the long run. overated?

i think the long run is overated to many poker players. when i play poker, i maximize on the short run. repeated short run plays put together is my long run. discuss?

yep in the short run when I started NL50 for the first time, I ran 35ptbb/100 for 2000 hands. Now that I have about 6000 hands in I am averaging 10bb/100.

The long run is not overrated. Ignoring this fact is the hallmark of a degenerate gambler (no offense intended).

If you cash 50k in a $1000 buy-in tourney, you didn't win 50,000 actually. From a professional poker player standpoint you really earned like $4000-$5000, because pro tourney players run at most 400-500% ROI.

i don't think you understand the reason for distinguishing between the two. the short run is primarily luck, the long run is primarily skill. you're saying, ignore skill, let's focus on being as lucky as possible?

how do you evaluate how well you played in each of those short runs? $$ made? that's a recipe for being a long term loser.

appreciate the opinion renton, but what i mean is poker is different in every single circumstance. people who depend on the long run too much may miss out on many opportunities to maximize profit.
not that long run is not important, but sometimes the best play is not always the best play in the long run but because of a certain player or image, the implied or expected odd make a play ok or even more profitable.
an example of this would be to call an over aggro maniac with almost any two hole cards because if you hit the possibility of doubling up is there. I am a big winner at the 1/2 and 2/4 nl tables and this strategy works well along with other strategies that involve short term consideration over long term consideration.

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

appreciate the opinion renton, but what i mean is poker is different in every single circumstance. people who depend on the long run too much may miss out on many opportunities to maximize profit.
not that long run is not important, but sometimes the best play is not always the best play in the long run but because of a certain player or image, the implied or expected odd make a play ok or even more profitable.
an example of this would be to call an over aggro maniac with almost any two hole cards because if you hit the possibility of doubling up is there. I am a big winner at the 1/2 and 2/4 nl tables and this strategy works well along with other strategies that involve short term consideration over long term consideration.

you're not using the term long run correctly. if it is the most +EV thing to do to call a maniac with any 2, then that's the best thing to do in the long run and short run. The difference is, in the long run it will for sure pay off, but today against this maniac, you could lose big.

I think people pull the 'variance' card way too much when they lose money, but other then that, poker is all about the long term.

This might seem like a contradiction to what I wrote above, but poker is a terrible short term game. I often feel like I played a great session and came out down, and likewise, sometimes I'll feel like I played miserable, donked some hands miserably, and came out on top.

the mistake you are making is assuming all maniacs play the same way. my example involves a maniac who i have studied and determined that calling with any two cards is +EV. To say call all maniacs with any two cards as you have said is a HUGE mistake on all levels. This is why you can not base this type of play on the long run because if you make it a habit whenever you see a maniac it can and will be a huge leak in your game.

Your point of +EV in the long run also does not make sense because it is never +EV to call with any two cards in the long run against any opponent. My point is sometimes decisions depend on the now, not long run. You can try to make the arguement that you can use the strategy anytime you see a maniac, but the arguement can not stand because you don't know if the maniac is truely a maniac or just a good lag. Short run does not only mean luck, short run means now.

yes lukie poker IS all about the long term but what I am saying is the long term for me is based on short term decisions when I see a +EV opportunity. Foundation for any beginning player is to build habits based on longterm +EV but once the foundation is built I think it is more +EV to stray from the "established" long term +EV moves and play in a different way that may be +++EV.

long run takes into account each situation. it is saying, if i am in this exact same situation against this exact same player, what is the best move I can make. i don't really see why i would have to ignore reads, for example why the long run has to ignore that this player might be a maniac or a good lag. given the sum total of all the information I have about a player, there is a move that I should make every time from now until eternity, that is the best move. short/long run really has nothing to do with that decision, except for causing $$ won to equal out with actual equity.

and btw if you are a beginning player ignore this thread. I am an advanced player trying to discuss advanced concepts that beginning players should not try to emulate.

Even though every player is different and every situation depends on the previous situations that have already occurred, if that is your definition of the long term, then fair enough. I will accept that arguement. Although it seems to me you are defining the long term as, "play good poker in the short term and put it together for the long term" which is what I was originally saying.

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

my example involves a maniac who i have studied and determined that calling with any two cards is +EV.

