Quote:
Originally Posted by Aesah
actually, i was assuming they didn't sit because of you. LOL. not sure why you would assume I thought it was because of me. Also, what classification are you using for best player, winrate? Seems vague.
However, you can't tell me that wouldn't have been a profitable lineup for Jeremy etc. who was sitting by himself at an empty table diagonal from us. The poker is dead comment meant that the game is so freaking amazing on average that a solid reg would pass up a table with 5/8 fish simply because there are some decent players at it, to me that's just insanity.
I'll need to pay more attention to the live tells. Nice pickup
It seems I was misintrepting. I think your verbage was misleading though and/or innacurate. I am not trying to have a pissing contest. Im competive but not petty. I thought you meant it was because of you because, I would assume that you consider yourself better than "remotely decent". I consider you far better than that.
I consider myself better than that.
Mike is better than that.
That makes the game having 3 what I would call at minimum "good tough regs"
That Indian kid Raj, who I met just last night, played well from what I could tell as well.
Thats why I interpreted your comments as such. And often people (I assumed you were talking about Jeremy) have different game selection criteria. Do I think a player like Jeremy was +ev in the lineup? Yes. And I don't know him personally at all, but its certainly possible he didnt want to fight the higher variance 5/10 for a few $ more per hr agaisnt tough regs where he could play 5/5 and be the best player at the game. You recently wrote about playing 1/2NL and how high a WR was possible.
Regarding best player, that's a can of worms I will attempt to address without opeing the lid wide open. Winrates are an indicator but are over rated. Its a litmus test at best. I think the best way is to have dialogue of peoples thought process of poker which is still tough to evaluate without bias, then combine that with the more extraneous traits of a good pro if you incude that in being "good" such as BR management, discipline, tilt etc. On that table I considered you the 3rd best becasue, I considered myself the best based on mixture of founded beleifs and on confidence; hopefully more the former. I consider Mike to be exemplary at NL; fwiw he does some things way better than I and some things worse. And I didnt see anyone that was close to being as good as you after that. Its all just my opinion though.
I think its cool you have this blog. I enjoy reading it as do others. Its an entertaining read and it keeps me up on happenings at the Bike. I like following your progess as well. Zero wrong with you sharing stories of your success with people and even bragging. At times though I think youv'e been a little misguided. One instance was, you were upset that people who have been reading your blog didnt introduce themselves at the table. You provide this blog becasue you enjoy doing so, not as some philanthropic action. You rightly so get satisfaction from having people follow your progression and things like blogs can be beneficial in a counseling way as well. Your cost for recieving this following is opening your personal life and poker insight to the semi-public. Its a trade off but people don't owe it to you to let you know that they know stuff about your poker game.
Last edited by HustlerLA; 05-28-2013 at 04:08 PM.