I am a DYM player and tbh I am quite offended by your suggestions that there is no skill and it is all luck etc. Infact, I would argue the opposite. Because they are so hard to beat, it takes MORE skill to win, not less. If you can't be bothered (or just don't want to) learn harder and get better at them, that is fine, but don't come and s*** on those of us who do. It is poker, the same as any other format. Posted by MrWh1te
So, you didn't actually read what I've said then, I didn't say that....(sighs).
I won't repeat what I've already said (in numerous replies to questions asked), but please read it, if you wish to before commenting.
ps. the last part.....really? That's just plain wrong and it doesn't even need me to explain it does it?
They may wish to lose their money (or just play for fun) huffy, indeed - but if not then they should read this posting carefully and consider all the points.
There have so far been two (other) posters on here who have agreed with the suggestion to reduce rake to improve this format of the game for all players - should we ignore their views too?
Hi swanstu I like to play dyms and I do ok in them. They also help me earn pts which gets me in to good freerolls and pretty good money can be won there too. Of course Im not talking big bucks but its a nice bonus to cover spending money on a holiday or something like that.
I'm not arguing for or against dyms I'm just simply saying there is more to be won that just cashing in dyms. If your a losing player I think you will lose less playing dyms and you might lose even less if you use the pts you earned to win money in freerolls.
The most important thing at lower stakes is to play for fun. I watch tv and go to the cinema for entertainment (I never make a profit from these as I dont expect one). I think there are a lot of recs that play poker for fun and dont expect a profit.
In Response to Re: DYM's : So, you didn't actually read what I've said then, I didn't say that....(sighs). I won't repeat what I've already said (in numerous replies to questions asked), but please read it, if you wish to before commenting. ps. the last part.....really? That's just plain wrong and it doesn't even need me to explain it does it? Posted by swanstu
Adding in rake the turbo DYMs may well be Russian Roulette lotteries. Waste of time (and money) - the longer format slightly better argument for bothering, but even then if it's fold foldfoldfoldfoldfoldfoldfoldfoldfoldfold...until the large blinds then there's less difference between the turbos, so prob depends on who you are playing against.
I think some of the longer formats do allow for more 'skill-based' elements to come into it, yeh. Of course in any poker you can run crazy good or crazy bad, so there's never any guarantee in any format. But yeh, if someone was serious about making money I'd say pick a longer format.
__________
Both your posts, from the FIRST page. By saying longer formats allow more skill, you are saying these short formats have less skill. Need me to go on?
And as for your ascertion that DYM's aren't poker, why are you even on this subject?
Mr white - so you have ignored all the following discussion then? We've already been over this in more detail, so if you want to comment then please read it.
Hi swanstu I like to play dyms and I do ok in them. They also help me earn pts which gets me in to good freerolls and pretty good money can be won there too. Of course Im not talking big bucks but its a nice bonus to cover spending money on a holiday or something like that. I'm not arguing for or against dyms I'm just simply saying there is more to be won that just cashing in dyms. If your a losing player I think you will lose less playing dyms and you might lose even less if you use the pts you earned to win money in freerolls. The most important thing at lower stakes is to play for fun. I watch tv and go to the cinema for entertainment (I never make a profit from these as I dont expect one). I think there are a lot of recs that play poker for fun and dont expect a profit. Posted by gerardirl
There have so far been two (other) posters on here who have agreed with the suggestion to reduce rake to improve this format of the game for all players - should we ignore their views too? Posted by swanstu
In all fairness this is a valid point. DYM lobbies are as empty as they have ever been now the games seldom qualify for double points and the attractive rackback that brings. I'm a (very) small winner at the games but seldom play them nowadays as they fill so slowly at the higher stakes and I hate sitting and waiting for games to fill.
The Turbo's which do run regularly are just too hard to beat at 10% rake. I'd play them at 5% but I realise and accept that ain't gonna happen while people are happy to play for 'fun' and lose money slowly at the current rates.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinions and choice, I personally just choose not to bother unless the rake reduces.
