Well not all the responses were "lol fold YFI" but hear you. And my guess is he had garbage - just not sure why he'd squeeze it with the shorty all in without a hand that plays against a hand the shorty would shove with.

This Vegas or elsewhere? If Vegas I may know the guy - most of the old guys who are still playing high that I know of are in LV. Mostly "retired" to smaller 2-5 and 5-10 games unless a good spot comes up.

City of angels... He's famous for saying, "no show, no believe," which is a pretty good policy imo. Ftr, he and I don't always get along and he can be very surly (27 years of variance!) and I would never decline him action/I think he makes plenty of mistakes, I just try to be really objective about who wins and who doesn't. And in high(ish) stakes live poker it's the complete savages with the big eyes who win long-term.

if you mean by "savages with big eyes' someone will definitely make you recheck your cards, I agree. Forgotten who I first hear that said about, might have been Bobby H.

You can sugar coat it all you want since this guy may read this and you still want action, etc but we don't have to. So we can sit behind our keyboards and say whatever we want. It doesn't matter if we accept his HU for rollz challange or not. His sizing and play is absolutely, unequivocally ****ing atrocious at every point where he Vpiped. The fact that he did it fast against someone who could read this and act on it just makes it that much worse. But, this is why reasonable sizing is reasonable. So we don't get our faces caved in after putting in 40 percent of our stack. I mean FFS the whole hand is just an abortion.

Agreed you can say what you want lol. And yes, his sizing (the first time around) was unbalanced in perception/it was too squeezy. The second time around his issue was timing mainly. And yes he could have gone smaller/not all but committed his stack lol, but the standard click back iso may have been too small since the all in was pretty much just a minraise.

Regardless, it's not like his play was super -ev imho. Being in position and aggro/sticky you can "go big" initially when stacks are deep. It would be smart to be somewhat more balanced (in perception) than he was when doing this with squeeze garbage, but either way, he just wins pre or post (with squeeze garbage) a ton of the time he does that I imagine. He got unlucky that a) I had a good hand vs squeeze garbage THAT ALSO has reasonable contingency equity vs good hands, and b) that I'm an lol soul reader who picks up on timing and movements and **** in slo-mo when I'm playing well (def not always), and c) that I didn't just say, "**** it, 8k is a lot of money for A9 I'll just fold and see if I was right when the cards get turned over."

Also, I'm just insanely anti-results oriented at this point in my career. And I'm still downswinging my balls off so I'm hyper-obsessed with all the different tentacles of variance every hand. I really feel like I'm on a tiny island wrt seeing the role God/the dealer plays in everything (even amongst very good/winning players). Also, as mentioned, one hand doesn't define a player. Nor does 1 or 2 playing leaks make someone who is good overall, suddenly not good. That's just basic. And I brought up the hotshots turning him down for hu to illustrate those points.

But seriously, in poker- where the prize for winning is money, and the more skill gap there is the more prize expectation there is, why don't people play the people they say are terrible? Not talking about you, just saying in general. I see it all the time, and it is absolutely mind-bottling to me how illogical that is. I mean, I could see Novak Djokovic not wanting to play me in tennis cuz I'm a hack and he has nothing to gain and I would never return a serve (or a return!). And I could even see in poker passing on playing someone if you thought you had an edge but it wasn't very big--> the other guy wasn't "terrible" by any stretch. But if you really truly believe you have a big edge/the other guy is terrible, you just gotta sit imo. Not doing so is just silly. And this guy has a pretty open door policy with that/he can't always get action even in the big boy casinos.

OMG, lightbulb! Never really made that connection for some reason. There is so much truth to this statement.

I think we are in similar spots wrt variance and trying to understand it. The long periods of **** that one can be forced to endure can really make you question everything. I told one of my skype group recently, "maybe I was just running super hot for my last 2 Million hands." This was after 3 of us proudly displayed our last 100k samples on the same site and one guy was 12/100, one was 6/100, and I was .5/100. And the guy who was 6/100 is my nephew/student.

We also discuss this other point fairly often. There are some otherwise very good players who just do the most ridiculous stuff. Some of them do it very often and still win solidly. The best I can piece this together is that they do other things amazingly well and that compensates for the more glaring leaks. They also probably run hot in specific situations as well. The third component is that maybe the leak isn't as big a leak as we think it is and therefore repeating it often doesn't really have a huge impact.

