|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 8/29/2008 9:19:21 PM PACIFIC |
 Suspicious is in my nature.., Tlaserx, 17. Jul 2003 08:13 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Have played B&M low limit 7-stud for a couple years now. In Florida, the rake is outrageous, so you can't make any money at it. That's OK for me. However, I just signed up on Party and took my $100 inital deposit up to $362 in the first two weeks, and haven't been able in any way to duplicate those initial sucesses. My wife wanted to play, so we signed her up also. Same thing first week all she could do was win, and now she's about broke on her initial deposit. I've chatted with a few others who had similar stories so you can probably guess my question. With all the bonuses that they throw at you, Is it really feasible that the software is somehow designed to suck you in only to bury you later to go on the hook for more? I don't mind paying a little to pay, but in low limit, can anyone truly say they have made money after playing for a year? If so, remind me not to play against y ou. LOL | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., shorn, 17. Jul 2003 08:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I can say that I have made roughly 1.2 BB's per hour over 2 years of play online regardless of the limit. I generally play 5/10 and 3/6 Hold'em, my recent foray into 15/30 on the fishpond that is Party notwithstanding. IMHO, there is NO way that the online sites would risk the thousands upon thousands of dollars that they make just by being open by rigging the game for certain players to lose. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Big_Slick, 17. Jul 2003 08:37 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Is it really feasible that the software is somehow designed to suck you in only to bury you later to go on the hook for more? This isn't like blackjack where you are playing against the house. You are playing against other players. If anything, the on-line poker rooms should want to keep you from going broke. That way, you are keeping their tables full and adding to the rake. The cold hard truth that the vast majority of people fail to accept is that poker is only beat by a small percentage of people. Sure, we all like to think we are good enough to beat the game consistently but we aren't. Everyone obviously can not win. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Tlaserx, 17. Jul 2003 08:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| That's not want is says in my poker books "LOL" It says I should be making about $12 per hour minimum. (Just kidding). Anyone else making money on average? There seems to be lots of loose aggressive players and the books just dont cover that too much. Any hints? Thanks.. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., mroban, 17. Jul 2003 08:54 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I have consistently made money over the past 6 months. I have turned a $50 intial deposit at Poker Room into over $900, now spread out at Party Poker, UB and Poker Room. My experience has been very consistent with the rules of poker: I have good nights and bad nights but over time my good nights have far outweighed the bad. Other than the usual bad beats from fishy players and a seeming never-ending flow of bad river beats, I cannot find anything fishy about any of the sites I have played at (despite playing against some fish that seemingly know they will pull their miracle card on the end). Anyway, play good solid poker and you should see good results over time. The quality of play is just awful on Party Poker and UB (in general). | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., stdioh, 17. Jul 2003 08:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You probably need to retool your game. It is in the nature of losing players that they go on a "heater" from time to time and make money hand over fist. When you are playing a lot of hands there is a much higher chance of getting extremely lucky quickly, but also a terrible long term. You didn't make all that money because you were good and then lose all that money because you were unlucky. More likely, I'm afraid, is that you and your wife are losing players who got lucky in the short term, but with whom the long run inevitabley caught up. Now I don't know you and I don't know your game, so I could be way off base here, but the fact of the matter is that there are a huge number of losing poker players and only a few winning ones. Probablistically you're more likely to be one of the former than one of the latter. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., wolvish, 17. Jul 2003 10:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Talk about harsh. I'm guessing that you're one of those few select winning players huh? Well then I guess I am too and I say that anybody who puts the effort in can beat the game. What I think the problem is is that when people start playing the online games they play very conservative solid poker and win a little at a time. However, once they get a taste of the money, and how easy it is to make, they start to loosen up, remembering those big scores they made with pocket 5's or suited connectors or whatever. So then it always a chase to get back up to where you were before you hit those bad beats, which is never a good mindset to be in. My suggestion would be to make sure you're playing solid poker every hand and don't worry too much about how big your bankroll was before. Play each hand like its your first hand. Hope I could be of some assistance and good luck! wolvish | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Big_Slick, 17. Jul 2003 10:58 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yup, sometimes the truth is harsh. Stdioh knows his stuff. anybody who puts the effort in can beat the game I disagree. Poker takes a lot more then effort. As much effort as I put into my golf game, I'll never make it on the PGA tour. I could practice 12 hours a day and I'll never make a penny playing golf. The same principle pertains to poker. when people start playing the online games they play very conservative solid poker and win a little at a time I disagree again. This is the trend I see... 1. Joe Poker sees poker being played on TV and decides to open an account. 