I'd love you to quote one of my posts in this thread where I said I knew exactly what to do. Are you even reading my posts?

Lol Randal, nice one.

+1

Mike Starr is the Eli Manning of 2+2. He can point to his 2 Superbowl rings, but everyone thinks he is still the worst player in the forums. While I certainly don't agree with some of his lines, there is far worse strat being spewed by volume posters who somehow seem to get a pass. Some/most of which I know/don't think they even play the game being discussed.

Keep up the fight Mike.

This was a great thread to read (aside from the completely unnecessary attack’s on the “brag”).

Instructive, interesting, and helpful.

As with many hands, this one seems to come down to a discussion on ranging. I don’t think I’m ever ranging a call of a pre-flop three bet (even UTG v UTG+1) as tightly as OP and I think there are enough under-pairs (say 88-99) and AKs that turn this into a bluff OTR to warrant call. I’m also discounting at least some KK, AA as well.

There seems to be a general consensus that if villain had a hand he felt was beat, OP played his hands passively enough that a villain bluff OTR is warranted. The 70% of pot bet is for live here pretty polarizing.

I’m calling here.

As for the flop check back, I thinks it’s close (translation, I don’t know). Questions include will AK or under pairs ever call flop? QQ does certainly seem to be close enough to the middle of my range that checking may be ok.

Very nice thread. Thank you Mr BragTard, MikeStar.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a terrible take.

1) Mike Starr is a winning $2/5 player. LOL at comparing that to Superbowl rings. If poker were analogous to baseball, he is maybe a decent player in single A.

2) I've never seen anyone call him the worst player in the forums. Only seen people call him out for his attitude. If Mike were as good at poker as he thinks he is, he wouldn't act so insecure that he feels like he needs to bring up his winrate all the time when challenged.

Just posting for the follow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok get ready for this nice long post m8. Maybe you don't state directly that you know exactly what you are doing but anytime somebody posts a different train of thought to yours, you immediately justify your train of thought rather than attempting to understand a different perspective.

Example of you knowing exactly what to do and dismissing a different perspective. What's funny is what you state afterwards...

Here you go incredibly defensive again and attacking my different train of thought. You 3bet QQ for value I assume, flop an overpair on a dryish flop where you will rarely be beat. Then proceed to not bet because you might be beat as you range Villain to have mostly hands that beat you but none that you beat. IDK what kind of mentality this is, but it seems like a very bad one. You are also ranging villain very narrow while stating that you have not seen a showdown. How are you ranging him so narrow? As you have stated later in the thread that you have 1000+ hrs playing poker. Are you telling me someone is incapable of being card dead for 2-3 hrs? You also add the info that he is stuck $500. Don't you think this might have an impact on his continuing range on all streets?

You have not seen any showdowns, so of course you haven't seen any speculative hands from UTG. You haven't seen a single one of his hands. Then you automatically assume a range for this player and disregard anyone posting that this villain is probably going to have a wider range in this spot. Does not matter, you think this is his range, so you can justify your passive line.

Here you again are defending your train of thought rather than acknowledging a different one. Villain isn't really repping a hand here and you are at the top of your range given your line and you put him on a hand stronger than QQ? Why don't you think he is capable of value-betting a worse hand given your line? If I'm V I will definitely think a J is good here.


Here you go implying that you are superior (than those who take standard lines) and can "back it up" as your win rate, taking these non-conventional passive lines, has increased. And I find you quite a hypocrite as you basically dismiss all advice on how other posters would play the hand, and just try to justify why you played it your way.

All your posts are just about justifying/defending the way you played your hand and your thought process. Why are you asking for advice on a hand when I guess you feel like you played it in the way that would maximise your EV? Idk what you were trying to learn from posting this hand. Seems like you just want people to acknowledge that you made a hero-fold. Congrats m8, I'm sure everyone has made a big fold once.

Not sure where all the hate comes from. Mike is clearly a very good player and one of the better, more thoughtful posters on the forum (IMHO). He does tend to take unorthodox lines in some spots which I actually appreciate as it helps me to think outside of my box which is very standard a lot of the time.

Can he be defensive? Sure...we call can be and are in some hands. But seems like it only happens AFTER he is attacked in some way for the way he played a hand or because someone comes in and starts saying "another brag post from Mike blah blah...".

Do I agree with how he played this hand? I do not. But that certainly doesn't mean I am right and he is wrong (far from it...I would have lost a sh*t ton more on this one than he did). All it really means is that there are alternative lines in almost every spot and the best players can utilize all of them when appropriate.

Anyway, I hope Mike continues to post hands/thoughts/etc. I think his thought process is very valuable (at least to me and a few others).

Shorn

Preach mrdestiny.

Also does everyone realize you can make up anything you want about your win rate? Whether leaving info out or adding in wrong info. People do it all the time with golf handicaps.

Lastly who cares, you could train someone who has never played poker in 2 weeks to beat live 2/5 casino games.

Yeah, this thread is just becoming a bad troll hub for people who don’t like Mike or that just want to stir the pot, particularly evidenced by that quote above. It’s probably about time for it to be locked. Surprised the mods haven’t found it yet.

Lot of people commenting about Mike’s game here that contribute practically nothing to the forum with the vast majority of their posts. This is not a coaching site, it’s a place for people to discuss optimal gameplay, and even solvers will tell you that multiple decisions in poker can be profitable, just some are more profitable than others. A player can take unorthodox lines and still be profitable. Could they possibly make more profit otherwise? Probably. With that said, you can’t dismiss that their lines might work for them based on the type of image they typically create or the specific games they play in.

