C9's Special 4,875th post.

[c9h13no3]

What's your take on the matter?

Stars gives rakeback based on volume, and I never played enough hands per month to get more than FTP or UB's rakeback. So I never played there any higher than midget stakes.

 

[DawgBones]

Nice post. When I first joined here you were one of the first to respond to a thread I started and in there you taught me what "M" in a tournament was. Ty for that. Alas my poker skills still suck but always enjoy reading your posts. Am a big fan of sarcasm even if it's pointed in my direction and you are one of the better ones here. Doubt this post will un-moronize myself by kissing your fanny a little but I'm a big boy and can live with that.

 

[dg1267]

Great post as usual, C9. Congrats as well.

Oh, and LOL @ "Thems the breaks".

 

[pokerman27]

kissing your fanny

Whole different meaning this side of the Atlantic...

 

[DawgBones]

Whole different meaning this side of the Atlantic...

Splain please

 

[Pokertron3000]

Splain please

Its the opposite side of your meaning but on a woman

 

[trinitus]

congrats on the 4XXXX posts i agree with much of what u say. It shows that u know a lot about what u post. Great to have u here.

 

[LuckyChippy]

Whole different meaning this side of the Atlantic...

Splain please

Hehehe, how to explain....a front bottom?

 

[eberetta1]

Oops, misread your post. I thought your definition of Edge was How well you play minus how well my opponent plays equals rake. It seemed perfectly correct to me, because I am basically a breakeven player but the rake takes away whatever profit generally I would realize. However, just like eating at a restaurant or watching a fine movie, I do not mind leaving the house a little something for providing a place to enjoy myself. Congrats on your whatever number post you wrote. Quite a lot of nuggets of info you must have handed out over this period of time.

 

[dg1267]

Quite a lot of nuggets of info you must have handed out over this period of time.

You couldn't even imagine C9's nuggets.

 

[Poker Orifice]

what a bullshit post man, you are not actually telling us anything useful, like you tell us to use more than 20 buy ins for a level, anyone who reads 2-3 threads on this forum knows it is at least 30 buy ins, in fact i don't think i have seen anyone on this forum saying you should play with 20 buy ins.

than you go on about talking about you pay less rakes at higher stakes "Minimize the rake by playing at stakes that aren't raked to shit." if i have 700$ in my account should i go play 50c/1$ just because i pay less rake?

Alright, here is another bad idea by c9: "And you can control how well the "others" are playing by not sitting in games with good players" what about someone who is multitableing at lets say 10nl, wins slightly only by 2 BB/100, but meanwhile he gets the 100% deposit bonus, also gets the micromania that has been going on, gets tons of FPPs, lets say he wins 100$ at the cash table, 100$ 100% deposit bonus and another 50 from the stellar rewards and fpss, should this person drop back at 2nl because he can crush everyone at 6BB/100? i dont think so. i am not saying that you shouldn't leave a game where you are obviously a fish, but any slight edge you have is good enough if you know how to make it work, you don't necesarily have to crush them as you say.

here is some more quotes that don't connect with each other: "However, even if two good players are in a disagreement, they'll almost always make a logical, sound argument for what the right course of action is."
and than this happens when c9 and a friend are exchanging hands
"WTF, how can you possibly call there, there's no way villain can get to the river with anything he can turn into a bluff".

grats on the 4875 post, but i am still waiting for the one that's worth reading. i bet my post will get deleted now, sure i can't insult c9 but he can call everyone a moron.

I actually like this part here. Glad it was left in.

 

[bubbasbestbabe]

OK let's get the mundane out of the way first. :congrats: Congrats on your "special" number post.

I think you will agree that I am one of the morons here,(as butting heads numerous times with you in other threads can attest), but I'm a happy moron.

So onto my question/point. To minimize the negative cash flow that rake represents, shouldn't you just only play at sites where you can get rakeback?

 

[skoldpadda]

You're in my respected posters list. This is part of the reason.

 

[PC69]

I feel like iam moreon than iam moreoff. Or am I moreoff than moreon..

Good post. But you probably dont care what a moron thinks lol jk

 

[c9h13no3]

To minimize the negative cash flow that rake represents, shouldn't you just only play at sites where you can get rakeback?

Damn skippy, unless the players you're playing against are bad enough to make up for the larger rake you pay. But that's rarely the case. You could also justify paying more rake if there was a really large overlay. But in general, rake takes a HUGE chunk out of your winnings, and you should minimize it wherever possible.

In 2009, if I remember correctly, I paid about $10,000 in rake.

 

[TheWall]

I really liked the post.

That being said, you are correct, I am a Moron.

 

[c9h13no3]

That being said, you are correct, I am a Moron.

Morons are not self-aware of their moronishness. Sorry, you're not a moron.....




....(idiot).