Giga the hustler??? - Page 7

Daddy Warbucks · #61 12-22-2006, 07:29 AM

Bluff,

No, it doesn't. That's an assumption you've made.

BluffTHIS! · #62 12-22-2006, 07:31 AM

Daddy,

Then why don't you go make some threads in the tourney forum to discuss Giga's profound new theoretical breakthroughs, and see how many *winning* tourney players there agree with same?

Daddy Warbucks · #63 12-22-2006, 07:34 AM

Because many of the ideas that have been praised by well respected online and live tournament players were never posted on 2+2.

Daddy Warbucks · #64 12-22-2006, 07:41 AM

Also, your implication that Giga is not a winning tournament player because he was busto was again a huge assumption. He was a cash game fish, and a habitual prop bettor, but i'm not sure he was a loser in tournaments and stts.

BluffTHIS! · #65 12-22-2006, 07:41 AM

Daddy,

Just to clarify a couple things about your views of Giga. Do you agree, apart from his poker theories, and in line with what El D and others have said, that Giga has in fact been a con man in financial matters in the past? Also do you think it likely he multi-accounted tourneys?

Daddy Warbucks · #66 12-22-2006, 07:43 AM

Yes, i agree on both those things(i'm 99% certain he multi accounted), but like i've said, neither of those things reflect on a persons ability to write poker strategy or are at all relevant to my question. It's just another example of you not being able to see the wood from the trees.

BluffTHIS! · #67 12-22-2006, 07:54 AM

Daddy,

The real question is actually related to your earlier post:

[ QUOTE ]
Because many of the ideas that have been praised by well respected online and live tournament players were never posted on 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I have no doubt that is true, i.e. many new poker ideas never appeared here first, or in 2+2 writings. But surely if they are actually correct, then they would be discussed here later and the theoretical and mathematical reasons for their validity, if any, determined. And yet that doesn't seem to be the case, though I could be wrong I as rarely read the tourney forums and am mainly going on references in other forums to Giga's theories being mathematically unsound and incomprehensible, and that the only reason some accept those theories despite that is due to his tourney results which have the taint of cheating, at least online (which is the point I have been making although I don't disagree that in general that it is possible, though less likely, that a cheater can come up with some new valid theories).

And indeed that brings up another point. I see these references to dubious plays he made in online tourneys as the occasion for his giving some of these far-fetched theories. Yet has he ever been actually seen to make those same types of plays in live tourneys?

Also as a side note, have you followed the back and forth between David Sklansky and Arnold Snyder on his theories? It comes to mind then, that Sklansky's special forum and his question threads might be a good place to put to him some of Giga's theories if you could frame them properly there.

Daddy Warbucks · #68 12-22-2006, 08:07 AM

Gigabet actually put forward very few actual theories on 2+2. Probably less than 5. Likewise, the people praising were often times not 2+2ers, or people who didn't post very often. Without doubt though, these people were winning tournament players.

And if i understand you correctly, you're implying that he made up these theories to cover up some sort of chip dumping? You might want to consider that the origin of the "block theory" post came from another 2+2er complaining about a suckout. And yes, i believe he has made these live as well.

And no, i generally steer clear of any debate involving DS. I also wouldn't try defend something i neither use nor fully understand.

samsdmf · #69 12-22-2006, 08:28 AM

Hes 1m up B+M tornys the last 2 years- his results dont reflect those of a Busto online cheater

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/play...=s&n=42079

El Diablo · #70 12-22-2006, 08:48 AM

sam,

"Hes 1m up B+M tornys the last 2 years"

Actually, subtract the amount his backers paid for tourney buyins, tourney expenses, and loans from 1m first, then if that number is positive, multiply that amount by the percentage he gets. If he's up from playing those tourneys, that's the amount he's up, not 1m.