Okay, props to Gabe for not talking nonsense for once! he deserves credit

samo owns me and happily invites me to boston in the same post, and somehow my brain donttttttt workkkkkkk,

and btw ur posting a lot and the only thing ur doing is repeating and rehashing the same thing every one else is saying, dont u get tired of it?

Im not right all the time, I'll be the first to tell you, But if the guy looks like he flopped the nuts, It becomes easy to fold, If he looks stone cold, I'm shoving, Its simple as that.

So all the talk about what is optimal online, doesn't necessarily mean that it is optimal live if you can get more information from other variables. Thats easy enough for a 2nd grader to understand.

I could sit here & talk math, game theory stategy with the best of them & hold my own, but it doesn't apply at least in the same way live because the math changes once you gain other info..

I completely agree with the bolded. As for the rest of it I've never seen you play and have no idea how you can play so I can't really have an opinion.

Why exactly though does the pot size matter as to ability to read players?

Obiviously the bigger the pot the more emotions come into play, people aren't in their comfort zone and tells become more telegraphed especially with inexperienced live players, are you really this dense or you just want gabe to talk more to nitpick everything and somehow prove him wrong?

I liken this thread to the scene in Rocky where the Moscow crowd hates him in the beginning, toward the end they are all routing for him. This thread will start to turn that way as soon as everyone realizes that what I'm saying is true. Only the idiots like baudip, ucantcme lt22 etc will be like the russians trainer & the czar that try to hold to their misguided beliefs. I can see it turning in several of your heads now, Maybe this guy actually knows something we dont.

Of course as soon as you turn, I will jump out like a jack in the box & scream LEVEL. HA

Well, the AJ hand only happened because you were spewing like crazy, the Q8dd was meh, chit happens, and in the K6 hand, IIRC, ( I may have already posted a better recollection, but here's close enough) here's what I remember, with some analysis on each play of how bad you played it, on a scale of 1-10, 10 being awesome, 1 being Costneresque.

1. You open Button K6o(~$1500) to ~40 after being active from the moment you sat vs a solid player in SB and deep stacked Asian (~$3000) in the BB (3/10).
2. SB folds, DSA makes it ~140, you decide he is weak, and reraise him to ~350. There are good and bad points to this, but I give it a (4/10). Also note that not close to 50% stacks went in the pot preflop, unless you are saying you 4bet to 750, which, while you didn't, would make more sense with your brand of "logic".
3. DSA calls, (duh) and you cbet ~450 on a J86r board. DSA Calls (6/10)
4. Turn is a 9, which coordinates quite nicely with the board, but not your hand. There is almost no hand anyone is ever folding on this board, much less a DSA, and the board hits the type of weak hand that can call a 4 bet VERY well, yet you still shove ~700 into a ~$1600 pot with a hand that only improves 10% of the time and is very likely beat. (1/10)

He has 78s, and holds vs your hand, after which you immediately grumble in my general direction, (and we hadn't done more than exchange basic pleasantries at the table), "Well, I think I definitely played that hand better than he did", to which I replied I wasn't quite sure and couldn't tell. But I WAS quite sure, and could tell who played the hand better, although it was a pretty low bar. So you get 14/40 points for the hand, a 3.5 average. But hey, helluva read on him being weak. Now you just need to learn that hand values change as the hand goes on. Well, actually, you have a LOT more than that to learn, but I charge for those lessons.

Polov, SHHH, Don't tap the fish tank

I'm not referring to Lego since he seems open minded & willing to learn, but I know some of the others here would never admit something they don't understand

Gabe, what exactly is it that you're saying? You've said so many things it's hard to keep track.

That live poker involves making live reads? No one has ever argued that.

This thread is not so much a level (because you probably somehow believe everything you wrote in this thread is true) but is just basically a brag about how you're the best player in the world or something.

"I'm a cash player, but I have the highest FT percentage in the country (even though I ran bad in all those tournaments)."

"My GF is a right-brained person that I taught to player and now she's the best in the world because she learned from the best."

"I'd beat any online player (given x, y, z and as long as no escrowing is involved)."

"I busted Phil Ivey twice..."

Well the math doesn't really change.

If you get other info then you can use that info to modify the range you put your opponent on. But then the math as to your equity vs. that range and FE, etc. still works the same.

I think that's what you mean (correct me if I'm wrong), but it just annoys me when people say it the way you said it at first.

I'm sorry, did my saying "I agree" make it look like I was trying to prove him wrong about something.

I figured that in bigger pots people may get more excited and let something more slip out. I wondered if there was anything more to it. And how much having a small pot may impair the ability. I would tend to think that it would be very opponent dependent as to who could keep better control of themselves and who couldn't.

Gabe I've said all along I'm sure you are a very good poker player, given how high you play, and your tourney results...I'm not just starting to think that now. I'm not saying you're phil ivey or anything or have an 80% edge on any decent online player. Just that I don't think you'resome fish at poker that can never win. Just had issue with specific claims you've made/flawed arguments etc

Edit: oh and leading Samo on for the challenge and then bailing.....

