I can assure you I have very thick skin and I don't care what they think or say. The only thing I ever cared about what the content of the posts being made. When Mason posts advise that I think is wrong and doing a disservice to the people reading it and I can't even respond because he banned me then I reach the point where its just not worth it anymore.

You may think you didn't, but obviously the owner of the site did. Maybe you should be willing to accept that others' interpretations of your posts may be different than what you (claim to have) intended. Or you can go on maintaining that you didn't insult the owner of the site after he banned you specifically for insulting him. There is only one person whose interpretation actually matters here, and it's not you or me.

You really are an insufferable troll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rob, do you consider the blanket statement (not referencing any player or hand specifically) that playing a hand badly will hurt your long term winrate, to be (a) factually incorrect (b) insulting to an indivudal (c) both or (d) neither

(b) That statement alone I would consider factually correct, but in context was likely insulting to an individual. I would have to see the exact post and the context to make a proper judgement though. I can't find that post, I guess it was deleted? Of course I'm sure it wasn't that single post that got the account banned.

Shrug I️ look at it like all things come to an end. There was a time mason and 2+2s limit Holdem advice was ahead of its time, now his posts and articles are woefully dated. I️ understand how jon feels

Great discussion in both threads. No need for ban hanmers at all. Have seen other threads get far more personal and derailed.

Have you considered just not responding and trusting that people will come to the same conclusions as you about Mason's advice?

Yah let the chips fall where they may. Dead horse severely beaten.

Jon, I have learned from you, and for that, I thank you.

This post is a good example of why the poster(s) dead..money and dead.money were both banned, and I now assume that these posters were you based on what you just wrote. Here's a couple of specifics:

You wrote:

"We limp TT pre-flop"

Here's what I actually wrote in my article in our Online Magazine (which can be found here): https://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/...talk-about.php

First, I quote from the "Playing in Loose Games" section in our book Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players. But, as you state, you've never read any of our books and this one short paragraph is only an introduction to the material in this section.

The general idea is that you extract the most money from your opponents by putting them in a position to make big mistakes. Sometimes that means manipulating the pot size into one that is most likely to be a size where they make errors. Occasionally you make the pot bigger early to make them chase more those times you flop a great hand. Other times you keep it smaller to keep the hand from being a “shootout” where you have to chase just like they will. Of course, it is not worth making these plays if you give up too much by doing it. Only in marginal situations should you make a lesser expected value play for the sake of future benefits. But these marginal situations do come up a lot, so try to recognize them.

Then, I wrote the following in the article

At his point I need to make a comment. Notice in the first excerpt from our book it states “Other times you keep it smaller to keep the hand from being a “shootout” where you have to chase just like they will.” However, in this spot, since there is no raise, the pot hasn’t gotten that big, so for those of you who prefer to raise in this spot with a pair of tens, I have no objection. But partly because I had been in discussion relative to hands like this, my play was to call and then see what would happen.

Notice from this it should be clear that I think that raising with TT in this spot is the correct play, but for other reasons I chose to just call.

Of course, you miss the key point of the article, and that is once the pot has gotten large, which just so happened after the player in the big blind raised, I did not take it to three bets as I think you would with a pair of tens. And why is that? Well here's another excerpt from the article which again comes from the "Playing in Loose Games" section in our book.

For instance, suppose you have two kings or two queens in the big blind. The player under the gun raises and six people call. Our preferred way to play this hand is to not reraise, and then when the flop comes to bet out, unless it includes an ace. You should come out betting enlisting the original preflop raiser to be your unwitting partner to knock people out.

Then you wrote:

"and lead the 844 flop because BB will raise KJo."

Notice that leading the flop is consistent with this last passage from our book which you claim to have never read. As for what the big blind will raise with, I don't know that he would raise with KJo. My assumption when he raised was that he either had a big pair of two large cards (which is typical for many of the players in this game).

The you write:

"We don't 3 bet for god knows what reason but ignore that part of the analysis"

That part of the analysis wasn't ignored. That's the purpose of the two paragraphs I quoted from our book. You also seem to forget that we've had a number of threads relative to these ideas where the reason for making this type of play has been addressed in detail. Plus, I've stated that I'm not going to post the whole "Playing in Loose Games" section, but if you were to read that section, you would see when we recommend to keep these pots small and when we recommend to make these pots large and gain a good understanding, whether you agree with these strategies or not, as to why we recommend making these plays in certain situations.

Then you write:

"and decided to lead the Q turn because BB will obviously call with KJo and BB of course calls with KJ."

But this is what I actually wrote in the article:

The turn was the Q. I bet and my opponent called. Here, in case my hand is best I don’t want to give my opponent a free card, and, in fact, hope he folds.

That sure is a whole lot different from what you just said I wrote. Why is that?

Then you write:

Now we get to the river and have the easiest bet ever since he's going to check back Ax here but probably call always and never bluff KJ (which he should never have anywyays) so we decide to check the river to induce a bluff from KJ and guess what KJ bluffs the river and we win the greatest hand ever played.

and I wrote the following:

The river was the 9. My play was to check to take advantage of his aggressive tendencies, my opponent bet, I called, he showed KSJH, and my pair of Tens won the pot producing a profit of $360.

If you thnk this play is wrong, fine. Vigorous debate is what these forums are about. By the way, I do agree that against most players a bet is the best play.

And speaking of vigorous debate, don't you think that for vigorous debate to happen and be worthwhile it's important that you represent acurately what the person you disagree with has actually said or written. Changing what someone says and then explaining what's wrong with it is not a class move. But I'm sure you already knew that.

