You know that and I know that. I still want to read the response when one of the acknowledged world's best limit hold'em players tells that guy he's wrong.

("Not playing at the level of HPFAP," I would expect. But it would be funny to see him try to say it with a straight face.)

In all seriousness, here is my barely informed reaction to the Mason vs. MSLHE battle that somehow spilled all over this forum:

I have honestly just skimmed the threads because the strat threads around here have been intolerable for years and rapidly elevate my blood pressure. But it looks like you guys became thoroughly triggered when Mason invited you to discuss the hand in his latest twoplustwo magazine article.

For starters, I see nothing wrong with how Mason played the hand. I have, in fact, read his books multiple times so I am quite familiar with the thought process and concepts he discussed in the article. I agree with Mason. But here is the thing... I ALSO agree with any posters who feel like raising pre-flop is the best way to maximize their profits. Either approach can work well for a successful live LHE player. So yes... I think overlimping TT in the small blind vs. 5 limpers is fine. It is a far less amazing spot than I think most posters realize. I would personally limp 99 and raise TT. Overlimping TT wouldn't even occur to me in game time, but it is certainly worth considering. I also think he played it extremely well post-flop.

Additionally, people really do need to stop acting like such jerks in strat threads. If you feel the need to get into it with a poster, take it to the LC/NC thread imo. It is extremely rude and counterproductive to clutter strat threads with arguments. Share your opinion on the thread, politely ask any questions you may have, and move on to the next thread. Lingering for days in a strat thread makes no sense. To make matters worse, Mason's posts are more accurate and thoughtful than the vast majority of posts around here. And most importantly, I know for a fact that Mason respects the modern online style of play and considers it completely valid when executed well by a strong player.

Mason's style can work extremely well. I would not be the least bit surprised if Mason has continued to make a big profit in the live LHE games throughout the modern era.

I do not understand why people even bother getting into big forum arguments with Mason. Where I come from, you respect legends of the game (yes, Mason is an LHE legend... deal with it) who have been playing for decades. Even if he really does start playing horribly and spouting nonsense in strat threads, that is totally fine with me. Chess players instinctively know to respect strong grandmasters from past eras who are well past their prime. The same is true in other sports and games that are not poker. And to be clear... I have no reason to believe that Mason is past his prime or a relic of the past. I strongly suspect that he continues to be a solid or even a big winner.

That being said, the level of livetard butthurt around here is hilarious and awesome. So please do continue!

This is a classic and extremely common example of livetardation in action:

"I am too much of a livetard to think for myself. Let's hear what (insert players who have lots of cool points) have to say!"

For the record, I strongly suspect that those two would giggle at the nonsense and promptly move on to a more rewarding activity before even bothering to form an opinion.

Unguarded,

You make some fair points, but do you really think the TT hand was played “extremely well postflop?” You think his decision to check/call the river was a good one?

Also, isn’t it hypocritically rude to suggest AllenBostick is a “livetard” who can’t think for himself?

Frankie, let me be perfectly honest with you. I think almost every post you have ever made completely sucks.

Well, that must mean there was at least 1 that didn’t completely suck. Glad to hear it. Best of luck at the tables.

Frankie:

Does it matter much how the river is played? Think through the possibilities:

1. If your opponent has a pair that beats tens, he'll usually call if his hand is best and on occasions might raise, and if you check he'll probably bet and you'll call. So that's essentially a wash.

2. If he has two big cards, and you bet he might call because of the size of the pot, but he may also fold conceding that you actually have the best hand. If you check, he'll often check behind but will sometimes be too tempted by the size of the pot and make a desperate bluff. So what's the different in your expectation here if you bet versus if you check?

3. And if he has a different kind of hand who knows what he'll do.

You and others are so keen on showing that I played the hand wrong and part of the way you do this is by seizing on an aspect of the hand that should have very little impact on your overall expectation that it hardly matters even if you could show that you're clearly correct and I played the river completely wrong.

But what does matter in the hand, and by this I mean has a significant impact on your overall expectation, are my plays before the flop and on the flop which are of course highly influenced by the size of the pot. That was the point of the "Hand to Talk About."

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason,

You are being unnecessarily defensive. I am not "keen on showing you played the hand wrong." I'm actually a big fan of yours and have read every book you've written. I have a lot of respect for both you and 2+2 publishing.

I don't actually think your river play is marginal at all. In fact, I think the difference in expectation between betting and checking may even be greater than the difference between completing and raising pre flop. In other words, while I think both are mistakes, I think the river play may be a bigger mistake. 2+2 Magazine typically holds itself to a high standard and I don't see why you are bothered that I chose to focus on a certain part of the hand that was not your personal focus. Saying that the river decision "hardly matters" just doesn't seem defensible to me. EV aside, it is important because it reveals what I think is a flaw in your thought process. The 2+2 magazine is meant to teach people how to play better poker, so this should be something that is fair game.