2. He plays poker at Party for 3/6 like he does every Friday night with his buddies for nickels and dimes. 3. Without any real clue on how play poker, Joe gets lucky with his play. He chases gutshot straights, takes his pocket 2's to the river and 3-bets his A-9 preflop only to hit the flop with 2 pair. 4. Joe Poker wins a lot of money quickly and then expect that this is how the game is played. 5. He is thinking about quitting his job because this poker thing is just too easy. 6. He proceeds to lose every dollar over the course of a weekend because, as it turns out, Joe Poker is clueless. 7. UPF regulars like stdioh are blessed with yet another "Poker Is Rigged" post from people he has never heard from before or will ever hear from again. It is a never ending circle as new players start to play the game. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., TKarrde, 17. Jul 2003 11:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| test I wanna do bold type like Biggie Did it work? TKarrde "The next best thing to playing and winning, is playing and losing." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., TKarrde, 17. Jul 2003 11:10 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| kewl I learned something. What can you do besides bolding? i = italics?? Anything else? TKarrde "The next best thing to playing and winning, is playing and losing." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., MozMan, 17. Jul 2003 11:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| How did you do that? Did you just use html tags? -Moz "The reports of my assimilation are greatly exaggerated." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Big_Slick, 17. Jul 2003 11:41 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| These are called tags Bold... Type < b > (with no spaces) before the words you wanted bolded. Type < /b > (with no spaces) when you want it to end. italics... Type < i > (with no spaces) before the words you wanted italicized. Type < /i > (with no spaces) when you want it to end. This concludes HTML 101 =)) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., MozMan, 17. Jul 2003 11:54 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, then I guess I could make some words <font color='red'>RED</font> too, couldn't I? ;) -Moz "The reports of my assimilation are greatly exaggerated." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., MozMan, 17. Jul 2003 11:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| ?? I guess font tags don't work here? -Moz "The reports of my assimilation are greatly exaggerated." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., TKarrde, 17. Jul 2003 12:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Sign me up for HTML 102, please. TKarrde "The next best thing to playing and winning, is playing and losing." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Tlaserx, 17. Jul 2003 11:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| He He, yep, that's it. just call me Joe.. I actually did that thing where I thought about quiting my job. I get it now. I have Sklansky's advanced seven stud book and Brunsons Supersystem, am waiting for the poker essays books to come in. Any other suggestions. Can this stuff be mastered in books or only practice? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Big_Slick, 17. Jul 2003 12:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, I think it's safe to say that nothing can be mastered by reading about it. You can read all you want about how to ride a horse but until you get on top of Old Smokey, you'll never really have an idea. I'm not sure what the formula is for a winning poker player. But if I had to choose some qualities, these would be it. 1) Knowledge (book and actual play) 2) Desire 3) Discipline 4) Level Headedness 5) A knack for reading people 6) Patience 7) Willingness to never stop learning People think they can read a few books and learn this game over a long weekend. There are players who have been studying and playing this game for years that are still trying to put together a winning month. It it was easy, everyone would be doing it. The fact is, everyone is trying to do it, but most are failing. Phil Hellmuth talked about how he built up a $30,000 bankroll while in college playing against everyday people. When he moved to Vegas to play professionally, he lost every dime. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., wolvish, 17. Jul 2003 14:10 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I don't mean to be contrary, and I think you all make some great points, but i still believe that if a player has the motivation to study, has good patience and self-control, and puts the time in at the tables, he/she can become a winning player. If the newbie plays like its a home game and has the mindset that any two cards can win, then yes, they should have loser branded on their forehead. However, from my humble experience in my own poker escapades, as well as watching new players all the time, I think that many players can excel. wolvish | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Big_Slick, 17. Jul 2003 14:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Sure many players can excel. However, it's a lot easier to take the other road and play less than spectacular poker. Lets face it... when poker is played well, it's like watching paint dry. Most people don't play poker to watch paint dry. