Not lying and that's kind of BS to even write. What benefit would I have from making any false claims? I see if I can dig up the hand history again and post it but even that van be re-created with a simple typing job. Perhaps it was a glitch or typo in the data I didn't even consider the possibility. I also didn't consider the possibility of a multitabling mistake.

I'm 99.9999999% certain that I published the hand properly because I watched it several times before and during my post. Reason for publishing it was because I was utterly confused as to why it would be played the way it did.

The hand was between Phiranna and I think Texas-king with Urindanger as the BB. Fulltilt was site and it was played years ago.

In all seriousness I'm sure we have all seen crazier things happen online between awesome "expert" players. I watched Dwan dump a million dollars on fulltilt to whoever that Scandinavian player is in a matter of minutes!!! Minutes!!! 5 buy ins of 200k and 5 hands that he lost back to back. A million in minutes!!!

Why not just post the actual hand history without all the unnecessary subterfuge?

A couple of points: just because someone has a reputation as a hot shot is meaningless. I've played "name" players before (WSOP winners, well known Poker book/article writers, hot-shot locals -- once one of these told me to stay out of the Golden Nugget's Poker room back when it was known as "The House of Hold 'Em" way before Poker After Dark, high Stakes Poker, &c made the game so popular -- because it was filled with "professionals" and I would never stand a chance) and believe me, I was not all that impressed.

Secondly, just because someone has the reputation for being an "expert" doesn't mean they play an expert game 100% of the time. It just doesn't happen. Even the best players still brain fart. That's true regardless of your field of expertise. (I once had an ace programmer show me a source code listing with over 100 lines of unreachable code due to two mutually exclusive if statements preceding it and he missed that most basic of coding errors.)

Lastly, hand histories tell you nothing about the meta game. No telling what led up to what looks like some very inexpert, very fishy, play. Unless you could contact the players in question and ask them (and then trust they'd tell you the truth) we just don't know.

It's Poker and stuff happens. Best hand wins, and there is no extra credit for playing smart.

Would love to see this hand history. Piranha played mid stakes at this time, Texas limit king I think was a heads up specialist and not even sure he played on full tilt, and urindanger played exclusively NL until much later. I think you are just making up gibberish

Ohhhh snap. Donkey > Fish obv

it would benefit your ego
by telling us this was a hand played by two crushers at 10x the stakes it makes us feel dumb instead of you feeling dumb for playing the hand terribly

TLK did play on FTP but the rest of the facts don't make sense. It seems maybe OP is trying to validate his own horrible play by claiming it was some high stakes pro.

Whoever played this hand, obviously it's terrible and doesn't seem worth posting.

so you agree with me

The craziest of crazy happened online and still does. Open up on stars and watch the high limit stakes games for 30 min and you will see some crazy off the wall crap that I would call absurd but some genius "expert" kid will justify it with some crazy off the wall theory or argument. MBF is trying to up his game and you can tell by his posts. I believe what he says but maybe I have a niche for standing up for the little guy.

Not in limit Holdem. All of the experts play most spots exactly the same. This is one of those spots.

I honestly cannot tell who is trolling this thread and who is serious. Can I get a show of hands?

Those of you not trolling, what the **** is wrong with you?

You guys are so familiar with every single hand played by every pro to seriously say that he must be lying because one hand he found in THOUSANDS wasn't played 100% standard?

This forum has been more active than normal in the past week or so, and yet that won't continue with all the cancer I see posted. If you want this forum to remain a dick measuring/ego stroking competition, then by all means keep it up.

However, if you want to foster actual discussion/debate then stop being giant dicks in every thread posted by someone new. Yes, some things are objectively "terrible" but without the logic/reasoning behind it, that just sounds like internet dickheads being dickheads.

Feel free to flame away, I would expect nothing less.

You realize lots of the people posting have played millions of hands in these games or with these players. Maybe not 2k/4k with TLK but at least 10-20 + everyday filled with experts. And after observing millions of hands you get a pretty good idea of what people do, especially when it would stray so far from from conventional wisdom/ basic fundamentalsz

So in millions of hands played, you are telling me with a straight face it's impossible that he found one to comment on where someone didn't 3 barrel two 10's?

Is it possible he's lying to save face? I guess. Is it likely? Probably about as likely as finding 1 hand in millions played non standard.

