I couldn't get the link to work initially. Then the mods helped me out.

Yes it is a troll. I do not think Berkey is a world class player or even country class/state class/city class.

Maybe street class.

(1) I´m not defending the site and I´m not related to it in any aspects.

(2) People go to Solve4WHY trying to get better... As people do a lot of -EV things trying to get better, also. Nothing new over the sunshine.

(3) I´m not saying Solve4WHY strategy is -EV. Neither it is +EV.
I just don´t know, because I´ve never paid for any class/course.
All I saw are the free marketing material and we can hardly make a true judgement with this small sample.
I do think it´s no good, but I could be wrong.
If it´s really that bad, it won´t remain on the market for too long.
If it´s good, than good for the ppl that gave it a shot. Maybe in some years we could just discover that those guys were missunderstood geniouses.
Maybe in some years they will be MIA, vanished.

One thing I know for sure is that some students seens happy with the results and they somehow believe it helped ´em to evolve, so good for ´em that invested on it.

(4) I heard Berkey saying somewhere that the goal of Poker Out Load was being EITHER educative and enterteinaning.
I believe it´s super educative to listen to wrong thought process and being able to see that it is wrong and why. lol.
Jokes aside, there could be people that founds it educative, and if it helps ´em... No problem at all.

(5) I´m not sure how you got to the conclusion that I´m a bad player.
Maybe I am, maybe I am not. Just enjoying the fact that you know so much about so many things.

This is mainly a bunch of nonsense. The market eats up bad products all the time made by charlatans (easy to know this is true if you get any targeted advertisements about trading or flipping houses or crypto investments or making a living off amazon w/e. And the fact that ponzis are still very popular all around the world.)

Not saying they are scammers/running a ponzi of any sorts, but it's certainly some of the worst "strategy" content I've ever seen. It is entertaining though. Sample size is certainly large enough to realize they don't have a clue... have you seriously watched everything on just the "poker out loud" and still wrote the post you just did? Lol. Berkey gets to play the best games where if you have a pulse you have a winrate... as long as that continues he can keep having clueless ppl by his products/keep churning out content, so no him disappearing is not a measure on if his product is good or not.

This post is just littered with errors.

Obviously spelling but mostly logical inconsistencies.

Solve4WHY is spreading incorrect poker strategy and charging obscene amounts of money - mostly to clueless live players that don't know any better.

I won't say it's a scam because Berkey probably believes he is a good player - it's more of a delusional product based upon incorrect assumptions of one's poker ability - mainly rooted in the variance of small samples sizes which happen in the slow pace of live games.

I dont think it have logic inconsistencies, but you are probably right about the spelling, and maybe that is the main cause that I couldnt be clear about what I mean.

My first post was defending the product´s (Poker Out Load) value to the community as an entertaining product.
And arguing that we, as a community, should encourage high investment productions on an industry that usually lack such high quality material (production regards).

Than I said that I dont like Solve4WHY course (strategy regards), meaning that I am probably never buying it, but that I couldnt say on a technical aspect if it is that bad as ppl are saying.

Maybe Berkey is playing really soft games, but if he keep making money playing poker, he should be doing something right.

The strategic aspect dont mind that much for my arguing line, and I just made some "MAYBE" statements trying to prove that.

Its hard to measure "winning strategy quality" and "bad/good players" on Poker when there are a lot of factors involved.

And I also dont understand why it bothers people so much if they had (probably they do, but I like the IF and MAYBE when talking about poker) poor quality strategy considering it is not a scam - as you said yourself.

Your post is also littered with errors, equilibrium depends on clairvoyance. Your assumption that his product is based on incorrect assumptions based on sample size may well be in fact your ignorance of his clairvoyance into the strategies of his player pool, and in fact be higher EV than what your lines would be playing the "correct strategy" based on incorrect assumptions in the same player pool.

Lol... so you're the clueless guy with 99, right?

These arguments don't work against winning online players that know how to play poker. Stick to the live crowd.

My comment was not meant to defend the play in the vids but rather question the certainty of the condemnation and perhaps equally incorrect assumptions in the thread. Your retort is a good example of what I was attempting to point out.