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., stdioh, 17. Jul 2003 15:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| If you have the potential to be a winning player and you do all the things that you mention then you might eventually get there. The sad fact is that most people on God's green Earth do not have the potential. I would hazzard a guess that there are very few winning players out there with IQs under 30, but that's not all you need. I've known very smart people who tried hard to play poker well and couldn't cut it. You need brains, discipline, and street smarts (human element). Being a poker player is both being a scientist and an artist. You need talent and you need to develop your skills. Anybody can read books on painting, pick up a brush, practice, and call themselves an artist, but if you're going to make a living selling paintings then you need to have God given talent that you perfect over time. Saying that anybody can make a good living at poker if they try hard is like saying that anybody can get a PhD in math if they try hard. Some things are hard not just because they take work but because they take talent. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., str82tko, 17. Jul 2003 18:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| No offense meant but I can't take any more of your holier than thou attitude. Man, if I was half as good as you seem to think you are, I would be a world champion (unlike you). This last writing is the biggest load of crap I have ever read here. What you're saying is that only you (self appointed) and a select few others (you have blessed) can play poker well. Where do you get off with that? To continue enjoying the otherwise good posts from most others I will just skip over the ones from stdioh and thereby not write anything like this again. I really shouldn't post this one but I am sure it won't be the first time you have heard something like this. No, I won't see your reply to this as, like I said, I have gone to skip stdioh mode. So I get the last word instead of you. I would wish you good luck but it's apparent from your posts you don't need it. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Jav, 17. Jul 2003 14:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I just want to add to your list one little bit: 1) Patience 2) Knowledge (book and actual play) 3) Patience 4) Desire 5) Patience 6) Discipline 7) Patience 8) Level Headedness 9) Patience 10) A knack for reading people 11) Patience 12) Willingness to never stop learning | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., stdioh, 17. Jul 2003 15:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well said. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., stdioh, 17. Jul 2003 15:10 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yeah, I shouldn't be so harsh - that's true. I'm not exactly a gentle creature though ... it is in my nature to make dogs and small children cry :) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: for studioh---personal, gary ford, 17. Jul 2003 15:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 17. Jul 2003 15:10 stdioh wrote: > Yeah, I shouldn't be so harsh - that's true. I'm not exactly a gentle creature though ... it is > in my nature to make dogs and small children cry :) Hi studioh---even though you are only in your 20s, you are bright, aggressive and respected by your peers. Because of your age, you have a touch of arrogance in you, and a rather short fuse. If in fact you do make dogs and small children cry ( And i hope not small brown birds ), you need to examine that part of your nature. The instincts that dogs and small children have toward strangers reflects their innate trust of that person. I bring this up beacuse most of those traits were ones i possessed at your age, and my lack of empathy caused me a lot of problems in later years. If this sounds like a fatherly lecture, it is. You have enormous potential, but you need balance. BTW--I pick you to win tonight Good luck, Gary | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: for studioh---personal, stdioh, 17. Jul 2003 16:37 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Actually kids love me and I am a rather gentle person. Am I arrogant ... well I guess that depends how high you estimate my abilities to be. If my estimation of them is greater than your estimation of them I will appear arrogant to you and if it indeed is true that my estimation of them is higher than they actually are, then I would indeed be arrogant. I don't pretend to be God's gift to poker and the real poker players of this world would eat me for breakfast. I will say though that for my limited age, I've seen a lot of poker. And as for the small brown birds, I don't think I've ever made her cry once - not that I can think of. So I've got something going for me :) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Dr_Monkey, 17. Jul 2003 10:18 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I started playing online Dec. 2002. I also experienced success. Took my $100 deposit up to $160. All at 0.50/1 ring games. But it didn't last either. As I tried to figure out what happened, I realized I didn't know what I was doing. Didn't realize the importance of position. Didn't see the differance between K2o and K9o. Thought any ace was worth playing. Basic strategy was if I had a face card, I would play it. After doing some reading and really learning about the game, odds, position, starting hands, betting/raising. I saw that I was just lucky in the beginning. I've learned to watch how people play and what they play and take advantage of that. I learned that I am no good at limit games. I have a game that is best suited for sit and go tables or NL ring games. I have 5 accounts at various sites and almost have $400 in profits. I still make bone head mistakes but I also catch myself before I repeat some of these mistakes. