Treehouse72 wrote: » Poker by committee while multi-tabling HU doesn't really make sense and it is massively unlikely the CR boys were colluding. They have also categorically denied any shenanigans of this sort. And discussing hands/strategy away from the table is 100% standard and ethical. So I think the dark mutterings about Team CR is pretty unwarrented. If they were tag-teaming, as seems likely as they lined-up to take on Isi one after another - then it is Isi's fault for not spotting this gathering storm. It is neither unethical nor forbidden to do this, so the CR boys were just maximising their edge away from the table so they owned when they sat in (individually). People - like Isi - who disgregard table selection and BR management really have nothing to complain about when poor game selection and busto-ness screw them up.
corkie123 wrote: » br management - table selection wat a load of crap from u
Treehouse72 wrote: » Do we see Townsend playing Ivey? No. That one example shows you that game selection is possible at any level. Furthermore, we saw Isi sit there session after session, day after day agaisnt the top pros while they all took turns on him, having taken breaks from playing him to refresh and having had time to analyse his game - all this shows they were game selecting well, and him badly. A massive part of Isi's downfall is appalling game management. Appalling. Oh, and that's not to even mention that Omaha isn't even his speciality, NLHE is!! Jesus, he's game selecting so badly he's not even sitting in the right game! If you think all that is crap, fine. I say it is a major part in his demise. As for BR management, Isi is FTP busto. I don't need to say anything else to prove my point. A busto poker player is a pathetic creature and allowing yourself to go busto is to fail as a player on some level. We may not be able to say that about Isi cause he has the talent to drop down and build it back up, and he might have more money away from FTP. But in general terms to say that BR management doesn't matter when the world is strewn with broke-ass busto losers - including many talented technical poker players - is really ridiculous.
aidankk wrote: » so this describes 90% of poker players at numerous times, pretty fair i suppose, if a bit overboard on the "pathetic creature", as this would imply the absolute bottom of the barrel, and not the norm which it is.
corkie123 wrote: » is that why he was playing 6 tables last night with cole south great to be bustoville treehouse72
Treehouse72 wrote: » No need to be so confrontational. I stand by my posts, which are just opinions.
Ace2007 wrote: » your opinion was that he was FTP busto, but if he was playin last nite on FTP then he wasn't FTP busto - so you can't stand by an opinion that is factually wrong.:)
Treehouse72 wrote: » Wow, great post, thanks for that. I have now seen the light and can declare that table selection and BR management don't matter. Thanks for putting me straight and apologies for suggesting otherwise previously.
bubbleking wrote: » i was watching it the other night - Isildur kept having to split tables when he won a stack to keep 4 tabling Townsend. eventually Townsend ground him down until Isuldur had no money left to reload - hence busto. he just reloaded since then id say cliff notes - Treehouse is right
Ace2007 wrote: » if you can reload your not busto
Treehouse72 wrote: » Third, being underrolled on a site effects your play even if you have more money in reserve or on other sites. Anyone with a split roll will tell you that it is only human not to want to bust any of your sites, and that it is easy to play scared/spew money in an effort not to. And this despite the fact it wouldn't be real busto if you lost it since you have more money elsewhere. A pro would rather bust 50 BI's out of a single 100 BI roll, than have a 100 BI roll evenly split on 2 sites and bust one of those 50 BI mini-rolls. That would feel like busto, even if it wasn't. There is a major psychological element at play here that is very strong.
tiptap wrote: » This statement is complete and utter nonsense.
DeadMoney wrote: » Lol, you cant just say something like this and then not even enlighten people with your crazy theory about how players with split roles don't mind busting their whole roll on one particular site. Actually you know what.....please don't!:rolleyes:
DeadMoney wrote: » Lol, you cant just say something like this and then not even enlighten people with your crazy theory about how players with split roles don't mind busting their whole roll on one particular site.
digiman wrote: » I actually agree fully with treehouses's statement you bolded.
phantom_lord wrote: » he probably does it all the time, and it never bothers him.
tiptap wrote: » To say anyone is ridiculous...as to why ? I'll tell you why, I personally know of three people who have between 200k and 800k in bankrolls across multiple sites....where none of these players have this problem.....that's my reason
a147pro wrote: » from the manner and stakes at which he was previously playing, and the fact that he took his first night off after losing the 4 mill, and the fact that he told Hastings he was busto, he was clearly FTP busto it is also clear that he didn't exercise good or even any bankroll managment or game selection and this is why he went busto (failure to exercise good bankroll managment possibly why he won so much in the first place too) nobody cares about who you personally know. if they were about to lose all their roll on one site, they would play differently. in any event, he was playing having lost several million dollars, so he was definitely playing differently
Robbie444 wrote: » I sure hope you have your roll spread out over a few sites so!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