Equally incorrect assumptions? No.

You are employing a very basic hypothesis called ad hoc hypothesis. You can always burden failing explanations with this type of hypothesis to prevent it from being falsifiable (saying I am ignorant to his clairvoyance etc).

Simpler theories are always more preferred to complex ones because they are testable. Much like GTO-esque play is testable but your fantasy "exploit the player pool with clairvoyance deviations" is not testable.

It's basic probability theory. By definition, all assumptions introduce possibilities for error, if an assumption does not improve the accuracy of a theory (i.e. huge deviations based on phantom exploits to the player pool), it's only effect is to increase the probability that the overall theory is wrong.

Now you can go back to your cult leader Berkey and tell him this.

Omg thats too much arrogance for a NL10 player.

lol are these satire?

Believe it or not, many of the terms in that list comes from just 3 (out of 38) episodes of their vlogcast on Youtube.

Pool tendencies is a legit term. The rest seem made up or unnecessarily fancy to appear intelligent. I see nick Howard also making up quite a few words as well. 'Micro concept' is one example

As a matter of fact, the last few terms on the list are Nick Howard not Matt Berkey:

"the pio solver collective"

"pool tendencies"

"free-ish showdown"

"4-bet induce"

"structural misunderstanding of the poker investment model"

Berkey is not 100% guilty. LOL

really curious what does 'Pole out' mean?

Is watching S4W to spot the mistakes a good way to study?

He uses economics terminology as well, "the market", to describe a player pool. In one episode he says 'this hand as good equity driven properties', which probably has the same meaning as 'this hand has good equity'.

There is a big word for people who use big words, it is the word:

"sesquipedalian", i'll leave you to look that one up in the dictionary.

It's common in universities and cults, in particular french philosophers do this a lot.

in my view it isn't. For the same reason watching a video of someone playing z500 for an hour is a bad way to learn, your getting random data here and there, there is no structure to the learning experience. You may learn a thing or two but it's like expecting to become an expert in some field by going to the library and picking a random book off the shelf.

They also do this in sports to try to make the commentators sound more authoritative. There are many examples, but a couple off the top of my head are:

Basketball: "elevate" instead of "jump"

American football: a quarterback has "good arm talent" instead of "a strong arm"

I've heard basketball announcers say elevate instead of jump,I've never heard any use good arm talent to describe a QB.

No they wouldn't bc nobody wants to ****ing play with them

I've seen plenty of online pros really struggle in live poker for lots of reasons and it basically all of it stems from not knowing what live poker is about

My favorite are the arguments on here "bro that guy couldn't even beat 25nl on stars" like it ****ing matters if they aren't playing 25 nl on stars.

People make a huge mistake when they think that because player A can win more money online than player b,that live the same thing will happen.Theyre 2 very different results games.

Generally speaking I agree with you
Someone is 35 years old and has been grinding poker for years and needs a stake for 2/5 or 5/10 nl-yea they probably suck at poker
And if they don't they're terrible with money

But the amount of money you need for nose bleeds is just so absurd barring some outlier like binking the wsop main (even then?) there is just no way someone is working their way up there days from the bottom to the nosebleeds on their own dime

As far as tourney backing-i also pretty much agree with you
People massively overestimate their edge these days

The exception being the wsop main who according to everyone I know who has ever played it is super super soft

While i haven't played it the week leading up to the main in vegas,the cash games get so much softer
Tons of business dudes just punting in cash with no clue how to play who All say they're there to play the main

Lol I actually looked it up. Fitting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://youtu.be/9VoUU5ENxFI?t=31
https://youtu.be/wWjWmDP6ux4?t=132
https://youtu.be/a_kch-zjrMg?t=24
https://youtu.be/gE8dn06aJe8?t=1
https://youtu.be/kE2hBdWGjsU?t=24
https://youtu.be/JvmJWNMLzHA?t=164
https://youtu.be/Gn5qg2B91Ik?t=13

https://sportsnaut.com/2019/11/repor...after-workout/
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ff-the-charts/
https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/pat...omise-patriots