous, that 3k game samples don't definitively prove to what degree you are a winning player and that you should be prepared to handle variance and uncertainty throughout the life of your super turbo playing. When you get closer to 10k samples you'll see less abberations, but I would imagine even then you'll see some major differences from one player to the next, even with the same edge and games played.Lastly, there's one common thing I recall just about every top thinking poker mind I've ever spoken to saying: There is more variance in this game than anybody realizes.
My first sentence: "A combination of a very good player in this structure and some very kind variance would be my explanation."I'd rather run good than bad or even and so should you.
LOL. I wasn't referring to your post. I was speaking generally about what other players seem to be believe. Almost 5000 games now and im not running better or worse than anyone else who is struggling to break even. To me and a couple of other people, that is obvious. //edit: over 5200 games at 9% and fwiw i could not have lost more flips/coolers than i've had the past 2-3 weeks. I know for a FACT how i'm running.
Fair enough to the first point.However: "Almost 5000 games now and im not running better or worse than anyone else who is struggling to break even. To me and a couple of other people, that is obvious."This makes no sense. Odds are there are people that are breakeven running both hotter and worse than you are, even at 4-5k game samples (look at the graphs above for 3k samples, as an example).Also wasn't including your hot 18% ROI in the 50s or your below expectation 2% ROI in the 200s, just the 8% over 4k games in the $100s when talking about variance and such.Regardless, one thing we both agree on is that you're a very good player in super turbos. I wish you the best of luck with them.
Hi Mischi, I don't use HEM or anything to calculate EV so I don't have any figures to answer your question, sorry. The point I was trying to make in a previous post was that, after 5300+ games, I do not believe my results reflect "some very kind variance". I strongly believe that the ROI I have achieved over the large sample of games so far, over about a 3-month period is my true ROI. I hope that's sounds clearer than what I said previous. Zak :)
Hi Zak,fair enough, your results dont look to me like 'kind variance' either :) I understand the points made by other guys about this, but it is hard to argue with results on sample sizes this big.It is interesting that your roi in turbos is almost equal to your roi in regulars. And superturbos roi not too much behind either. What are you thoughts on this? Is it possible to maintain similar edge in endgame / shorter match (less reads) as in longer / deeper stacked game?How many tables did you play (regulars, turbos, supturbos)?
Thanks and no probs. With regards to my own stats, all of my reg. speed games were played about a year ago when I was just learning and playing smaller stakes. So comparing those stats to for example, August 2010s figures would be a waste of time. Yes I do feel there is a decent edge in Super Turbos. I play either 1 or 2 tables depending on how I feel at the time.
"Almost 5000 games now and im not running better or worse than anyone else who is struggling to break even. To me and a couple of other people, that is obvious."LOL at that. Sorry, but if you don't use HEM to calculate your EV, just how do you and especially a couple other people know this?You will feel you run very normal when you win three 60 40s in a row, but in fact you have just run $240 above EV if we talking about the $100s.Dont get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that you are not a very good player, but you would probably be shocked to see how much above EV you must be running to have a 9% ROI in the 100s.I don't think a 9% true ROI is even possible and its not even close.But, as others said as well, its better to be on the right side of variance, then on the other...
yah zakwray, you run under ev and you are a bad player, youve only made 72k money playing those lucky super turbo games... what a shame!! (I hope you understand that: IM SARCASTIC) (Only serious word I would have to say about Zakwray is: R-E-S-P-E-C-T)
Zak. Get HEM.. there's no question that you are running over ev imo, 9% roi is achivable in 100 reg and turbo speed but it is NOT in super turbos.. as it was pointed out before about winning 3 60/40s in a row will put you massively over ev. You have won enough to cover the fee of HEM.. but I guess the result that it could (read would) show can be a little terrifying :P Still of course you must be a good player, but you ARE over ev.
