Soooo Nath thinks he knows what he's doing.

[Jeff76]

Nick- FWIW this forum has a lot of knowledge and will help you improve your game. I think it's great that you listened to what Nath was saying in the TV thread. You uncovered a different hole in your game, so now that's something else to work on.

This forum does have a tendency to ride beginner mistakes hard. Don't know why that is, but I promise if you keep posting and listen to posters like Nath, even when they are giving "tough love", your game will improve.

And certainly read Harrington on Hold Em 1 & 2 (ESPECIALLY 2).

[Soulman]

[ QUOTE ]
I did have thoughts behind it. I was constantly stealing from these two.

[/ QUOTE ]
FWIW I wasn't talking about your specific situation at all - guess I should have made that clearer.

[J.A.K.]

Thunder and OP,

I hear ya. I originally thought OP was drunk when posting. The hand is egregiously wrong pre ( and in rereading the OP is aware of this). I do not mind getting my teeth kicked in when I am wrong. It motivates me to prove my case to all the smartass responses. But in the process of often reworking the math in light of those responses I discover a leak or new thought process. It's NOT PERSONAL. How can it be when I do not know the person beyond some words in a thread? The plight of the OP has no bearing on his preflop play. These forums inherently offer people a chance to be condescending and in the process develop some "Molinas". And for me, it is my attempts to shut them up that I learn. So, in advance for all my sarcastic, imbibed responses, and humorless attempts at humor I mean no disrespect to anyone.

[Foucault]

Nicksdad,

I haven't read this whole thread, so maybe someone else said this, but based on your description of the blinds, you should have been going all in from the button every time it was folded to you no matter what you had. Seems to me your only mistake was raising less than all in. Open folding T2 would be a bigger mistake than what you did, given the circumstances.

[NicksDad1970]

I have read how anyone can win a tournament. How bad so and so sucks even though they won a big tourney.

So I wanted to ask the question. Can someone do pretty good in several different ones and still be terrible?

Now I don't play big stakes like many of you but I wonder, can I be that bad?

Now this isn't a brag compared to many of you because I realize these are small stakes. So for the most part that means lesser level of competition.

20+2 2nd place with 1800+ people
20+2 1st place with 125 people
30+3 1st place with 110 people
10+1 1st place with 100 people
10+1 2nd place with 200 or 300 people I forget
Three 5 + .50 with 400 - 600 people

Live

One win at The Gold Strike with 77 people for 1700ish
One win at the Grand in Tunica with 103 people for 2200.
Two times I've chopped at the Gold Strike. (Yesterday for about 500 and a week and a half ago for 1000.)
Probably about 12 other FT's at the Horseshoe, Gold Strike, and Grand.

There have also been countless $5-$20 SNG's that I've won.

So in conclusion (which yes that's a HUGE word for me I hope I spelled it right)I doubt I'll be beating you guys (and gals) down at any WPT or WSOP FT's anytime soon. I just don't think I can be a total joke like a few have implied.

[Jeff76]

The two issues that you have addressed so far ("Pot Odds when tournament life is on the line" and "playing EXTREMLY short stacked") are issues unique to tournamnets and ones that good poker players can miss, especially if they learned by playing cash games.

So you might be a good poker players who has been able to do well in tournaments based on a good understanding of how to play poker. However, your results will improved by learning those concepts unique to tournaments like dealing with tournament life (or more importantly the FE you get from others concerned about their tournament life, because you shouldn't be) and micro stack situations.

Unless this T2 hand is extremely atypical for you and you knew immediatly when you made the bet that it was wrong, go buy Harrington on Hold Em 2 and read it. Your results will improve, no matter what they are now.

[registrar]

I don't really get this thread.

As far as I understand it, OP was asking about the old chestnut: do pot odds dictate all (99% let's say) of our decisions on whether to call in an MTT. And the answer is 'yes' for almost all of the most successful players on this forum.

The hand and the situation he posted included a large mistake, for which OP has been pilloried. It's not a mistake I would make but I can see how it happened. You get into the habit of stealing the blinds with a certain raise size and, ooops, you get played back at and are potstuck holding 102o. However, it makes no difference in the evnt whether you raise or push in this case, because you're never folding to a rr.

Why has this thread generated so much vitriol?

[NicksDad1970]

Well let me get something else out there :

What is a squeeze play? How do I do it effectivly?
Heck, I may do it without knowing I do it.

FE = ?

I'm sure there will be more to come

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
FE = ?

[/ QUOTE ]Fold Equity.

[ QUOTE ]
What is a squeeze play? How do I do it effectivly?

[/ QUOTE ]FWIW, I have never pulled one of these yet. I'm still fairly new myself, though.

[advilandy]

[ QUOTE ]
(a well liked poster) fslexcduck makes a bad play.... reaction, Everyone is scrambling for justifications, arguing it could have been EV+ and stopping just short of pulling a rabbit out of their hat looking for any defense at all.

This sickens me, it's so transparent! What's the line, don't be results orienated? How'd this forum switch so rapidly to being poster orienated? Is it possible to focus on the actual poker and not turn this thing into a popularity contest?

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree with the fact that usually experienced posters get more respect for a move that might not be hailed as a brilliant move by one of the players starting out, but there is a reason for this.

Let me give you an example...say curtains or adanthar or whoever with 29374298347 posts decides to call with 67s in lp and totally whiffs the flop. The player that limped in mp checks, and this experienced poster pushes into weakness, gets called and loses.

Now PosterMcNoobie with 13 posts says he decides to call with 67s because he's trying to play suited connectors more and he doesn't remember what position the limper was in but villain checked on the flop so he decided to push because that's how he rolls.

PosterMcNoobie needs to learn from his mistake, and unfortunately 2p2 is the school of hard knocks for that kind of thing...adanthar was probably just asking about whether this is fairly standard against a specific opponent he doesn't have a large sample for. Basically, this is why I don't have any problem with people being critical of new players making the 'same play' as an experienced poster.

Also, if you look at these 'same plays' there is generally a difference not only in that the experienced poster has a plan already, but also in that there is probably some element of position or agressiveness that slightly differs as far as the newer poster is concerned but which makes a big difference for players that understand the situation they are in.

Going back to your basketball analogy, If a 7th grader decided to drive into the paint up against other 7th graders and made a stupid play by not recognizing he might be hurt if it turns out he can't make his shot, he should be ridiculed for not finding a better spot. For the high schoolers, this selfish play isn't stupid...it can be used to intimidate the shorter 7th graders, and it's likely they won't be hurt as they understand the way the defense is set up so as to easily exploit subtleties...also, they are big enough to dunk.

That said, I understand that an experienced poster usually gets the benefit of the doubt and isn't ridiculed for bad plays as rationalizing weak or bad play is easier for experienced posters to do.

The part I don't understand is why the injustice is being made out to be against the newer players though since they're learning and the more experienced posters making bad plays are already doing okay. This forum is for the improvement of players learning the game and meaningful discussion of those that already know its intricacies. I love the format of this forum and the standards it holds most players to, and if that's at the expense of a little deserved criticism for already-successful players, I'm okay with it.