![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
God I made the stupidest play ever the other night. I felt lousy about it.
4-8. Loose game. I raised from middle with KK after two already in, was re-raised by my immediate left (a player who was decent and currently doing very well) and he was re-raised (capped) on his left. 6 saw the flop including man on my right who was trapped into calling three raises cold.
Flop was QTx with two clubs. I bet first, it was raised by my left and called by all - four of us in. The turn came 6 clubs. The 'trapped' player on my right bet out. I had K of clubs and called. So did the others. The river brought a second 6. Trapped bet again. I was convinced he had the flush, and I guess feared those re-raisers on my left, so I folded like a stupid F***. The guy on my left called and won the pot with AQ offsuit! The asshole bettor was completely bluffing. He laughed like a madman, got up and left for the evening. One last hurrah I guess.
The original 'capper' had T7 diamonds!
I was tired and beaten up. Perhaps I read too much and don't think enough. I assumed no player would bluff into three players who indicated they had big hands pre-flop.
How could I lay that down with such a huge pot?
Somebody please kick me in the ass. All flames welcome.
The only reason this might have been a bad lay down, is that the player to your right had been making moves like this earlier during the night and you didn't take this into consideration. Obviously the guy to your left thought the guy might be bluffing, or he is a complete calling station. But your right most players will not bet in early position when the flush card hits unless they have it, espically when there is as good a chance that someone will have a flush as it apears in this particular situation. I might not even call the turn thinking even if the fourth club comes it wouldn't be good, because the ace could be out there or I might get raised from behind by the ace high flush and be drawing dead. Don't beat youself up to much, it sounds like a good laydown to me, all winning players lay down winners now and then. But be sure to pay attention to who is frequently bluffing and call them more.
Smlblind
Walk, you did not specify limit. (IMHO) In LL AK, AQ etc do not deserve a raise pre-flop. Invariably, draws win when hi cards do not hit the board. If you are percieved as raising premium cards, when you come in and A or K hits, the table folds. It is much better to raise post flop, and gain add'l info, when your A or K hit. Raising big pairs is lucrative since you can raise post-flop and/or 3 bet if you are raised. If you cannot limit the number of callers with the AK raise it usually proves costly through the session.
Walk,although it is difficult, try not to have a short term result oriented strategy, as already mentioned it takes hours of play to determine if a strategy is correct or not. But raising is a very important concept in hold'em, and should be used to its potential. I would suggest that you begin by learning all the different reasons for raising,
because of premium hands
to thin the field
for information
for free cards
Or merely to give off a loose image(which can be very profitable, by incouraging calls on later betting rounds) You may throw away one full bet with a raise preflop with a garbage hand but you will earn plenty of calls to make it worth while. I pick situations where there are a lot of callers and I am in late position to do this, so at least you are taking a shot at a potentially big pot. But even more important is to know when to use the raise for the right reason. For example, if you are on the button with a flush draw and everyone checks to the guy to your right, you should not raise to get a free card if there are lots of people in, because you will drive out players which you want in when you are on a draw, unless you have small flush and are trying to get out another potentially larger flush draw. I see a lot of new players make this move when they first learn about the "free-card raise", and it costs them a lot of bets on the turn, espically when the original bettor now folds because it is heads up.
I will often try to pick "good" spots to raise in hands that I am not in by imaging I am still in the hand with either the cards I mucked, what I think one of the other players has, or some made up hand, just to recognize when those opportunities come up so when I am in a hand and they do come up , the raise is automatic. You must play aggresively in hold'em to be a winner. You want to control the table, and to do that you must be aggresive. If you had a losing session when you raised it was just a coincidence that you weren't hitting flops that night and thus, booked a loosing session. But also don't forget, everyone loses every once in awhile, and 8-1 is a pretty good track record.
SmlBlind
It depends on how the other players in your game react to a kill pot. In my games (almost every game above 1-3 stud is played with a full kill here), much of the time all the other players tighten up on a kill. That affects the MIX of hands I will play (I am inclined to fold a small suited connector hand, for example - there won't be enough opponents in the pot). I also - similar to you - will raise more with hands that really want to be heads-up, including hands like AJo and 88. If the other players are tight on a kill, I often WILL get heads-up with the killer.
Dick
As usuall, it depends on the game and position. I would be hsitant to raise up front with a hand like 77, because the only callers you are going to get are those with better hands, a hand like that does better in a multiway pot. By just calling you will entyce others to come into a "big pot". However, if it is a tight game, everyone has folded, and you are in middle to late position there is a lot of "blind" money in the pot to try and steal. If I have position on the killer I will frequently raise to try to steal the blinds, but otherwise play normally.
"Too bad we cant combine the good things of both forums, that would lead to a heck of a forum, with the Sklanskies and Malmuth's arguing against the Jalibs and Negreanu's, and then Brunson aguing that they're both wrong!"
I love to get this type of debate going, and sometimes I think we do a pretty good job of achieving just that. That's the purpose of these forums.
Part of the problem is that it seems to be very difficult for Abdul not to put up posts that don't contain insults. If he ever gets to where he can get away from this and just concentrate on the material at hand he'll begin to make quite a good reputation for himself. He also needs to grow up a little and handle any barbs hurled at him a little better. Stating this again and directly to Abdul: You need to concentrate on the material at hand and get away from the insults. If someone posts something that you personally don't like, you need to move beyond it and concentrate on the subject matter, not the personalities.
By the way, this is also good advice for any and all of us at the poker tables. If you find yourself motivated by a desire to "get even" with a particular player, and you let this desire cloud your judgement, it should reflect your results in a negative way.
Mason,
You might be right that Abdul tends to bring up the past (in a not-so-political manner) more often than other people do. On the other hand, it take two to tango.
- Andrew
Vince,
You asked: "So what's your point?"
Are you deliberately being obtuse? Other posters didn't seem to have much difficulty figuring out what I meant.
I had hoped that you, in particular, easily would understand one of my points. For you recently complained about the reception some of your posts received on RGP. You felt you were being attacked rather than your ideas.
One of my points was that you are not alone. This "mobbing" occurs even on 2+2. You might want to think long and hard about whether you sometimes contribute to this problem.
--------------------
You wrote: "You are so caught up in your desire to denegrate this forum in any way possible that you put your blinders on whenever it becomes convienient."
That's an example of my point. You seem to be attacking the messenger here rather than the message. Why do you accuse me of trying to denegrate this forum? Do you have anything to support your assertion? If you reread my post with an open mind, you might discover that I am attempting to improve this forum. Recognizing flaws and trying to fix them is not the same as "denegrating."
Last year, you wrote: "Mark, . . . You have, IMO, captured the spirit of just how discussions on this forum must be approached if they are to be of any value."
At that time, you also wrote: "There is no place for derogatory name calling or disgusting remarks duinrg a debate or a discussion here."
On 12 December 2000, however, you opted to write: "Sounds to me like you are talking with a hard on again. A hard on for Sklansky, that is."
My response: "I'm sorry you decided to stoop to this level of discussion. You might feel better about yourself if you apologized--not to me, but to the Forum participants in general."
Your reply: "Just what the hell are you talking about. Stoop to what level. This is precisely the leve I always talk on."
If you want to make this forum appear less like a cesspool, perhaps now would be a good time to make that apology. And maybe consider raising your level of discussion a notch or two.
"If you want to make this forum appear less like a cesspool, "
Hey Mark, are you really Steve Badger? No Badger ain't that smart to think up a name like Glover. Just who made you the forum critic? Where do you get off calling this forum a cesspool? Maybe you are not Badger but Badger's coach. Did you explain to him what a cesspool was so that he could criticise this forum in a disgusting manner. Maybe you should wait to be asked if this cesspool (your words) needs cleaning before you decide for your self to proceed on your self serving righteous crusade.
vince
Vince,
Earlier, I suggested: "If you want to make this forum appear less like a cesspool, perhaps now would be a good time to make that apology. And maybe consider raising your level of discussion a notch or two."
You replied: "Where do you get off calling this forum a cesspool?"
You seem to have misread my post. I didn't call this forum a cesspool. I said it would look ***less like a cesspool*** if you cleaned up your act. A nearly pristine pool of water would look less like a cesspool if someone cared enough to remove a turd that was floating around in it.
--------------
You also wrote: "Maybe you should wait to be asked if this cesspool (your words) needs cleaning before you decide for your self to proceed on your self serving righteous crusade."
First, it's not a self-serving righteous crusade. I made that suggestion because I thought it might improve this forum that you seem to cherish so much. The suggestion was for YOUR benefit.
Second, I sometimes offer my opinions without being asked. I hope that's okay with you. Or are you the only one allowed to do so?
Third, if you do care about how this forum appears, then you might want to make that apology. Nobody's forcing you to, of course. It's just that you seem to have left some metaphoric turds in your wake.
--------------
Earlier, I wrote: "One of my points was that you are not alone. This 'mobbing' occurs even on 2+2. You might want to think long and hard about whether you sometimes contribute to this problem."
I certainly hope this isn't the best you could come up with after all that long and hard thinking. ;-)
Mark,
Tell the truth. Are you a female?
vince
Hand 1: stack sizes would be good to know here, and how much was the all in bet? Was Phan's 4-3 suited? If his hand was suited, he had a lot of chips and the all in bet was small, its a reasonable situation to call here. Why? because you get to see five card cheaply in a head up situation, and if you bust the guy you guarantee yourself one place higher, and if you lose, you only lose a little, the other guy is still short stacked and you will probably get your money back soon anyway.
Hand 2: Once again, how big was the preflop raise? Was Phan's hand suited? This hand is even more profitable than the first, because if you totally miss the flop you can easily fold, And as Doyle says, little suited cards are the easyist to bust somebody with. I think his play on the flop is fine considering the massive implied odds he was getting on his gut shot, and as you can see, it paid off big time. I think to determine if his pre flop call was ok, we need to know how big the raise was that he called. Risking a small portion of your stack (especially when you got the raiser covered times two) is an ok play with small suited connectors, because you can easily muck them on the flop.
Hand 3: I think he played fine. Not much of an explanation needed. You can pretty much do anything you want with an 8-1 chip advantage.
