To be fair, Olaff is right. Neither one of these two could beat any legitimate form of poker. Not even 2/5 NL live. Cate Hall in particular looks trashy and couldn't beat any live cash game. Just goes to show how big of a joke tournaments are.

crazy lying cate said she sold action for the wsop womens 1k when i offered to short her at a steep price, she got better markup from her investors. Also a huge difference between playing a $5k on your own dime and playing multiple $50k hu matches. My statement still stands, don't think there is a doubt she would have a fraction of her own action if they did play $50k matches.

funny she blocks me but still trys to interact. its pretty pathetic to try to shame mike for not wanting to play hu $50k matches where mike probably hasn't played more than 10k hands of headsup life time. If she were down for a real challenge though I would play $50k matches and give her some odds although I have a feeling her backers who would have 90%+ of her action vs. mike would not want to invest in that.

This is incorrect

All of these online guys must really hate money to continue to grind for peanuts online when the potential earnings are way higher live. After black friday a lot of online guys completely disappeared. Either they really hated money or simply discovered it would be more profitable for them to grind Mickey Ds.

I wish you were trolling, that would actually be less annoying.

Yeah, I get the feeling SageDonkey loves hearing himself talk.

Sure he makes tons of friends at the tables. . .

It may surprise you, but I do make a lot of friends at the table, because I am personable.

Back on the is Cate Hall backed issue. I have definitely seen her selling some action from time to time on Twitter and below is one example I found on Twitter in 5 seconds using a simple Google search.

Cate Hall
‏@catehall
6:31 PM - 9 Oct 2016
Selling for EPT Malta 10k side events at 1.03($)/1.0(€) -- DM me if interested.

I also found this Dan O'Brien and Cate Hall podcast http://f5poker.com/poker-news/2016/7...account-playi/, billed as: "Sounding very NPRish, the first episode drops in ahead of the pair’s trip to the World Series of Poker.
The pod gives their take on the risks and rewards that come along with competing in the WSOP, selling action, how much of their bankroll is on the line during the WSOP and nerves and excitement ahead of the tournament."

just sick of continuous vomit stream of cash game players thinking loldonkaments

And more vomit stream of online players thinking all live players are muppets


Cash game player "Tourny players are lame.. lol donkaments"

Online player "Live players couldnt beat NL10... lollive"

Live Player "online players are fish live... lolonline"

blah blah blah

If above is all true then all those players need to do is go play the "other " game and own the world. Ez game

Full disclosure. Which one are you ?

At around 20 minutes of the podcast Cate Hall says she has nearly 100% of herself in nearly all of the tournaments in the series that she is playing, and that she is risking between a third and a half of her bank roll.

Online poker has deteriorated significantly, but there are probably still more $100+ hourlies online than live(worldwide).

The idea of traveling to play $10k MTTs may not be all that appealing to a group of people who previously made hundreds of dollars an hour at home with much lower risk.

Take this with a grain of salt, but if you would slam chairs after busting out of anything, how would you know the mentality of congenially wishing your friends luck after said bust-out?

Agreed, but in her recent Tweet she says she plays on her own coin for $5K or less comps and only has some backing for $10K plus comps. This fits in with both what she said on the podcast for the WSOP 2016 and her tweets offering action in the $10K at EPT Malta 2016, although a previous poster said something about her offering action for a $1K at WSOP. Maybe she changed her mind about that comp and kept 100% of herself.

More interesting perhaps is her risking a third to a half of her roll at WSOP. It was spread out over many comps so it might equate to more like 2% to 4% of her roll per comp.

What I got from that podcast, which was only 7 months ago in May of this year, is that she sounded very, very rookie and green, such as asking Ryan Fee if 3 bet strategy should be altered dependent on stack sizes. I mean this is such novice stuff that an average small buy in on line player would never have asked that question. So it was strange that she would even ask that question as if she wasn't 100% sure of what the answer would be.

Having heard that podcast I am now not as confident as I was that she is a very good tournament player, unless she has gone through an extremely fast learning curve in the course of 3 to 6 months.

