Question about those highrollers and their skill.

[poker_n00b]

I often see Caarlfan, Lagerborg sitting at those 100/200 and 300/600 tables. Moreover they say that thesalmon owns everyone at these games.

Well, IF they are so good is it not almost like a law of nature that THEY HAVE TO POST at 2 plus 2 forums. I cannot think that they got up so high without reading 2 plus 2.

Take thesalmon. Are there any post from this guy on 2 plus 2? I guess no. How can he be that good then? I heard he earns like millions.

I mean is there another "level" of play once you know everything about the mathematical aspect. Do those guys have some extraordinary sense about their opponents, like losing minimal with their KK against AA but winning max if opponents hold QQ.

Comments please.

[IronFly]

This forum is not the be-all and end-all of poker knowledge. And you don't have to post in order to read, the number of lurkers far outnumbers posters.

Also, how do you know they haven't posted here? That's the point of anonymous message boards...

[TxRedMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I often see Caarlfan, Lagerborg sitting at those 100/200 and 300/600 tables. Moreover they say that thesalmon owns everyone at these games.

Well, IF they are so good is it not almost like a law of nature that THEY HAVE TO POST at 2 plus 2 forums. I cannot think that they got up so high without reading 2 plus 2.

Take thesalmon. Are there any post from this guy on 2 plus 2? I guess no. How can he be that good then? I heard he earns like millions.

I mean is there another "level" of play once you know everything about the mathematical aspect. Do those guys have some extraordinary sense about their opponents, like losing minimal with their KK against AA but winning max if opponents hold QQ.

Comments please.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's always another level of play.

No, there is no law of nature.

Are you trying to say that since there are so many haughty posters around here that you have to post on 2+2 to be a good high stakes player? Seems that's what you're inferring. If so, lol.


I think that you should do what I did when I joined and my posts weren't garnering much interests; go read the archives.



Tex

[phish]

you tell him, Eugene.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that you should do what I did when I joined and my posts weren't garnering much interests; go read the archives.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING DING DING.

archives are where its at. its very tedius but if you go to the bottom of the page of older archives, you'll see many great analyses by the big 3 themselves as well as other fantasticly intelligent people like Abdul Jalib, louis landale, and many others whose names are not at the top of my head right now.

as to the OP's questions, 2p2 is a mere microcosm of poker studies.

a few of the now more prominent ones are UoAlberta in canada ran by Dr. Brian Alspach, "project mayham" (lol) which is just a collection of top pros like ms and mr fekali, andre prock et. al who reside in ljubljana (the wording there is funny, andrew does not live there)

further, 2p2 works on the groundwork up. it developes analytical skills to help you beat most opponents. thus its limited by nature as to how you look at the game. this took a long time to see b/c you get accostomed to what you are surrounded by. the best players dont worry so much about #s as they do about what any given player has at a particular moment and what that means for their current and future actions (live moreso than online although SH #s i also think mean less).

the other groups who study poker also dont make themselves as public as 2p2 (pasted on the back of every 2p2 book, and referred to by people such as brian alspach above).

also, the other groups look at the game differently and are capable of "outside the box" thinking as they were never "in the box" to begin with.

anyways, theres alot more to say on this issue. to be brief:

-2p2 is a microcosm
-other strategies can beat the game by the same or larger margin than us at 2p2
-its good to never have a closed mind.

one more thought, just because you read and post on 2p2 doesn't mean you play winning poker.

Barron

[poker_n00b]

[ QUOTE ]
this may be the dumbest post ever. 2+2 won't make u a great player. In fact I got up to beating every limit online without ever reading a book other than for curiosity. I am sure they have done the same.

BTW, the GCC and I owned lager for 300k this month [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this the dumbest post ever? I am new to poker, but I guess you started directly at the top and never asked a seemingly silly question. For me, 2 plus 2 is THE POKER authority and is it not right to question how high rollers think about this?

Ok, to the other part of your reply. You imply that the poker books did not had significant impact on your win rate. How were you able to beat the games then I ask? Did you come up with implied odds yourself, did you develop skill recognizing betting patterns, did you play very many hands per day?

What I want to say, there must be a source of your talent at poker (let's call it like that) other than books. What would you say had the largest impact on your winrate.

Did you read Small Stakes Hold 'Em by Ed Miller (I know, you're highroller but anyways)

At what site do you play against Lagerborg?

Thank you.

[poker_n00b]

[ QUOTE ]

DING DING DING.

archives are where its at. its very tedius but if you go to the bottom of the page of older archives, you'll see many great analyses by the big 3 themselves as well as other fantasticly intelligent people like Abdul Jalib, louis landale, and many others whose names are not at the top of my head right now.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are sooooooo many posts in the archive, that I just don't know which one to pop up. And to whom do you refer by the big 3 themselves?