Now I dont see how he is playing any mind games here, but I think his overall play was fine. You also have to consider all the "deep" thinking involved in no-limit. Phan might have felt he had a lot of control over his opponent at the time, and felt that he could seriously out play them after the flop. Its hard to determine whats going on in these guys heads unless you're sitting there.
I have to agree with Ryan on a lot of concepts, espicially the potential to eliminate players on the final table for a small amount of chips. The first hand doesn't give chip count, which is very important, and Phan might be thinking the player is trying to steal the blinds with a hand no better than his. If this is the case then that would a very perceptive and correct strategy.
However, on the second hand, there doesn't appear to be much support for his play. Three handed can be fast play and one must play loose and pay attention to the speed of other players. A lot of players will raise %50 of hands in three handed games, and when playing against someone like this you must see a lot of flops, espically out of the big blind. But that hand should defiantly have been folded on the flop.
And Ryan, I belive Dolly's comment about small suited connectors is when there are lots of callers and getting in for no raise in late position, not necessarily heads up play against an all in. Playing short handed on final tables is much different than ring games, there is a lot of stealing and raising with marginal hands. One can not apply full table ring game strategy or starting hands. If one tries to wait for premium hands then he will get blinded to death. Ryan, it sounds like you put some thought into your comments but don't be too quick to praise his strategy, but one really needs to be at the table to understand all the factors. Every decision in poker is situationally specific, otherwise the would be a undesputable text on correct strategy. And on a final note, everyone usually makes a few mistakes at the table, the winner is the one who makes the fewest. -Smlblind
Mason,
You wrote: "I believe that part of the reason for our success is that David and I have done precisely what is being advocated. That is we did a lot of independent thinking and tried to leave 'no stones unturned.'"
Have you ever disagreed with anything David has written about gambling? Can you give us some examples of your independent thinking?
"Can you give us some examples of your independent thinking?"
I believe David once wrote that he believe Mark Glover is a plus for this forum. Mason disagreed. I believe I agreed with both of them.
vince
A current popular expression is "thinking outside the box". It refers to such things as thinking about something in a less conventional way, or on a level different from that at which most others think about the topic. When applied to poker theory, my problem with this expression is that it is, itself, restricting. By thinking about poker theory as that which is "in the box", or "those parts in those boxes", and ideas or thinking which are "outside the box", we artificially and often unnecessarily separate and compartmentalize ideas which could otherwise be profitably integrated or otherwise related to one another.
Once in a while someone on the net who doesn't know me too well labels me (labeling - another instance of compartmentalizing which in this case leads to less than accurate perception) a proponent of "S&M" thinking. This always strikes me as a bit odd. I have never restricted my thinking about poker to what David and Mason have written. The first poker author I read seriously was Mike Caro. Somewhere around 1988, I even found his work interesting enough to contact him and interview him for several hours in a coffee shop near the Bicycle Club, in order to write a profile article about him. I learned a lot from his writings, and was spurred by them to develop further ideas of my own.
From there I read pretty much everyone else. But the 2+2 works do represent a very large chunk of the better poker literature, so they certainly influenced much of my development as a player as well. Consulting a number of times with David was important for me too, as I detail in my book.
I've also had some very smart poker playing friends with whom I've discussed the game over the years. Some have disagreed sharply with certain ideas found in 2+2 books. I've disagreed with some as well. (That I do not make an issue of public disagreement does not mean I agree with every 2+2 idea I've ever read. Hell, I even disagree with a couple of things in my own book at this point!) We've discussed, argued, consolidated and rehashed ideas over and over. My thinking about poker has been influence and, I think, broadened by this. The 2+2 books are must reading for serious poker students. But should you restrict your thinking about the game only to what is contained on those pages? No way.
To me it is all just poker theory. There are no boxes, and I do not restrict myself by thinking in such terms. Ultimately you have to play the hand. I gain from the ideas of lots of writers and posters.
I should add though, that *extreme independence of thought among serious students of the game is unlikely in poker. It is a confined field in which certain basics cannot be ignored. And, though I too enjoy exploring the outer edges of theory and varying points of view, those basics comprise a very large portion of the reality of play for any winning player. Moreover, those of us who have been active on the internet for a while are probably even less independent in our thinking than we might like to believe. Suppose, to make the point, Mark Glover and Mason happened to agree on a particular debatable point. A good player who does not have an internet connection might say, "Of course they agree; they're both internet poker guys. They both think about the game in that 'internet way'". Suddenly two thinkers who some of us might see as relatively independent seem more connected. Frightening, I know. ;~)
Nor do I think there is really much of the extreme cultish S&M hero worship that Abdul and Mark refer to. Some posters do tend to defend some of the HPFAP ideas because that has been their primary text. That is what they know. A few may indeed have trouble entertaining alternative ideas. Others (and I can include myself here) have at times defended them out of a simple sense of right and wrong when they, more than their ideas, seem to have been unfairly attacked. But there are plenty of other viewpoints here as well. There is disagreement aplenty with the authors and amongst the posters. Ironically, one could easily make an argument that Abdul is more revered by devoted disciples than are David and Mason. But that would be an exaggeration just as the references to "S&M worshipers" or whatever are exaggerations. Some folks just like certain ideas they've read, have adopted them, and tend to defend them. Others may weigh opposing arguments and choose to side with "S" and/or "M".
Neither independence nor connection of thought is anywhere near absolute. But the "boxes" are best put out for the trash man. Then ideas can be entertained and developed more fluidly, with less restriction. An eclectic approach to poker theory should be workable for many thinking players.
On 23 March 2001, Abdul Jalib wrote: "Mathematically, if you have 3 independent sources that are each correct an independent 90% of the time, then if they all say the same thing, then you would be 100%-(100%-90%)^3 = 99.9% sure that their assertion is true. ***It goes almost without saying that such complete independence is an impossible goal.*** However, in theory these 3 independent 90% correct sources would be better than 100 99% correct sources who always say the same thing as each other." (Emphasis added.)
On 28 March 2001, David Sklansky wrote: "Yes it is true that three players who are independently right 90% of the time and agree, are now more likely to be right than three 99%ers who are absolutely not independent. ***However in real life it's not like that.***" (Emphasis added.)
On 29 March 2001, you wrote: "I should add though, that *extreme independence of thought among serious students of the game is unlikely in poker." (Emphsis in original.)
Did you come up with that thought independently? ;-)
Seriously, your point is correct, and I don't know of any posters who have disagreed with it.
Speaking of differing opinions, just because extreme independence of thought is unlikely doesn't mean it shouldn't be encouraged (as you noted elsewhere in your post).
----------------------
You also wrote: "Some posters do tend to defend some of the HPFAP ideas because that has been their primary text."
That's okay. I, for one, welcome posters who make an effort to rationally explain HPFAP ideas. But I generally don't learn much useful information from the "true believers" who blindly accept HPFAP ideas.
-----------------------
You wrote: "Others (and I can include myself here) have at times defended [S&M] out of a simple sense of right and wrong when they, more than their ideas, seem to have been unfairly attacked."
There are lots of cases where other posters--more than their ideas--seem to be unfairly attacked. Do you come to their defense very often?
I also remember at least one instance of you defending an S&M statements that David acknowledged was obviously wrong. From my perspective, it seems like your defensive reactions sometimes are a tad extreme. Something for you to think about, anyway.
"99.9% sure that their assertion is true. "
Should read:
"99.9% confident that their assertion is true."
"However, in theory these 3 independent 90% correct sources would be better than 100 99% correct sources who always say the same thing as each other."
Should read:
However, in theory these 3 independent 90% correct sources would be "mathematically" better than 100 99% correct sources who always say the same thing as each other."
You see, this is a nonsensical arguement. 3 independent "%90 correct" does not mean that they do not say the same thing %85 of the time. So if this time they say the same thing then how are we to interpret thier independence? You would like to say that since each has a probability of being correct %90 of the time then we can mathematically determine the probability of them all being correct by combining probabilities. Wrong. Suppose that when they are incorrect they always say the same thing. Now wouldn't we now be %100 confident that they were incorrect when they say the same thing and not %99.9 confident they are correct. You guys are silly. I can't believe Oz agreed with Abdul.
Vince
Vince,
I guess one April Fool's day just isn't good enough for you. You need at least a week to purge these foolish notions from your system. ;-)
Abdul wrote: "Mathematically, if you have 3 independent sources that are each correct an independent 90% of the time, then if they all say the same thing, then you would be 100%-(100%-90%)^3 = 99.9% sure that their assertion is true. It goes almost without saying that such complete independence is an impossible goal. However, in theory these 3 independent 90% correct sources would be better than 100 99% correct sources who always say the same thing as each other."
You wrote: "Wrong. Suppose that when they are incorrect they always say the same thing. Now wouldn't we now be %100 confident that they were incorrect when they say the same thing and not %99.9 confident they are correct."
If they always said the same thing when they were incorrect, then they wouldn't be completely independent, would they? Didn't you notice Abdul's explicit assumption of independence?
Actually, in your scenario, their opinions would be perfectly correlated. So, the group always would reach identical conclusions (which would be correct 90 percent of the time and incorrect 10 percent of the time). Thus you would be only 10 percent (not 100 percent) confident that they were incorrect when they say the same thing.
You also wrote: "You guys are silly. I can't believe Oz agreed with Abdul."
The Mighty Oz is a fallible human, but he is right more often than he is wrong. In this case, he is right.
"Did you come up with that thought independently? ;-) "
I'm not sure. ;-) I first thought of it while reading Abdul's post on rgp, a short while after it appeared on my ISP's news server, a little before I got to the line of his to which you added emphasis in your quote. How is that classified?
"... the "true believers" who blindly accept HPFAP ideas."
Mark, can you see how these sorts of comments detract from doing anythign productinve around here? Can you see how they are essentially just name calling? And can you see that you don't really know who fits this description and who doesn't. It appears you're simply labeling whomever you want to pigeon-hole this way, for the sake of bolstering your own image as an "independent." That is, you *can't know this. You can't know who "believes" or who is "blind" without reading their minds. A few comments in this particular written medium won't do it. You might have more to go on if you were to take the time to talk in depth to one or more posters, discussing in detail their views, feelings, and perceptions of HPFAP. (That is why I have invited you to discuss some things over the phone. But you ignore the invitation. Why?) But there is certainly too little to go on here. I know you are incorrect with regard to some of the people you label this way. I suspect you are wrong with regard to others as well. But it seems you label to suit your own needs. This must stop or I will smush you in the face with a pie.