Just a quick reply to the last three posts.. Bubi/Ken: Im not interested one bit in HEM. I've never used it and I have no immediate plans to do so. Call me old-fashioned but I do not concentrate on "how good/bad I ran". Don't get me wrong, I'm not naive. I analyse my game, occasionally down to the finest detail. But I prefer to concencrate fully on making the correct decisions. I'm not going to continue to argue about my results. I'm not saying 9% isn't high, but it's not mind-blowing imo. There are other players with 6%-7% ROIs. It's a debate that could go on and on until we all have bigger samples at these new(ish) games. Addmitedly in the longer term you may well be correct and in 6 months time I've got a 3-4% ROI, but for now especially it's motivating proving the doubters wrong. Roamus: Thanks a lot. Means a lot for some encouragment/appreciation. By the way my chat is banned at the tables, I seen you speak in the chat last night, so couldn't respond. GL mate. Zak
hey gl further on and keep up the good work.me so far very bad at STs...even tho i play the super micro stakes only.cu at the tables as soon as my chat is not banned anymore as well. one month. 2 guys wrote to ftp at the same time..uhhhh
Just to note: ZakWray is still likely the most successful super turbo player at the $100 level on FTP.He's now at 5% over 12.5k games, so it looks like my initial response proved to be accurate, at least up until this point.
Why do you take it so personally?Rypac said he thought you were a good player who has had some postive variance. And the statistics seem to back up what he said. Is not 5% at 12.5K games more accurate than 9% at 5K games?
Because someone like me who has a higher ROI than other regulars who have more experience/more profit or w/e, assume, some without even any ST experience *Rypac* that you are running HOT. lol. I mean, if my ROI has gone from 9 to 6 overall, then there are more factors than just variance as to why this might be the case. For example, what if i have been playing sh.it for the past 3 months? But no, it's all to do with variance. Positive/negative. It's easy to judge sat on forums, checking everyones sharkscope stats and the form an opinion which imo is bs. But then pokers all about different opinions anyway. < most are wrong
Hi Zak,I'm not sure why you take so much offense at my comments here. On several occassions I have simply said your stats back up that you're one of the best ST players there are at the $100 level.If you notice, I didn't make this thread, somebody else did. There's always interest from the community when somebody has success. They want to know why, how, details etc. You should take it more humbly, it means you're a good player (in this instance) and people want to know more about you.I don't know what you want to respond to based on what I've said, I don't see anything insulting nor extreme nor inaccurate that I've stated.As far as your insults to me, I have played a few thousand super turbos myself. I've made more money in the $200 supers than you have and I've faced infinitely tougher competition (probably 25% of my games are vs the regulars you see sitting in those lobbies every day). I don't make my name public there because I really enjoy the anonimity of just firing up a session and playing without distractions or chat. And I sat so many regulars that I just wanted to ignore the chat most of the time and not have to find comments on this site or 2p2 from other regs that lose their cool or keep insulting over things. I just want to play in those.Anyways, if you really think I'm so bad and find me so insulting, I'll happily play you in these over a very long sample with a side bet, if that's what you're getting at. My name would obviously be public then, but I don't know how else to react when I'm simply trying to answer honest questions from the community as best I can, in a way that actually compliments you and you respond by insulting me.Your opinion seems very wrong and in poor taste. Yea, you could be playing bad, but of course, when you had a 9% ROI you said "I'm running no better or worse than anyone else" and now you're "just playing bad." Most intelligent professionals would see those statements as likely to being very flawed.But it's up to you. I have experience, successful experience, and I'm not insulting you, just trying to answer others questions. When you come on here and take offense to this and insult me directly after I have done nothing of the such, this is my response, for whatever it is worth.
I wsa thinking something like 1-3k super turbos over x time with a 5-10k side bet to whoever wins at the end (or if somebody quits) escrowed to somebody reputable?If you're serious just PM me or message me privately and we can discuss details.
It's mind boggling, and frankly a little frustrating, how someone can take offense to anything Rypac posted in this thread. He even threaded extra carefully repeatedly rubbing zakwray's ego by restating several times how good he is in an attempt to avoid a conflict. There seems to be so many instances of these kinds of people in poker; fragile egos that can't take any input without going on a rampage feeling it to be an attack on their person and/or skill when it's so obviously not. It's tiring.
