Durrrr playing 10-20nl

[r3vbr]

Durr won way more than 1M last year, I'm thinking closed to 2M than 1M.

[Pudge714]

I love the following chain of events.
From a while
1. People post a hand durrr lost a big pot in
2. BluffThis says durrr plays bad.
3. People say durr plays good.
4. BluffThis say durrr plays bad, but refuses to play him HU.

In the present
5. Durrr loses money according to dataminers.
6. BluffThis is somewhat happy that durr will be busto.

In the near future
6. BluffThis refuses to play durrr in PLO

[Gobias Ind.]

[ QUOTE ]
Durr won way more than 1M last year, I'm thinking closed to 2M than 1M.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have numbers/facts to support this assumption??

There's a big difference having made $1m and $2m

[BluffTHIS!]

PudgeDaDrudge,

My comments in this thread aren't directed toward durrr really as I don't care about him per se, but rather to his fanboys like you.

The following are characteristics of such fanboys who thus show themselves to be suckers in many areas of life even if they are moderately or even highly skilled in one form of poker:

1) They equate short term positive results with poker playing ability.

2) They think a HU match is the proper way to determine who is correct about strategy advice in either specific situations or in general instead of an ability to give sound theoretical/mathematical reasons for such advice.

3) Despite as mentioned in #2 their idol not being able to give sound reasons for why he says he would make a certain play, and despite the results alluded to in #1 going south and thus nullifying that wrong basis for a belief their hero is a great player, they then refuse to alter their judgement of said hero and continue to suck his nuts and hate on those who point out the faulty standards upon which they base their judgement of their cherished icon.


The bottom line Pudge, is that you have very poor judgement of the abilities of poker players, likely including yourself.

[demon102]

[ QUOTE ]
PudgeDaDrudge,

3) Despite as mentioned in #2 their idol not being able to give sound reasons for why he says he would make a certain play, and despite the results alluded to in #1 going south and thus nullifying that wrong basis for a belief their hero is a great player, they then refuse to alter their judgement of said hero and continue to suck his nuts and hate on those who point out the faulty standards upon which they base their judgement of their cherished icon.




[/ QUOTE ]


HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Eagles]

Bluffthis,
Durr may practice poor game selection however he is clearly a very good player judging by the fact he was a very big winner at 10/20 and 25/50

edit: Judging people on isolated hands is a good way to determine their ability.

[PartyGirlUK]

Funniest thing is the main technical criticism that BluffThis made of Durrrr's PLO play (in a previous NVG thread), BluffThis was 100% wrong.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]


My comments in this thread aren't directed toward durrr really as I don't care about him per se, but rather to his fanboys like you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have met durrr in real life several times. I'm not just an random internet fanboy.
[ QUOTE ]

The following are characteristics of such fanboys who thus show themselves to be suckers in many areas of life even if they are moderately or even highly skilled in one form of poker:

[/ QUOTE ]
For someone who is so verbose you seem to use sucker way too often, just a general observation.

[ QUOTE ]

1) They equate short term positive results with poker playing ability.

[/ QUOTE ]
You realize you are assuming the opposite that short term negative results result in poker playing ability. Regardless there is enough long term evidence to conclude durrr is a very good player and winning player, whether he is good enough to beat Antonius, Benyamine, Ivey, etc. in HU 200/400 PLO is still TBD.
[ QUOTE ]

2) They think a HU match is the proper way to determine who is correct about strategy advice in either specific situations or in general instead of an ability to give sound theoretical/mathematical reasons for such advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

A HU match isn't the best way to determine who is giving advice, however if you think he is making so many categorical mistakes in short handed and HU games it would make sense that you think you are +EV against him and therefore would want to play him.

[ QUOTE ]

3) Despite as mentioned in #2 their idol not being able to give sound reasons for why he says he would make a certain play, and despite the results alluded to in #1 going south and thus nullifying that wrong basis for a belief their hero is a great player, they then refuse to alter their judgement of said hero and continue to suck his nuts and hate on those who point out the faulty standards upon which they base their judgement of their cherished icon.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the threads where you disagreed with durrr or his play consider the following.
1. durrr has played with all these people so he knows how they play.
2. durrr may have had specific timing tells, flow of game reads, previous history with opponent that you are unaware of.
3. durrr could have just made a bad read.

Also just because he doesn't post his reasoning doesn't mean he is incapable of coming up with the correct reasoning it means he doesn't want to post strategy on a public forum which his opponents reads.

[ QUOTE ]

The bottom line Pudge, is that you have very poor judgement of the abilities of poker players, likely including yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

[BluffTHIS!]

eagle,

You're still dealing with the short term.

Judging the reasoning posters give for a recommended play is the better way of determining their ability. And when their habitual reply is something like " . . .i'd call here and raise some other times . . ." or crap like that with no explanation for why for various alternatives, it is indicative that they just don't know, at least to the degree of being an expert in a certain form of poker. Of course the fanboy nuthuggers will just say that's because they can't afford to share that super-advanced secret strategy knowledge they have, when they have given zero indication of actually possessing such knowledge.

But it's a free country and the gullible can believe what they want.

[Eagles]

Bluff,
When i mentioned the isolated hand I was being sarcastic, obviously it's a terrible way to judge how good someone is yet you seem to frequently use the logic durr played a hand badly therefore durr is bad.

The fact that you said "Judging the reasoning posters give for a recommended play is the better way of determining their ability." shows that you are completely clueless and it also is irrelevant because durr never posted strategy about those plo hands.

You can call me a gullible nuthugger but it's better than being a bitter old man