You are talking about EV. EV is a longterm concept. EV does not exist in the short term. If you play against a maniac who you decide is pushing PF with any 2 and you call with JJ and he turns over 23o and sucks out on you that play is +EV. If he turns over AA but you know he is pushing any 2 then it is still +EV to call. The point is that looking at the short term you would think calling with JJ was incorrect since he turned over AA.

In poker you often will only play the same person for a short period of time (especially if he is a maniac pushing any 2). In this case you cannot measure your results against this player over the longterm or even take a sample of their pushing range over the longterm. You need to make a short term decision but you do that by thinking about your experience with other maniacs who play in the same sort of way. You compare your JJ with his estimated long term hand range and you call.

When you take reads into account you are not ignoring the long term. You are saying, "this guy raises any 2 cards. In the short term it may be incorrect to call because he may have AA, however he may also have 23o so I know that over the long term calling would make me money even if he turns over AA this time and even if I dont get to play him for the long term."

In your example of calling a maniac with any 2 because you think he will pay off when you hits, you also must recognise that you might lose a little when you dont hit. This is a case of losing in the short term, by folding so many missed hands, because you realise that over the long term a small fraction of those hands will double you up and yield a net profit.

I didnt say that very clearly but basically I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by the long term. Long term doesnt mean you treat all opponents as equals. It means you chose the play that will maximise your profits (or minimise your losses) if that particular situation were to be repeated a million gazillion times.

well it sounds like you are just saying make the right decisions in the short term to add up to the long term, which is what i was originally saying. So you all agree with me but are just using my words as the definition of long term. Fair enough.

And yes obviously I know EV is a long term concept but +EV can apply to a certain hand if doing tha move makes money in the long term. I didn't say I will win for sure if I call with any two cards so it was assumed that you would know what I was talking about.
You are talking to a winning player in the 200nl and 400nl stakes so you dont need to define EV to me. Sorry if this sounds rude but damn my discussion was not for people to define basic poker terms to me. lol

I just think you are misunderstanding what we mean by longterm. The best short term decisions are the ones that maximise the long term outcome just like you said.
I wasnt defining EV for you I was just pointing out that it is a long term concept since your post made no sense talking about EV in the short term.

dahhh that was what i was saying the whole time. pay attention buddy. read my first post. You just define long term as short term+short term+ short term...., which is what i was saying. Anyway thank you for your response but now we are arguing definitions, which is not what i intended when i posted this. I have found that you guys do agree with what I am saying.

the reason everybody seems to agree with you is because your original post was meaningless. no offense, but it was the equivalent of saying 'red cars are red, discuss'.

not really... thanks anyway im done with this post.

ok. how else can you define the long run other than as a series of short runs??? do long runs just magically appear? what exactly was there to discuss in the original post?

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

the mistake you are making is assuming all maniacs play the same way. my example involves a maniac who i have studied and determined that calling with any two cards is +EV. To say call all maniacs with any two cards as you have said is a HUGE mistake on all levels. This is why you can not base this type of play on the long run because if you make it a habit whenever you see a maniac it can and will be a huge leak in your game.

Your point of +EV in the long run also does not make sense because it is never +EV to call with any two cards in the long run against any opponent. My point is sometimes decisions depend on the now, not long run. You can try to make the arguement that you can use the strategy anytime you see a maniac, but the arguement can not stand because you don't know if the maniac is truely a maniac or just a good lag. Short run does not only mean luck, short run means now.

I would argue that, with enough of a skill edge, and deep enough stacks, it would make logical sense that playing any 2 cards would be +EV against some players.

Other then that though, your entire argument just confuses me.

For the sake of simplicity since I already scrolled through this thread and largely did not understand what point you were trying to get across, what is it?

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

yes lukie poker IS all about the long term but what I am saying is the long term for me is based on short term decisions when I see a +EV opportunity. Foundation for any beginning player is to build habits based on longterm +EV but once the foundation is built I think it is more +EV to stray from the "established" long term +EV moves and play in a different way that may be +++EV.

I think this comes mostly from reading the players and the flow of the game etc. Ie your "theory" tells you you have good odds to do this, but it "feels" wrong now, because of your read of the table or the specific player you are up against.

I think that's the only parameter that justifies a 'short term adjustment' of your game..

