High Stakes Poker thread (10/29 - spoilers possible)

[JDesab]

no you are wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

But show a player making a few preflop folds and a nitty postflop fold and he's "scared", "outclassed", "uncomfortable"

[/ QUOTE ]

a few? do you understate intentionally?

[ QUOTE ]
I guess nobody there had any idea of my reputation and playing style, because I have never been accused of being a nit before that day. Usually I get ‘station’ ‘monkey’ or ‘FPS-machine’. I also had less than 50 hands to show what I had.

[/ QUOTE ]
so, let's say you have a friend that you play with at game A. everytime you play with him he seems to play a quality game. you invite him to play in another game where he's unknown. the game is a bit higher with better players. he shows up at that game.. plays for a couple hours and only plays 3 or 4 hands. you see that two of them are QQ and JJ. after the session in the car on the way home he says this to you...
[ QUOTE ]

from jmans report of HSP....
I guess nobody there had any idea of my reputation and playing style, because I have never been accused of being a nit before that day. Usually I get ‘station’ ‘monkey’ or ‘FPS-machine’. I also had less than 50 hands to show what I had.

[/ QUOTE ]
would you not say to your friend... they called you that because that's how you came across.
he then goes on to make this claim....
[ QUOTE ]
I would’ve salivated over playing any of them HU. (Maybe wouldn’t have salivated over one or two but would surely be a favorite)

[/ QUOTE ]

would you not then say to your friend...
"how do you know such a thing. you didn't tangle with any of them even once. well once you bet the flop when you hit a set but how can you say such a thing."

or would you simply sit in the passenger seat and say....
"hell yeah.. you'd wipe them all out. one by one ... just like rambo."

pick one.

by the way the following ...
[ QUOTE ]
I also had less than 50 hands to show what I had.


[/ QUOTE ] is often correctly called an excuse

[/ QUOTE ]


jman is the one who says he'd have liked the chance to "show america" his skill. this leaves him open to criticism. he is the one that has invited it.

we also have another great comment from your expert. who wanted to impress all of his railbirds.

from jman's report....
[ QUOTE ]
There was another hand that I wasn't a part of where one player shoved the river for about 2/5 pot after check-raising the turn. The other player tanks, saying his hand is as good as ace high. People started to chatter about what he could possibly have, which made me feel awesome since I was 90% sure he had 88-JJ with one club and was calling the turn in hopes for a club to hit or a free showdown and was folding to a river bet. After he folded, Negreanu said that he knew the one player would never bluff there, and I thought to myself how I'd always bluffshove that river. I’m looking forward to seeing that hand to check my read.

[/ QUOTE ]

does it not make it look like jman was grandstanding in his report in making it sound like he had this great read on eli. when we see the hand play out we all hear eli admit to having a pp under the Q. to steal a thought from Gabe. "wow, great read Mr. Galfond, great hearing as well".

this guy comes across as disingenuous, and arrogant. he thinks that 5 internit pros could take on 5 of the proven best in the game and win!!!
[ QUOTE ]
I would love if someone would do a show where Me, durrr, Aba, and two more (Not saying I’m necessarily one of the best 5 online players and don’t wanna make a top 5 list) each play HU v Ivey, Doyle, Negreanu, etc. Like, we each pair up with a pro and play best of 3 HU 200bb freezouts. Each team puts up $2mm or whatever and whichever team wins most out of 5 splits the prize amongst themselves. Online pros v Live pros. Then maybe America would realize how it really is. Anyways, I’m ranting now.

[/ QUOTE ]

are all internits convinced that the internet pros are better than the recognized greats of the game?

i happen to think if any 5 on 5 challenge were to ever come about that the kids from the net would be sorely mistaken. do a search on phil galfond on youtube. you won't find much .. but.. there is nothing there impressive about his play.

[ QUOTE ]
It pales into insignificance beside the errors that are made like 10 times an episode by other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

none of the other players on that show have posted a "report" here leaving his report and the episode that we all have seen open for discussion. furthermore... i found it extremely self absorbed his claim that he'd crush all the players at that table heads up and also that he would at the least be the favorite against all of them.

my point about his play is this.... if he was so confident that he was the best player at the table... then where was his confidence to mix it up with some of the aggrodonks he was up against? i'm sure you'd say he saw 50 hands of nonstop trash. i'm glad you have such strong belief. it's kind of like my trust and belief in the steelers of the 70's to beat every team they faced..then again when i was a 12 y.o. watching those steelers those steelers had won 4 super bowls. they had earned my faith.

jman is a big fish in a small pond. if he keeps stepping up to the majors he may become an accomplished player there too. let's wait to call him that til he puts up the results. because as of yet, he's totally unproven.