A possible theory as to how someone very light on know how can achieve good results is not just the obvious one of running well above expected EV, but also perhaps that if you only know say half of the theory but are strong in other areas such as temperament and picking up live tells, that you might be a difficult opponent for good players to play against because you are playing quite a few spots in an unorthodox way.

lol you're talking like live cash games are tough or something, do we live in the same world?

both live cash and tournaments are a joke

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure using two completely different sports is a good analogy for playing the exact same game, albeit it in an entirely different manner.

Yes, online poker takes an entirely different skill set than live poker, but it's still..... poker. Now comparing the CFL to the NFL would make sense.

Are you suggesting Cate Hall possesses white magic™?

I do not want bets with people on 2plus2, but my view is that the line should now be Mike Dentale as a 60%/40% favourite.

I say this based on the contents of the May/June podcast where Cate Hall came across as a rookie, and on some of the hands we know about such as value owning herself with KK against Todd Brunson and calling off with ATo against Barry Hutter.

I get that in some game dynamics not betting KK there for value loses a small amount of EV long term, but I still think it was safer to check back or to bet small if she is putting him on exactly TT/JJ/QQ as the only losing hands he'll call with. The ATo hand is just a totally standard pass and the 3 bet OOP with it was questionable to start with.

The two hands above are very standard spots that a competent player should not have got so badly wrong. It is not as if the hands were lost through misreads such as triple barreling with air and being looked up, these were both super standard spots.

So unless Cate Hall was just having bad day each time, I would say that she has made these fundamental errors many times before.

Mike Dentale on the other hand has been around a long time, so surely he cannot be novicey like that in standard spots. It is hard to evaluate how talented a player he is without having played against him a lot, but my guess is that he is at a minimum reliable and solid, whereas Cate Hall could be anything in ability, ranging from Novice+ to Good+

There is no way she is a brilliant player, not based on those two hands.

Mike Dentale did play weak tight in the hand with Sam Abernathy but also she had a fortunate run out on the river with a straightening flushing card coming and maybe you have to give her credit for following through rather than saying he made a terrible fold on the river.

All forms of poker are a complete joke because the vast majority of players aren't putting forth wholehearted effort to win. Any game where players aren't actually trying is going to be really easy for those that do try. Pro poker players think they are so smart but if they really were they wouldn't be wasting their lives away grinding this boring game for peanuts when there are far more lucrative business opportunities all around.

Says the guy who spends enough time here to have over 3k posts since march.

Are you asserting that posting on this site is a boring grind? Not quite following the logic here.

: ---- D

Played with Dentale a couple times over the years. Can't complain.

#TeamDentale

Simple fact, Men>Women.

fair enough. I did use an extreme example to make point.

my main point was its illogical to say player XYZ is "bad" because they can beat this form of poker and not beat that form of poker.

Players/posters with low self-awareness, seem to feel the form of poker they play is the most difficult and thus makes them the most intelligent.

Wait - are we actually having an online vs live debate in ~2017???

Sage, this post is just silly. You're setting a 1.5:1 line based on what look to be three data points, one of which you concede (the KK vs. Todd) is pos-EV.

I did not like Hall's hand against Hutter either, but thought Dentale's hand against Abernathy was likewise awful. Hall says she had a specific read on Hutter which turned out to be wrong, but it's clear from her twitter that she well understood that AT off would not normally be within calling range in that spot. I also note that her reaction to the hand was to admit her mistake and seek to improve, whereas Dentale's immediate reaction to the Abernathy hand was to blame everyone else.

Sage, this post is just silly. You're setting a 1.5:1 line based on what look to be three data points, one of which you concede (the KK vs. Todd) is pos-EV for Hall.

I did not like Hall's hand against Hutter either, but I also thought Dentale's hand against Abernathy was terrible. Hall says she had a specific read on Hutter which turned out to be wrong, but it's clear from her twitter that she well understood that AT off would not normally be within calling range in that spot. I also note that her reaction to the hand was to admit her mistake and seek to improve, whereas Dentale's immediate reaction to the Abernathy hand was to blame everyone else.