I'd bet on a Rypac with his stable ego and being a seasoned veteran than some fish like zak who runs hot for a little bit and thinks he is king of the world and who also talks shit and can't back it up.
you guys obviously haven't played zakray he is rude and trollish.I played him about 5-10x without looking him up on sharkscope and I thought he was definetely a weaker player.When I saw his sharkscope I was blown away and politely asked him to chat after the match because I was really curious about a lot of things and wanted to ask him some questions. He was a total prick imo and declined the invitation. I can understand protecting intellectual information b/c it is obviously how you make your living but being rude and arrogant is uncalled for. I suppose he was just trying to make me tilt --- its important to note that super turbos attract all sorts of degenerates and his strategy of being a prick may actually be profitable. I just remember him pointing out every single -ev play I made and even plays that weren't -ev.
Well i have played him two times, won one he had no weapons and lost once to total setup. If he woul be my child i would wash his mouth with soap and kick back to zoo to learn human behaviour from visitors.Gotta admit that stats are good but I have faced a lot of better regs.
What's the point of this thread? I wonder why it has not been locked yet.OP asked a legitimate question which has been answered very well and with details by RyPac.Is he rude, is he a fish who runs good, is the new god of poker? Who cares?In my opinion, this thread is really starting to derail. This is not 2+2 (no offense), so please, let your ego/bashing at home. I am sure you all have something better to do with your time; what about improving your game instead?Cheers! :D
A combination of a very good player in this structure and some very kind variance would be my explanation. He posts on 2p2, so perhaps ask him yourself, maybe he's running really high above EV. I'd doubt any higher than 5-6% is even possible in these for a true ROI, if that. Maybe with certain game selection, but I really don't see 8% being viable long term (though his 3400 sample size in the 100s is large, but hardly true if you look at other people's graphs over 3k samples).Take Primo's graph, for example (ignore the first part bc that was under the old structure). He has 3k game stretches where his ROI is very high, and others where it is very low. In the long run it's going to be a very consistent ROI, but isolating 3k game stretches really shows you how you can actually come close to breakeven (pre rb) or win a tremendous amount. Also keep in mind that graphs that go straight up (or look consistently straight up) do not necessarily indicate a consistent ROI/edge and low variance play being realized. You can play around with the variance calculator here on husng.com to get better examples, but some people will get from point A to point B with tons of swings, and the same edge player will get there with no swings.
Thanks for the fast answer. Ill try to find his posts on 2p2. One of the sickest runs ever if you ask me...
'Also keep in mind that graphs that go straight up (or look consistently straight up) do not necessarily indicate a consistent ROI/edge and low variance play being realized. You can play around with the variance calculator here on husng.com to get better examples, but some people will get from point A to point B with tons of swings, and the same edge player will get there with no swings.'Rypac, could you a little bit deeper into this? I find this very interesting.