I am a big winner at the 1/2 and 2/4 nl tables

I am an advanced player trying to discuss advanced concepts that beginning players should not try to emulate.

BANKROLL: Probably bigger than yours.


You're pretty damn full of yourself for someone who doesn't understand fundamental poker concepts, bigboy.

Originally Posted by biondino

You're pretty damn full of yourself for someone who doesn't understand fundamental poker concepts, bigboy.

...why the games are so good.

Question to the OP
u wouldnt happen to go to UCSD would you?

I am a big winner at the 1/2 and 2/4 nl tables

I am an advanced player trying to discuss advanced concepts that beginning players should not try to emulate.

BANKROLL: Probably bigger than yours.

Yea those made me laugh

i think the long run is overated to many poker players. when i play poker, i maximize on the short run. repeated short run plays put together is my long run. discuss?

Long term= fold flush draw when opp 3 bets you all in.
short term= call and gambOOL?

or

Long term= chasing for bad odds = -ev
short term= player who loves top pair and thinks your a bluffing idiot will call your river all in when the flush hits making it +ev to chase.

perhaps were just discussing implied odds in reference to my two nonsense ideas above?
So essentailly are u suggesting that calling with any two preflop against certain players (TAGGS/ROCKS) creates +ev in itself because these players fold without a hand worthy of playing with once the pot gets bigger or you play back?

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

You are talking to a winning player in the 200nl and 400nl stakes so you dont need to define EV to me. Sorry if this sounds rude but damn my discussion was not for people to define basic poker terms to me. lol

Well, if you understood the terms you were talking about you wouldn't need them defined to you. You're the one looking like a fool in this thread.

The guy defined EV for you because you were talking about it and calling it something else.

Bigboy, You're an idiot.

You don't listen, and you talk far too much.

If you don't turn that around you are never going to be half the player you THINK you are..

I'm not even going to give my own version of why this poster has no idea what he's talking about. It's just way too silly. Bigboy is getting BWNED by an entire thread. I think he's a smart guy who is confused.

I think his whole point is that it's correct to parce decisions to a very fine level as your skill edge increases. It really has nothing to do with long and short term. It has to do with reads and moves.

sorry if people who don't understand this post are mad that they don't understand what I am talking about. I probably need to discuss my ideas with people that actually are capable of understanding instead of a bunch of players with bankrolls of less than 1g. I myself have a bankroll of more than 50x that and it was all won in cash games. the theory i am presenting is probably just too complicated for you guys to understand. I am done argueing definitions and having basic concepts defined to me. If you guys are not willing to learn and discuss politely I would rather not discuss at all.

LOL

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

I probably need to discuss my ideas with people that actually are capable of understanding instead of a bunch of players with bankrolls of less than 1g.

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

sorry if people who don't understand this post are mad that they don't understand what I am talking about. I probably need to discuss my ideas with people that actually are capable of understanding instead of a bunch of players with bankrolls of less than 1g. I myself have a bankroll of more than 50x that and it was all won in cash games. the theory i am presenting is probably just too complicated for you guys to understand. I am done argueing definitions and having basic concepts defined to me. If you guys are not willing to learn and discuss politely I would rather not discuss at all.

The theory you are talking about is incredibly simple. The long run takes a long time and you can fit alot of short times into a long time. Well done !
It isnt that its too complicated its just that you dont understand the terms you are using. Its a little tricky for us to understand your tactics if you talk about them using random words thrown into the middle of your sentences.

If you are not willing to learn and discuss politly then farewell. Im sure we could all learn something from you, but im also sure you could learn something from alot of the people here. However, if you are so sure that you are the most "advanced" poker God here then it probably isnt worth your time hanging around.

Anytime Bigboy makes a post God kills a kitten.

Just thought you all should know.

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

i think the long run is overated to many poker players. when i play poker, i maximize on the short run. repeated short run plays put together is my long run. discuss?

There are no such things as short run and long run decisions. There are only good and bad decisions. There are short run and long run results, which are effected differently (through the existence of variance) by that same group of impartial good/bad decisions. Cool? Therefore you don't play differently in either case. Your short run decisions are your long run decisions. They are one and the same. Your short run results however, are NOT your long run results.

To say the longrun is overrated, is to say the most accurate measure of your skill sans variance, is invalid.