As for your analysis of the river, I think your three categories are useful, but you don't assign any probabilities to them. The three possibilities are not equally likely. Other than 99 and JJ, he is very unlikely to have a hand that beats TT and only 99 will be raising. There are 3 combos of 99. He is also very unlikely to have a "different kind of hand" other than maybe some random 87s/75s which he probably isn't raising pre flop. He is not calling the turn with JTs for example. And, as you say, if he has a worse pair, he will likely bet anyway, making it a wash.

So we can just focus on your category 2: big cards. Given the combinatorics and your reads, this is by far his most likely hand. So we need to compare the amount of combos that will call but not bet to the amount of combos that will bet but not call. Given your reads, the former category is much larger. It contains hands like AK, AJ, A8s, KJ etc. These are hands that we really shouldn't expect this sort of opponent to bet but we should definitely expect him to call. The category of worse hands that will bet but not call is a fraction of the size. It only contains the random 87s and hands like that. In this instance, your opponent bet KJ, but A) he likely would have called anyway and B) we surely couldn't have expected him to bet that here as a bluff given your reads. In fact a lot of opponents would probably fold the turn with KJ (or not raise it pre flop, at least not as frequently as Ax). And remember, you bet the turn because you thought he would take a free card with a lot of his range. So why expect him now to bluff something with clear high card value? Ok so maybe KJ is close to the bottom of his range and he bluffs with it. Do we expect him to bluff AK too? AJ? ATs?

I mean, this is just a really bad post. or maybe its great. I dunno. regardless, bolded is just super lol. where I come from, which I think is the same place as you, we lol at so called legends and call them out and ridicule them at every opportunity. I mean, if we cant beat them at the table, we sure as hell are gonna try to beat them in the forum.

anyway, what you are missing is that mason really did start all of this insensitivity. if there is one word that could describe his posts for me, it would be condescending.

the next word would be overly defensive.

and please realize, those are not attacks on mason. that is just the overall feeling I get from reading his posts.

and there are no so many that it would be hard to read all or most of his recent posts here.

Victor, it is not up to you or me to decide who is a legend. It is up to history. It is up to the masses. Does anyone other than Mason ITT even have a Wikipedia page? I personally expect my poker career to be buried by time and dust within the next decade if it isn't there already.

In the grand scheme of things, you and I are just two more talented young players who went on a hot streak for a few years and disappeared like the rest of them. If you outlive him, have fun watching all of Mason's books skyrocket up the charts as most of this forum pretends that they liked him all along. People will still be mixing me up with Terrence Chan. "Oh ya, Unguarded! That dude who wrecked the WSOP/WCOOP, played nosebleeds HU4rollz, and took up prize fighting in his 30s? Oh, that's Unassigned? So who is Unguarded then? Oh ya, I might have played with him once or twice... (changes subject)"

Wow, I was totally mixing together Unguarded + Unassigned.

Funny, that's also the one word that describes all of jon_locke's posts for me.

What is a livetard?

I think he basically explained it as someone thinking that having the skill to beat live 40/80 means you know everything. Some of the better online or 100/200+ live players would have some different stuff to offer.

I’m back after a long time. Man, does this place suck now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well at least you are here to save us from all the bad posting! Btw, awkward question... but who the hell are you? Regardless of who you are, leavesofliberty thinks you should take your Tapatalk and shove it up your azz.

There are people who can vouch for me as a real human being. I'm guessing Mason as scared most of them off by now.

No Tapatalk signature in that reply!

I learn quickly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems solid.

Sent from my Alcatel GO FLIP using Run-D.M.C. forum browser app

This is an excellent question! Unfortunately, "livetard" was coined by the artist formerly known as DrElo. So please consider my answer to be an interpretation as opposed to a definition until his latest gimmick account drops in to enlighten us.

First off, the ability to spot a livetard is quite similar to a gay man's gaydar. Or if you are a straight guy who can't keep his dick in his pants, it is similar to your ability to quickly identify freaky gals no matter how well they disguise themselves. But at the same time, teaching the uninitiated to quickly spot livetards can be difficult or nearly impossible. Just as a homing pigeon cannot explain how he travels hundreds of miles and lands on your doorstep despite having a brain the size of a pea, I might not be able to explain how to spot a livetard. But I will do my best.

The two key factors are a lack of independent thought and compulsive groupthink. The livetard lacks the courage and self-esteem to publicly express his true thoughts or may be an outright mind slave to his designated alpha livetard. The livetard rarely knows why he plays or behaves the way he does at the live 20/40 table and instead lives from bro fist to bro fist. The livetard does not have an actual "style", but instead conforms to whatever play or behavior he deems most likely to earn attention from his livetard bros.

Livetardation and skill/talent are not actually related. It is entirely possible to be a cocky douchebag who vastly overestimates his live poker skills, but to not be a livetard. It is perfectly healthy and acceptable for an aspiring young poker pro to behave like an insecure jackass so long as he continues to learn and grow from his mistakes. But a true livetard will inevitably be broken down by the local pack of livetard hyenas and submit to his new home at the rock bottom of their livetard social hierarchy. The problem is that every step up the totem pole is a step in the wrong direction that continues until you cease to be human. Fortunately, the poker gods can be generous and will occasionally provide the livetard with opportunities to experience an epiphany and break free from the alpha livetard's spell. On the flip side, livetards are usually too weak and pathetic to see the light and rebel despite these signs from the poker gods.