Sure.So I used the husng.com variance calculator (found under the free > tools section of the site) to demonstrate this.Note: Swings will likely be more pronounced in real play than in this calculator, as the calculator I believe assumes a consistent winrate throughout each match. In reality, you may be playing better than average players for 100 games, where your winrate is smaller against them, then you might end up playing 200 more games against weaker than average opponents, where your winrate is higher. This will make up and downswings even more pronounced than the calculator shows, I believe. This should give you an idea of what I am talking about, however.So I plugged in a 55% winrate for the $200 super turbo level buyin/rake parameters, which is a 8.1% ROI in these games, similar to Wray's results. I showed 5 total graphs, here are three particular ones: The above graph shows over 30k profit in 3k games, but with a 1k+ breakeven stretch.The above graph shows the same edge, same # of games but makes over 50k in profit with no more than 500 game breakeven stretches anywhere. Quite a contrast from the first graph's 3k game success (though obviously both are strong graphs with very solid end result profits).The final graph has hardly any breakeven stretches and makes 70k in the 3k games. That's over $20 a game, over 10% ROI. If there are/were people with 55% winrates in these super turbo games, we would see 3k game stretches that looked like this at some point. Now, since I believe it may very well be possible that numbers closer to 3-4% ROIs may be the top level achievable (particularly at the $200+ level), I changed the input to have a 53% winrate instead of a 55% winrate. This should be around a 4.1% ROI, give or take, for the $200 super turbo level. Rakeback is not factored in (you can figure you'll pay about 10.5k in rake here, so on FTP that would be about $2800 in rb added to these graphs).You can see that this graph is super swingy over 3k games and ends up with 10k profit. Same edge, same # of games, but besides one 500 game rough patch, it's all success on this graph. In the end, over 30k, which is 3x that of the last one.Again, same winrate, same # of games, but even less variance (and 25% more profit) on the graph above.And finally, look at this swingfest of (un)fun! Same parameters as the previous 3 graphs, a lot less success than the previous two and some swings that will put hair on your chest (if they don't kill you).I didn't even check more than a dozen examples for these last four graphs, and we can see a 30+ buyin downer for a true 4%ROI type edge player in these super turbos. If I did a few dozen more examples, I'm sure I could find a sinister 50+ buyin swing, and considering 4% ROI is likely the highest true edge (or close to it) in these games (particularly at higher stakes levels, though lower stakes shouldn't result in a much larger edge due to higher rake + lesser knowledge) you can imagine what smaller edge players can experience during rough bouts.What's this all mean? That swings can be horrendous, that 3k game samples don't definitively prove to what degree you are a winning player and that you should be prepared to handle variance and uncertainty throughout the life of your super turbo playing. When you get closer to 10k samples you'll see less abberations, but I would imagine even then you'll see some major differences from one player to the next, even with the same edge and games played.Lastly, there's one common thing I recall just about every top thinking poker mind I've ever spoken to saying: There is more variance in this game than anybody realizes.
apparently im just running hot <<<<<<<<<< :O
My first sentence: "A combination of a very good player in this structure and some very kind variance would be my explanation."I'd rather run good than bad or even and so should you.
LOL. I wasn't referring to your post. I was speaking generally about what other players seem to be believe. Almost 5000 games now and im not running better or worse than anyone else who is struggling to break even. To me and a couple of other people, that is obvious. //edit: over 5200 games at 9% and fwiw i could not have lost more flips/coolers than i've had the past 2-3 weeks. I know for a FACT how i'm running.
Zak, how many BIs are you running over or under EV in 100s superturbos? Great results btw, gl
Fair enough to the first point.However: "Almost 5000 games now and im not running better or worse than anyone else who is struggling to break even. To me and a couple of other people, that is obvious."This makes no sense. Odds are there are people that are breakeven running both hotter and worse than you are, even at 4-5k game samples (look at the graphs above for 3k samples, as an example).Also wasn't including your hot 18% ROI in the 50s or your below expectation 2% ROI in the 200s, just the 8% over 4k games in the $100s when talking about variance and such.Regardless, one thing we both agree on is that you're a very good player in super turbos. I wish you the best of luck with them.
Thanks Zak for your input, and thanks Rypac for the thorough answer.
Hi Mischi, I don't use HEM or anything to calculate EV so I don't have any figures to answer your question, sorry. The point I was trying to make in a previous post was that, after 5300+ games, I do not believe my results reflect "some very kind variance". I strongly believe that the ROI I have achieved over the large sample of games so far, over about a 3-month period is my true ROI. I hope that's sounds clearer than what I said previous. Zak :)
Hi Zak,fair enough, your results dont look to me like 'kind variance' either :) I understand the points made by other guys about this, but it is hard to argue with results on sample sizes this big.It is interesting that your roi in turbos is almost equal to your roi in regulars. And superturbos roi not too much behind either. What are you thoughts on this? Is it possible to maintain similar edge in endgame / shorter match (less reads) as in longer / deeper stacked game?How many tables did you play (regulars, turbos, supturbos)?