I truly believe you had something worth while to discuss when you first created this thread, but the point was lost somewhere between "Create new post" and "Submit". I'm not even one of the mean ones around here. Check yourself bigroll. You might learn something. You can't come around here and make wildly illogical statements, expecting people not to challenge it. Never gonna happen.

So show me a decision you might make that is a good short term decision, but somehow not a good long term decision. Can you do that sir? I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's an illustration impossible to present.

I have my doubts that bigboy is going to re-engage, Rond. Too bad, cause this thread had potential.

Originally Posted by Warpe

I have my doubts that bigboy is going to re-engage, Rond. Too bad, cause this thread had potential.

I wish he would, but something tells me undeniable logic is not his cup of tea. Probably a waste of breath anyway.

"Anytime Bigboy makes a post God kills a kitten.

Just thought you all should know."


lol. funny because, its just funny. not cause of you bigboy.

i run plays like this frequently in HU or shorthanded play when reads are at a premium. for example, yesterday i called the pot with an openender HU because i knew if i caught my card i could break this player RIGHT NOW. i did, and i did. but accepting 2:1 odds on a 4:1 shot is definitely a long term loser.

Originally Posted by siknd

I run plays like this frequently in HU or shorthanded play when reads are at a premium. for example, yesterday i called the pot with an openender HU because i knew if i caught my card i could break this player RIGHT NOW. i did, and i did. but accepting 2:1 odds on a 4:1 shot is definitely a long term loser.

Your odds weren't 2:1. You have to include implied odds.

hey, im trying to bring both sides together here! lol

youre right. even situational plays that are right in the short term will be riht in the long run. full stop.

LOL. This discussion is one of the funniest posts I've read here yet.

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

I am an advanced player trying to discuss advanced concepts...

But lacking even adequate communication skills.

OP and everyone else talking about essentially the same idea but using different terms. Let me recap.

Some setting in California, a midwesterner engages in conversation with a local. The local is enjoying a can of Coca-Cola.

Midwesterner: "Where'd you get that pop?"
Local: "What? This is a soda."
Midwesterner: "No it's not. That's a pop."
Local: "Soda."
Midwesterner: "You moron!. I am smarter than you and that is most certainly a pop!"
Local: "Soda."
Midwesterner: "POP!"
Local: "Soda."
Midwesterner: "POP!"
Midwesterner: "Why do I waste my time with idiots? I'm going to look for a pop, go back to my penthouse suite, hop in the jacuzzi and drink that pop like no one else can or could even attempt to."

speaking of which, you know whats funny? i like all coke products better than pepsi. ie, barqs over mugs, sprite over 7up etc. EXCEPT coke itself. id take a pepsi over a coke. and not just because of britney spears. definitely weird...

Competing in an argument over pop vs. soda is like competing for the gold medal at the special olypics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

Competing in an argument over pop vs. soda is like competing for the gold medal at the special olypics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.

uncool

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

Competing in an argument over pop vs. soda is like competing for the gold medal at the special olypics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.

uncool

I myself have a bankroll of more than 50x that and it was all won in cash games.

Why is a high-roller like yourself wasting your obviously valuable time posting complete gibberish on websites? Probably to throw the rest of us off the money trail, eh? Well done, sir!

In all honesty, everybody is arguing essentially the same thing, you just have conflicting definitions. You are all saying that short term decisions, actually, before I continue with this, please tell me what decision isnt short term? Every decision happens in the moment, you may make the same play in the same situation later on, but the current decision is always "short term." This argument is simply restating the obvious and is not some breakthrough theory. But yea, anyways, everybody is making the point about making the most profitable play in a certain set of circumstances, they just disagree with the definitions of short term and long term. In a debate if all you are doing is arguing definitions, essentially semantics, then you have to explain why your definition is better than the other. How does each "side" define long term and short term? That is all you are really arguing about, unless I missed something by breifly skimming the thread.

every decision is long term. It maximises ev. If your call aint ev you dont make.
Pretty simple i thought

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

every decision is long term. It maximises ev. If your call aint ev you dont make.
Pretty simple i thought

Again, arguing semantics, I agree that every decision affects the long term, just saying that they are made in the short term, ie. you are deciding what to do right now. You make a decision with regard to how it will pan out in the long term, but again that doesnt make a single decision long term, it makes a series of decisions long term, individual aspects of the decision can affect the long term, etc. etc. Again, all I was trying to show with that is people are simply debating semantics, they are debating definitions and not really concepts.

i thinker hat sometimes some people play good and sometimeser some peoples plays bad.

discuss?