Often you try to bolster your case that one person or another does not think independently by asking them to cite a post in which they have disagreed with some other person. But to count the number of public, posted disagreements between two people is quite obviously not a very accurate way of assessing their independence of their thought. For instance, as I write this I am thinking of a well known poster here right now with whom I disagree very strongly, very often. (I am not naming him because that would likely have minor reverberations that I am not interested in creating.) Yet I have not once posted any disagreement with him. There can be many different reasons why a person may or may not post disagreements with another person. To take it to an extreme, what about people who only lurk? Does that mean they have no thoughts?
"There are lots of cases where other posters--more than their ideas--seem to be unfairly attacked. Do you come to their defense very often?"
Reasonably often, but not as often as perhaps I should. Nor do I come to ""S&M's" defense as often as perhaps I should. Many attacks on them go by without response from me. Take a look here and on rgp right now. Hell, what am I doing writing this post; maybe I ought to go defend them right now. :-/
"I also remember at least one instance of you defending an S&M statements that David acknowledged was obviously wrong."
Mark, you've mentioned this repeatedly. I've responded repeatedly that I suspected David was kind of placating you, accepting your criticism *given your hyper-literal interpretation of the statement. I believe readers who think flexibly are unlikely to interpret the statement as literally as you did. If by some chance David actually believes most readers would interpret it as you did, then I simply disagree with David. There's little else I can say about it, and I doubt anyone is interested in seeing a rehash of it in any more detail.
BTW, in another post you said something to the effect that some people see David as an all knowing wizard. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you, who have criticized exaggeration on more than one occasion, are exaggerating here. First, anyone here knows David has no clue what my 9th grade algebra teacher's name was. Second, wizards wear those sparkly, pointy hats. David doesn't wear one. I think you should retract your exaggeration.
There we sat, unknowingly, in the cave,our backs to reality, fixated on the shadows on the wall. We chanted our hourly mantras, "...on fourth street tend to bet hands, if beaten, with few outs and...." and laughed and sang in peaceful bliss. For a brief moment, as if in a dream, I thought I saw-no, it could not be- the shadow of a sparkly pointed hat on the wall. In that brief moment, I felt a warmth that could not be explained by known science.
So now we sit, chanting our peaceful truths, untouched by the unclean outsiders, but I can't help but wonder about that brief fleeting glimpse....
And as we sat by the fire, hugged by the darkness of our musty rock retreat, we heard them shuffling outside. The "empty others". The hollow scraping of their feet was unceasing. Their constant chant, "We are different. We rebel. We are different. We rebel. We found a typo...", had a dull sameness to it, betraying the hidden uniformity which lay beneath the words.
Where were those who were truly different, free in their minds and actions? Some, I can now say, were among us. Others dwelt in the outer regions, working freely, unhindered by the need to proclaim their independence; for they knew themselves. No proof was required.
What became of the "empty others"? Some say they passed to the next life, still muttering their hollow chants. Others, though, claim to have seen them - nodding and repeating, "We are different. We will beat this 3-6 game. We are different. We will..."
"Is this a dagger that I see before me? Come let me clutch thee" After reading the above my throat needs tending.
Vince
Whoa, Vince, Macbeth? The famous author of the "Two Roads" post finds himself unable to join in the spirit of things? "Nothing will come of nothing" (King Lear).
I'm disappointed. John
Joke or did thee wish to noticely avoid and dissapoint thyself.
disapointed and disavowed wince
Ah, now I see--the close doesn't belong with the final sentence. I have no disappoint for myself, but for thee, Wince.
BTW, see your name on Foxwoods tourney report: "Vince LePore." And I thought you never used an alias.
John
x
'
John,
Earlier, I wrote: "But I generally don't learn much useful information from the 'true believers' who blindly accept HPFAP ideas."
You asked: "Mark, can you see how these sorts of comments detract from doing anythign productinve around here?"
No, but I'm willing to listen if you want to explain.
If it is my full comment you are concerned about (as opposed to the partial statement you quoted), I think it could be productive for me if it encourages some posters to think more independently. I already know what the S&M books say. I want to see what other perspectives might be out there.
If the "true believers" label concerns you, then I should explain that labels can be our friends. They actually can increase our productivity in that they help us communicate more efficiently.
Rather than go into several paragraphs describing a particular player, I might simply label her as "tight-aggressive," "loose-passive," "weak-tight," "overly aggressive," "fish," "rock," "shark," "calling station," "maniac," etc. I know you understand what I mean, since you've used some of these labels yourself.
You also asked: "Can you see how they are essentially just name calling?"
If nobody believes they are "true believers," then I'm not sure whom I'm calling names. If some believe they are "true believers" but feel this is a good thing, then I'm not hurting their feelings. If some believe they are "true believers" and feel this is a bad thing, then they might want to change their behavior. It's like calling a player "tight-aggressive," "loose-passive," "weak-tight," "overly aggressive," "fish," "rock," "shark," "calling station," or "maniac."
You wrote: "You can't know who 'believes' or who is 'blind' without reading their minds."
Thank you for pointing this out. Perhaps I should have written: "But I generally don't learn much useful information from the apparent 'true believers' whom seem to blindly accept HPFAP ideas."
Hmmmm. Actually, my original statement works better for me. But that's just my opinion coming from my own unique perspective.
---------------------
Earlier, I noted: "There are lots of cases where other posters--more than their ideas--seem to be unfairly attacked. Do you come to their defense very often?"
You replied: "Reasonably often, but not as often as perhaps I should. Nor do I come to ''S&M's' defense as often as perhaps I should."
From my perspective, you seem to come to the defense of S&M disproportionately often. If so, why do you suppose that is?
---------------------
Earlier, I wrote: "I also remember at least one instance of you defending an S&M statement that David acknowledged was obviously wrong."
You replied: "I've responded repeatedly that I suspected David was kind of placating you, accepting your criticism *given your hyper-literal interpretation of the statement." (Emphasis in original.)
Your explanation is not beyond the realm of possibilities. However, when I asked David his reason for stating that his comment was obviously wrong, he declined to answer. That certainly doesn't disprove your explanation, but it suggests to me that he thought it was obviously wrong because he is open-minded enough to realize that what he wrote was obviously wrong. But that's just my perception.
I also asked you to ask David his reason for stating that his comment was obviously wrong, but you declined to do so (or at least I don't remember seeing you report the results of that inquiry). That certainly doesn't prove that you are afraid of what David's answer might be, but it suggests to me that you might be. But that's just my perception.
---------------------
You also wrote: "BTW, in another post you said something to the effect that some people see David as an all knowing wizard. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you, who have criticized exaggeration on more than one occasion, are exaggerating here."
You appear to have misread my post about exaggerations. You might want to reread it ("GAMBLING FOR A LIVING: Exaggerations," 13 March 2001).
My first paragraph was: "Exaggerations can be okay."
I elaborated in my second paragraph: "There are times, for instance, when readers expect and accept exaggerations, as in the 'Forward' section to books. Obvious exaggerations also can be effective literary devices (e.g., 'My favorite baseball team wins once in a Blue Moon.')."
I believe that saying some people see David as an all-knowing wizard falls into the category of an obvious exaggeration. You might believe differently, since you apparently don't see the "obvious" as easily as I might. That's okay; we are looking from different perspectives.
---------------------
You also wrote: "This must stop or I will smush you in the face with a pie."
Now do you understand why I don't give you personal information about myself?
Mark,
Among other thoughts, your post prompts one most salient thought for me. Between the rows of asterisks is one way I *could express it:
********************
The sky is blue.
Now, Mark, if you quote that line, and respond to it, I predict that you will either:
(a) try, in whatever way, to refute it or,
(b) since the problem there would be obvious, will make a point of agreeing with it to show that you are not so oppositional or,
(c) will find a third alternative to show that you are not as predictable as the above would suggest.
I predict you will not acknowledge that here on 2+2 you frequently have an oppositional approach to debate and seem to have an inflexible way of thinking, both of which inhibit productive discussion. (Note: I apologize for likely sounding insulting here, but it's hard, in a short space, to find a more tactful way of saying that.)
********************
But I do not wish actually to express it that way because I tire of these recent threads, and would be fine with ending it here. Please feel free not to respond at all unless you really want to. I'm done for now unless I think there's something new I can say, or a way to say something that might accomplish something new. Thanks.
p.s. By going to an extreme in breaking up a poster's comments into discrete quotes, you often lose much context which, when left intact, has an impact on meaning.
p.p.s. Do you prefer chocolate or banana pie?
p.p.p.s. You really should answer my question about whether you drink coffee. Really.
p.p.p.p.s. Really.
John,
shh.... listen, too many peepee's in that last post. Could get depetered.
vince
John,
You wrote: "By going to an extreme in breaking up a poster's comments into discrete quotes, you often lose much context which, when left intact, has an impact on meaning."
Okay. Let's begin with the final paragraph of your previous post.
Earlier, you wrote: "BTW, in another post you said something to the effect that some people see David as an all knowing wizard. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you, who have criticized exaggeration on more than one occasion, are exaggerating here. First, anyone here knows David has no clue what my 9th grade algebra teacher's name was. Second, wizards wear those sparkly, pointy hats. David doesn't wear one. I think you should retract your exaggeration."
If you are going to make these accusations, you might want to read my posts a little more carefully. I started a thread on Lou Krieger's book on 2 January 2001 entitled "POKER FOR DUMMIES: Exaggerations."
My first paragraph was: "Exaggerations can be okay."
I elaborated in my second paragraph: "There are times, for instance, when readers expect and accept exaggerations, as in the 'Forward' section to books. Obvious exaggerations also can be effective literary devices (e.g., 'My favorite baseball team wins once in a Blue Moon.')."
