pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 09 Jan 2009 22:32:47
From: FangBanger
Subject: jbk finally says something poignant.. cinci .. not so much !!
HOW many tourneys do the pros who win em play? It is almost inevitable
> that somewhere down the road they will win one.
>
> ========================================
> You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
> ========
> BOOM byae
> John

They have 35-40 tournaments in the wsop now? Still, it's an amazing feat
to have multiples. The fields are just so stinking large.

Having 5 bracelets from the 70's and 80's is a LOT less impressive.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I extracted this from the Durrrr thread

JBK finally said something that showed that he wasnt drooling on himself .
and The Cincinnatti Morons response I found interesting after i got done
laughing at it

JBK makes the point that the newbie 'pros" play so many tournaments that
they are bound to stumble into opportunities due to the sheer number of
tournies they enter .

The Cinci Moron rebutted and said that 5 bracelets from the 70's and 80's
meant less

I SAY THE CINCI MORON IS OUT OF HIS FUCKING MIND

First let me point out that while there are so many more tournies today ,
there is so very much more 'dead money " in them , that the skill level
required to get to the final tables is actually diminished and not
heightened by the numbers

second.. while the tournies in the 70's and 80's had fewer people in them
, they had an ENORMOUSLY TALENTED POOL.

hal Fowler in the late 70's was the only person who played as bad as
Moneymaker or jamie Gold or yang

The WSOP in the 70's and 80' was the absolute cream of the crop , as well
as coalitions that had to be overcome..etc etc .

When you won an event in the 70's and 80's you beat "PLAYERS" , and not
david Williams and jamie Golds MOM.

Todays players have a virtual "sea " of dead money , easy to wade through
, and gain chip advantages through the like of celine Dions wasted husband
, and 4000 entrants who cant read the board

When you played in the 70's and 80's ,... 95% of the field were "PLAYERS.

It was no fucking accident that Chip Reese won the biggest buyin "all
around tourney' with his win of the inaugural HORSE tourny..

cinci moron .. YOUR STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING WRONG !!

_____________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com





 
Date: 11 Jan 2009 13:31:48
From: MMelia
Subject: Re: jbk finally says something poignant.. cinci .. not so much !!
On Jan 10 2009 1:32 AM, FangBanger wrote:

> HOW many tourneys do the pros who win em play? It is almost inevitable
> > that somewhere down the road they will win one.
> >
> > ========================================
> > You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> > nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
> > ========
> > BOOM byae
> > John
>
> They have 35-40 tournaments in the wsop now? Still, it's an amazing feat
> to have multiples. The fields are just so stinking large.
>
> Having 5 bracelets from the 70's and 80's is a LOT less impressive.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I extracted this from the Durrrr thread
>
> JBK finally said something that showed that he wasnt drooling on himself .
> and The Cincinnatti Morons response I found interesting after i got done
> laughing at it
>
> JBK makes the point that the newbie 'pros" play so many tournaments that
> they are bound to stumble into opportunities due to the sheer number of
> tournies they enter .
>
> The Cinci Moron rebutted and said that 5 bracelets from the 70's and 80's
> meant less
>
> I SAY THE CINCI MORON IS OUT OF HIS FUCKING MIND
>
> First let me point out that while there are so many more tournies today ,
> there is so very much more 'dead money " in them , that the skill level
> required to get to the final tables is actually diminished and not
> heightened by the numbers
>
> second.. while the tournies in the 70's and 80's had fewer people in them
> , they had an ENORMOUSLY TALENTED POOL.
>
> hal Fowler in the late 70's was the only person who played as bad as
> Moneymaker or jamie Gold or yang
>
> The WSOP in the 70's and 80' was the absolute cream of the crop , as well
> as coalitions that had to be overcome..etc etc .
>
> When you won an event in the 70's and 80's you beat "PLAYERS" , and not
> david Williams and jamie Golds MOM.
>
> Todays players have a virtual "sea " of dead money , easy to wade through
> , and gain chip advantages through the like of celine Dions wasted husband
> , and 4000 entrants who cant read the board
>
> When you played in the 70's and 80's ,... 95% of the field were "PLAYERS.
>
> It was no fucking accident that Chip Reese won the biggest buyin "all
> around tourney' with his win of the inaugural HORSE tourny..
>
> cinci moron .. YOUR STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING WRONG !!

I agree with Cinci.

Back then there were smaller fields and allot of those players knew each
other which can only help their play. You're correct that today you are
playing David Williams mom but who knows how she plays. Winning back then
compared to today is not as impressive to me.