Originally Posted by Murd0c

i thinker hat sometimes some people play good and sometimeser some peoples plays bad.

discuss?

Even more profound.

The difference between a good poker player and a bad poker player is the ability to play good (or bad poker)

discuss?

bump

sigh. this is hostile forum. yes what i stated may be obvious to some but to some it is not. i didnt want to argue over semantics when i posted this but it seems like that is what many of you want to do. only a few of you guys really understood the point i was attempting to make, one of them being siknd. anyway, for those of you who think i am wasting my time posting here like samsonite...makes me wonder. i thought the point of this forum was to share ideas and discuss them. For you to say that is obsurd.

Anyway, in all honesty my ideas may seem simple and obvious to many but they are working for me and make me tons of money. For beginners and those still learning they may not seem as obvious as one might think. I want to share knowledge here because this is where i turned to when i was still learning the game. If the ideas seem obvious to you then great. But please don't make smart ass or disrespectful comments to me. (and it's funny how many of the ones doing it are players with bankrolls less than my buyin for a nl game.)

ok thats it.

You have not shared an idea .... You stated just stated something so ovious that it doesnt require special thinking.

You said that +EV moves are the best ones to make! Discuss!(using diffrent words)

Congrats!

And to think that all this time we thought that -EV moves were the best ones to make.

You clearly have no understanding of what people are talking about when they say "long run".

Rondavu said it best:

There are no such things as short run and long run decisions. There are only good and bad decisions. There are short run and long run results

Name just ONE decision that is diffrent between long and short run and then you will have proved us all wrong.

Make up any imaginary situation that the decision would be diffrent. It doesnt need to be a real example, just a made up one.

Just one.

Any decision, even a small one.

.
.
.
.
.

Edit: ooh, I thought of a decision where there could be a diffrence...

When in a hand with a player that you know will tilt his stack away to you if he gets getting sucked out on, it can sometimes be more +EV in the long run to call his push with a draw without proper odds because of the additional expected profit on later hands with that person.

Note that that you make more money using the "long term*" idea than the short term. There is no decision that is the other way arround. Also note that the move that is the most +EV is always the "long term*" decision.

*: As defined by the original poster.

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

sigh. this is hostile forum.

Just a thought...


Maybe it's your incessant boasting about the size of your bankroll that is making people hostile towards you?
Perhaps you should try responding to some of the points instead?

Name just ONE decision that is diffrent between long and short run and then you will have proved us all wrong.

Maybe it's your incessant boasting about the size of your bankroll that is making people hostile towards you?
Perhaps you should try responding to some of the points instead?

at the same time, lets not forget that we do keep score in this game with money. although perhaps if theres hard feelings, this post might have been better received in a high stakes forum.

this post. overrated?

The sky is blue.

Discuss?

Originally Posted by siknd

at the same time, lets not forget that we do keep score in this game with money. although perhaps if theres hard feelings, this post might have been better received in a high stakes forum.

Yes but if he makes a point, and people disagree with it he is left with 2 options.

1) Explain the point
2) "My bankroll is bigger than yours and your hair's greasy so im right and youre wrong"


He picked option 2 every time.

Option 2 is worthless.

one way to settle these sort of impasses is to bring back the duel. 'i challenge you and your crazy ideas to a duel, bigboy.' 'i accept, pelion. and bring your friend murdoc.'

anyone posting in this thread should agree to a death match, say 50 or 100NL pte table at stars. then we can decide once and for all if the sky is blue or not?

Anyone else going to Casino Niagara tonight?

1-2 NL 10pm+

Originally Posted by Rondavu

So show me a decision you might make that is a good short term decision, but somehow not a good long term decision. Can you do that sir? I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's an illustration impossible to present.

Not wild about bumping a thread gone bad (er, gone worse??),
but I find this question really intriguing. For me, it is bringing a discussion of Kantian ethics (and the controversy around universalism) into line w/one about EV. As you probably know, Kant proposed the following formula for deciding whether a given action is moral: can you will it that this action be implemented as a universal law, to be carried out by any person at any time, in any situation?
The question just opened up a zone of thinking where the controversies around this line on ethics can be analogized to poker. That doesn't happen every day. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Rondavu

So show me a decision you might make that is a good short term decision, but somehow not a good long term decision.