My point is, why not give him the benefit of the doubt instead of insinuating (or outright accusing in some cases) that he must be lying.

it would be so easy to prove that this hand is real
he just needs to take a screen shot of the raw data from the hands he purchased and post the picture here
if he does this then i'll happily apologize for speculating that he may be lying to save face
but the whole thing is silly
if he had a question about why an expert played a hand sub-optimally why didn't he just present the hand as is and say "what's up with this hand, guys?"
the whole thing just seems really odd

there's really only two maybe 3 ways for TT to play this hand
1. 3bet pre flop bet flop bet turn bet river
or
2. 3bet pre flop bet flop check/call turn check/call river
or
3. 3bet pre flop bet flop bet turn check/call river

none of these scenarios involve calling pre flop or donking the flop so it's hard to believe that an expert would've played their hand this way
it seems more likely that maganda's big fish played his hand this way
i'm on the edge of my seat waiting to find out
(popcorn.gif)

I can say with complete honesty I didn't play this hand in question. It was no more than a private experiment. There is a thread on the site right now that gave me the idea and it was posted in the small stakes thread and medium stakes thread. You could only comment on one and that was the instruction in the thread. I liked the idea because you could see difference in responses based on limits. That gave me the idea and sparked the interest in seeing what people would write about this hand that I came across.

The hand I came across did indeed spark interest on my part and wanted to see what 2+2 members thought of it. With complete honesty I wanted to know if there why such a great player would play a hand in that fashion.

I was never going to expose the fact that it was an experiment until the berating started and then decided to post what was really going on and where the hand came from. There is no saving face or making false claims other than posting a simple experiment. If I find the data again or come across it I will most certainly screen shot it and post proof but I'm not exactly going out of my way for something so silly.

Keep eating your popcorn gif's Urterrible and posting

"if he had a question about why an expert played a hand sub-optimally why didn't he just present the hand as is and say "what's up with this hand, guys?"

That would have defeated the whole point of the experiment. And on a serious note I think posters like you seriously diminish the quality of this site with your ego and go against the positive climate that other players have created before you.

The idea there are only 2-3 ways to play this hand sounds a lot like the old dudes who thought playing ultra tight and passive was the only way to win years ago. Why have a discussion forum if EVERYONE knows there are only two ways to play every hand? What would be the point?

I also wonder how you are a newbie poster with such great knowledge of the site. Perhaps what your regular screen name is and also why you have taken such great interest in my thread.

My experiment and comments are not here to threaten you or make you feel "dumb". Your ego is still intact. keep calm and chive on. end of this thread

A) There are several way to play this hand and then the most optimal way

B) The Hand was played really strange and I wanted to know why

C) There are bracelet winning players on this site that could have possibly explain why this play should be made the same way Pirhanna did made it

From a pure results oriented perspective whoever actually played this hand made the stone max, considering the fact that if u 3b pre u are almost never getting paid off OTR with the b/b/b line.

From a GTO perspective this hand is an abomination. Period.

Sent from my LG-D415 using 2+2 Forums

This hand was taken directly from "Winning in Tough Hold'em Games" P.281 Hand no. 39

75$ 150$ blinds

Stox has J8o in the BB

sb raises stox calls

flop: KJ5r
sb bets stox calls

turn: A
sb bets stox calls

river: 8 (completing a runner runner spade flush)

sb bets, stox raises, sb folds.


This hand is not nearly as interesting or poorly played as the pocket 10's but still along the same lines. This hand could be posted in the 2+2 thread as (I) played it and I could get several different ways to play it. Probably get berated or negative things said about the way (I) played it but now that we know its from stox poker no such comments will be made.

That was the whole baseline of my experiment.

I can buy it and I also think that your experiment sparks lots of interest. This coming from someone who has conducted a few "social experiments" himself. Not sure why some posters are so up in arms about it.

If you were to post the hand listed above I would have folded to a turn bet when the Ace hit but now that I know that was not the recommended advice it makes me want to read why folding the turn may be the wrong decision here.

No because there were not mistakes made in that hand. On a side note if you really want to get better at LHE, post and listen. If u really want feedback ( whether it be positive or negative) u must embrace it, truth be told it will be the only way u get better.

Good player opens UTG, we have 2-7s on the button, how many ways are there to play this hand?
Also I never said OP was lying, just near impossible one of experts took this line (misclicks aside)

There are bracelet winners that have already posted in this thread.

Are you trying to say because one hand/situation only has one reasonable line that this is true for all hands? If not then it's a poor way to prove a point.

Some people only insinuated that he was wrong/lying while others outright stated it. You were in the former camp not the latter.