Alan Goerhing

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
The one thing your failing to mention is if he keeps calling with dominated marginal hands he eventaully will run into a situaiton whhere he will go bust or lose a ton of chips when he flops top pair against an over pair or set. Let say he has his usual 94s and flop comes 9 high and opponent has an overpair. Its bye bye Alan. This is a key to why those hands shouldnt be calling raises when blinds are high. As once he get invovled it will be too late to get away from it because by the time he finds out the guy has an overpair he will have dumped off too many to fold.

And i doubt anyone doesnt want to be in a pot wiht Alan. Why would they? You have a very good chance of getitng doubled up everytime he plays. you gonna have the best hand most of the time and your less likely to put alot of chips in with the worst hand than he is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm sure he always goes broke with 100bb+ stacks with a pair of 9s, 4 kicker.
-James

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
YOU HAVE PLAYED AN INSIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF VERY HIGH VARIANCE LIVE MTTS. RESULTS ARE NOT A BIG FACTOR. Again, you are showing your complete lack of understanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right. I was just reviewing my last 27 $10k+ NLH WPT events over the last 3+ years, and the random odds of cashing in the top 10% 11 times (or more), as I have, are about 35,390 to 1. Better wait for more data.

Oh, and the random odds of being chipleader for most of day 2 at the LAPC for the last three consectutive years are 142,217,071 to 1. Could be I am a pretty good chip accumulator, or maybe I was just "running good".


BTW, the random odds of winning two of these $10k+ NL WPT events was only roughly 270-1 against (explains why five people have done it).

[/ QUOTE ]

Alan, I don't think anyone disputes that you've had great results. The problem with using results as an indicator of poker skill is that they are almost always used as evidence after the fact when the luck has all been fleshed out. If you ran badly over this time(surely you realize it would have been more than possible for you to finish down over merely 27 events) it wouldn't indicate that you are a bad player. Results are more useful in poker when they back up predictions, not after they have already happened. It's overwhelmingly likely that you are a good player who has also run well - I don't think this should be taken as a slight to your abilities at all.

The way you are citing your results, how improbable your results are, and then saying you never said you were a good player all seems a little backwards. You don't need to prove anything to us. Poker is about making the right decisions. If you feel like you have made the right decisions on a hand to hand basis(with metagame considerations in mind in some cass), and other experts with extensive knowledge of your style agree, then you probably have. I just don't see why poker players always take offense when people point out that they have been fortunate. You have been very fortunate to have those results over 27 tournaments, and will be very fortunate to continue to have these results if you do. You may bust in your next 27 tournaments before cashing. If you do, it won't be indicative that you are a better or worse player than the first 27 tournament sample.
-James

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
He may be good the point is that none of them will be as good as Smoothcall. I would take him over any of these players. There may be only one or two that can compete with
Smoothcall. These guys have endorsements and Smoothcall has none and still makes a lot of money each month and that is a lot more then most tournament winners. Sometimes I wonder where the heads of these companies brains lie. They give endorsements to players who cannot play as good as the real good players do and then try to pump them up. The player who is really taking down the money who is also famous is not even asking for endorsements. These companies should be seeking him out. Many long time pros have not even been asked to wear a Jacket for 1000 dollars. This is why I say bring on the Goerhings, Hellmuths and the Mortensons. We shall see who the best is when they try to play Smoothcall. Smoothcall like he does to most other players in the world will destroy them and I don't care if it is a freezeout, a tournament format or a live game. Take it Limit or No Limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude, April Fool's was LAST month.

[Alan Goehring]

[ QUOTE ]
Results are more useful in poker when they back up predictions, not after they have already happened.-James

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. My point was you don't need to play 10,000 events to start drawing a conlcusion that it is likely that more than luck is at play ---now we only have to agree on degrees of confidence, whether 27 data points or 50 or 60, etc.

Which brings me to my original point earlier in this thread----I think most players (not talking about me) have a rough idea of what their "long term" payback rate is in tourney's, albeit not to the exact percentage. I am not saying they are likely to hit that percentage near term (and to a degree even long term), partly due to the sporadic occurances of 1st place finishes (and associated huge skewed payout)----just that they know their approximate "expectation".

Since this discussion/debate may start going in circles, and I have a feeling that I am heavily outnumbered and can "not win", lets leave it at that. Who knows, since I don't play cash games, maybe you guys really do know more about variance. You can have the last word if you want, but I am done.

[inferno]

this thread sux

[Qbit]

Most fools would think these players can play all real players can make chump change of these players. I am just saying bring on the match and bring on these players. It won't happen because now that they have the reputation they wont take a chance and ruin it. But I would sure like to see the match. Maybe the hypsters will realize they at these players are not as good as they say. Smoothcall is still a 2to1 favorite still one of best.

[fnord_too]

Alan,

I don't think you are outnumbered, it's just that there is no real point in participating in this thread. There are a bunch of trolls doing there thing, and a few people saying things that are not hugely insightful. (The confidence interval stuff has been beaten to death, James retated the scientice method, trolls are trolling, *yawn*).

If you started a thread (either as yourself or with another account, to keep the trolling down) on something more theoretical, I think that would be great. I know you don't want to reveal too much of your strategy, so that may not work. A thread on say cashing equity would be interesting. There have been a couple of theories on cashing equity as it relates to stack size. Have you worked on a cashing equity model or do you just intuit cashing equity when making big decisions?

Here's another (related) topic that could use a good (intelligent) discussion:
Mason has stated in one of his essays that in tournaments it is better to embrace variance early in order to mitigate it later. What are your thoughts on that idea? If you agree, when does early become later? Is early/later cyclical? Does this concept's validity wax and wane depending on skill and/or style?

I think (maybe) those are topics you can talk about without giving up too much, though again you may want to create a second account for serious discussion.

[NicksDad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course i am a little agitated. You dids and some others attacked me for no reason. I said or did nothing to you. I had a conversation with Alan G. He made some statements that were very insulting and untrue imo about Phil hellmuth nd i called him on it. What is worng with that? I am not driving Alan away. I just questioned his bold claims is all. Do you really think little old me is gonna scare aay poker authorities becasue i disagee with them? Do you really think the man is that thin skinned? You just don't like it becasue you believe in kissing butt to celebrities i think. I don't. I judge them like any other poster. If i think he says somthing correct i will say so. But i feel he was incorrect. I'm not trying to drive alan or any other celebritiy away. But i dont feel they can make any bold claim they want and i cant quesiton it becasue you and others dont like it. I would like to se Alan post more. He seems like a nice and smart guy and would be great contributer to the forum. I just dont agree with his sttements about hellmuth compared to him. I dont see Alan's play much more complex than hellmuths like he said.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do but it doesnt make it correct. I'm a nice guy. I stick to the facts ALL the time and like good discussion. I got a bad rep here and i may never be able to change that. But it doesnt mean i dont have the right to speak my mind in a discussion. If you notice i always keep to the facts and dont resort to insults like everyone who is agaisnt me does. Maybe they are worng and not me? Anyway i got nothing agaisnt yuou but you posted to me about what im doing wotng with my posts so i am only defending myself. Notice i never told you how or how you should post. Feel free to speak what you like. I wish you would feel i hd the same right. I hope no hard feelings and i'll try to be even nicer than i already am to the celebs to make you guys happy if thats what i need to do for you guys to not give me such a hard time. But if they make statements llike Alan did i will call them out. But in a nice way. And i don't see Alan G. as an authority on poker. Just becasue you feel he is doesn't make i so. He seems like a nice guy and probbaly a smart guy. But i dont agree an authority on poker jmo. And if you asked many other tourney pros i think they would tell you the same thing i just said as i have heard that before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't take this as a flame please. But whether it's intentinal or not I believe you are driving (or you already drove) Alan away.

Maybe you could use a little tact.

If I'm wrong then forgive me but weren't you having one of these arguments, flame wars, discussions with Paul Phillips before he left?

IMHO, there are many well known pros that have left or never posted because so many people give them crap. They seem to feel it isn't worth their time to come here and get crapped on. I don't feel they should get godlike status where they can do and say anything they want w/o people pushing back. But I don't think this is the case here.

How many pros don't even post anymore?

Paul P
BarryG1

Probably many more. I may be wrong here but I thought Todd B said the same thing.

[Clayton]

[ QUOTE ]
Vince,

I'll delete insulting posts, but Clayton's stays. Taking what Clayton said and referencing it as Clayton suggestion that Mason is lying is exactly the kind of thing that makes people compare you to Smoothcall. There's nothing wrong with somebody making that inference.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Most fools would think these players can play all real players can make chump change of these players. I am just saying bring on the match and bring on these players. It won't happen because now that they have the reputation they wont take a chance and ruin it. But I would sure like to see the match. Maybe the hypsters will realize they at these players are not as good as they say. Smoothcall is still a 2to1 favorite still one of best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are you? And who is this mysterious "smoothcall" who has apparently done so well in higher-stakes games that I have yet to hear from him?

Enlighten me as to his identity and some showing of his results, and perhaps I can take you seriously.

Or are you just a buddy of his he called up to defend him on an Internet message board? Or are you Vince Lepore down the street at the Internet cafe?