I have been pondering on this for quite some time now, and have finally come up with an answer: Alchoholism.

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

Originally Posted by Rondavu

So show me a decision you might make that is a good short term decision, but somehow not a good long term decision.

I have been pondering on this for quite some time now, and have finally come up with an answer: Alchoholism.

But if it was only in the short term it wouldn't be alcholism now would it?

Drinking in the short term would be recreational and hence also a good long term decision.

It's as if a lightbulb suddenly went off in my head! BigBoy, I'm on their side now.

Originally Posted by holdin2

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

Originally Posted by Rondavu

So show me a decision you might make that is a good short term decision, but somehow not a good long term decision.

I have been pondering on this for quite some time now, and have finally come up with an answer: Alchoholism.

But if it was only in the short term it wouldn't be alcholism now would it?

Drinking in the short term would be recreational and hence also a good long term decision.

Genius

Originally Posted by holdin2

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

Originally Posted by Rondavu

So show me a decision you might make that is a good short term decision, but somehow not a good long term decision.

I have been pondering on this for quite some time now, and have finally come up with an answer: Alchoholism.

But if it was only in the short term it wouldn't be alcholism now would it?

Drinking in the short term would be recreational and hence also a good long term decision.

..but if your actions landed you in jail for public drunkeness? (see related story: http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8169246/detail.html)

It depends. Do you see why?

Originally Posted by Warpe

..but if your actions landed you in jail for public drunkeness? (see related story: http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8169246/detail.html)

It depends. Do you see why?

Not sure how serious you're being, but to counter that back to the poker topic let's compare.

Recreational Drinker #1 / Poker Player #1
Goes to the bar on Friday night, has a sensible amount of drinks, gets a little buzz on, doesn't wake up with a stranger next to him and a monster hangover the next morning / Sees an opportunity to play back at a suspected maniac who may be playing any two cards, thinks he has a good read, loses the hand, but takes it for what it was and doesn't tilt off the rest of his stack.

Recreational Drinker #2 / Poker Player #2
Goes to the same bar, gets hammered, takes a leak in the urinal (potted fern) charms a hottie (transvestite) and wakes up the next morning with the biggest monster of a headace he's ever had and a sore asshole. / Doesn't like being reraised by some jerk, pushes his whole stack in, loses, proceeds to lose a couple more buyins trying to win his money back. Wakes up the next morning and thinks what the fuck was I thinkin?

Anyway, guess my point is, who says because your a recreational drinker that your going to get crazy drunk with it? Good poker player spaces out his drinks, he's not slamming them back one after another.

How confusing is this reply?

Focus assholes, we're out thinking a high roller here.

Originally Posted by Rondavu

Focus assholes, we're out thinking a high roller here.

Wow, I went from a genius to an asshole in one post. Not much unlike my poker game.

Ok here's my question. If we assume the poster is sincere in his claims of high fortune, then can anyone imagine how such an arrogant, illogical, and emotional mind could ever succeed at high stakes? I mean talk about an easy steamer. He calls us all idiots. He proclaims our opinons invalid based on the comparison between our bankroll and his. He at no point makes an attempt to answer the question....

Can you present an exact hold-em scenerio where you make a good short term decision that is at the same time a bad long term decision.

Poster has done nothing but deflect this challenge with talk of his monetary pectorals, and advanced poker knowledge. Then he wonders why we treat him as an illogical fool would be treated. Bigboy, this isn't a hostile forum. The people in this thread have thought soundly, and come to highly reasonable conclusions regarding your original post. Conclusions which were astoundingly obvious. Obvious conclusions you refuse to accept. We told you water is wet, and you said "I have a $50,000 bankroll". Can you understand how frustrating that is for a helpful human being? I imagine you can't.

You know what happens in my town when a cocky SOB walks in like he owns the place, and calls everyone inferior? We break his legs. Then we light his hair on fire. Urinating on him is just the fun part. So don't take it the wrong way. You treat other people as you want to be treated. You keep acting like a dork, and that's how we'll treat ya. Got urine?

{ locked }

..and about 50 posts too late.