I believe that saying some people see David as an all-knowing wizard falls into the category of an obvious exaggeration. You apparently feel the same way since "anyone here knows David has no clue what my 9th grade algebra teacher's name was" and "wizards wear those sparkly, pointy hats" while David does not.
I think you should retract the final paragraph of your earlier post. It makes you look rather foolish, from my perspective.
I'm willing to discuss the other paragraphs of your post if you are interested in engaging in a reasonable dialogue.
.
One must marvel at your persistence...I get tired looking at Glover's posts...I really don't know how you have the patience to engage in so many exchanges with him....you simply can't win even though the points you make should be obvious to him. Well, in fact, I am sure they are obvious to him but he, more than anyone else on the net, has to have the last word.
Anyways, I am rambling but my real point is "why do you even bother, John?"
Good question, skp. Part of it is just a curiosity to see if I can find a way to prompt Mark to move a little out of what seems to be such a rigid way of seeing things. But an even bigger factor is a pet peeve of mine concerning people saying things very confidently even when they're wrong. Add sarcasm and other such attitudes the pet peeve is magnified.
I note that many of Marks critiques of statements in books are right in a very literal sense, but simply don't apply on the level the author clearly intended. So, with some exceptions (e.g., some of the issues in these recent threads), the bulk of my debates with him tend to focus not so much on the validity of his arguments on the level he's making them, but on the validity of making them on that level.
But I haven't had a lot of success at nudging Mark to a (dare I say?) more flexible way of thinking. So I may just wind down my engagements with Mark. I know, I've said that at least once before, but hey, I'm human (a "fallible human being" as Mark might point out :). I'm not saying I'll never respond to a Glover post, but will probably do so less often and with less effort.
As you know I think your efforts are commendable.
"why do you even bother, John?"
You wrote: Good question, skp. Part of it is just a curiosity to see if I can find a way to prompt Mark to move a little out of what seems to be such a rigid way of seeing things. But an even bigger factor is a pet peeve of mine concerning people saying things very confidently even when they're wrong. Add sarcasm and other such attitudes the pet peeve is magnified.
You poor man. Smooth B must have you working 24/7.
John,
I cited that thread for you in my previous post, but you might have missed it. You do seem to be rather careless in that regard.
My first paragraph in that thread-starting post reads: "Exaggerations can be okay."
My second paragraph is: "There are times, for instance, when readers expect and accept exaggerations, as in the 'Forward' section to books. Obvious exaggerations also can be effective literary devices (e.g., 'My favorite baseball team wins once in a Blue Moon.')."
What is it about those two paragraphs that you don't understand? Is my point not obvious to you? If you can tell me what you don't understand, perhaps I can help explain it to you.
Maybe one of the simulation people could give the probabilities for the following hands--cold out
AA23 four suited 10JQK four suited 5678 four suited
gam, shame on you. you usually are so precise. what game are we playing and is four suited meaning each hand has four cards of the same suit and none of the other hands share that suit.
but in omaha high with all suited the same, the aces hand(cant be same suited) wins about 28% 5678=33%, tjqk=38% these vary alot with whats suited so that is a real factor.
in o/8 aces wins about 42%,tjqk=30%,5678=22% also suited variations change the figures drastically. the aces do well cause of the low draw.
Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I meant Omaha high. The 5 6 7 8 is completely unplayable in O-8.
By four suited, I meant that each hand had one card of each suit (no flush draws). Is this what your answer deals with?
And thanks very much.
Is deception the key to destroying your opponents. I believe the answer is a big fat YES!!!!. Basically I try to adhere to David's FUNDAMENTAL THEROM OF POKER, as well as all concepts (buying a free card, semi-bluff, reading hands, etc. In my experience, if your opponents are in a hand with you and they don't have any idea whether you have a strong or weak hand, it allows to to play your hand more straight foreward, based on your strengh, implied odds, assessment of his hand, chances you'll get called,etc. While at the same time, your opponents actions tend to give there hands away, as they are playing more self-weighting, because they don't know if your weak or strong. Deception also allows me to make more on my legitamate hands, but my shots term fluctuations increase, as i play a few more hands. deception and tight/agressive play is my key, but it wouldn't be possible without the knowledge in your books. thanks for helping me earn a living.....
I would like the authors comments on the value of deception in typical medium to high limits games. obvoiusly deception is wasted on poor opponents. thanks.
being deceptive helps when it causes your opponent to make a bigger mistake than you did by playing your hand less than optimally. so when you play differently from what you should do knowing what the best play is than you must make that up somehow. that may come from him playing poorly from the false info or may help in the future. the higher the stakes you play the more deceptive you need to be. thats because there are less players in the hands and they read hands better. in limit games the variation of hands you play and how you play them is enough deception most times and you dont need to get too creative. but a few weird plays in the right spots may get you action far into the future from the right players.
"I guess greater variance is a good thing then, since faster play can't be bad, right? Because the variance is greater only because the EV is greater, right?"
This is right for per hand variance but not for per hour variance, which is how most people measure it. You're right: online doesn't have any necessy effect on variance per hand, all other things remaining equal. But more hands per hour, up to a point, increases your short-term hourly risk.
The easiest way for me to put it in practical terms is to think about "how bad it can get" after three hours of play in a casino compared to one hour, and to cram those three unlucky hours into one hour online. This is what people sometimes experience online playing two tables at once, and why it seems suspect to players who ignore the increased speed. You can just imagine how a weak player that doesn't keep good records but figures that he's near break-even feels when his credit card statement shows him losing more in a few sessions than he's ever lost in a couple of months of weekend play. Another phenomenon is for players to start playing online, get lucky, and win more than they've used to seeing in a casino during the same amount of time. When the pendulum abruptly swings away, they suspect the wins were arranged as a "teaser" so that they'd stay and get cheated.
The required bankroll for a winning player might be lower online because of the higher ev.
Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. I've seen casinos have strange suck outs on a regular basis. Nevertheless, The number of quads and straight flushes far exceeds expected values. Of course the defenders here will try to insist that hundreds of thousands of hands are needed to get an accurate reading. This violates all statistical models. Reasonable samples within the 95% can be had WITH ONLY AN N as low as 30! The supposed math geniuses here went to the PT Barnum school of statistical foolery!
JV,
I'd be surprised if we have many multi-drafters responding here; hell, I'd be surprised if we have any. Don't worry about responding. The best writers on this forum--among them, John Feeney, Rick Nebiolo, Dunc Mills, M, Vince, Jim Geary, Cyrus, Poker Veteran, and many, many others I enjoy reading--would much rather exchange ideas than hunt for errors.
Keep in mind, though, that if you're going to call someone a moron, offer an explanation. :-}
John
Music and writing are much the same. Inadvertant mishaps have little bearing on quality, and oftentimes they expand and enhance the experience for the creator and the audience.
Like the email I got from a Korean gal the other day. (As Dave Barry says, I am not making this up.)
She used the word "probrem."
Tommy
Tommy,
I'm not making this one up either: "Sometimes we whoreship the wrong kinds of women." For a minute, I thought I was reading Finnegans Wake.
John
I read a placement test written by a student who had recently arrived in the US from Russia. He said, "I had to move because in Russia I have no meal for my son." His substitution of the idiomatic "food" with "meal" made the statement all the more heartbreaking, I think.
John
I've thought about this for the last couple of days, and recently reread my copy of Gambling Theory And Other Topics, and I ran across some interesting information in the Tournament section that led me to believe that Phan didn't call with cheese. I still feel that he played good. The Essay titled Tournament Strategy (in GTAOT) discusses some interesting concept involving tournament strategy.
I won't retype everything that the concepts discuss word for word, because I am not sure if Mason would object.
However, Concept No. 12 (p191) states: "Overplay hands against short stacks.
Concept No. 14 (p192) states: "Late in a tournament, you should call liberally if (1) you have good chip position, (2) it won't cost much to call, and (3) you have an opportunity to eliminate this opponent.
Also Concept No. 17 (p195) discusses the same situation as concept no. 14 except 17 is refering to betting rather than calling. But this concept is very important because of what the second paragraph states. It states how chips change value in a tournament depending on how many you have. The more chips you have the less they are worth, and the less chips you have the more they are worth.
With this being said, Phans play seems alright because the cards he had don't matter as much as the situation surrounding the cards. On each play by Phan that was discussed, he realized that the situation he was in involved the concepts just mentioned. His opponents were short stacked, he had most of the chips, had an opportunity to eliminate someone, and the value of his chips were less than his opponents.
Also, I do not know Phan, I am not endorsing him in anyway, and I am not trying to justify his play because I like or know him.
Those are all good principles. I just don't know if the applied as you say. I can't seem to find the first post now. I suspect it has something to do with freshness expiry and surfing with lynx.
JG
Subject: 2001 LAPC Championship, by Lynne Loomis
Reference: Poker Digest, March 23 – April 5, 2001
Discussion: Luck vs. Skill
The opening sentence of this article starts with: “ ‘I concentrate on my opponents and play a real mind game in no-limit,’ said Young Phan, whose intense focus and solid play paved the way to victory in the LA Poker Classic X Championship.”
Now, I’m a sometime low-limit hold’em player, but I think Phan’s mind game at the final table consisted of convincing himself that his absolute cheese was a winning hand. And Loomis’s characterization of his “solid play” was incredibly generous, although of dubious veracity.
The following supporting examples are taken from Loomis’s recitation of final table hands.
Example Hand 1: Phan (in big blind) calls an all-in bet from the button. Button has K-Q, Phan has 4-3. Solid play?? Board brings A-9-7/3-4. Skill, right?!
Example Hand 2: Phan has about two-thirds of the chips and preflop raiser (Leonidas) has a little less than one third; play is three handed. Phan (again in big blind) calls a preflop raise with 5-4. Good play, eh? Flop is A-10-3, Leonidas bets out with his A-K, and Phan called with his gut shot. Yup, the turn brings a deuce!! Leonidas goes all-in with his top pair, top kicker, and Phan calls with his nut wheel. Question: how could Phan have called a preflop raise with 5-4? Resulting flop and turn are pure luck.
Example Hand 3: Last hand, heads up. Phan calls a preflop raise with T-9 suited. Now, he has about an 8-1 chip advantage, so this action seems reasonable. I’ve done the same when I’m heads up at the final table with my Masque WSOP game. Flop is 8-7-7, opponent goes all-in, and of course, Phan calls with his open-ender. And again, yup, a J hits the turn to give him the championship. Congrats.
My beef is not with Phan’s luck; you have to hit some hands to win any tourney. I just think his claim of “playing mind games” and the author’s characterization of his “solid play” are pure, unadulterated, bull hockey. Just my opinion; I could be wrong. Comment/flame away.
Added 4/4/01: I understand (I think) comments made regarding tournament play vs ring play. However, IMHO, the first two example hands don't fit in this special category, as Phan did not have an chip overwhelming advantage.
Paul T.
Well, you'd have to know the prices he was getting when he made these decisions. For example, suppose you're big blind is $10 and someone goes all in from the button for $12. Well, there you can call with deuce-null. But if it was a case of the button making it $35 on a $10 blind, you need a large lead to start making calls with total cheese solely to eliminate opponents. I can't say that wasn't the case, but I suspect that if the chips and blinds were "typical" for final tables, then there might've been some mistakes made....
JG
This morning, Mason deleted one of Abdul's posts in the 27 March 2001 thread entitled "Abdul Jalib and John Feeney insights." Mason wrote, "In an effort to keep our forums vibrant we deleted a post from Abdul Jalib which was insulting in nature and violated our posting guidelines."
Both Cyrus and I had read Abdul's post. Neither of us found it to contain any insults. Abdul's post merely challenged some of the things Mason has written.
Ironically, the deleted post was in the same thread that discussed how valuable it often is to encourage dissenting opinions and independent thinking.
Ironically, the deleted post was in the same thread where, on Wednesday, Mason wrote: "So the conclusion to all of this is that you should always be thinking and questioning anything and everything that we write (or other authors write). This process is what really creates that understanding that allows you to become an expert at that form of gambling (and for most of you it will be poker) that you undertake."
There is no place for insulting posts on these forums. We had been warning this particular poster that if he continued to post in the manner that he had where he always worked an insult in we would take appropriate action.
Abdul is welcome to post here as long as he keeps his posts to appropriate content. He has something worthwhile to say and many of our participants want to hear what he has to say because his views and ideas are often different and it gives our readers an alternative to consider. But the insults must stop.
I may be naive or stupid (don't answer that!) but I really did not see the "insults".
Just so that I know what passes for an insulting post around here, would someone, like Mason Malmuth, for example, care to point out Abdul Jalib's exact phrase that was out of line?
There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with Mason's teachings, and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with Mason's policing decisions at 2+2.
But it IS his forum. We don't like being ticketed for barely speeding, but I think we'd agree that enforcement authorities are a good thing, and their judgements cannot possibly please all.
I was the "host" (policeman) of AOL's atheist message boards for two years, so I have some experience in this area. Mason's job is not an easy one. The main thing is, he does it, and whatever his decisions or motives, it's a fine service he provides.
Tommy
You state that "there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with Mason's policing decisions at 2+2" but then you go on and absolve Mason of anything wrong he might have done or will do in the future! You wrote "Mason's job is not an easy one. The main thing is, he does it, and whatever his decisions or motives, it's a fine service he provides."
What's that supposed to mean? I frankly do not understand. An example of when you'd think he doesn't do a good job would help - because that's what I thought happened with the deletion of Abdul's post : nothing earth-shaking, just someone not doing his job right, this once at least.
And I also do not agree with the statement that "We don't like being ticketed for barely speeding". I do speed, a lot, but when I'm caught I do not whine! The question isn't about ticketing here, it's what consitutes speeding for 2+2. Abdul's post was cruising.
..Other than that, as I said, it's his forum. As long as our posts are allowed to stay up we can give an opinion as much as we like.
,,,
I read the post on rgp, and I can't see what you found insulting. It seems that you just don't like that Abdul likes to disagree with you and to argue with you.
This post was not nearly as offensive as the racial post by Dr. Wogga that you let stand on the other topics forum. And I found smoothb's fabrications about Badger to be extremely offensive, as malicious lises usually are. I was one of those who did not support Badger in his campaign to get his posts deleted, and I think he overreacted to what I thought were some benign statements. But he doesn't deserve to be slandered.
Yet, you deleted my post which challenged smoothb to provide proof of his allegations. This seems to be malicious on your part.
Also, it didn't seem to bother you when smoothb resorted to calling me names when he couldn't argue his point against me in another thread. Or that there is a post right now where I am called an asshole. I guess the only one who can't be insulted on this site is you.
If you have a policy against insults and offensive posts, you need to enforce it evenly and fairly, not just against those who you personally dislike.
"This post was not nearly as offensive as the racial post by Dr. Wogga that you let stand on the other topics forum. And I found smoothb's fabrications about Badger to be extremely offensive, as malicious lises usually are."
I deleted a racial joke by Dr. Wogga yesterday. If there was another racial post by Dr. Wogga I just missed it since it is impossible for me to read every post on these forums.
I also deleted a second thread that SmoothB started. In the original SmoothB thread I deleted several posts. Some were just in the wrong part of the thread and got removed because they would have been left dangling. This was explained before. We also made it clear that Badger claimed the SmoothB's post was a complete fabrication. However, as I stated before, by the time I saw the SmoothB post there were already over 20 worthwhile responses (mostly dealing with the ethics of asking to see a called hand on the river) and for this reason the complete thread was not deleted. But we did make it clear to SmoothB that there was no place for this type of post on our forums.
You people better figure it out. when people get in your car they Don't play with the radio.Thats the rule. when they walk into your house they take their shoes off. Thats the rule. when they talk about your wife they Don't refer to her as "Your Old Lady" This forum (twoplustwo.com) and all forums of free speech have to be controlled and monitored in all cases or they won't be here for you to use the way you see fit. In this day and age some folks might think "they have the right to be heard no matter what they say" the reality of it is...you can say anything you want, but we have the Right Not TO listen. I can turn the T.V. or the Radio off. And I don't have to listen to you ON THIS FORUM. Mason is just protecting your right to Post what you think, because if he doesn't, and me and 8 million other people don't like WHAT YOU THINK I should hear, we have the optiom to go to another site. And if we do. His sponsors are gone. Your right to post has been denied because this site IS GONE> How does your SILENT..... FREE.... SPEECH GET HEARD THEN ABDUL. Don't get me started. thanks!
(nothin personal Abdul, I think you are a thinker. Just state your case within the boundaries man)
slim
Have you *actually read* the exchange?
It sounds unlikely, judging from your post.
Sounds like you're just choosing to believe Mason, for no good reason .
this is starting to remind me of 1st grade. people can disagree w/out getting offensive
Mason,
Thank you for deleting Dr Wogga's post.
John
When posts like this appear, since I can't look at these forums 24 hours a day, if you or anyone will email me I will get to it. There is no place for racist smears on these forums.
Mason,
You wrote: "When posts like this appear, since I can't look at these forums 24 hours a day, if you or anyone will email me I will get to it."
Do you read your own posts? If so, have you ever found any of them to be insulting in nature? If so, have you ever deleted any of your own posts?
As much as admire David and Mason for their contribution to poker, I must respectfull disagree with the deletion Abdul's post. It is like deleting Dave's posts because he makes the rest of the world feel inferior because we didn't get 1800 in the SAT. It is true than a level of civility must be maintained in this forum, but there have been a lot worst. If you can't possible read all messages then you should not target Abdul's. I think he deserves some breathing room because his contributions more than outweight his misschiefs in the heat of the battle when disagreeing with you guys. I think it is impossible to stop all sarcasam in his writings when commenting about something he diagrees with you. I would like to see Abdul, M Glover, Carson, David, Mason and Badger spend their time discussing poker and not playing a pissing contest. Suggestion: Any time you comment on each others messages, start the sentence with IMO (in my humble opinion), then say why you disagree/agree with the message.
Peace on this forum for the benefit of everyone..
Great job guys when you keep it to POKER and no personal attacks
PeaceMaker
PeaceMaker,
I just posted this in the 27 March 2001 thread entitled "Abdul Jalib and John Feeney insights." Is this closer to what you had in mind?
-------------------------
John,
You wrote: "I thought I won! But you posted again?? You see, while I admittedly stooped frighteningly low by responding in kind to your 'closed mind...n/t' post, my quip was clearly better than your decidedly unoriginal remark. Therefore... I won. :)"
As I previously explained to Vince, I don't look at these discussions as win/lose situations. And I certainly don't think the "winner" is the participant who stoops the lowest.
I see by the smiley face that you were joking, at least about the lowest stooper winning. I must admit, however, that if the "grin" wasn't there, I would have had to pause for a moment to decide whether or not you were joking.
You see, I read some of the replies you make to some of my threads, and I wonder why you say some of the things you say. Of course, that is because I view your posts from my own unique perspective. And I recognize that my perceptions aren't necessarily the truth or even held by a majority of readers. I try to keep an open mind, constantly review my perceptions, and revise them when appropriate.
In this thread, for instance, you first stooped low (from my perspective) when you wrote: "Though Chris was harsh, he absolutely nailed, more accurately than anyone else ever has, the way your posts come across, no doubt to a majority of readers."
When you said Chris absolutely nailed it, you indicated that you agreed with his remark: "It takes a seriously deluded mind to not comprehend why a group that he describes and generally treats as 'kids on a playground' would resort to ad hominem attacks."
I understand that Chris Alger's insult (from my perspective) might appear absolutely correct to you, but please remember you are viewing these posts from your own unique perspective, and your perceptions aren't necessarily the truth either.
You seemed to take offense at my subject heading "A blind mind is a terrible thing to use (nt)." I didn't direct that statement specifically towards you, though. I was aiming it at everyone, myself included. I simply was re-iterating the Winston Churchill statement I had quoted earlier: "No idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered with a searching but, at the same time, steady eye."
When you responded with your subject heading "Heh. And yet, Mark does so relentlessly. nt", you did indeed lower the level of discussion again. Given how you apparently misinterpreted my heading, however, I can understand your reaction.
You also wrote: "Game over. And you're supposed to stop there, NOT come back with yet another post, Mark! Sheesh.."
