High Stakes Poker thread (10/29 - spoilers possible)

[futuredoc85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jman folded in a marginal situation, that's the only thing you can say about that hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Newsflash Einstein, the marginal situations are the ones that separate winners from losers. Or more appropriately in this situation getting a seat on day 3 or not getting a seat by playing scared, nittish, absolutely silent and non-entertaining poker.

I hope that explains marginal situations for you

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty much completely wrong

[futuredoc85]

jdesab et. al.- i am but a lowly 2-4- 5/10 inerNIT player who will be in vegas later this month. Id be happy to play any of you HU as deepstacked as you like at 5/10 or 10/20 live with reads and everything if any of the "strategy" you guys are posting is not meant to be sarcastic. think about the fun you will have posting about how you destroyed a lowly online donk.

[JDesab]

as usual... you guys can't have extended conversation. you can't acknowledge points made and make grown up replies to anything in particular. simply end it with some testosterone filled challenge.

i won't be in vegas this month. sorry to disappoint you.

do you have any replies to the message i left?

do you know why the guy would come away from that game thinking he's "a favorite" against all of those players? do you disagree with my point that it was dinengenuous to claim his read on eli's 88 hand?
that is the substance of the post.

[futuredoc85]

jdesab- i specifically referenced your poker strategy. As far as your post im not reading any farther than "proven best" because most of that table is pretty bad at NLHE. I have played w/ ME winners and TV pros before and most of them are garbage. There are definitely some that are exceptions to this but "proven best in the game" really had me laughing so i cant go any farther since i dont realy care.

As far as how good for TV he is or whether he was misleading ppl with his report, i havent really argued about any of that b/c it doesnt interest me in the slightest. All ive said repeatedly is that if you think you're in a position to comment on his poke skill relative to the people at that table you're laughably wrong. Also i use your name every time b/c its the only one i can remember im not trying to call you out over and over

[JDesab]

[ QUOTE ]
jdesab- i specifically referenced your poker strategy. As far as your post im not reading any farther than "proven best" because most of that table is pretty bad at NLHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh well. perhaps i overstated. i do think that you "can" agree that they are "proven" .... you can't possibly have the years in the game and not be considered expert. can you?

[futuredoc85]

i can agree that they are/were proven to be the best of the pre-moneymaker boom generation. However, I think the game has changed and is changing so fast that they are only really "world class" when playing against the people they came up playing against in the first place. Although i can def admit that saying they are "bad" is overstating since any winning player at any stake is way the [censored] above average obviously. So basically yes they were the best in the world at one time, no they (most of them) are not in that category anymore, at least not to the point where anyone is going to know whether someone the caliber of J-man, adams, townsend etc. is outclassed in 50 hands. I basically think the only thing that anyone (posting here at least) really knows about J-man's edge if any in that game is that 50 hands proves nothing either way.

[JDesab]

[ QUOTE ]
I basically think the only thing that anyone (posting here at least) really knows about J-man's edge if any in that game is that 50 hands proves nothing either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree. and had i not ever read his post making his report of his appearance on the show i'd have never taken the time to think more of him. once i read his post then watched him play, i felt that he came across very poorly. humility would serve him greatly.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
do you know why the guy would come away from that game thinking he's "a favorite" against all of those players?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he saw many of them play badly and felt like he would be a favorite because he usually plays better than them.

[ QUOTE ]
do you disagree with my point that it was dinengenuous to claim his read on eli's 88 hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't there either, but yes, I disagree. I find it hard to believe that he would lie about something where he would be so easily discovered later. It doesn't seem so crazy to me to think Phil G made a good read, and that he either didn't hear Eli or didn't believe him and wanted to check later.

Phil was terrible for TV. He didn't provide entertainment value because he didn't talk and didn't play many hands. However, I think it'd be fun to see an internit bust a bunch of name pros. This is the same reason I always cheer for Greenstein and Chip Reese in tournaments.

Also, being bad for TV doesn't mean he played badly; why would he mix it up if he really did get stuff like 95o? Daniel N gets called a LAG spewdonk all the time and he didn't play many hands either. It's not that hard to run bad for fifty hands, and Phil did raise it up with T7s once. Plus he said he won $20K overall, but we didn't see those hands and so the editing worked against him.

I do agree with ChrisV's comment that while Phil G's play was probably not optimal, it was far less terrible than stuff like Farha's K7 call. Farha and Eli are stuck a billion dollars and I'm sure they'd love to trade HSP results with Phil, so I don't think it's fair to say Phil is the one playing bad. Except for that muck, which was completely WTF and horrible.

I don't remember Phil's original trip report precisely, but I do think that if he was promised a seat at the $500K then he has a right to be frustrated about that.

[JDesab]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
do you disagree with my point that it was dinengenuous to claim his read on eli's 88 hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't there either, but yes, I disagree. I find it hard to believe that he would lie about something where he would be so easily discovered later. It doesn't seem so crazy to me to think Phil G made a good read, and that he either didn't hear Eli or didn't believe him and wanted to check later.



[/ QUOTE ]
that's really your take? that maybe galfond, whom you say yourself is a great player ... would not keep his ears open at the table to a conversation between two players that just finished a pot. noone else was talking at the table.. he wasn't jabbering with jamie gold ... but you give good ol philly the excuse "i don't think he would lie, i guess he just missed eli and sammy talking about it" give me a break... you shouldn't have wasted our time in replying here if you're line of reasoning was "i'm sure philly wouldn't lie, he must have been napping at the table while sammy and eli talked about the hand."

i at least give the guy enough credit that he would and did listen to eli and sammy's discussion of the hand.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe galfond, whom you say yourself is a great player

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say he was a great player, but based on what I've heard, I think he almost certainly is.



[ QUOTE ]
you give good ol philly the excuse ... give me a break...you shouldn't have wasted our time in replying here

[/ QUOTE ]

You complain about how no one here is listening to what you have to say, and when I write out a respectful post explaining an alternative scenario, you complain I'm wasting everyone's time. That strikes me as hypocritical. You also imply I'm some kind of Phil G fanboy, which I'm not.



[ QUOTE ]
i at least give the guy enough credit that he would and did listen to eli and sammy's discussion of the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You also call him disingenuous, so it's not a super-generous gesture on your part. It's pretty backhanded "credit."

Maybe Phil did listen but wasn't positive Eli was truthful. Do you always believe everyone has the hand they claimed they did? People lie about their hands all the time. I'm just giving Phil the benefit of the doubt and saying that maybe either (1) he really didn't hear because he was thinking about something else--the guy mucked half of a pot, so he's obviously not laserlike focused on the post-hand action 100% of the time, or (2) he did hear but just wants to see for sure. It's a hand where he was also making a point about pushing the river, so it wasn't just out of nowhere. Maybe he'll chime in.

It's a good read, but it's not like it was some ridiculous claim like "I knew 100% he had a straight flush." It seems totally plausible to me that a guy who plays for huge money for a living could read that one hand by Eli Elezra. To me, that seems more likely than Phil concocting a story about handreading to make a point to a bunch of people who mostly already believe he plays awesome. If you disagree, I guess we just disagree, but I am really trying to look at this from as unbiased and objective a point of view as I can.