Poker pro is like being an actor or a screen writer. The minute you don't have any other job and claim you are one, you are. All the time between then and people coming to repossess everything you own, you are undeniably that.

Of all the people I've met from the forum, you're the person who most struck me as "he's exactly who I thought he would be like and look like". Don't know why, exactly. When Captain R said "that's AlanBostick" it was certain. Hope life is going well for you. If you figure out the ACR thing, let me in on it. Think I still have like $100 on there that I didn't blow while trying to learn NL.

you guys know acr and bcp have player-to-player transfers, right? you can buy or sell funds quite easily that way. if you have funds just stuck there i am happy to buy them from you.

Or spin it up to play 30/60, right?

+1

I highly recommend playing 30/60 on ACR when drinking.

I am kinda bummed out about not getting to Canterbury over this weekend, but school is fairly important and I don't wanna start out behind iykwim.

But we did play on the way up from the cities at Hinckley (because I hate myself and my entire life is meaningless apparently) for an hour. What did we witness?

UTG+1 nitwoman raises, five callers (myself included with 66)

Flop A T A, nitwoman bets, three callers

turn A, nitwoman bets, fold, we fold, BB raises, nitwoman calls

river J, BB bets, nitwoman calls and instantly tables KK saying "nice ace"

BB turns over the ace, doesn't show kicker immediately, half the table cheering about jackpot.

fans over his cards to show A5 off.

Instant mega-tilt but not because we missed the jackpot, but because every single person at the table needed to go over how it went and how they missed the jackpot.

You called the flop?

+1

Massive fishy donkey fest, otherwise even to one bet I usually fold here. For 14-1 at the time I don't feel too bad about it though given the earlier details.

You're just thinking "I have two outs to hit a set" instead of realizing that your hoped for bottom full house could be not the best hand already or have a lot of outs to be redrawn on the river. 14:1, shrug, and call a bet isn't correct.

Dear chillrob and AaronW,

You have my most sincere apologies for not having solved poker nor being able to perfectly articulate the ins and outs of game theory for you.

Oh wait...I take that back. I'm not sorry at all.

Well, this was almost intelligible, and I value your input so please clarify what you tried to say

That sounded way more sarcastic than it was intended to but I was being serious

You need 22:1 to make the call, to turn a full house. You're getting 14:1. You're hoping for implied odds to make up the gap. However, even if you hit bad things are fairly likely. Bad villains like Ax and every Ax hand has a ton of outs to redraw your turned full house. It is also possible that they already have it, as AT is a fun hand and well in their range. Best case where you hit your 22 outer, you're often fading 7-10 outs to stay best on the river. On this board, you should be discounting your outs, instead of being optimistic when not having enough.

Thank you sir. You are correct on all counts/I agree.

No worries. But if you can't articulate your position well, then you shouldn't expect people to understand your position. And if that frustrates you, a good response is to get better at articulating your position.

The alternative is that it's possible you don't understand things nearly as well as you think you do. As is often the case with intellectual things (mathematical things in particular), the inability to explain what's happening is a much stronger indicator of internal conceptual failure than internal conceptual clarity.

Cliffs: you weren't getting the odds and your outs were dirty

Sent from my RS988 using Tapatalk

I reflected on it a couple of times and this is definitely one of those spots where when I'm playing lower/at a fishy table that I adopt poor practices

tl;dr I'm a bad fisherman

The real question is how often you do it. If it's an occasional fling then the heck w/ it. If you do it regularly it's really bad.

No, it doesn't. I get pissed off when I think I'm being talked down to condescendingly. Interestingly, you're one of the few that makes me feel this way in all of my internetting. So I think the problem isn't my lack of perfection, but instead it's your attitude.

Yeah, maybe I can do a better job at writing stuff here. We all can. However, this isn't a job. It's a damn social gathering to discuss poker. Please treat it like one.

Okay.

You are welcome to believe what you want. But if I can quote you back at yourself saying specific things and that bothers you, then there's at least something to do with the words you're using.

Here's a specific example of what I mean by this. Here's a claim you made about assessing player abilities:

And here's what you say about yourself:

If I put these two side by side, the necessary conclusion is that I must deem you a poor player, not a competent one. That is simply the logic that you're putting forward. That's me simply analyzing your statements. And when I see these types of logical inferences, I come to the conclusion that the arguments being put forth probably aren't that good.

I would suggest that if you overstate your positions less frequently, and you won't find yourself needing to handle overstated positions as much.

Right. So in discussing poker, it's important that you present your ideas with clarity so that others can follow what you're saying. And if you're not clear, and people don't understand you, maybe spend the time trying to communicate more clearly. That's what people do in a discussion.

I do. I'm just choosing not to defer to you when you say something that seems wrong to me or doesn't make sense. You have the choice to attempt to bring clarity, or you can throw insults around.

It's your choice. I don't care what way you choose to go. But if you make certain decisions, you shouldn't be surprised when you get certain types of responses.

I'm not going to talk about what was said by either of us. As far as I'm concerned, you proved my point wrong. I'm not going to stop posting in a thread just because you pointed out a problem with my logic. So yeah, maybe I'm bad at poker and making perfect points. However, I've seen you make errors. Nobody acted like your word was no longer worth anything because of that though. I feel that's what you're doing with such a position as this:

Forgive me for stating theory as fact as often as I do. I often delete posts that I don't think are good. You found one that slipped by.

I'm sorry that you felt insulted by that last bit. It was retaliation for whatever got me fired up in the first place.

Good! You shouldn't. But if you think you've made a mistake, you should own it and walk it back. Otherwise, it looks like you're continuing forward with those statements still being treated as part of your position. If you don't correct the record, then there's no reason for anyone to believe that you think differently than you used to on that point.

Yup. I've got no problem agreeing to this observation.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But all those quotes come from one thread. It's part of a single conversation. It's not like I'm digging up stuff you said two years ago and matching it up with things you're saying today. These are posts with just a couple days of each other as part of a conversation that did not die off. And since you never clarified it, there's not a sufficient reason for me to think that it's something you don't believe anymore.

Actually, I laughed. And then it made me think even less of you as a poker strategist. If that's what you felt you had to do to defend your argument, so be it. I take those things to mean that the argument is even weaker than what I had thought previously. (Also, insert commentary about what non-apologies look like.)

I would encourage you to reread the thread and try to pinpoint what was said that led you to getting fired up. I posit it's simply that I challenged the hand ranges you put forth as being not-at-all reflective of the situation at hand. And that's really not something to get fired up over. You can disagree with what a live 8/16 MP opener's range looks like and insist that a HJ Winning in Tough Games range is completely appropriate, and just get on with the analysis.

I felt a bit insulted when you called me a dick...
(Moderator DougL quickly edited out the insult.)

You said this in response to my ranging:

I used to play more often. Good times. This was the first thing that got me a little annoyed. Then I got a little more annoyed when you ignored the point:

then I felt like taking a shot at you that may or may not have been called for:

I felt it was called for. Maybe that was an error in judgement. I'm sorry that I took a shot at you.

Do you think checking is -ev? +ev? 0ev? Perhaps if we try this again from this point we can get somewhere.