Right, It doesnt change the fact that math is in play, but it changes the decisional math , In other words if there was an exact formula for determining BB hand range after he was tilting & applying that to the pot equity, betting range, calling range, equity of hands ahead & behind, implied pot after getting called etc. It would be theoretically able to determine the right play online, just using math.

This is still in play in live, but once your able to further gain information using body language, it could change the math dramatically to the point to where one decision or the other becomes an easy play rather than trying to make a very marginal decision in that spot of shoving or folding. In other words if you were super confident that BB completely missed, It would change your decisional math to the point where a shove is correct

is anyone thinking level/someone new is posting on Gabe's acct?

I prefer phrasing it the way it now reads with my additions in bold and changes underlined, but whatever, it's just phrasing. I just think it is clearer this way.

Now I just want to make one more point about some of this defending my original post. Many have argued that this can't be true because Isildur, Townsend etc. Have won more money or are playing in the big game & doing well etc. while some of these mystery players I speak of are not there. They use this as proof that the ones playing are the best..


I just want you to think about one thing. The opportunity that the players have had that have won the most money. What if John Doe who lives in Poland etc. has played in his home game for 12 years & has mastered body language from playing live, but the stakes where he lives in podunk poland are very small so he just is content with going to his game a few times a week & winning. Some of the easy money has left the game because he wins all the time , now its even tougher. He doesn't play online & his skill set isn't necessarily attributable to the math strategy of winning big online, So while someone like townsend has maybe learned math theory skills to win online at the same point pyramided up in stakes after running in godmode, has access to a ton more games, several at once, more hands per hour & huge stakes, Can make much more money.

However what if John Doe & Townsend played together live. Is it possilble that John Doe could own townsend, I would say yes. Others will disagree, but John hasn't had the opportunity to be in townsends position. This doesn't mean that he couldnt beat him live. So who are the 10
best players, we may have never seen some of them.

So if you have a huge edge online, then the opportunity to make much more money there would exist because of the option of games of any stakes at all times. This alone would put the best online players in a position to be able to say they won the most & have the roll to play in the big games. However it isn't proof that they are the best when there are probably other better live players that haven't the same opportunities to win that kind of money & are not able to recieve recogniton or exposure to magazines, tv etc.

wow, according to All Talk, I just might be the best poker player in the world.

I'm beginning to like him.

that's where your logic is flawed gabe,

the same can be said for a group of people in a local area who play any kind of sport with one person always being many steps ahead of the rest.

you're missing diversity amongst the best playing against the best.

where as the player pool for online poker is extremely large as well as having the ease of access to play anyone at any stake in the convenience of your own home.

then you make the assumption which is what this thread is titled. so instead of just continuing on with your assessment, how about just play samo, fwf, ike, or twoshae? you are a favorite according to yourself so why not prove it?

I think your missing the point, which is that online the edge may be very small now, so anyone winning huge amounts is exploiting that small edge over & over & over by multitabling & pyramiding up in stakes. In live play, the edge can be much much larger than online due to tells, but the opportunity to exploit that only exist at maybe 35 hands an hour at best & limited to the stake of the game in their area. Not that I think anyone that could be online poker does because its rigged anyway

THIS WOULD PROVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HE HAS CLAIMED.

dude post a link. im pretty sure i read this thread, and i don't think samo posted in it. not sure about that. but if it's the thread i'm thinking of with aa and the exact same flop recently, i'm positive that every reg said fold flop from beginning to end of the thread

Yea it will be just like that except at the end when everyone still hates you

Gabe,

I've honestly enjoyed your last few posts. At the end of the day most of us are here to learn about poker and you are certainly no random fish. I just wish that you would drop the strange laser theory stuff. No one believes it and it detracts from what you do have to contribute.

As for the HU match I think everyone got a little wound up and out of line but I do understand why Samo got frustrated. Perhaps he didn't handle it perfectly but the escrow issue is standard in the online world, which is, after all where his experience lies. Samo is one of the original big winners in online poker and a match between you two would be a great test of your ideas.

I do have to say that Polov or whatever should IMO be banned. Making threats over the internet most likely violates some laws and could in some circumstances bring legal problems for the site.

Before he comes on to offer to fight me, I'm an old guy who walks funny and he would win the fight. It doesn't change the fact that he has acted like an angry 12 year old.

exactly in bolded, so how would that person who is limited to the stake and same player pool in the area be defined as the best in the world? your argument doesn't hold much weight there.

and explain why are online edges smaller? because the lack of live tells?

you actually dumb down the best online players into a group where you believe they all exhibit tells in a live setting when in reality, they probably have way more self control and have a seemingly superior mental toughness in comparison to you.

as in you complain about bad beats in the same way a beginner would by dumbing down situations without any exhibiting any understanding of variance or sample size. specifically with your comments such as "claudia got 85th" or "i played a 4b pot with K6o cause i KNEW the guy was light." your are so ego driven that every single hand that you lost where you believed to be correct in your reads certainly means you that you "think" you played the hand correctly or that you did not get out played.