I think the hotshots refusing to play someone could be a whole bunch of different stuff. I won't speculate too much since the live/big/HU world is so far away from my wheelhouse. My best guess is that it has something to do with the inherent variance in small samples HU, rake, and not being guaranteed enough action due to either hitnrun or dude realizing he is outclassed and quitting them quickly. I mean what happens when Gman says sure lets play 20/40 HU as deep as you like and do it daily for 6 weeks?

im fairly curious, did you think he had a folding range when you shipped it in? i mean, i think the thing that surprised a lot of people (me included) and made the hand more interesting after results (imo) was that he was ever going to fold after putting the first 3k in, since obv this can significantly affect our ev estimates.

examining V's play is sort of interesting as well, at least from the perspective of understanding why someone would play any hand like this (at the make it 3k decision point). it seems like it was predicated on the assumptions that a)DGAF can't have a "big" hand here ~ever/A9s type hands are the tip top of his range and b)no one folds after putting in the 3k, so DGAF will need to have reasonable equity when called if he jams (cant really "bluff"). if V also wasn't aware that DGAF knew that V was likely capped via reads, then making it 3k actually makes sense since even top of range for DGAF cant really jam (see: fold responses itt). all that said, (b) is apparently not true, who knows if (a) is, and DGAF did have a read + is a psycho. only point to this is that i dont think this mistake is akin to one where he gets into a 3b/4b war and folds after putting 40% of his stack in -> he could (semi)reasonably have believed he gets a ton of folds and gets jammed on <10% of the time.

I'm in the aforementioned hotshot group who is scared to death to play such a strong player.

Villain in this hand is okay FR but is drawing particularly dead SH/HU. No one else plays because they breath through their noses even less often/are too broke/are too scared of playing HU.

Hand is one of many, many in live poker where it's impossible to accurately describe the dynamic, physical stuff, timing, etc etc. DGAF just bored and looking to argue obviously

...

Wrt variance: 100k hands live would take you about 2 years. 2 million hands would take you about 40 years...

Pretty interesting that someone who is clearly inferior to you as a player (your student/nephew) can make 12x what you can over the equivalent of a 2 year live sample. That stands out and people should really think about it A LOT before crowning themselves or others/****ting on themselves or others too much imo. And that crazy disparity came from a sample size of 1 comparison/2 people lol (no idea who the boss at 12/100 is or what his skill level is compared to yours because you gave no insights on him, so I threw his measurement out), so it's very, very likely that a 12x win rate (over the equivalent of 2 live years) over someone better than you only begins to touch the surface of how wild variance is/can truly be.

***I know there are MANY differences between online and live which make online higher variance per hand. However, there are some differences (stakes fluctuation, game quality, stack depth, etc) which swing the volatility pendulum back a little towards live. And really, anyone who doesn't want to at least think about all this and soak it in for a while is either a dreamer who doesn't want his dream crushed and/or on a massive extended heater/thinks Fedor Holz really is that ****ing good.

---

I'll reply to the rest of your post (which is very good imo) later. Gotta go coach soccer!

Wrt people winning while having big leaks: in live poker 5-10+ if you are perceptive and competitive/tough and you don't overfold you can win despite A LOT of leaks. You just dominate the scared money (of which there is a ton) and you consistently play against much smaller ranges than the other players. Plus you "want it more" so eventually most people won't even battle with you (they will consistently fold to a 2nd barrel or whatever)- especially if by the grace of God you turn over the best hand ONCE.

Wrt people not playing people hu who they think are terrible because of variance or sample size concerns or rake: rubbish imo. There is tons of variance in all live poker, you are never guaranteed any sort of signif sample under any condition/set of conditions (you never get one either), and rake is usually reasonable at most casinos for higher short-handed play.

People don't play because they don't actually think the other person is terrible/they might be better than them in theory (unlikely though) but they are certainly not better in practice. Imo.

edit: maybe I should have said 10-20+. That's where all the scared money/transparency is.

I did think he had a folding range. Once he didn't snap though I was almost indifferent to him folding/I thought A-baby-o was a huge part of his range throughout. I mean obv I preferred he fold because his range had enough equity to call off vs my hand, but I wouldn't have been too worried had he called, and I kinda really wanted to stack him pre with A9 .

Yes his line gets TONS of folds all day every day.

You'd be surprised at who some of the hotshots are, hotshot!

He's not drawing anywhere near dead hu relatively speaking. Yes he's bad. But he's also good (relatively speaking). He just wouldn't be able to SURVIVE against you.

Hi Redfin.

I wasn't trapping lol. Yes I like a back raise (though not as much as you'd think because I have very little fold equity for 1k more/post isn't going to be a walk in the park either given images and game flow). No way am I going to give up on the 440 though just because some angry tilted buried mf tries to iso with one of his towers of white.

edit: another reason to flat the 440 (I think back raise is prob better, just saying) is that I think he has tons of rio vs me/I don't need to bluff/I have him dominated a ton.

Makes it extra sick. To go from 5% to 100% w/ A9 when you'd know if the read was right in 5 secs.

But Vs hand looks like AT/AJ or 2 dark cards, so do you think his folding range includes all that and he's only calling w/ AK/AQ, 99+. Or is he calling w/ most broadways. Whats his calling range, you think, being stuck 20k already?

I think he would call with all the hands that are ahead of me (and QJ and KT and KJ and KQ), I just didn't think he had any of those hands really/he was "stealing" with garbage almost always.

What do you mean 5%?

To flat 400 then end up shoving for 8000

maybe drake cold 5b jammed from the btn one time and thats how he came up with 0 to 100. food for thought.

This speaks to me on a very personal level

Sick ship, not a big fan of it but hey you trusted your read

I always imagined he referred to successfully check shoving with air on the river