You guys can call him out for sharing his winrate but piling on him just looks petty at this point considering he hasn’t lashed out at anyone. It would be a better look if he was actually fighting back, but rightly, he probably doesn’t give a ****. I wouldn’t, either.

Eli sucks.

Except you should be judged on the logic or lack thereof you construct your arguments with rather than an imaginary number you tell the internet.

The only way I can see mike being a winning player is the fact that he plays in soft and shallow games where nobody semi bluffs, raises draws, plays aggressively or raises for value without the nuts for that matter. This leads to his low StdDev that he loves to drone on and on about because he’s rarely if ever in high variance pots versus other deep stacks. Look how bad he nitted it up here - of course his StdDev is going to be low.

Beating up on bad players may be profitable but it doesn’t make you remotely good at the game. If you’ve ever read a strategy post of his you’ll see he completely neglects the entire decision trees where opponents have the option to raise or even simply checking back to realize equity. It’s hilarious to read. Now that you know what to look for be on the lookout for it.

I try to follow my own rule that "if a good player confuses me i should lean towards a fold and if a bad player confuses me i should lean towards a call", if i need a tiebreaker for all the other factors.

+1



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK. I wasn't comparing football to poker. Geez. All I am saying is that when Mike makes a new HH thread the "trolls' and a lot of otherwise sane posters seem to come out of the woodwork to bash his thinking or his lines while spouting why the 'standard' line is so much better.

I have been reading this forum since Tony Dunst and the like were posting here. Many of their 'non-standard' lines were dismissed as 'non-optimal' as well. Eventually they get good enough at poker without listening to the masses and quit posting any strat here.

Most recently Squid, RobFarha and Avarita come to mind. There are still 3 or 4 active posters I will really think about the line or range or reasoning for playing the hand the way they do. The others just regurgitate something they read somewhere or what they think the group mentality is going to be so they can be right and feel better about themselves.

Poker evolves. At some point the 'standard' lines were challenged by someone and their line ended up being a superior play.... which eventually became the 'new standard.'

Again, I don't agree with everything Mike says, I just think he starts out at a deficit because all of the keyboard warriors mouths start to salivate as soon as the see a HH thread started by him.

Well said. I applaud the effort and the content. Attack the ideas not the player. Most folks wont even post after getting flamed...

Im not going to go line by line on some of these posts to defend myself. Its stupid at this point. To those of you who appreciate my posting, thank you. For the rest of you, feel free to skip any thread I start.

5 starr thread

So even if he was a super nit and raised UTG, you would fold Queens next to act in an action table with deep stacks and aggressive players because it might go 5 ways? If you flop a set your making like 50:1+. Not to mention other opportunities where we can still win the hand without flopping a set.

Don't fold queens to a 20 dollar raise. If you can't 3bet because he's very tight I would snap call instead of folding pre. Also when you call it starts a domino effect but don't get nervous there are plenty of other hands besides nutted hands he could have such as AK, JJ, AJs+, KQs, 77. 88, 99, or TT. Are you trolling

Obviously Im not folding QQ there ever...even if he is a super nit. But Im also not ever just calling the raise. Not from that position on that table.

If that's his exact calling range of my 3 bet (and it very well could be from the little Ive seen of his play), then I like my flop check back.

If hes that tight, hes probably not calling a flop bet after a 3 bet from me with 88/99/TT. He probably called just to set mine. My flop check back could be the best way to get him to call a post flop bet. He could've easily have check/called my delayed turn Cbet with those hands when he probably wouldnt have called a flop bet.

If he has AA/KK/JJ, Im in big trouble so again I like my flop check back.

If he has KQs, I gave him a free card to hit a 3 outter on the turn. Not the end of the world.

If he has AJs and is tightish/nittish, then I lost value on the flop but Im probably only getting 2 streets from him anyway. Why not get 2 streets on the turn and river (instead of the flop and turn) when it looks to him like I have AK, not an overpair?

Im totally happy with my play here except that I should've called the river. As I said, I only folded due to a feeling I got when he bet, which I dont expect to be accounted for when posting a HH here so I stand by a call being correct the vast majority of the time.

Why can't you call a raise here? It's a nice spot to trap and 4bet in the case that there are aggro squeezers and the original raiser either flats or folds to the squeeze (Unless you think he will flat call an LP squeeze with his AA and KK). And you can just set-mine your hand in a multiway pot. I'm curious as to why you think that this is a mandatory 3bet spot.

Were you really going to get 2 streets of value? It seems you were leaning more towards one street according to what you said before. And if villain is going to peel AJs, don't you think he will also call with KJs, QJs and JTs? adds a lot more combos that you beat and can get value from (JTs OTF ofc as he is beating you on the turn).

There were no aggro squeezers at the table. Just a bunch of calling stations. If I call the $20, we are going 3-5 ways to the flop almost always. I dont see that as an option at all, but 3 betting and then slowing down post flop if the tightish UTG raiser calls seems like a good option to me.

IMO, going for 2 streets of value is best if he calls the 3 bet but I very well may have checked back the river which is admittedly too nitty.

I dont think he was opening those other suited hands (KJs, QJs, JTs) from UTG but I could be wrong. I mean Im only basing it on a couple hours of play. I open those hands UTG quite often but there's also times where I go card dead and dont raise at all for 2 hours and I would look like a nitball, so I could easily be wrong about him.

If he's not opening those hands why in the world are we 3b? Is it just to get HU against a stronger range? This is really not good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk