[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]


Forgive me but I am truly horrible at poker. Who is correct with respect to Brandi's play in this HU?


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow that thread is so hard to read. If Brandi had 4c2c, she had a flush draw but not a nutflush draw. So she would have been embellishing the truth a little. Or misremembering the hand. Sometimes bad players misremember hands. The thing is, she didn't even need to describe it as the nutflush. When telling a story, bad players often exaggerate how good their hand was, sometimes they are lying to themselves and sometimes they are lying to make their side of the story seem better. It's hard to tell which, here. Similar with her depiction of her opponent.

I think Maple Leaf's post that she had a straightflush draw was a sarcastic joke (she needed 2 more cards, not one), but the Tippy quote you gave is also strange and probably wrong. I won't even go into it because the exchange was boring and silly.

On the specific hand, she played it fine. Maybe there are better ways to play it, but her way was far from terrible. However, the trademark of a very weak poker player is that they think their opponents are idiots. Thus Brandi's description of her opponent, since it was so wrong, sets off alarm bells. As does some of the replies to her in that thread.

However, Sklansky likely is teaching her a mechanical way to play, so that she can win even without understanding her opponents. The flaws in poker tournament structure make it possible to do well with a relatively mechanical, robotic style.