This really doesnt matter at all. When at the table in the heat of battle we gotta do this stuff on the fly. And I have played extensively with these types and I have had a dude stuff 500 bux in my face with T7o in the exact same conditions cuz he had an extra long dong and wanted every 1 to see it.

The entire point is understanding y someone is at the table and how they attack the game. Then adjusting to that. Based on my experience very very few are able to do this and pull the trigger for stacks.

The whole point of mikes thread is to see that even though AQs is a far cry from the nutz in this particular instance it is a standard snapple which many are unable to do

I'm going to do that too, thanks again.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

No wories. Just make sure you use it subtly. Nothing kills a game vibe faster than strat software in open use.

I want to beat the dead horse of table talk.

When you say something, and villain quits the game, you made a mistake. You made a very large mistake if its a villain capable of blasting. You need to encourage blasting. You need to spread bad knowledge. You need to entertain.

Now, if the counter to that is "Im introverted" or "I dont need to entertain ****", thats fine. Just dont say anything at all.

Decent players win the table talk wars with perfect comebacks.

Great players lose table talk wars on purpose.

I suck at the table talk wars, gonna claim it's on purpose from now on.

When in doubt just quote obscure Rounders references in your worst teddy kgb accent regardless of whether he quote is attributable to him

While I am not a great player, I "won" a table talk exchange for the first time in a while last night. I should have realized then that I was off.

Being introverted doesn't mean you can't learn to deal with people and poker is a golden opportunity to do so, both by striking up sincere non-poker conversations and by being a mirroring, manipulative phony when talking poker. It should ultimately be an advantage with this aspect of poker because you don't really give a crap.

i.e. you are ONLY engaging in many of these conversations to misrepresent yourself and reinforce incorrect thinking and so forth. And you don't have much of an impulse to explain how brilliantly you played a hand or to get the last word in or whatever. It's all an act to begin with, so it's easy to keep it that way.

"Sorry John, I don't remember" is my go to when someone asks if I was bluffing.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

Lol.

It’s all about turning a loss/embarrassment/making-someone-your-b*tch moment into a funny “lol totally standard” spot.

My response would have been something like:

*sincere laughter*

“Sir, if you think i drove 45 minutes, sat on the waitlist for another 20, looked down at 93o for 1.5 hours, only to fold ace queen SOOTED, you are mistaken. If you got a better hand well god bless you, but I got an erection when I saw this hand.”

*table nods/laughs in agreement*

This goes 2 fold. It makes the loss more lighthearted (“hey we’re all just here to gamble right?”) It also over-reinforces the strength of AQ. People will overplay it now. Trust me, this happens. You’re shifting the focus away from “well I know you’re range is wide there blah blah blah” and changing it to your own hand strength which is what we want “BRUH AQ SOOTED THO”

I myself am in the don't say nothing but don't be rude camp but I think we all agree with what Avarita is saying.

It's still fun to fantasise a little about some witty one-liners though.

I promise not to do it IRL. We want the our colleagues to enjoy their time at the tables.

I wonder how this thread would have ended up if V tabled AA or KK or even AK? I am sure there would have been mostly "yeah, only 2 hands of history so you probably should have waited for a better spot" or "really high variance call, not at all surprised he showed up with the goods" blah blah blah.

Not to be an a-hole, but Mike saw TWO hands from the guy, hardly an effective sample of ANYTHING that would remotely allow him to actually properly range V in this spot. He made an at the table, feel based call that happened to be correct...bravo. But for all he actually knew, V could have been the best player in the room, had decided to change gears and recognized that his image was such that it was much more likely he would be called in that spot (if he had actually held QQ+, AK).

Just because the result was good doesn't mean this wasn't actually a close decision...it really was and anyone saying "ldo, easiest fist pump call ever" is either addicted to variance themselves or has x-ray vision.

I'm in your camp thinking it's a close decision (heck I changed my mind mid-thread), but not sure these accusations of the thread being results-oriented are warranted.

Just look at the thread before Mike gave us the spoiler. Not much different than the comments after the spoiler.

That's fine. I was pretty sure I was gonna get flamed, but anyone who realistically thinks they can label any player after just two hands is pretty much kidding themselves.

At 1-3 I label the player before they sit down. How they pull out their money, how they interact with the dealer, are they checking out stacks, do they say hello, are they relaxed or nervous, etc.

Good for you. And I am sure that label never changes right?

The point is that we act on the info we have available and adjust probabilities accordingly. There is no sure thing at the poker table other than the house gets its share.

To add to this, we take the information at hand, give it confidence and/or weight based off our perception of its reliability, and then make a decision based off of our individual risk tolerance.

Our information in this case is limited in quantity but is actually pretty good in terms of quality. We can infer with strong confidence that this player will make some high risk plays, which means his range must be much wider than just AK and QQ+. How confident we are in this inference combined with our risk tolerance determines if this decision is close or not close.

100% agree. So by that method, two hands in you should be shoving over a nervous players c-bet because he will never call right? I mean he looks nervous, so he has to be polarized to one pair and after all, you have seen two hands by him so fist pump GII!

My point is, after two very loose hands, you still really don't have a lot of information on V. What you have skews you to potentially put in the chips, but if you do, it is quite dubious to argue that the decision is actually based on a sound "range based" probability. Two hands do not give you that no matter how crazy they appear.

OK, but if this was my first hand and I had never seen him play a hand in my life I would rate this call at a 7 or so.

He straddled UTG. Donk move
Im a reg in this room and Ive seen him maybe once before.
Hes drinking beer on a weekday afternoon.
He shoved about a full stack over my raise. Thats a lot of money on an absolute basis.

This is enough for me to call with AQs with no other info.

Lots of very good players straddle UTG all the time.
Lots of very good players drink while they play.
Sometimes shoving a lot of $ over a raise means V is strong, VERY strong.
Sometimes we should be more wary of players we don't know

So all of your arguments I can also turn into reasons to fold.

Let me put it this way: if this isnt a snapple like Squid said with the info provided and the two spazz/buttonclicking example hands Mike gave us in the OP-then your simply not rolled properly for the game.

If you hesitate here, youre playing scared money-and/or too short of a roll.

No. Has nothing to do with it.

Going to agree to disagree and just let the thread die.

We have a **** ton of information. It's not perfect. It's not everything. But it's a lot.

Want a real debate? Give hero KQs.

I'm going to assume this is hyberbole. With KQs, it is a clear fold. Not close.