Thanks and no probs. With regards to my own stats, all of my reg. speed games were played about a year ago when I was just learning and playing smaller stakes. So comparing those stats to for example, August 2010s figures would be a waste of time. Yes I do feel there is a decent edge in Super Turbos. I play either 1 or 2 tables depending on how I feel at the time.
"Almost 5000 games now and im not running better or worse than anyone else who is struggling to break even. To me and a couple of other people, that is obvious."LOL at that. Sorry, but if you don't use HEM to calculate your EV, just how do you and especially a couple other people know this?You will feel you run very normal when you win three 60 40s in a row, but in fact you have just run $240 above EV if we talking about the $100s.Dont get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that you are not a very good player, but you would probably be shocked to see how much above EV you must be running to have a 9% ROI in the 100s.I don't think a 9% true ROI is even possible and its not even close.But, as others said as well, its better to be on the right side of variance, then on the other...
yah zakwray, you run under ev and you are a bad player, youve only made 72k money playing those lucky super turbo games... what a shame!! (I hope you understand that: IM SARCASTIC) (Only serious word I would have to say about Zakwray is: R-E-S-P-E-C-T)
Zak. Get HEM.. there's no question that you are running over ev imo, 9% roi is achivable in 100 reg and turbo speed but it is NOT in super turbos.. as it was pointed out before about winning 3 60/40s in a row will put you massively over ev. You have won enough to cover the fee of HEM.. but I guess the result that it could (read would) show can be a little terrifying :P Still of course you must be a good player, but you ARE over ev.
Just a quick reply to the last three posts.. Bubi/Ken: Im not interested one bit in HEM. I've never used it and I have no immediate plans to do so. Call me old-fashioned but I do not concentrate on "how good/bad I ran". Don't get me wrong, I'm not naive. I analyse my game, occasionally down to the finest detail. But I prefer to concencrate fully on making the correct decisions. I'm not going to continue to argue about my results. I'm not saying 9% isn't high, but it's not mind-blowing imo. There are other players with 6%-7% ROIs. It's a debate that could go on and on until we all have bigger samples at these new(ish) games. Addmitedly in the longer term you may well be correct and in 6 months time I've got a 3-4% ROI, but for now especially it's motivating proving the doubters wrong. Roamus: Thanks a lot. Means a lot for some encouragment/appreciation. By the way my chat is banned at the tables, I seen you speak in the chat last night, so couldn't respond. GL mate. Zak
hey gl further on and keep up the good work.me so far very bad at STs...even tho i play the super micro stakes only.cu at the tables as soon as my chat is not banned anymore as well. one month. 2 guys wrote to ftp at the same time..uhhhh
oh thats cool, thanks to tell me :P
Very impressive I say. Keep up the good work.
Just to note: ZakWray is still likely the most successful super turbo player at the $100 level on FTP.He's now at 5% over 12.5k games, so it looks like my initial response proved to be accurate, at least up until this point.
Jesus Christ - i would love to say so much to that comment. But i wont.
Why do you take it so personally?Rypac said he thought you were a good player who has had some postive variance. And the statistics seem to back up what he said. Is not 5% at 12.5K games more accurate than 9% at 5K games?
Because someone like me who has a higher ROI than other regulars who have more experience/more profit or w/e, assume, some without even any ST experience *Rypac* that you are running HOT. lol. I mean, if my ROI has gone from 9 to 6 overall, then there are more factors than just variance as to why this might be the case. For example, what if i have been playing sh.it for the past 3 months? But no, it's all to do with variance. Positive/negative. It's easy to judge sat on forums, checking everyones sharkscope stats and the form an opinion which imo is bs. But then pokers all about different opinions anyway. < most are wrong
Judge? No one is judging anything.I'm interested to know, based on your skill, what ROI do you think you can sustain long term?
