Wow, where to start?
[ QUOTE ]
That said, my objection isn’t actually to people who play poker online
[/ QUOTE ]
Jeff, you do realize I can just link to the stuff you've written in the past. You have a very strong disdain for online players.
[ QUOTE ]
my objection is when someone who plays online virtually exclusively (such as BvlyHls90210) presumes to tell me who I should and shouldn’t make friends with in the card room.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's quite the humorous misinterpretation of, well everything that exists in the universe.
Some background for others, Jeff has a very peculiar arguing style. He lays out very wrong and retarded ideas about poker, and when faced with clearly laid out facts about why he is wrong, he diversts to pleas to authority amongst other weak techniques. He says ridiculous stuff like how a knowledge base attained from online discussion forums such as 2+2 is inferior compared to what he gets from the discussions he has with the group of players he's plays with live. I don't know if that makes much sense, as these players who Jeff plays against certainly aren't incentivized to help him plug all his various leaks and teach him all the tricks and tools of the game. Whereas online is a much different type of animal but I'm certainly more comfortable getting advice from people who I don't play with.
So I don't care who you make friends with Jeff, I'm just defending the attacks you make on me and every other online player which you've stated repeatedly is an inferior poker playing environment for whatever reason you concoct. All I've said is maybe you should take the poker advice you get from someone you play with every week with a little grain of salt.
You don't want me to actually dig up links, do you?
Remember when you said this:
"you have to admit it is kind of lame that you've played professionally, and yet the extent of your poker network consists entirely of people on the internet you've never met."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=25899986
While we are at it with quotes.
On your qualifications to write a book:
"I have been quoted a number times outside of the Fool, including in the Reno Gazette-Journal and the Las Vegas Business Press, not to mention various blogs and even some grad school papers."
"I've seen more of the gaming industry in person than anybody on Wall Street, or in the media."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username
This is a gem:
"Frankly, having a self-proclaimed "pro" tell me I don't "play a ton" when he probably doesn't play much more than me himself -- and doesn't play live to boot -- is ridiculous. If you tell me I need X years of experience before I can write a book, I will tell you that Edward Thorpe pioneered card counting without having ever played a lick of blackjack seriously himself."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username
Wait, I thought you said you have to extensively play a game to have an opinion? Also, this is when you start on your whole online poker is inferior to live poker thing. It just doesn't make much sense (nor am I a pro, but whatever you want to believe).
Some nice digs on 2+2 in this thread, but I love this quote:
"Why should I care what somebody who doesn't even play Omaha thinks about what I have to say about it? "
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username
A classic moment in On Tilt:
"I disagree with your very definition of a semibluff. A semibluff suggests that you have a chance to win the hand outright by betting with a hand that doesn't figure to be good at the moment. It is entirely indepedent of the value of your drawing hand. Therefore, betting a drawing hand for value is semi-bluffing."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username
"You're still making up your own definitions of a semi-bluff. If you don't have a made hand, you are bluffing. It is that simple."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username
"And personally, I like a strict interperation of Sklansky, and I like the idea that a bet with a big drawing hand can be both a semi-bluff and a value bet."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username
"And there's another issue that's been glossed over: It's that all of the example hands you guys have been giving - JTs on a KQx suited flop, Td9d on a 8d7d4s flop, ATs with overcards and the nut flush -- these are all favorites with two cards to come. It is only a value bet if the money goes all in on the flop."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username
On online pros:
"I should add that if your idea of "playing a ton" requires sitting a home fingering a mouse 60 hours a week, you should probably re-think your life."
And this gem:
"And not only have I gotten paid to write a book about the game, but I also have the respect of the people I play with every day."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username
Some ground breaking HE analysis from one month ago:
"I've been playing a little bit more hold'em lately, and one of the things I've noticed is more of the players in the game have started playing back because they are more aware of the continuation bet."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username
On online players again
"Besides, you don't even play poker with real people."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username
While critiqueing those who dare question the Gospel of your work:
"And how many people count live poker as a significant part of their playing experience, without the benefit of Poker Tracker to assist them with their reads"
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username
"You know what else is interesting is that the people most in conflict with my posts as a group don't play much live poker"
"And not coincidentally, every single person who has expressed how stupid this is spends far more time playing poker online than with live opponents."
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?m...;sort=username
etc
etc
etc
[ QUOTE ]
my objection is when someone exhibits strong opinions on games they don’t even really play
[/ QUOTE ]
Sigh. I have played an extensive number of poker hands over the past few years, and I feel like I have attained some level of poker knowledge that is applicable to all poker games. I think that goes for absolutely anyone who plays poker. I don't have to play a single hand of Omaha ever to understand when you are misusing terms like value betting and semibluffing. But rather than admitting you are wrong, you always just go into this whole character assassination on me, and you denegrate all online players. Just freaking admit you are wrong when you are so blatantly wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
when someone (such as BvlyHls90210) has such strong opinions on a book that he hasn’t read on a game (Omaha) that he doesn’t even play for micro limits.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you referring to your book? How would I have read it? I can have an opinion based on the other "strategy" stuff you have shared, which is DEEPLY flawed material. Consider me skeptical. I don't think that is all that offbase.
And FWIW for the hundred billiointh time, I have played PLO, I have even won a PLO tournament, but for a variety of reasons I choose not to make it my main game, like 99.99999% of all poker players. I think if you are only going to accept comments from people who devote all their poker time to Omaha, you are cutting off a lot of great potential analysis. Maybe you should think about how to develop the game rather than your current stance which does the opposite.