Brandi: Why does she bother?

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
katy, do you feel the same way about Vanessa Rouso ?

What about the other women that frequent 2+2, or only post infrequently but in threads about them?

Do you think these threads are just about being in the public eye, kinda like celebrity gossip stories?


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't followed the whole story, but from what I have seen, the Vanessa Rousso business is a far better example of twoplustwo jumping down a woman's throat because she is a woman. All I know from Vanessa Rousso is that I saw her on a CNBC program, and from her quick description of game theory I got the sense that she has it down better than 99% of twoplustwo posters. But people jump down her throat because she uses the words "aggressive call". Rather than giving benefit of the doubt and trying to understand her meaning, everyone assumes she is an idiot. (Not to say she is not one, I just see twoplustwo jumping to bold conclusions based on little evidence).

Brandi uses twoplustwo as a megaphone. Back before she was infamous she mentioned she was getting an agent. She parlayed her reputation in her attempt to bring down Captain Tom. After that, she has only posted for (1) Vengence, to portray someone she dislikes in a negative light. She can still achieve that, even with her current rep (2) When a particular inflammatory post gets to her, and she wants to refute facts. I don't think she hopes to persuade anyone in her posts anymore, or maybe only people she knows IRL. On Brandi, NVG has it a little bit wrong as well, in that on one hand she is portrayed as this criminal mastermind but on the other hand they believe she ain't too bright.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
FYI, this is how psychologists diagnose many of these "disorders." They get this pamphlet, ask you 10 questions, and you answer them. Then they go, you need to answer yes to 7 of these for a positive diagnosis. You answered yes on 8. You have disorder x.

My point being, one could very plausibly make a diagnosis without having met the person first hand. We're not offering court testimony, just gossip... geez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, I think many of these questionairres psychologists do are actually job applications -- for themselves. What do you know, at the end, it so often turns out that ... you should hire a psychologist! Wow, who knew??? What are the chances of that!

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FYI, this is how psychologists diagnose many of these "disorders." They get this pamphlet, ask you 10 questions, and you answer them. Then they go, you need to answer yes to 7 of these for a positive diagnosis. You answered yes on 8. You have disorder x.

My point being, one could very plausibly make a diagnosis without having met the person first hand. We're not offering court testimony, just gossip... geez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I guess you're right about the gossip comment. I guess it comes with the territory!
She did start that one post which came across as looking for sympathy. So I know she opened herself up to it.

I guess I sort of feel sorry for her. I mean she has friends and family who will see horrible things written about her when they google her and I really hate to see that. I think she regrets her part in all this. But I still wonder if facts were distorted. I don't think her "wrongdoings" were quite as awful as people made them out to be. I just hope people give her another chance to redeem herself. Like Sniper said, "it's up to her to display poker skills to warrant the attention."

Being here on an internet forum month in and month out, sometimes you're witness to people who ruin their internet reputation. It made me wonder whether one can actually redeem themselves on the internet. You know, can you fix a reputation? I find myself pondering stuff like this [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]. When it comes to some of these 2+2 girls I often wonder if they could just start posting again and recover their reputation. My gut feeling is that I think they could.

[/ QUOTE ]

Katie, you're not probing this subject to see if you could sell some anal for a quick $10k cash yo and still be thought of as a nice girl, are you? Because you could probably pull down bigger bucks.

[Sniper]

What's your read on this Brandi story , katy?

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FYI, this is how psychologists diagnose many of these "disorders." They get this pamphlet, ask you 10 questions, and you answer them. Then they go, you need to answer yes to 7 of these for a positive diagnosis. You answered yes on 8. You have disorder x.

My point being, one could very plausibly make a diagnosis without having met the person first hand. We're not offering court testimony, just gossip... geez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, I think many of these questionairres psychologists do are actually job applications -- for themselves. What do you know, at the end, it so often turns out that ... you should hire a psychologist! Wow, who knew??? What are the chances of that!

[/ QUOTE ]

Blarg, this is not all that surprising... most people who go to a psychologist/psychiatrist, already know there is a problem. They generally just need help figuring it out, or working thru it.

[born42slippy]

my biggest prob is learning all about poker so slowly, lol all is good when you can just think you are having too much fun

[katyseagull]

[ QUOTE ]
What's your read on this Brandi story , katy?

[/ QUOTE ]


Hm. She appears to have a wee bit of a credibility problem here. Like one of the guys said in that thread, maybe she shouldn't post on 2+2 until the series is over. People are just going to tear apart her every move. (sheesh. poker players! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])


In that thread Ditch Digger posted this -

[ QUOTE ]
Well without chip stacks and other info about the player you have no clue whether she overplayed it or not. Bottom 2 with a flush draw is pretty well the nuts heads up.

[/ QUOTE ]


But tippy posted -

[ QUOTE ]
Quite a bit of difference between a straight flush draw and a nut flush draw, friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

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


Also, you have to admit that Brandi is entertaining. However, if she's not clear that it's a NL event, maybe she isn't getting enough sleep! I think she needs more sleep is what I think. DS says she's a better player than people give her credit for.


Good advice in that thread to brandi - try substituting the word "conservative" for "weak" when talking about other posters on a forum.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FYI, this is how psychologists diagnose many of these "disorders." They get this pamphlet, ask you 10 questions, and you answer them. Then they go, you need to answer yes to 7 of these for a positive diagnosis. You answered yes on 8. You have disorder x.

My point being, one could very plausibly make a diagnosis without having met the person first hand. We're not offering court testimony, just gossip... geez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, I think many of these questionairres psychologists do are actually job applications -- for themselves. What do you know, at the end, it so often turns out that ... you should hire a psychologist! Wow, who knew??? What are the chances of that!

[/ QUOTE ]

Blarg, this is not all that surprising... most people who go to a psychologist/psychiatrist, already know there is a problem. They generally just need help figuring it out, or working thru it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but there are problems and then there are problems. If problems aren't escalated, no job for the psychologist. Coincidentally, every problem seems to get escalated. I just don't think that telling people with ordinary problems that they need prolonged expensive courses of "cure" because their problems are really so terrible is ethical.

[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.

[diebitter]

From the little I heard, she played it fine. A pair and a flush draw is fine HU.