This may come as a surprise, but an online player can actually be a livetard! The difference is that the online community will immediately recognize livetard behavior and intervene before it gets out of control. The aspiring livetard will be forced to either go through the long and painful process of becoming a real person or go through door #2 and begin working his way "up" the livetard hierarchy in pursuit of his lifelong dream of being invited to taste wine and test drive luxury cars with leo doc. And yes... as you may have guessed, the aspiring livetard usually chooses door #2.

This concept is a bit more abstract, but I will try my best to help you guys identify livetards within minutes of meeting them. Fortunately, most of us do not know what it is like to be touched inappropriately as a child. But livetards can be thought of as the pedophiles of the adult world. When first encountering a livetard, you may feel as though you are being violated even though you cannot quite explain why. This is because the livetard is figuratively working his hand from your knee to your crotch or slobbering on the back of your neck at all times. This will never stop unless you immediately show him that you are are not an easy target, in which case he will promptly move on to his next potential victim.

And now for a slightly more concrete example... those of you who come from a rough background can likely identify which guys would do well in prison and which guys would talk a big game only to find themselves completely broken within a week. Livetards would inevitably become the latter when faced with true adversity. This is because the livetard is a pack animal that instantly transforms into a shivering coward without his livetard bros nearby. The livetard is a laughing hyena that has no idea why it is laughing.

The good news is that livetardation is curable in most cases. But it requires a tremendous amount of risk and hard work which the livetard usually finds more terrifying than death itself. It is rare, but that punk who did nothing but take it up the ass his first year in prison may occasionally rebel and successfully break free of his tragic fate. The reward for finally showing something resembling courage will be pride, self-esteem, dignity, etc... things that real people take for granted, but that may be foreign concepts to a livetard.

The alpha livetard is a very interesting case in that they don't actually qualify as true livetards. So long as you have no ethical problem with the alpha livetard enslaving livetard weaklings and parading them around the casino like dogs on a leash, the alpha livetard may be a perfectly likable and respectable person. The true livetard will believe that the alpha livetard worked his way up the social hierarchy to earn his leadership role. In reality, the alpha livetard likely seized control of the pack overnight with minimal effort.

Becoming an alpha livetard may sound like a lot of fun! After all, slavery is generally considered illegal which can make this role seem oh-so-taboo and sexy. But just as many young people experiment with BDSM in their 20s only to get bored and move on, being an alpha livetard is usually just an experimental phase. The problem, of course, is that the alpha livetard is inevitably forced to spend large amounts of time interacting with his livetard minions which will eventually become too repulsive to tolerate despite the rewards. Additionally, the alpha livetard may experience a feeling that real people refer to as "ambition". But it can be difficult or even impossible to become better at poker while being bombarded with the never ending cacophony of idiocy coming from said livetard minions. For this reason, the alpha livetard may decide to move on to more balanced and rewarding relationships as their former minions scurry to find a new master.

And one final point... spotting a livetard can be confusing because they may appear to be reasonably tough opponents who are perfectly capable of engaging in intelligent discussions about poker strategy. But the difference between the livetard's play and "ideas" and that of the alpha livetard is that the true livetards are simply regurgitating and plagiarizing the behavior of their master. Their play is the equivalent of a forged version of a great work of art. To the untrained eye, the painting may appear to be the Mona Lisa. But to a true artist, it is an obvious forgery. Listen closely and the truth will reveal itself. Here is a typical example:

Livetard: "I wish I had a way to randomize my plays when playing live poker. I use a random number generator on Bovada when I need to employ a properly balanced mixed strategy, but there is no good way to do this live."

Aspiring livetard: "I know what you mean! The players in this game are so bad. It would be nice to be able to own them even harder."

Real person: "Dan Harrington recommends using the second hand on your watch to randomize your play as needed when playing live."

Livetard: (Rolls his eyes and turns on his prissy little livetard ***** voice) "No, because then your opponent might notice what you are doing and catch on."

Aspiring livetard: (trying his best to mimick the repulsive mannerisms of his future livetard bro) "Ya, that's not going to work."

Real person: (trying not to die laughing) "......"

How livetards perceive themselves:



How real people perceive livetards:

Interesting, to me it always meant somebody who's fundamentals and theory was poor but because they played tightish relative to the field of complete morans they could win some at a live poker game...and sometimes because of lolvariance...win quite a bit over many years.

They often talk about how for some reason or another they just can't win online.

That and expert variance reduction.

Oh no... "livetard" definitely refers to the relentlessly arrogant semi-morons who make live poker a miserable experience.

Here is a link to Elo's story about a typical encounter with a pack of livetard hyenas that he wrote shortly before coining "livetard":

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=834

Is that the post that got him banned? For threatening arson lol