Hi Zak,I'm not sure why you take so much offense at my comments here. On several occassions I have simply said your stats back up that you're one of the best ST players there are at the $100 level.If you notice, I didn't make this thread, somebody else did. There's always interest from the community when somebody has success. They want to know why, how, details etc. You should take it more humbly, it means you're a good player (in this instance) and people want to know more about you.I don't know what you want to respond to based on what I've said, I don't see anything insulting nor extreme nor inaccurate that I've stated.As far as your insults to me, I have played a few thousand super turbos myself. I've made more money in the $200 supers than you have and I've faced infinitely tougher competition (probably 25% of my games are vs the regulars you see sitting in those lobbies every day). I don't make my name public there because I really enjoy the anonimity of just firing up a session and playing without distractions or chat. And I sat so many regulars that I just wanted to ignore the chat most of the time and not have to find comments on this site or 2p2 from other regs that lose their cool or keep insulting over things. I just want to play in those.Anyways, if you really think I'm so bad and find me so insulting, I'll happily play you in these over a very long sample with a side bet, if that's what you're getting at. My name would obviously be public then, but I don't know how else to react when I'm simply trying to answer honest questions from the community as best I can, in a way that actually compliments you and you respond by insulting me.Your opinion seems very wrong and in poor taste. Yea, you could be playing bad, but of course, when you had a 9% ROI you said "I'm running no better or worse than anyone else" and now you're "just playing bad." Most intelligent professionals would see those statements as likely to being very flawed.But it's up to you. I have experience, successful experience, and I'm not insulting you, just trying to answer others questions. When you come on here and take offense to this and insult me directly after I have done nothing of the such, this is my response, for whatever it is worth.
1. how much is the side bet? 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK7egZaT3hs
i think 7% is sustainable if you're good
I wsa thinking something like 1-3k super turbos over x time with a 5-10k side bet to whoever wins at the end (or if somebody quits) escrowed to somebody reputable?If you're serious just PM me or message me privately and we can discuss details.
lol ok :D i dont want to play u :D gl Ry xx
If you think 7% is doable in the 100 STs, then what do you think can be sustained
In the 115 turbos?
god damn that was entertaining...ty guys
MastAAce08
I bet on RyPac, can I? :Pkeep us updated plz!! ;)
ive played him several times and i felt he was really fishy and overdid the nash type moves. when i saw his graph i was blown away.
It's mind boggling, and frankly a little frustrating, how someone can take offense to anything Rypac posted in this thread. He even threaded extra carefully repeatedly rubbing zakwray's ego by restating several times how good he is in an attempt to avoid a conflict. There seems to be so many instances of these kinds of people in poker; fragile egos that can't take any input without going on a rampage feeling it to be an attack on their person and/or skill when it's so obviously not. It's tiring.
I'd bet on a Rypac with his stable ego and being a seasoned veteran than some fish like zak who runs hot for a little bit and thinks he is king of the world and who also talks shit and can't back it up.
you guys obviously haven't played zakray he is rude and trollish.I played him about 5-10x without looking him up on sharkscope and I thought he was definetely a weaker player.When I saw his sharkscope I was blown away and politely asked him to chat after the match because I was really curious about a lot of things and wanted to ask him some questions. He was a total prick imo and declined the invitation. I can understand protecting intellectual information b/c it is obviously how you make your living but being rude and arrogant is uncalled for. I suppose he was just trying to make me tilt --- its important to note that super turbos attract all sorts of degenerates and his strategy of being a prick may actually be profitable. I just remember him pointing out every single -ev play I made and even plays that weren't -ev.
Well i have played him two times, won one he had no weapons and lost once to total setup. If he woul be my child i would wash his mouth with soap and kick back to zoo to learn human behaviour from visitors.Gotta admit that stats are good but I have faced a lot of better regs.
What's the point of this thread? I wonder why it has not been locked yet.OP asked a legitimate question which has been answered very well and with details by RyPac.Is he rude, is he a fish who runs good, is the new god of poker? Who cares?In my opinion, this thread is really starting to derail. This is not 2+2 (no offense), so please, let your ego/bashing at home. I am sure you all have something better to do with your time; what about improving your game instead?Cheers! :D
You're absolutely right bonafontz. Thread is locked. Thanks.