Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Treesong
Did you people watch the same interview I did? There is nothing humble about Mike, and it's absurd for him to call Cate out for her supposed lack of humility. Note that he said he believes "one thousand per cent" he's a better NL player than Cate. And one of his criticisms was that she didn't "snap call" with A high in a spot where he bet. She did call and his criticism appears to be that she just didn't do so faster. His analysis of that hand is internally inconsistent and literally moronic.
After getting crushed and making several very questionable plays, it is a colossal joke to assert you're the better player. It just defies reality. He's sort of like the LaVar Ball of poker.
I definitely find him likeable and I like his attitude about being social and active in-game.
I agree with him that the AJ on a 777xx board was an obvious call and she should have called it way faster. Also she was only facing like a 1/4 or might have been 1/5th pot sized bet, and she had the chip lead so IT IS a snap call.
The thing is he may still be a better player than her in full ring game live MTTs. We simply don't know. She had great hands and flops compared to him, was seeing his previous hole cards, got coaching which he out of a misguided principle IMO refused/didn't want to get himself, and he has admitted that he was playing on tilt and was knowingly playing the wrong strat when he was short stacked, which is both times in both games.
Unless someone really knows exactly how she has been playing in live MTTs and has access to loads of hand histories, then no one else can possibly know at this stage whether she is stand out good, or just a decent competent player. My instinct is that she is an ABC solid player currently who is progressively adding on higher level theory, but not at a lightning speed rate of progress, and that she has a good table presence, good bank roll management, doesn't tilt, and has run at worst pure and at best very well.
All of the above is good enough to get an ROI of ~40% in the short/short medium term, which is what I roughly estimate is what she has achieved. I analysed this earlier in this thread I believe.
I used to play ABC poker myself in live MTTs in a poker club, but had some good reads on people, never ever tilted and was playing massively under my bank roll and I was making like 30% of final tables and finished 2nd in one of my first tournaments for a very decent score. Then as I played more and more tournaments the ABC worked far less, because I lost flips, rand bad, made some mistakes now and again, and started getting owned by players as soon as I started playing £200 to £500 buy ins as opposed to the £50 to £100 ones I had started out at. I also know some ABC players who have had big scores in live NLHE comps and do to this day have a good ITM% that continues. They are just solid players who make very few bad errors, and that's it.
Cate is probably ABC+ along with her other qualities, but for me she has proved little else so far and how she
played in the HU match was average and no more.
Haven't you noticed that where Mike comes from they use exaggerated language?, such as "I've seen it a million times", or as he used "1000 percent". A thousand percent in his language means 100% or yes.
And he could be right, he might be a better live MTT full ring player than Cate. He seemed to also suggest that he thinks he's better than her but that she may well overtake him through her study and determination to succeed and because he is not a full time pro, so for me, that is showing some humility.
He also didn't say he has x millions of the dollars in the bank, in stocks, in assets or whatever etc, he said that the buy ins ($30K) is not what it is to others, and his tales of big Blackjack losses in the past came across as a little sad like he was hurt by what had happened to him in Blackjack, rather than as degen stories for effect or to impress the audience.
Last edited by SageDonkey; 03-24-2017 at 11:01 AM.