Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="ninjareal, post: 4872727, member: 323567"] Hi , that sounds plausible , however the pro's weren't always pro's , so how would your theory account for that ? and not all players with big bankroll are pro's , having rivals that are willing to bluff and play loosely is good though yes ? I mean if everyone played tight aggresive then maybe you would have to be the loose player ? to add to this , maybe the good players before they became pro's realised they needed more than 1 bullet after some experiences they may have had , and only played when they had enough bnkroll ,? I was always targeting WSOP main event for 10k buyin, however more recently I've changed plans to use less or same 10k to play as many smaller events first and only play main if prize money from these side events were enough for next year rebuy small events + this year main event , i.e maybe a 100k cash would easily cover the same year main + following years events .....ideas perhaps :) . on a side note to big bankroll horrors , a friend once asked me what would I do in a cash game vs a player who alway brought and rebrought in at max everytime in home cash games , where at times there wasn't a good max limit set , i.e $10-20 buyins vs $100 buyin ? I had told him it would be juicy game and I would play specifically aiming at this player , however he said that this player would easily go allin at any decions/resistance , and I aggreed that until I played in this game it would be hard to give best advice , what do you all think about it ? and the relative idea as the OP ? in essence in a cash game a reasonable max limit should be set, however if big roll player gets lucky vs other big stacks just 3 or 4 times his advantage chipwise could be huge .... [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us