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., stdioh, 17. Jul 2003 15:19 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| > Didn't see the differance between K2o and K9o. There isn't much difference. Neither hand is playable in any position. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Scrubbie, 17. Jul 2003 15:23 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| DO you see the difference between K9 abd K2 now? - One will loose you a little money, and the other will loose you a "lot" of money. Scubbie "Good Night Now Beigs" | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., stdioh, 17. Jul 2003 16:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Indeed. Well put. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., stdioh, 17. Jul 2003 16:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Now I'll have to play K9 in tonight's tourney just for the sake of deception :) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., wolvish, 17. Jul 2003 10:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| One other thing I forgot to mention. Besides reading every book I could get my hands on, as well as playing weekly home games with friends. I played for 10 months at pokerroom in the free money section and made over 120,000 before I started playing for real. While in the free money sections you will continously get outdrawn because lots of people are in every hand, you do learn alot about what hands to play, betting, position, etc. So if you can backtrack and give up the real money for a couple months, i would suggest doing so. I know its hard to do, but it might be worth it. Again, good luck! wolvish | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Tlaserx, 17. Jul 2003 10:47 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks for all the advice. I agree that I'm probably a loosing player right now, but I'm ready to spend some money at first to learn more. and I'm reading all the books. As winning players, do you do better at seven stud, or Hold em? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., MozMan, 17. Jul 2003 10:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think that which game an individual excels is related to his personal preferences and skillset. I actually do much better at holdem, tho I enjoy stud more. The reason I do better at hold em is because my level of focus sucks and I have ahard time seeing all of the cards in stud, and calculating accurate odds. By contrast, hold em is much easier for me to follow. Take a player like stdioh, and I suspect he excels at stud because his mind is sharp as a tack, he can figure lots f numbers on the fly, and he can see the board really well. -Moz "The reports of my assimilation are greatly exaggerated." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., stdioh, 17. Jul 2003 15:21 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You'll find more fish at hold'em right now. If you really want something that can be profitable when bad players are playing it, look into learning Omaha. I'm glad to hear that you've committed to learning first. In poker, as in life, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., stdioh, 17. Jul 2003 15:20 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Play money is very deceptive because there is a never ending supply of it. You won't get real practice playing for play money. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Big_Slick, 17. Jul 2003 15:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| And the $120,000 he won is an inflated number since more and most players play till the bitter end with fake chips. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., wolvish, 17. Jul 2003 16:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Quite true, it is an inflated number. There is no way I would have made that playing for real. However, fake money tables can be a good learning experience for those who dont have, or dont want to risk, there bankroll as a beginner against sharks like all of you. And yes, play money is not REAL experience as stdioh points out. But it is a good place to learn the fundamentals when you combine it with studying and motivation to learn the game. But yes, nothing compares to the real thing. wolvish | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., stdioh, 17. Jul 2003 16:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree that it is a good simluation of how the hands work if you think in terms of learning how often you make a hand, etc. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Bill Waite, 17. Jul 2003 12:41 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, I've had a similar experience, but I haven't been playing long enough to think it's anything other than just a losing streak. The first week or so that I played real money on Party Poker, I won 5-7% of the hands every session (which I checked using the show statistics button) and was a big winner. The last couple days, I've won 2% of the hands, including several tiny pots and split pots, and have lost a lot. Does anyone know how many pots a solid player should normally win? (My play is pretty much by the book, and I'm playing pretty loose opponents at $1-2 and 2-4.) Bill Waite | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Bill Waite, 17. Jul 2003 12:46 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| P.S. I don't suspect Party Poker of rigging anything; I mainly just want to know so that I know whether I'm a winning player or a losing player. I seem to be playing much better than my opponents, but I'm not experienced enough to be sure that I'm a good player. Bill Waite | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Big_Slick, 17. Jul 2003 13:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Pots are irrelevant. If you want to win a lot of pots, simply play every hand. No doubt, you'll win as many pots as possible. It's all about money. You may win several small pots over the course of an hour but I only win 2. However, the pots I won are much larger than yours and far exceed the money that is stack in front you. See the difference? Generally, when discussing money, professionals use big bets per hour as their reference point. Anything at or above 1BB per hour is considered excellent. Play solid poker and the money will take care of itself. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., MozMan, 17. Jul 2003 13:43 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree with Slick here- You can use hand stats as a tool to determine how well you are playing (they answer general questions like, am I seeing too many flops? am I showing down too many hands? etc), but it terms how how much you win, you should be looking at how many BBs per hour you are earning over the long haul. When you play tight and aggressive, you will likely win less than 20% of the pots while you are sitting at the table (or about 80% of the pots in which you participate), but your BB/hr number is going to be bigger than if you are playing in too many hands and winning lots of small pots. There are two main reasons for this: 1) When you win a small pot, you are paying a tremendous percentage of rake, and that adds up fast over lots of small pots. 2) When you are tight and aggressive, you are pumping the pots you do win, and drawing a lot of money into them for maximization. -Moz "The reports of my assimilation are greatly exaggerated." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Bill Waite, 17. Jul 2003 15:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 17. Jul 2003 13:31 Big_Slick wrote: > Pots are irrelevant. If you want to win a lot of pots, simply play every hand. I realize that, and I do win few pots. Even when I was lucky, I only won around 5% of the time. (About half what the average player would win.) I only want to know how many I could normally expect to win so I know whether I was actually experiencing really bad luck, or if I'm a much worse player than I think I am. Bill Waite | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., MozMan, 17. Jul 2003 15:33 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| ahh, I see. Try to look at it this way then: you should win about 80% of the hands you show down. If your other numbers are in line, then this will get you winning the number of, and kind of, pots. -Moz "The reports of my assimilation are greatly exaggerated." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., stdioh, 17. Jul 2003 15:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It all depends on style. If you are a good loose agressive player you would win more pots than a good very tight player would even play. Differnt styles suit playing with different opponents. For instand if you are at a massively fishy table, you'll want to play lots of drawing hands becuase you will be paid off handsomely when you get there. Likewise if you are at a rockish table you will want to raise a lot preflop on steal attempts. So the long story short is that there is no magic number for this one. It depends. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Suspicious is in my nature.., Barry T, 17. Jul 2003 15:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi. Lots of people win, and, of couise, many many more lose. When people first set up an account, one of three things happens, governed sometimes by their skill level and far more often by the laws of chance : 1 - They lose immediately, and either stop playing or adjust and deposit more money. They do not post about suspicious software. (They do post about collusion, but that is a dfferent story). 2 - They break even, win a little or lose a little. Since that is what they expect, they do not post their story. 3 - They win. This is good. Some of them continue to win or break even, and some of them lose (again, either because of luck or lack of skill). They post suspicions about rigged software. With thousands coming into internetpoker, there will be lots of anecdotal evidence about just about anything that can happen randomly. Note that many of the players are drastically under-bankrolled for the limits they chose to play (at least in terms of their initial deposit), so they will "go broke" with respect to their accounts regardless of skill level, much of the time. The software is hard enough to write without making sure new players win. Besides, how does the software know which hands you will play and how you will play them? BarryT | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|