MM

I'll maybe give some action, gl either way

Okay, I see where MM is coming from w the twisting of words. dead..money is a little glib when it comes to presentation, and exaggerates to make a point.

Looking at the hand again, I'd just c/c vs the overly aggressive opponent turn and river and not 3bet/lead as it's wawb.

It's not wa/wb.
If they have a higher pair, they're way ahead.
If we have the higher pair, we're way ahead.
If they have two higher unpaired cards, we're modestly ahead, not way ahead.

Not that I necessarily know the difference, but from what I've seen, I agree.

Jon, if you quit, They win. Just register 20 gimmicks, sign your posts JL so we know who it is, and let them get banned one by one.

Ah, the ELO approach.

mason, you are still ignoring the question at hand. Yes I realize you didn't lead the turn to get called by KJ (just a happy coincidence) and that you lead the turn because (a) we want him to fold and (b) there is a very hi % chance that he takes a free card. Great, we agree on both points. Now explain why if we are leading the turn a high percentage of the time we don't 3 bet the flop OOP when we have a massive equity advantage range vs range.

Where exactly does the 2 paragraphs you quotes from the book address this. Most likely it doesn't since its clearly wrong not to. If anything he's more likely to fold the turn after we 3 bet the flop figuring he's drawing dead than he is to fold to a check call turn donk line, so we both get more money in AND win the pot a higher % of the time.

You posted a hand for vigorous debate, thats great. But when you try to analyze is street by streets here's what it looks like:
(1) Flop: "I agree raising pre-flop is probably best but i called for the purpose of the discussion" Limping is clearly wrong but you admit that so cool. However, it basically leaves whole discussion moot since we will never be in the spot. I understand you want to illustrate your point about keeping pots small but when we are in those spots it will be with different ranges on different boards etc and its a completely different spot. We are not going to be in many small pots on the flop with large overpairs to the board that is the best hand a massive percentage of the time to often in unsraised pots.

(2) Flop: Without even getting into why CR is probably better than leading lets just focus on not 3 betting, its a large mistake and makes the flop play pretty bad.

(3) Turn: You lead turn, fine but pretty bad and not consistent with the flop at all.

(4) River: Clearly wrong... yes you want to check river to over agressive players to induce sometimes but to assume that he (a) somehow has K hi in his range here and (b) would bluff with K hi (or A hi) is pretty bad. Every hand that he should bet here will call you on the river and plenty of hands that he will hapilly check back will call. I don't think this spot is even remotely close and worth disucissing.

I'm all for vigiour debate but some of these spots there is nothing to debate, you took lines that are just wrong. Specially not 3 betting the flop and betting the river is just bad.

I appreciate your posts Jon, and you are one of 3 or 4 posters left who still contributes valuable info on this forum.

Also this is the part of the article that I really had a problem with and where some of my "word twisting" came from.

Mason wrote "...my pair of Tens won the pot producing a profit of $360.

Now let’s suppose I play the hand in a more conventional way.. On the flop, I would have bet and probably would have gotten several callers. Then when the QD hit on the turn, my pair of Tens would have most likely become second best, but because of the large pot, I would have paid off on the river and lost a likely $140. Notice this is a $500 swing.

Now for those who don’t know, $40 an hour, or one big bet, is a rough guideline for what the best players are able to achieve in this game. And at $40 an hour, it will take 12½ hours (on average) to make up that $500."

This is just horribly misleading, and I can only imagine how a relatively new player would process this.

Good players will, new/inexperiences players won't.

This is the other point I'm talking about. Regarding the decisions to 3 bet the flop. I think 3 betting the flop is correct, I've posted why. You think its not. Your reasoning is "

For starters, I imagine your book deals with generaltiies and not specific situations, Every hand and every situation is differnt. Here, 3 betting the flop is correct and your reasoning can't be see my book on how to play a situaton that is kind of similar (but likely completely different) to see why taking a line thats is likely wrong may be ok to use whether you agree or not

For instance, is there any spot in your book that deals specifically with having overpairs on the flop after we donk flop into pre-flop raiser and get raised by over agressive players, because thats what we are dealing with in the hand in question. I'm sure your book has some good points, but I doubt those points have anything to do with the best way to proceed on the flop after getting raised. Even if I'm wrong and those points are helpful, they can't be nearly as helpful as doing a simple stove for TT vs the range you think he raises on the flop.

Just curious about the TT hand limp pf in sb from mason.
Clear easy raise pf correct?
Now if it is clear, means it 99 cant be too far off the mark to raise...
About 77 ?
would that provide a better "realistic" conversation ?

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/5...-hand-1694915/

Disregarding the rest of the hand ( no offense but i think it was played terribly from the flop on), i tought raising limpers in the SB with 77 was the play ( even tho it as at the bottom of my range).

I guess that would reach more in the mason schema of things his talking about ( with 77) instead of TT , this is exactly the spot i could got this one wrong and mason idea's correct ?

Lot of posters seem to agree not to raise with 77 ?

Hi leavesofliberty:

Changing what someone writes and then explaining what is wrong with it is an old tactic that is only used by someone with a nasty agenda. Those of us in 2+2 management take this type of attack very seriously.

Best wishes,
Mason

He has already stated several times that he thinks raising there is a better play and the one he would typically make, but that he just limped with it as an experiment to see what would happen and possibly have something to discuss related to the recent debates about keeping pots from getting large preflop.

Personally I would generally raise there with TT as well, but would only limp in the 77 hand.