Fallacious thinking re: TAG identification

[DanS]

First, a little background:

I'm a winning player (likely, didn't implement Pokertracker until recently) whose main games are Paradise 3/6 and 5/10 5max, and Stars 5/10 6max. I am moving to Party 6max for rakeback, amongst other things.

I've noticed that most people I play sucks. Balls. Big balls. If I had to give a rough estimate, I'm say I'm better than 95% of my opposition, and for comparison's sake, 60% of semi-regular HUSH poster.

Anyway, when I identify somebody who can play well, there's a high likelihood that it's a 2plus2er... identified either by a similiar screen name to their 2plus2 name, or other clues. Bottom line, I'm hoping I'm identifying TAGs by how they play, and not by symbolic clues (such as their screen names)... if I can identify the quality players reasonably easily w/o PT, it should be care with PT/Playerview/Gametime+.

That wasn't even really a question, I guess, so here is one. Let's assume that most good-very good-excellent low-midlimit HUSH players online either read, participate, or have heard of 2plus2, or other gambling forums. Those who haven't are purely book read, or just have a killer knack for gambling intuition. Is it more likely that:

a) they're studious bastards who discovered the forum(s) through a poker book, or did a web search.
b) they're dumb fucktards who lucked into it by doing a "brown trout" search, or someone mentioning "2plus2" in the chat box?

Fvck, that wasn't even a good question. Nonetheless, please discuss and/or hijack this thread at will.

Dan

[RunDownHouse]

EDIT: I was cranky with my response.

Still, I don't understand what you're looking for with this thread. Why does it matter?

[DanS]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: I was cranky with my response.

Still, I don't understand what you're looking for with this thread. Why does it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't see your response, but I wouldn't have had a problem if you lit me up, I probably deserve it.

It matters because shorthanded is all, IMO, about understanding your thought process vis a vis your opponents... much more so than ring, and nearly as much as big bet poker.

I worded it poorly, but there's something important in my post. I'll let you know if/when I'm able to phrase it better.

Dan

[Schneids]

I like the post.

Side story that kind of relates:

I was looking through my Pokertracker DB at some players and noticed from MANY months ago I had a note on our own Rory that pretty much hit exactly how I'd describe him now. That was cool seeing that way back then when I didn't really use the numbers much that I still had a brain that could do some observing.

[fyodor]

Speaking of numbers and 2+2, one of the tables I was at tonight a 76/50 asked a 43/10 if he read 2+2. The 76/50 was just giving money away. He knows about 2+2 and I assume has read at least something here. I guess he just doesn't care for the advice.

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: I was cranky with my response.

Still, I don't understand what you're looking for with this thread. Why does it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was to tell the forum that he's better than 95% of his opposition. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[DanS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: I was cranky with my response.

Still, I don't understand what you're looking for with this thread. Why does it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was to tell the forum that he's better than 95% of his opposition. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon, dude... I wasn't trying to shake my cock in the air... I was making light of how poorly people play shorthanded by saying "Hey, I'm pretty average for people who study the game, yet I'm in the top decile of all people who play the game." It strikes me as absurd that I have so much to learn/improve, and I'm still better than the vast majority of people who risk hundreds and thousands of dollars playing this game.

No penis waving intended... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Dan

[naphand]

Dick waving or not, your attitude stinks, or at least comes across that way. If you start your posts "I am a winning player..." it never looks good. Most posters here don't give a monkeys whether you are winning or not, it is the quality of your posts and the discussion generated that counts. There are a number of very good posters here who have made very valuable contributions while losing (usually after moving up a limit).

Calling people who study the game studious bastards and people who come to the forum "by luck" fvcktards is a pretty sad way to describe the people you also describe as paying you $$. Poker is such an up-and-down ego-blistering game that it is easy to be angry a lot, this said by someone who (at least appears to be) is angry a lot. Actually I am not that angry, just very uncompromising... /images/graemlins/mad.gif Experience teaches us to love these players, not hate them.

Also, I think if you want to classify yourself as better than 95% of the players you meet and 60% of the forum, you really need to be able to demonstrate these facts, which you can't, so better not to make these assertions, they are completely un-necessary.