You always should feel free to reply to my posts, this one included. Please keep in mind, though, that I prefer reasonable discussions. I sometimes decline to reply to personal attacks (and I'm directing that statement to everyone, too).
While I consider Chris Alger's remark insulting, I do *NOT* believe it should be deleted from this forum. Personally, I value dissenting opinions, even if they are sometimes insulting. I come to this forum to learn, not for a high tea chit chat. If Mason had deleted Chris' post before I had read it, I might never have seen my posts from Chris' perspective. And I would have been the poorer for it.
"Personally, I value dissenting opinions, even if they are sometimes insulting. "
Gee how big of you Mark. Hey I didn't think it was possible to insult you. I've been trying for months now and Mason hasn't deleted one of my posts. I guess I missed my Mark! Pretty good huh!
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "Hey I didn't think it was possible to insult you. I've been trying for months now and Mason hasn't deleted one of my posts."
This site's "Terms & Conditions" says it is the sole discretion of 2+2 and ConJelCo which posts get deleted. It doesn't say the discretion has to be exercised fairly.
"It doesn't say the discretion has to be exercised fairly."
Oh.
Vince
The entire exchange is available on RGP.
To delete it because Abdul was 'insulting' is itself an insult to the intelligence.
Mr Malmuth must be very insecure indeed.
Regards
Glenn Baron
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the first 'insult' seems to come from you, Mason. i.e. :
> The Bellagio, like most card rooms, was using the brown and green Kem > decks. A couple of months ago they went to the blue and red Kem > decks. This refers to the color of their backs. (Since Abdul plays > almost no poker, he probably wasn't aware of this.)
Your arrogance is breathtaking.
To me, this forum is like an oil well. It has the potential to deliver some valuable resources. But if I get involved with it, I fully expect I could emerge a little dirty.
If I can get the oil without any mess, that's great. Faced with a choice, though, I'll take the oil and shower afterwards.
When I start a thread, I try to read any reply that people take the time to write, even if the reply is insulting. I attempt to gleam whatever useful information they provide. I can ignore the insults, if I so choose.
I learned something from Abdul's post that Mason decided to censor. Was it embarassing to Mason? Probably. Was it insulting to anyone? No (as you are free to see for yourself on rec.gambling.poker in Abdul's 31 March 2001 thread entitled "2+2 Censorship Rererevisited").
I understand Mason and ConJelCo are free to censor whatever posts they want. I understand Mason might not share my view of the tradeoff between learning and civility.
But I'm left wondering why, four days ago, Mason wrote: "So the conclusion to all of this is that you should always be thinking and questioning anything and everything that we write (or other authors write). This process is what really creates that understanding that allows you to become an expert at that form of gambling (and for most of you it will be poker) that you undertake."
I agree with Mark.
Vince
.
"Was it insulting to anyone? No (as you are free to see for yourself on rec.gambling.poker in Abdul's 31 March 2001 thread entitled "2+2 Censorship Rererevisited")."
I saw the post before it was deleted. It is not included in Mr. Jalib's RGP post. His RGP post quotes from an old thread. The recent deleted post was about that thread. But it was not that thread. I am not saying that the recent deleted post was any more insulting than lots of other posts, but it was not contained in the RGP post. Just to clarify.
clarifier,
You wrote: "I saw the post before it was deleted. It is not included in Mr. Jalib's RGP post."
I saw Abdul's post before Mason 86'ed it, too. It is included in Abdul's RGP post. After quoting Keving J, Abdul quotes his deleted post. Then Abdul explains the origin of his censored post.
What is included in the RGP post is a quoted version of the post, not the post itself. It would not have been possible to include the post itself. But I thought it was important to point out the fact that it did not include the post. Like you, I think it is important that we be precise with our language. Thanks for your contributions.
clarifier,
Earlier, you wrote: "I saw the post before it was deleted. It is not included in Mr. Jalib's RGP post. His RGP post quotes from an old thread. . . . Just to clarify."
I replied: "I saw Abdul's post before Mason 86'ed it, too. It is included in Abdul's RGP post. After quoting Keving J, Abdul quotes his deleted post."
As you noted, I technically should have said, "A copy of it is included in Abdul's RGP post."
You wrote: "Like you, I think it is important that we be precise with our language."
I don't think we look at language in quite the same way. While I generally try to avoid being imprecise, I try even harder to avoid being deliberately misleading.
Your earlier comments are accurate, but it's possible to be both accurate and misleading (as Mike Caro mischievously demonstrates with some of this RGP threads). If I had to wager, I'd guess more readers correctly understood my point than understood yours.
You also wrote: "Thanks for your contributions."
You're welcome. I look forward to thanking you for your contributions someday.
"If I had to wager, I'd guess more readers correctly understood my point than understood yours. "
Mark,
This belongs on the Other Gambling Games Forum. Where is the WFM when you need him?
vince
I think that Mason wrote what he wrote about different opinions because he really believes that and, when his emotions are not involved, he is a tolerant person, interested in a lively discussion. I truly believe that his reaction to Abdul's post was an emotional overreaction that he will probably regret once people stop forcing him to defend it. The post, as Mason himself has said, was something that another person could have posted without this reaction. It goes back to a history between these two guys. I think it is accurate that Abdul also reacted emotionally to Mason's "plays almost no poker" remark, as anyone WOULD.
I think that the rest of us ought to stop taking sides and let these guys, who are among the most vital thinkers in poker today, resolve their differences and resume the POKER CONTENT posts that, in both their cases, are so valuable. Understand, I love to see conflict of IDEAS. Aside from the amount of knowledge we can gain, I just like to see them innellexual arms n legs flyin.' This personal stuff, however, gets in the way of ideas and, I am afraid, can be extremely addicting in this kind of forum. So I hope for everyone's sake that they can get over it and get back to poker.
-- Will
Yankee Baseball, POUR IT ON!!!
"these guys, who are among the most vital thinkers in poker today,"
Hey, I resemble that remark. Seriously, Bill makes a strong serious arguement for letting these two settle it and the rest of us move on. Let's all stick to poker discussion and get them cards in the air.
Vince
x
Abdul,
You wrote: "Before then, she was a most positive poster to this site, especially eager to help novice female poker players, and was generally supportive of Mason and especially David."
Was her nick something like Lonestar? If so, I remember benefiting from her wisdom as well. It's our loss that she no longer (or not often) posts here.
While Badger and Gary Carson were less positive posters, I learned from them as well. It's unfortunate that their dissenting opinions were not better received.
"It's unfortunate that their dissenting opinions were not better received."
Mark,
That's a crock. Carson and Badger resented the fact that this is a commercial site and didn't want Mason to benefit from their participation. So they left and took their postings and opinions with them. Opinions that were well recieved I might add. Thank you very much. Why don't you stop with your bullshit campaign and stop trying to wax the hosts of this forum all the time.
I don't know what happened with Lonestar but I also miss her participation here. But don't put Carson and Badger in her company. They don't desreve to be there.
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "I don't know what happened with Lonestar but I also miss her participation here. But don't put Carson and Badger in her company. They don't desreve to be there."
Once again, you seem to have misread my post. I didn't put Gary and Badger in the same company as Lonestar. I said both of them ***were less positive posters***.
I said I learned from Gary and Badger. I'm not sure how you think you can dispute this comment, since you are not me. (Thank goodness, huh?)
"I'm not sure how you think you can dispute this comment, since you are not me. "
Yeah, well don't be too sure!
vince
mark, i like you, but why do you act toward abdul just the way you say others act toward the twoplustwo authors? (i like abdul 2 btw)
I didn't see you here last weekend. Do you still think S&M's bankroll requirement statement is "perfectly sensible?"
Your hyper-detailed responses somehow took the wind out of any debating intentions I might have had. I was tired before we got started.
This forum is kind enough to archive everything for me (and for you, too). The final item below the "Forums" heading is the "Archives" forum. It helps if you have a good memory, though, since it is more difficult to search through the non-recent archives."
I have browsed the 2+2 Archives. It's one of the worst kept Archives I've seen on the web! Total chaos; every post archived one after the other, with a flimsy excuse of a "theme". It's like looking for a birth certificate in the mayoral archives of Corleone, Sicily.
The "good memory" you mention is what's ineteresting. It confirms my interpretation of how you view a debate. It's quite interesting - but you might be better off as a D.A. Do you really remember where to find a post that Sklansky put up two years ago?! The hours! (The horror.)
I would venture the guess that you like debating for its own sake and that getting at the bottom of things comes a distant second. I could be proved wrong, of course.
If you mean [that people] will enter the dialogue [with me] with a reasonable amount of civility, then I can live with that. If you mean they will think a little before they reply, then I can live with that, too.
I have noticed that, almost without fail, you have the last post in every thread you participate in. Sorta like having the last word in an argument.
This is worse than conversing with a stranger who's a policeman - something done carefully, reluctantly and with our defenses up (since I need to spell it out). This is like conversing with a pit bull.
Wow, excellent economy in post title. I knew exactly what it said without opening.
Thanks for the post. As a master sarcaster myself, I do appreciate getting fed back.
But I'm curious if anyone 'got' it? Did you?
Of course I did. Zugzwang means where the compulsion to move is actually worse than not moving at all. A brilliant one-word title. Zwischenzung is clever if you know I'm going to respond again.
JG
Cyrus,
Earlier, I wrote: "Welcome back. I didn't see you here last weekend. Do you still think S&M's bankroll requirement statement is 'perfectly sensible?'"
You replied: "Your hyper-detailed responses somehow took the wind out of any debating intentions I might have had. I was tired before we got started."
I hope you can forgive me. I went into greater detail because you indicated you didn't understand my simpler explanation.
------------
Earlier, you wrote: "But when you demonstrate that you are saving up old posts and threads, practically archiving everything which is (or could be) of the remotest interest to you, verbatim too, then I have to pause and profer a dime's worth of thoughts . . ."
I replied: "Actually, this forum is kind enough to archive everything for me (and for you, too). The final item below the 'Forums' heading is the 'Archives' forum. Feel free to check it out at your leisure."
You then answered: "I have browsed the 2+2 Archives."
Now it's my turn to be confused. If you already were aware of the archives, then why did you believe I would archive as well?