In Response to Re: DYM's : In all fairness this is a valid point. DYM lobbies are as empty as they have ever been now the games seldom qualify for double points and the atrractive rackback that brings. I'm a (very) small winner at the games but seldom play them nowadays as they fill so slowly at the higher stakes and I hate sitting and waiting for games to fill. The Turbo's which do run regularly are just too hard to beat at 10% rake. I'd play them at 5% but I realise and accept that ain't gonna happen while people are happy to play for 'fun' and lose money slowly at the current rates. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions and choice, I personally just choose not to bother unless the rake reduces. Posted by SJspanky1
In Response to Re: DYM's : Finally someone who gets it! - thanks SJ Posted by swanstu
You do realise you could've just said ''be nice to reduce the rake'' as the first thing you posted and we would've avoided all your nonsense since.
People won't take you seriously when you say things like 'no skill' or 'just like RRs'. In fact you invite people to jump on you as you post deliberately stupid things that are clearly gonna rile some people.
Learn to word your posts better, be less on the wind up, cut out your nonsense, and maybe, just maybe, people might start to take the things you post a bit more seriously.
Huff - I know it may be difficult, but my point was about rake in combination with those other factors. Life is often more complicated than just one thing, ya know? Those other points I still stand by too. As for 'be less on the wind-up', have you seriously looked in the mirror, pot-kettle!?
Edit: when I say stand by those points, maybe not the extreme view, but I've clarified as applying to average players.
I am all for reducing rake, but there is a flip side to that, you do that you have more regs, which in turn will have an imapct on your roi. Just thinking though now, is having more regs a bad thing?, could just be my mind playing tricks on me, but seemed like I did better when there was a balance of say 2-3 recs at the table, compared to the games where it was 4-5 rec players, which seemed weird at the time, but than I thought about it for a second, if these guys are going to call me super light then ofc my variance in these will go through the roof.
Huff - I know it may be difficult, but my point was about rake in combination with those other factors. Life is often more complicated than just one thing, ya know? Those other points I still stand by too. As for 'be less on the wind-up', have you seriously looked in the mirror, pot-kettle!? Posted by swanstu
We're not stupid, you know exactly what you were doing, and have previous in similar threads too. You do the same thing every time.
So as I said, learn to word things better if you want to be taken even remotely seriously.
I am all for reducing rake, but there is a flip side to that, you do that you have more regs, which in turn will have an imapct on your roi. Just thinking though now, is having more regs a bad thing?, could just be my mind playing tricks on me, but seemed like I did better when there was a balance of say 2-3 recs at the table, compared to the games where it was 4-5 rec players, which seemed weird at the time, but than I thought about it for a second, if these guys are going to call me super light then ofc my variance in these will go through the roof. Posted by HaveaA1Day
If your shoving range is balanced more towards strength than air then surely the opposite applies??
In Response to Re: DYM's : We're not stupid, you know exactly what you were doing, and have previous in similar threads too. You do the same thing every time. So as I said, learn to word things better if you want to be taken even remotely seriously. Posted by hhyftrftdr
I think I have been taken seriously, there are several agreeing and numerous replies trying to argue - if they didn't think my points were serious they would ignore this post (as is obviously not the case).
I may have shown some of my initial irritation from my experience of these games in my earliest posts on this game format, but everyone can see I'm happy to discuss and amend my view (as I did acknowledge other posters points). I've clarified most of my points relate to a specific (but IMO large) group of players, and maybe not those smaller sample of winning players. I hope others could afford me (as some have done) the same allowance for my key discussion points.
Comments
Infact, I would argue the opposite. Because they are so hard to beat, it takes MORE skill to win, not less.
If you can't be bothered (or just don't want to) learn harder and get better at them, that is fine, but don't come and s*** on those of us who do.
It is poker, the same as any other format.
I think some of the longer formats do allow for more 'skill-based' elements to come into it, yeh. Of course in any poker you can run crazy good or crazy bad, so there's never any guarantee in any format. But yeh, if someone was serious about making money I'd say pick a longer format.
__________
Both your posts, from the FIRST page. By saying longer formats allow more skill, you are saying these short formats have less skill. Need me to go on?
And as for your ascertion that DYM's aren't poker, why are you even on this subject?
The Turbo's which do run regularly are just too hard to beat at 10% rake. I'd play them at 5% but I realise and accept that ain't gonna happen while people are happy to play for 'fun' and lose money slowly at the current rates.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinions and choice, I personally just choose not to bother unless the rake reduces.