[ QUOTE ]
Farha can do completely spastic things like make that K7o call and you just respond by spouting meaningless cliches about how he "has gamble"

[/ QUOTE ]
the cliche's get spouted because there really isn't a better explanation for why sammy would call there. he does it often enough that you just expect it from him.

[futuredoc85]

jdesab et. al.- i am but a lowly 2-4- 5/10 inerNIT player who will be in vegas later this month. Id be happy to play any of you HU as deepstacked as you like at 5/10 or 10/20 live with reads and everything if any of the "strategy" you guys are posting is not meant to be sarcastic. think about the fun you will have posting about how you destroyed a lowly online donk.

[inyourface]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jman folded in a marginal situation, that's the only thing you can say about that hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Newsflash Einstein, the marginal situations are the ones that separate winners from losers. Or more appropriately in this situation getting a seat on day 3 or not getting a seat by playing scared, nittish, absolutely silent and non-entertaining poker.

I hope that explains marginal situations for you

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty much completely wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really believe this and aren't just trolling the thread you are an idiot and a losing poker player for sure.

[futuredoc85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jman folded in a marginal situation, that's the only thing you can say about that hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Newsflash Einstein, the marginal situations are the ones that separate winners from losers. Or more appropriately in this situation getting a seat on day 3 or not getting a seat by playing scared, nittish, absolutely silent and non-entertaining poker.

I hope that explains marginal situations for you

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty much completely wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really believe this and aren't just trolling the thread you are an idiot and a losing poker player for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

so then my post above would interest you then?

[JDesab]

as usual... you guys can't have extended conversation. you can't acknowledge points made and make grown up replies to anything in particular. simply end it with some testosterone filled challenge.

i won't be in vegas this month. sorry to disappoint you.

do you have any replies to the message i left?

do you know why the guy would come away from that game thinking he's "a favorite" against all of those players? do you disagree with my point that it was dinengenuous to claim his read on eli's 88 hand?
that is the substance of the post.

[futuredoc85]

jdesab- i specifically referenced your poker strategy. As far as your post im not reading any farther than "proven best" because most of that table is pretty bad at NLHE. I have played w/ ME winners and TV pros before and most of them are garbage. There are definitely some that are exceptions to this but "proven best in the game" really had me laughing so i cant go any farther since i dont realy care.

As far as how good for TV he is or whether he was misleading ppl with his report, i havent really argued about any of that b/c it doesnt interest me in the slightest. All ive said repeatedly is that if you think you're in a position to comment on his poke skill relative to the people at that table you're laughably wrong. Also i use your name every time b/c its the only one i can remember im not trying to call you out over and over

[JDesab]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jman folded in a marginal situation, that's the only thing you can say about that hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Newsflash Einstein, the marginal situations are the ones that separate winners from losers. Or more appropriately in this situation getting a seat on day 3 or not getting a seat by playing scared, nittish, absolutely silent and non-entertaining poker.

I hope that explains marginal situations for you

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't necessarily agree with what you say as it is written. what i'd say is that a winning player is one that doesn't always fold when he finds himself with a marginal holding.

[JDesab]

[ QUOTE ]
jdesab- i specifically referenced your poker strategy. As far as your post im not reading any farther than "proven best" because most of that table is pretty bad at NLHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh well. perhaps i overstated. i do think that you "can" agree that they are "proven" .... you can't possibly have the years in the game and not be considered expert. can you?

[inyourface]

[ QUOTE ]
so then my post above would interest you then?

[/ QUOTE ]

only if you want to pay for my transatlantic flights

[futuredoc85]

i can agree that they are/were proven to be the best of the pre-moneymaker boom generation. However, I think the game has changed and is changing so fast that they are only really "world class" when playing against the people they came up playing against in the first place. Although i can def admit that saying they are "bad" is overstating since any winning player at any stake is way the [censored] above average obviously. So basically yes they were the best in the world at one time, no they (most of them) are not in that category anymore, at least not to the point where anyone is going to know whether someone the caliber of J-man, adams, townsend etc. is outclassed in 50 hands. I basically think the only thing that anyone (posting here at least) really knows about J-man's edge if any in that game is that 50 hands proves nothing either way.