---------------
You also wrote: "It's one of the worst kept Archives I've seen on the web! Total chaos; every post archived one after the other, with a flimsy excuse of a 'theme'. It's like looking for a birth certificate in the mayoral archives of Corleone, Sicily."
If Abdul had written that, Mason might have deleted his post. ;-)
---------------
You wrote: "The 'good memory' you mention is what's ineteresting. It confirms my interpretation of how you view a debate."
What can I say? I'm not going to apologize for having a good memory.
---------------
You wrote: "I would venture the guess that you like debating for its own sake and that getting at the bottom of things comes a distant second. I could be proved wrong, of course."
I'm not sure how I could "prove" you wrong. I disagree with your opinion, though. And I'm glad you are open minded.
----------------
You wrote: "I have noticed that, almost without fail, you have the last post in every thread you participate in. Sorta like having the last word in an argument."
If I feel I might not have made my point clearly enough, I often will try again. If I have made my point or if I feel someone is being deliberately obtuse, I often will give up. If I don't believe there is any point in engaging in a dialogue with a particular poster, I often won't make even a single reply.
As I told John: "You always should feel free to reply to my posts, this one included." That "you" applies to everyone, including Vince. ;-)
I thought I won! But you posted again?? You see, while I admittedly stooped frighteningly low by responding in kind to your "closed mind...n/t" post, my quip was clearly better than your decidedly unoriginal remark. Therefore... I won. :) Game over. And you're supposed to stop there, NOT come back with yet another post, Mark! Sheesh..
Besides he didn't provide a footnote so it doesn't count LOL.
John,
You wrote: "I thought I won! But you posted again?? You see, while I admittedly stooped frighteningly low by responding in kind to your 'closed mind...n/t' post, my quip was clearly better than your decidedly unoriginal remark. Therefore... I won. :)"
As I previously explained to Vince, I don't look at these discussions as win/lose situations. And I certainly don't think the "winner" is the participant who stoops the lowest.
I see by the smiley face that you were joking, at least about the lowest stooper winning. I must admit, however, that if the "grin" wasn't there, I would have had to pause for a moment to decide whether or not you were joking.
You see, I read some of the replies you make to some of my threads, and I wonder why you say some of the things you say. Of course, that is because I view your posts from my own unique perspective. And I recognize that my perceptions aren't necessarily the truth or even held by a majority of readers. I try to keep an open mind, constantly review my perceptions, and revise them when appropriate.
In this thread, for instance, you first stooped low (from my perspective) when you wrote: "Though Chris was harsh, he absolutely nailed, more accurately than anyone else ever has, the way your posts come across, no doubt to a majority of readers."
When you said Chris absolutely nailed it, you indicated that you agreed with his remark: "It takes a seriously deluded mind to not comprehend why a group that he describes and generally treats as 'kids on a playground' would resort to ad hominem attacks."
I understand that Chris Alger's insult (from my perspective) might appear absolutely correct to you, but please remember you are viewing these posts from your own unique perspective, and your perceptions aren't necessarily the truth either.
You seemed to take offense at my subject heading "A blind mind is a terrible thing to use (nt)." I didn't direct that statement specifically towards you, though. I was aiming it at everyone, myself included. I simply was re-iterating the Winston Churchill statement I had quoted earlier: "No idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered with a searching but, at the same time, steady eye."
When you responded with your subject heading "Heh. And yet, Mark does so relentlessly. nt", you did indeed lower the level of discussion again. Given how you apparently misinterpreted my heading, however, I can understand your reaction.
You also wrote: "Game over. And you're supposed to stop there, NOT come back with yet another post, Mark! Sheesh.."
You always should feel free to reply to my posts, this one included. Please keep in mind, though, that I prefer reasonable discussions. I sometimes decline to reply to personal attacks (and I'm directing that statement to everyone, too).
Mark wrote:
"Please keep in mind, though, that I prefer reasonable discussions."
Whose mind? And who decides what is resaonable?
Mark wrote:
"I recognize that my perceptions aren't necessarily the truth or even held by a majority of readers."
How about "a minority" of readers also?
Mark wrote:
"As I previously explained to Vince, I don't look at these discussions as win/lose situations. And I certainly don't think the "winner" is the participant who stoops the lowest."
Then who is the winner? BTW- Thanks for mentioning me in your post. I feel blessed.
Mark quoted old dead Winston:
"No idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered with a searching but, at the same time, steady eye."
Now I ask you, did WC ever hear one of Mark's ideas? Bet he's rolling in his grave.
Mark wrote:
"You always should feel free to reply to my posts"
I know you said this to John but I'm sure you include the rest of us swine with the above invitation. Thank you, oh supreme one.
vince
Vince,
Are you attempting to play the April Fool today? ;-)
NEPC: $120 7 Stud unlimited rebuy tournament. Saturday 31 March. 250+ entries $75,000 prize pool.
1st place: Greg "Fossilman" Raymer - $23k
2nd Place: Vince Lepore - $20K
Vince
Hey that's great. I hope you guys post a little more about the tournament.
Way to go Vince and Greg!
How long did you guys play heads up?
nt.
A1
!
=
Congratulations. I know you would have rather finished first but this is an accomplishment of note as it is. Of course, congrats to fossilman as well.
-- Will
Yankee Baseball, POUR IT ON!!!
I guess it is time to set some records straight and maybe I have waited too long to do it, so here it is:
My name is Angelina Fekali and I have no brother. "Izmet Fekali", the frequent poster here and on rgp, does not exist. I made him up. As some of you have caught on to this little ruse and over the months the truth was harder and harder to hide. As I said, it is time to give up and take a stand for myself. There's no need for me to wear men's clothes anymore, I sincerely hope so.
A lot of you will probably not understand, but where I come from, women are not treated with equal respect. Since respect was all too often denied to me simply because of my gender, I decided to make my life easier on poker forums and become a guy. I was eager to learn and I very much wanted to be taken seriously. I tried very hard to become "one of the boys", hiding my true feelings and intentions behind "Izmet's" macho sheep humor.
My fears were not unfounded, it turned out, as I started to play at Paradise under my real name, no way a girl from Slovenia could play good poker, it's a man's game, I am listening to these kind of remarks for a year now. Well guys, you better believe it. Women can and do play good poker. I am sure this fact will hit hard some of you, but you need to face it. Women can play too.
I met David Sklansky In Las Vegas in 1999 when my dear father took a vacation there (looking for a game of 5card potlimit stud). Unbeknownst to my father, I fell in love with David, many of you have no idea how charming this man can be on top of his intelligence. He was relentless in his wooing, I must laugh every time when I think of our first few hours alone when he pulled out a deck of cards and said, "let's play for fun, do you know poker?". I didn't and he offered to teach. Little did I know that I saved about $400 (his standard tutoring hourly rate) that hour, little did I know that he tried very, very hard to lose to me in that headsup game, little did I know that I am one of the few that can brag "I beat Sklansky in poker". Little did I know that life will never be the same.
I was hooked. Both on Sklansky and hold'em. He sensed my enthusiasm and offered to teach me more. To cut a long story short, we had great time and I had to go back home. Six months later, after lots of research, sims and thinking about the game, I was eager to play him again, to prove I was a student, a friend and, most importantly, to prove I was smart enough for him. I was in Vegas again, desperately in love, only to find another woman sitting besides David at the poker table. It broke my heart and it broke our relationship.
That is when I met Abdul Jalib M'hall. I am sorry not to go into detail here, let me just say that I met his wife too, she is a very nice person and I am sorry to bring some pain into her life. Out of respect for her I shall not do our dirty laundry in public.
Needless to say, I befriended Abdul because of his refusal to accept Sklansky as an authority on hold'em, he was a renegade and a free mind, he appealed to me a lot. He provided me with tools to fight Sklansky on his own turf, poker, without being an underdog to Sklansky's strategies. I can't thank Abdul enough for this, if you are reading this, Jabba dear, you will always have a special place in my heart reserved. Thank you.
I don't travel much to Vegas anymore. My life is settled now, men can't hurt me anymore, any frustrations I may have left I take out on unsuspecting $20-40 Paradise players. If you are there and see me 4-bet you on the turn with a shaky hand, it is probably because I imagine I'm playing against David.
I just can't pull him out of my mind, it seems.
I love you all.
Angelina Fekali
Studying People Inc.
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Slovenia
Does Izmet the imaginary brother have a Paradise account and sit next to you when you play? That would explain a lot more than 'study' would. And hey, if you'd have an affair with a married man (in effect cheating or helping him to cheat) then what ethical line would stand between you and Izmet cheating those unsuspecting chaps on Paradise?
Answer: Nada
"And hey, if you'd have an affair with a married man (in effect cheating or helping him to cheat) then what ethical line would stand between you and Izmet cheating those unsuspecting chaps on Paradise? "
'that done out of love is beyond good and evil'. gee i just cant help myself sometimes.
brad
p.s. its a joke (happy new year)
,,,
.
.
Dear Izmet Angelina Fekali,
I am very happy to here that you have come out of the closet. It mussa been horrible having to pretend all these years to be a man without having the correct plumbing. Terrible situation when going to the men's room I bet.
It is good of you to expose David Sklansky for the womanizer that he really is. I have had a similar experience with the mighty OZ . Yes The mighty Oz is David but only woman call him David. Men like me and Izmet, who you used to be, call him the mighty Oz. That's because when we see David, I mean Oz, the Yellow Brick road immediatley comes to mind and we are sent on a trip over the rainbow. He does that to all the men that meet him. You must realize that men get the same emotional feelings whe first meeting David that woman get. Yes, he has tht aura around him. I think it comes from a high SAT score. But I'm not sure.
Yes I too was mesmerized by this master con man but I was lucky. I ran into Mason Malmuth one day and my whole life changed. Gee I hope this post isn't to racy for Mason. I hope he doesn't delete it because he feels it may be insulting to David. Because it's not, really. I l.., like David. I almost slipped there. But if Mason thinks I'm being insulting he willk deep six my post like he did my post questioning Abdul's Deleted post. the last time he deleted an Abdulian Post was over a "penis". Now he has included percieved insults. Well it's his forum.
I must credit Mason with my being able to get over my infatuation I mean intellectual interest with Oz. You see Mason told me that those young broads David is always with are his neices. I guess he is just trying to show them a good time and how poker is played in the big Casino world. For some reason when I heard this my admiration for David or Oz dropped a hundred fold. I no longer wanted to want what I wanted in the first place so I didn't want it anymore. I was free. Wow, how exhilerating. So my advice to you sweet Angelina today, Izmet yesterday, is to visit Las Vegas and talk to Mason. When he is finished with you you will be over David and hate Abdul! What a country!
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "That's because when we see David, I mean Oz, the Yellow Brick road immediatley comes to mind and we are sent on a trip over the rainbow."
And I thought it was because, although some see him as an all-knowing wizard, you see past the illusion and realize he is just a fallible human.
...realize he is just a fallible human.
Not my David!
vince
Mark wrote,
" . . . and realize he is just a fallible human."
Is there another kind?
Yes, fallible and Mark.
Sorry Mark, just couldn't resist. 8-)
Thanks for the setup Sammy.
Regards Mike N
I have been playing hold'em for the last three years, and have moved up in limits to the 20-40 range(which is the highest limit in the card rooms here). I have been running over the game for the last year and a half. Lately the high limit players has changed to 7 card high low split. While I don't think these players are any better at stud split than hold'em, I am having a hard time just breaking even in these games. My question is, is there a fundamental difference in strategy between different poker games, stud perhaps more forgiving with loose players, maybe I just naturally have a talent for hold'em, or it may just take more time to learn the game. Any experiance with those of you who changed games after only playing one particular game would be much appriciated.
-SmlBlind
Yes, stud can be more forgiving to a bad player, but good players can use other/different advantages to make more money. For instance, with so many cards being exposed their is more information to use, and more streets to maxmize advantages.
My guess is that you don't play seven stud hi/lo as well as holdem.
I was heavy into stud in the early 90's. I read Ray's book a few times and it got me on the right track fast, but it took a while to figure out the main thing I had to overcome.
The same selective agressiveness that works well at hold'em can be a self-inflicted wound at stud, especially because the other players see you coming a mile away and just sit there and play a more traditional, sedate stud style and pick you apart.
In general I think calling is far more often the best play at stud than it is at hold'em. After extensive training at the pump-it-or-dump-it hold'em mentality, it can be a tough adjustment.
Tommy
"In general I think calling is far more often the best play at stud than it is at hold'em. After extensive training at the pump-it-or-dump-it hold'em mentality, it can be a tough adjustment."
Quite an interesting point that Tommy makes here. There are many important things to consider when traversing the two big casino poker games. Adjustment is tantamoutn to success. Tommy makes an interesting point about "calling being the best option at stud". It appears to me from this statement that Tommy was weaned on a 7CSFAP strategy. I was. The strategy in that outlined in that book is still the best strategy for playing mid limit stud. However, as in any game adjustments must be made that consider the current situation. I have found that I have been forced to call more on third street at the 15-30 level for a number of reasons. Mainly because the games are looser than they were when I first began. There was a time when looser games were the games to get in. That was because most of the players in the game were horrible. Today loose games are comprised of a few bad players a few mediocre players and some very good players. What happens in these games a lot is that a bad player will mistakingly call a raise. Then good players behind them will correctly call the raise because of the increased pot odds and the value of your big pair will be decreased. The prime purpose of raising on third street in Stud is to limit the opposition against your big pairs and big cards. That strategy still works to some degree but as more people become aware of it it's power is decreased. More deception is required to keep opponents on their toes. Calling or limping more often in raising situations needs to be done to accomplish this deception.
That said this is not the primary difference between playing stud and playing Holdem. The games play entirely different even though they are both seven card poker games. More skill is required to win at stud. Notice I said "to win" not to play. Holdem is the game of choice by many today because there are many more poor players playing Holdem. The reason that is true is that most players do not want to put out the effort to learn to play correctly. They want gambling to be easy. Holdem looks easy. Any two cards can win. So the lazy and poorly skilled will opt for Holdem once they are introduced to it. That is why I always recommend that new poker players learn Stud first.
vince
It's rare day when a sentence of yours jumps out and makes me think, "Huh?"
"More skill is required to win at stud."
I've laid off semantical tangles for while, so what the heck. Which requires more "skill?" Golf, carpentry, or backgammon?
Tommy
smile
"semantical tangles "
" Golf, carpentry, or backgammon?"
I have no or very little experience with these endeavors.
"more "skill"
If you would like me to clarify "more skill" with regards to stud vs holdem then I will try my best. If you would like to discuss "semantical tangles" please address your question to that Nebiolo fellow or Professor John Cole.
Vince
Vince,
I was being a snit, for no good reason. So in that voice, here's more. :-)
I've no doubt that you could define "skill" in such a way that winning at stud would require "more" of it than winning at hold'em. I could too.
My one and only contention (and subsequent objection) to the use of the word "skill" in reference to poker is that it is slung about as if the meaning were universally agreed upon, and it ain't. The result is much the same as the endless musings that surround words like "soul" and "god."
For example, one reason I do okay at poker is because I sleep well and I don't play long sessions. This gives me an edge over those who play worse when they are tired. Does this, or any of the countless other aspects of life that affect poker results, make me "more skilled?"
I don't think there is an answer, until "skill" is specifically defined. I have no problem with laboriously defining terms to aid a discussion. My problem, again, with "skill," is that it's meaning needs to be clarified by each user, every time it is used. And of course we don't do that. For that reason, it's a word I never use in casual poker conversation.
I'm not asking for the Vince definition of "skill." But I'd like to hear your thoughts on my thoughts about the presumption that we all use it to mean the same thing.
Tommy
"But I'd like to hear your thoughts on my thoughts about the presumption that we all use it to mean the same thing."
No. no, I don't believe that I use the word skill in the same light as Tommy Angelo. No.
"For example, one reason I do okay at poker is because I sleep well and I don't play long sessions. This gives me an edge over those who play worse when they are tired. Does this, or any of the countless other aspects of life that affect poker results, make me "more skilled?""
No. No, this is a great example extolling the differences in just how Vince differs from Tommy in their view of skill. Sleeping well does not give you an edge. Ok maybe you believe it does so we can classify it as giving you a percived edge but in reality you have no way of knowing if it gives you an edge at t'all. Same with playing short sessions. Even if these habits somehow could be shown to give you an edge they are not skills. They are disciplined behavior. No, no a skill like reading and opponent or hand selection or game selection is something that is... is tangible. Well maybe not tangible in the true sense of the word but close Certainly they are defineable and learnable and can be applied during play. No.. No "skills" is a good word and is justifiably applicable when discussing poker. In a "semantically tangled" way of course.
vince
Hey Vince,
I was offline for a few days.
We don't differ on the word "skill" because I don't use it. That'd be like me saying we disagree as to what "cathemeral" means. (Look it up, it's a great word, recently discovered.)
Anwyway, to me "skill" is a meaningless word in the poker context because if someone asked me, "What does it mean?" I would reply, "I don't know."
Tommy
Carpentry requires the most skill. Merely justifying ones hourly rate when no WORK was actually done is often difficult for the beginner to master. Once this is known, convincing the sucker, I mean customer, that he really WANTED his cabinet to look like that is merely difficult. Substitute pronouns to "she" and "her cabinets" and it becomes impossiwoggle and PAINFUL.
Golf is next. However, having skill at golf does not reward one unless it is possible to find people who don't KNOW that you have that skill. Skill at getting extra handicap strokes is well-rewarded however. My brother will sometimes hit a few shots before bets are arranged. We are often allowed to leave town alive afterward as no money has as yet changed hands. He is not, let us say, a hustler. Good golfer, though. Never makes much money at it.
Moving the checkers at backgammon is largely trivial but some people do it better than others. Avoid those players, handle the cube well and get a time machine and go back to where there were total IDIOTS who would play backgammon for high stakes and you would HAVE something. It would still be excruciatingly boring.
I would rather play O8 or count cards at blackjack. Rather hold up gas stations than do any of these things.
-- Will
Yankee Baseball, POUR IT ON!!!
Not here on othere topics.
Vince
I have wanted to write on this subject for some time, but I've finally broken down and gotten around to it. Here goes.
The theory of poker states that 'Every time an opponent plays his hand differently than he would if he could see your hand, you gain.' But this is not true.
It SHOULD read 'Every time your opponent plays his hand differently than he would if he could see your hand AND WERE USING PERFECT STRATEGY, you gain.'
Some opponents are morons. Let's say you have AA UTG and everyone folds except for the BB, a bad player, who calls. There are 4.5 SB in the pot.
Flop comes Q 9 3. He checks, you bet, he calls with a gutshot draw (KT offsuit). He is getting 5.5:1 odds on his call.
Turn is a blank. He has no pair but still has the gutshot draw. You bet, he calls. Since there are 4.25 BB in the pot when you bet, he is getting 4.25:1 odds on his call.
You gain from all of his calls - preflop, on the flop, and on the turn. But the thing is, he was going to call even if he could see your hole cards. Even he is bright enough to know that KT is almost certainly not the winner right now and that he has to catch to improve.
I make this distinction for a reason. Some time ago I was thinking about the +EV or -EV of certain hands in certain positions. I wondered whether it were possible that certain hands, like 56 offsuit, had a -EV that was actually GREATER than 1SB. IE, when you limp in with this hand, you actually stand to lose MORE than that initial 1SB when you play the hand.
I eventually realized that this cannot be true - PROVIDED THE PLAYER IS USING PERFECT STRATEGY.
For example, let's say that you give me 1SB and say 'just go ahead and limp in next hand no matter what you get - it's on me.' You limp in and see that you have 56o.
Now, if you just threw this hand away every time, unless you actually flopped a straight, quads, whatever, you obviously could not lose more than that initial investment.
But now lets put those same 2 cards into the hands of a bad player, but now he will not play them perfectly.
Not only will he play when he has a straight or quads, whatever, he will also pay any number of bets to draw to any gutshot draw, and will even take a card off for a runner runner straight. He will call to the river with any pair. Now, obviously, this player will lose more than that initial 1SB that you graciously invested