Hi Ted

I can say with utmost certainty that you have zero clue what he won during that time frame or any other time frame.

There are two themes ITT. Is Ted acting odd? Is he still a winning player?

As to the first - I've played against him a few times since he's been back at Botgata and nothing about his behavior struck me as being odd.

As to the second - he was pretty bad at Omaha but I'd never challenge him at Stud.

The text in bold seems to be contradicting.

lol, you have a point.

On an online forum it is. The average new poster's an idiot and wet behind the ears, at least for their first year or two (consider it a probationary period.) It has to be this way or any new troll could just show up and expect their word to carry as much weight as the word of a longtime, respected poster. 2016 reg date means you don't know much about poker and 2+2 by default.

Gotta love the guy who hasn't provided sources demanding people provide sources

I have already answered this question? I have played a range of 20/40, 40/80, and 80/160 LHE about 5-6 times over the last two years at the Borgata, with the most recent being a few months ago. Saw him play a few other times. All of my posts and comments have been from personal experience. No harm intended.

No, lack of credibility is. You haven't given one fact in defense of Ted, just assertions from your 16 post account, and challenge everyone elses crediblitity.

No, I'm believing what intelligent players who are playing with him now are saying.

The world is full of terrible old stud players who claim to have always beat the game.

If you only care about Stud games then you'll be sitting by the board waiting to play for days on end.

Your phone must be full of the numbers of everyone who plays in that 75 HOE game, you claim you could call them right now. Ask them why they are bumbunting Ted. You can name their names if you want.

I'll give you a clue. If you are the worlds best Stud player, but not good at holdem and not good at Omaha, then you are a losing player in HOE and probably most any mid stakes or higher mix game that runs on the planet. Even more if you are on drugs while you play.

If Ted can play high stakes Stud games, then why is he donking off his money at LHE and Mix games where he's a dog?

Very well stated.

As to the first theme, there is also an underlying current of age bias. To some posters the theme is that Ted is acting old,which equates for them to odd.

Perhaps the first line above answers the question you ask ?

Perhaps he is "evolving", i.e learning LHE, which would hardly be a difficult game to learn if you already were a great stud player.

So in the end, it turns out you're exactly as I guessed.
An internet blowhard.
When the rubber hits the road, you have nothing but free rhetoric and theories.

Burden of proof lies with the claimant. Assume I'm a janitor at Borgata for all I care.

They made a very specific claim about him that, when asked to provide relevant sources, is quickly written off to a nebulous "they".

The one guy who claims to have played with him is clearly engaged in narration more than expressing any meaningful insight (if you don't recognize this, you're naive) and when I called at least one person who would absolutely know for sure, he said none of this was true.

So, who am I to believe?
The internet turds who claim something is true but fall short of being able to verify anything they're saying, or people who are there, now, and can verify everything they're saying, and confirm that nothing the internet turds are saying is true?

Evolving? When he sat down with Beal and Chip and his 500k of case money from the safe they were playing LHE. LOL

It's the way the poker economy is evolving. 2016 30/60 games are much tougher than 2006 30,000/60,000 games.

1) LOL

2) The only vaguely truth'y thing in that statement is that its no secret nosebleed stakes whale businessmen aren't playing at the highest skill level possible, which is invariably what you're dealing with whenever a game runs at some freakshow level.

3) Protip: A non-negotiable part of the nosebleed skill set is being able to move around horrifying sums of cash without having the stakes negatively impact your game play, which is a very, very rare talent. I definitely don't have it. Most of your "great tournament players" with amazing track records in tournaments yet they fail at cash, that's what they're lacking. It's why a guy playing 1K/2K might not beat the Orientals at 30/60... but they'll never be playing 1k/2K.

Nothing funnier than listening to a bunch of 5/10 annual-trip-to-Vegas eHeroes talk about the skill level of guys who play for sums of money in a blind that represents more than their net worth, including their mortgaged house and 2009 Honda Civic.

I thought the size of the blind didn't necceesarily correlate with skill?

Stakes themselves are a hugely influential factor, since the ability to decouple your emotional investment in the value of money from your gameplay behaviors is extremely hard when large sums are swinging.

This is why there are great mathy game theorists who grind out midstakes forever, but hit a ceiling once the chips change color. They can't handle the emotional aspect of the game and how it interrelates with money and their own financial well being.

Some of them are great horses since they can play more freely with OPM, but it's still always going to be a psychological barrier.

Every person you see playing at the nosebleeds gives precisely 0 ****s about the money on the table. That is the cost of entry into those games. You can be the best mathematical poker theorist alive and go sit in Bobby's Room, but absent the other critical skill sets needed to succeed at that level...



... by guys who may not know the capital of South Dakota but have insights into other, more primal things.

Well that was all irrelevant. Just because someone can afford to play in a nosebleeds game doesn't mean they can beat it

you seem emotionally invested

could you tell us why?

damn, I was really hoping that this guy is for real, which would be hilarious, but it turns out he's just another troll, now derailing into "math vs feel players" area

It was all totally relevant.

Either you have ****ty reading comprehension, or it conveyed some insight that you're fundamentally naive about/blind to.

Either way, when it comes to nosebleeds, whales are whales because of their bankroll, not their poker skill. I'm pointing out that all great high stakes players (without exception) have qualitative skills that transcend their command of quantitative game theory.

This is what the low/midstakes autistic grinders will never (evereverever) understand, nor can it be explained to them but they probably have a vague understanding that 'something is going on' since they're such great poker players in theory but for some inexplicable reason, they just can't ever seem to move past certain stakes against guys who are much 'dumber'.

Not really emotionally invested.

It's just obnoxious to watch someone being completely lied about who isn't here to defend himself and is a pretty decent guy, especially by the ****show degenerate lowlife standards of the scumbag LV poker world.

It's doubly obnoxious to watch losers with no credentials at all accuse a guy who won a bracelet as recently as 2014 of being 'unable to play poker' or 'sucking at poker'.

spergs, everyone is relaxing and trying to have a good time here, man.

hmmmm

i call

ps thanks for explaining why you are emotionally invested