Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerHorse
Im not here to brag about myself. I have played much higher and been successful using my approach. I dont derive my income from poker anymore and I play now because I love to play. Im not copying anyone although I have learned from others , who would never come here to discuss this stuff.
Ev ,equities ,equilibrium, nothing wrong with it. I believe playing "you" is more powerful, thats all.
The people who are the most successful using technical approaches are very serious eggheads, such as Chris Ferguson, Andy Bloch, Bill Chen and a few others.
The reason I believe you object is because I cant quantify my approach in the same manner you can using technical theory. I would guess your backround is probably technical in nature and this is how you relate to the game which is fine. I wish you the best of luck , but im doubting you a very successful at the game but very very knowledgable. It has been polite up till now and im really suprised with your response. Actually I guess not since this flys in the face of your whole approach so it just cant be right.
Those three use extremely technical approaches. The majority of successful high stakes players are nowhere near as technical as that but still take an analytical approach to the game.
There's nothing wrong with taking a purely playing "you" approach to the game either. There are a few well known feel players that have done well for themselves.
I may not take the same approach you do to the game but I wasn't the one suggesting that the dvds were wrong just because Bobbo doesn't take the same approach you do or implement the concepts in the same way you do.
And while I'm certainly wary of advice that can't be quantified using technical theory, I only object to you saying that Bobbo's implementation is wrong if you're not going to back it up with something more substantial than "Fear, Confusion, Aggression, Reading People not Hands".