[ QUOTE ]


as to the OP's questions, 2p2 is a mere microcosm of poker studies.

a few of the now more prominent ones are UoAlberta in canada ran by Dr. Brian Alspach, "project mayham" (lol) which is just a collection of top pros like ms and mr fekali, andre prock et. al who reside in ljubljana (the wording there is funny, andrew does not live there)


[/ QUOTE ]
I am going to search more info bout that.

[ QUOTE ]


further, 2p2 works on the groundwork up. it developes analytical skills to help you beat most opponents. thus its limited by nature as to how you look at the game. this took a long time to see b/c you get accostomed to what you are surrounded by. the best players dont worry so much about #s as they do about what any given player has at a particular moment and what that means for their current and future actions (live moreso than online although SH #s i also think mean less).


[/ QUOTE ]
So if they dont worry about the numbers, do they like draw to a gutshot draw even when impied odds do not justify it?

What is SH?

So you say the real good one players focus more on reads and predictions about what the other player hole cards are?

[ QUOTE ]


the other groups who study poker also dont make themselves as public as 2p2 (pasted on the back of every 2p2 book, and referred to by people such as brian alspach above).

also, the other groups look at the game differently and are capable of "outside the box" thinking as they were never "in the box" to begin with.


[/ QUOTE ]

This part made me extremely curious. Damn I want to read about what this outside thinking means.

[ QUOTE ]


anyways, theres alot more to say on this issue. to be brief:

-2p2 is a microcosm
-other strategies can beat the game by the same or larger margin than us at 2p2
-its good to never have a closed mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

what other strategies? I know it sounds silly but damn I want to know them.

[ QUOTE ]


one more thought, just because you read and post on 2p2 doesn't mean you play winning poker.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I am/was of opinion, playing pro poker = you must post on p2p.

Thanks, I hope you reply.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

DING DING DING.

archives are where its at. its very tedius but if you go to the bottom of the page of older archives, you'll see many great analyses by the big 3 themselves as well as other fantasticly intelligent people like Abdul Jalib, louis landale, and many others whose names are not at the top of my head right now.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are sooooooo many posts in the archive, that I just don't know which one to pop up. And to whom do you refer by the big 3 themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

david mason and ray.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]


as to the OP's questions, 2p2 is a mere microcosm of poker studies.

a few of the now more prominent ones are UoAlberta in canada ran by Dr. Brian Alspach, "project mayham" (lol) which is just a collection of top pros like ms and mr fekali, andre prock et. al who reside in ljubljana (the wording there is funny, andrew does not live there)


[/ QUOTE ]
I am going to search more info bout that.

[ QUOTE ]


further, 2p2 works on the groundwork up. it developes analytical skills to help you beat most opponents. thus its limited by nature as to how you look at the game. this took a long time to see b/c you get accostomed to what you are surrounded by. the best players dont worry so much about #s as they do about what any given player has at a particular moment and what that means for their current and future actions (live moreso than online although SH #s i also think mean less).


[/ QUOTE ]
So if they dont worry about the numbers, do they like draw to a gutshot draw even when impied odds do not justify it?

What is SH?


[/ QUOTE ]

short handed. and the #s i am referring to is how most pros look at opponents: via pokertracker and playerview etc.

these programs track opponents actions and give averages of all the distributions of their actions for, lets say preflop. but these #s are sometimes wrong in that they give the wrong impression about the opponent. this is exacerbated SH.

[ QUOTE ]

So you say the real good one players focus more on reads and predictions about what the other player hole cards are?

[ QUOTE ]


the other groups who study poker also dont make themselves as public as 2p2 (pasted on the back of every 2p2 book, and referred to by people such as brian alspach above).

also, the other groups look at the game differently and are capable of "outside the box" thinking as they were never "in the box" to begin with.


[/ QUOTE ]

This part made me extremely curious. Damn I want to read about what this outside thinking means.

[ QUOTE ]


anyways, theres alot more to say on this issue. to be brief:

-2p2 is a microcosm
-other strategies can beat the game by the same or larger margin than us at 2p2
-its good to never have a closed mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

what other strategies? I know it sounds silly but damn I want to know them.

[/ QUOTE ]

strategies like raising with gutshots on the turn and capping when 3 bet to gain fold equity on the river. things we'd never think about doing most of the time.

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]


one more thought, just because you read and post on 2p2 doesn't mean you play winning poker.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I am/was of opinion, playing pro poker = you must post on p2p.

Thanks, I hope you reply.

[/ QUOTE ]

that assumption is based on your observation and implicitly assumes you know everything about being a pro. not good to assume strong things like that in poker.

hope this helps

Barron

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Take thesalmon. Are there any post from this guy on 2 plus 2? I guess no.

[/ QUOTE ]

thesalmon=Erik Sagstrom? Erik used to post here awhile ago.