IMO, the large fields today makes luck a much bigger factor. Moneymaker
even won one. Luck is larger than skill early in the large field. As the
field shrinks, Luck vs Skill equalizes and eventually Skill is the bigger
factor.

BTW, there is no wrong in opinion. Above you said the large field is easy
to wade through, I say its not.

________________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 10 Jan 2009 09:04:42
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: jbk finally says something poignant.. cinci .. not so much !!
On Jan 10 2009 1:32 AM, FangBanger wrote:

> HOW many tourneys do the pros who win em play? It is almost inevitable
> > that somewhere down the road they will win one.
> >
> > ========================================
> > You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> > nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
> > ========
> > BOOM byae
> > John
>
> They have 35-40 tournaments in the wsop now? Still, it's an amazing feat
> to have multiples. The fields are just so stinking large.
>
> Having 5 bracelets from the 70's and 80's is a LOT less impressive.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I extracted this from the Durrrr thread
>
> JBK finally said something that showed that he wasnt drooling on himself .
> and The Cincinnatti Morons response I found interesting after i got done
> laughing at it
>
> JBK makes the point that the newbie 'pros" play so many tournaments that
> they are bound to stumble into opportunities due to the sheer number of
> tournies they enter .
>
> The Cinci Moron rebutted and said that 5 bracelets from the 70's and 80's
> meant less
>
> I SAY THE CINCI MORON IS OUT OF HIS FUCKING MIND
>
> First let me point out that while there are so many more tournies today ,
> there is so very much more 'dead money " in them , that the skill level
> required to get to the final tables is actually diminished and not
> heightened by the numbers
>
> second.. while the tournies in the 70's and 80's had fewer people in them
> , they had an ENORMOUSLY TALENTED POOL.
>
> hal Fowler in the late 70's was the only person who played as bad as
> Moneymaker or jamie Gold or yang
>
> The WSOP in the 70's and 80' was the absolute cream of the crop , as well
> as coalitions that had to be overcome..etc etc .
>
> When you won an event in the 70's and 80's you beat "PLAYERS" , and not
> david Williams and jamie Golds MOM.
>
> Todays players have a virtual "sea " of dead money , easy to wade through
> , and gain chip advantages through the like of celine Dions wasted husband
> , and 4000 entrants who cant read the board
>
> When you played in the 70's and 80's ,... 95% of the field were "PLAYERS.
>
> It was no fucking accident that Chip Reese won the biggest buyin "all
> around tourney' with his win of the inaugural HORSE tourny..
>
> cinci moron .. YOUR STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING WRONG !!

Again, you are a fucking idiot.

The only reason why the good players won back in the day is because nobody
really understood the game, which is why Stuey raped the field two years
in a row. If I was somehow transported back in time with my current
knowledge to play in any of the mid 70s WSOPs, I would give those pros a
run for their money. If you transported any of the bigger name NLHE pros
back, they would have a fucking field day making the texas road gamblers
look like fish.

Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

----- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 10 Jan 2009 16:59:57
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: jbk finally says something poignant.. cinci .. not so much !!
On Jan 10 2009 11:04 AM, FellKnight wrote:

> On Jan 10 2009 1:32 AM, FangBanger wrote:
>
> > HOW many tourneys do the pros who win em play? It is almost inevitable
> > > that somewhere down the road they will win one.
> > >
> > > ========================================
> > > You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> > > nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
> > > ========
> > > BOOM byae
> > > John
> >
> > They have 35-40 tournaments in the wsop now? Still, it's an amazing feat
> > to have multiples. The fields are just so stinking large.
> >
> > Having 5 bracelets from the 70's and 80's is a LOT less impressive.
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > I extracted this from the Durrrr thread
> >
> > JBK finally said something that showed that he wasnt drooling on himself .
> > and The Cincinnatti Morons response I found interesting after i got done
> > laughing at it
> >
> > JBK makes the point that the newbie 'pros" play so many tournaments that
> > they are bound to stumble into opportunities due to the sheer number of
> > tournies they enter .
> >
> > The Cinci Moron rebutted and said that 5 bracelets from the 70's and 80's
> > meant less
> >
> > I SAY THE CINCI MORON IS OUT OF HIS FUCKING MIND
> >
> > First let me point out that while there are so many more tournies today ,
> > there is so very much more 'dead money " in them , that the skill level
> > required to get to the final tables is actually diminished and not
> > heightened by the numbers
> >
> > second.. while the tournies in the 70's and 80's had fewer people in them
> > , they had an ENORMOUSLY TALENTED POOL.
> >
> > hal Fowler in the late 70's was the only person who played as bad as
> > Moneymaker or jamie Gold or yang
> >
> > The WSOP in the 70's and 80' was the absolute cream of the crop , as well
> > as coalitions that had to be overcome..etc etc .
> >
> > When you won an event in the 70's and 80's you beat "PLAYERS" , and not
> > david Williams and jamie Golds MOM.
> >
> > Todays players have a virtual "sea " of dead money , easy to wade through
> > , and gain chip advantages through the like of celine Dions wasted husband
> > , and 4000 entrants who cant read the board
> >
> > When you played in the 70's and 80's ,... 95% of the field were "PLAYERS.
> >
> > It was no fucking accident that Chip Reese won the biggest buyin "all
> > around tourney' with his win of the inaugural HORSE tourny..
> >
> > cinci moron .. YOUR STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING WRONG !!
>
> Again, you are a fucking idiot.
>
> The only reason why the good players won back in the day is because nobody
> really understood the game, which is why Stuey raped the field two years
> in a row. If I was somehow transported back in time with my current
> knowledge to play in any of the mid 70s WSOPs, I would give those pros a
> run for their money. If you transported any of the bigger name NLHE pros
> back, they would have a fucking field day making the texas road gamblers
> look like fish.
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

bad troll moron .. even for you .. You wouldnt be qualified to be a
chiprunner for the old school gang


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

-------- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 10 Jan 2009 09:10:08
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: jbk finally says something poignant.. cinci .. not so much !!
On Jan 10 2009 12:04 PM, FellKnight wrote:

> On Jan 10 2009 1:32 AM, FangBanger wrote:
>
> > HOW many tourneys do the pros who win em play? It is almost inevitable
> > > that somewhere down the road they will win one.
> > >
> > > ========================================
> > > You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> > > nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
> > > ========
> > > BOOM byae
> > > John
> >
> > They have 35-40 tournaments in the wsop now? Still, it's an amazing feat
> > to have multiples. The fields are just so stinking large.
> >
> > Having 5 bracelets from the 70's and 80's is a LOT less impressive.
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > I extracted this from the Durrrr thread
> >
> > JBK finally said something that showed that he wasnt drooling on himself .
> > and The Cincinnatti Morons response I found interesting after i got done
> > laughing at it
> >
> > JBK makes the point that the newbie 'pros" play so many tournaments that
> > they are bound to stumble into opportunities due to the sheer number of
> > tournies they enter .
> >
> > The Cinci Moron rebutted and said that 5 bracelets from the 70's and 80's
> > meant less
> >
> > I SAY THE CINCI MORON IS OUT OF HIS FUCKING MIND
> >
> > First let me point out that while there are so many more tournies today ,
> > there is so very much more 'dead money " in them , that the skill level
> > required to get to the final tables is actually diminished and not
> > heightened by the numbers
> >
> > second.. while the tournies in the 70's and 80's had fewer people in them
> > , they had an ENORMOUSLY TALENTED POOL.
> >
> > hal Fowler in the late 70's was the only person who played as bad as
> > Moneymaker or jamie Gold or yang
> >
> > The WSOP in the 70's and 80' was the absolute cream of the crop , as well
> > as coalitions that had to be overcome..etc etc .
> >
> > When you won an event in the 70's and 80's you beat "PLAYERS" , and not
> > david Williams and jamie Golds MOM.
> >
> > Todays players have a virtual "sea " of dead money , easy to wade through
> > , and gain chip advantages through the like of celine Dions wasted husband
> > , and 4000 entrants who cant read the board
> >
> > When you played in the 70's and 80's ,... 95% of the field were "PLAYERS.
> >
> > It was no fucking accident that Chip Reese won the biggest buyin "all
> > around tourney' with his win of the inaugural HORSE tourny..
> >
> > cinci moron .. YOUR STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING WRONG !!
>
> Again, you are a fucking idiot.
>
> The only reason why the good players won back in the day is because nobody
> really understood the game, which is why Stuey raped the field two years
> in a row. If I was somehow transported back in time with my current
> knowledge to play in any of the mid 70s WSOPs, I would give those pros a
> run for their money. If you transported any of the bigger name NLHE pros
> back, they would have a fucking field day making the texas road gamblers
> look like fish.
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

What a fucking moron. Why even bother responding any more, Jordan? What's
the point?

---- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com