HOWEVER, your question appears to be about observing players rather than using PokerTracker. Hehehe, a subject of interest to me... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif. I think PT is far too useful in many other ways not to use it, it provides much more useful information than just "reads". PT certainly helps to fill-in reads you have on people and with some work, it can reliably flag certain categories of players (more important in 9-10 tables IMO) or for multi-tablers. Too many on this forum rely too heavily on PT stats on players, and their posts reflect this, but it is difficult to be too critical as PT is such a powerful tool to have at our disposal. It is quite new and the correct use has not been defined yet, but hopefully we are moving in the right direction on this. PT is obviously unique to on-line play and provides insights into our own play and our opponents, while with live play we have all the fun of getting observational "reads" and all the other psychology that goes with playing face-to-face. They are different and PT is highly symptomatic of the differences in approach required/available to players live-vs-online.

You would be making a big mistake not to invest in PT. If you have good observational skills then this, IMO, should remain your priority at the tables; use PT as an adjunct. In doing so you will have a considerable edge over players who rely too much on PT and do not give enough attention to the subtle nuances in any given players game, which simply do not appear in a bank of statistics. A classic example is when a player tilts, PT cannot tell you this, you have to see it (PT may have an imprint of it, after the next 20-60 hands, but he may have busted or left/recovered before then). If this is the case with tilt, it is also the case in less obvious ways, and PT is not elegant enough to provide this information, statement of the obvious.

[helpmeout]

Lay off the drugs.

[NLSoldier]

If I understand this right, you are wondering how the other solid players in these games became solid, if not from 2+2? Well even if you aren't wondering that, I sure am.

[stigmata]

[ QUOTE ]
you are wondering how the other solid players in these games became solid, if not from 2+2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slightly off-topic comment - but it's not like this thread was ever on-topic, now is it? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Got in a conversation with one of the Gambloors on the 6-max. He was telling me his story - 30k in the hole, parents had to bail him out, keeps chasing the money he lost, even though he shouldnt. Usual Problem Gambling stuff.

Thing is, he was pretty damn good. He was running circles round someone at the table who claimed to be a "pro". He was beating me up post-flop, but he just played too many hands to win in the long run. Anyway, all the Gambling experience he had (30k worth) had actually carved a pretty good player out of him - in many ways better than people like myself or the "Pro", who think reading a couple of books makes them God's Gift.

Ayway, not sure what the point of this story is except
A) There are many ways to learn things - 2+2, books, experience.
B) For the first time, I regret not inviting the Problem Gambler to a private table and telling him about 2+2. He would of made an awesome player, if only he could have some discipline pre-flop. I guess alot of the 6-max players fall into this category, but this one actually seemed like a nice guy, and I kinda wanted him to win his money back, even if some of it was from me /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Schneids]

I know of only one person who just sort of naturally became very good at poker without ever really studying, though his family has a decent backgammon background so that probably contributes slightly to his natural "poker smarts."

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

I am moving to Party 6max for rakeback ...


[/ QUOTE ]

I still have a real problem understanding why people would rather pay more rake and get some of it back on a monthly basis than pay less rake in the first place.

There are plenty of other reasons to play at Party of course.

[ QUOTE ]

... among other things


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. That's okay then.

Guy.

[djack]

Or he was just on a streak of postflop luck.

[stigmata]

Yeah that allways helps... And I wouldnt of noticed if he hadn't had some good hands.

But he knew what to do with his cards, could get away from marginal hands & expoit the strong hands to the max. Definately better than most ~40/20

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
If I understand this right, you are wondering how the other solid players in these games became solid, if not from 2+2? Well even if you aren't wondering that, I sure am.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's poker, not rocket science.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
PT certainly helps to fill-in reads you have on people and with some work, it can reliably flag certain categories of players (more important in 9-10 tables IMO) or for multi-tablers.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I played 6max I barely used it and relied mostly on anecdotal player notes.

When I went back to full ring, I realized how much easier it was to multitable aggro full games when I had PT running.

scrub

[MAxx]

i feel like shittting on this thread like i had 3 tails.

[stir]

Except, IMO, for naphand's excellent post.