hollywood home game - same old same old as celeb poker

[Al_Capone_Junior]

So I'm watching hollywood home game poker on travel channel.

BLA.

While it might be entertaining for the ignorant poker masses, and perhaps even good for poker overall, it's still a big pile of stinkin' dog doo.

It's partypoker.com bad beat city suckout special stupid bluff spectacular extraordinaire televised with your fav celebs playing cards instead of the same bunch of nameless idiots on party.

But my fav part of all is when the celebs get to call their "lifeline" and get jennifer and danny boy to come tell them their pair of sixes is no good with a bunch of overcards and bets into them.

GAG what is poker coming to? Next thing you know Regis will be asking them if it's their final answer!

I kinda long for the "olden daze" when 2+2 was mostly unknown, When Landale and Clarkmeister and me used to roam freely, at home on the range. When being a poker player was mostly an unknown sport. When partypoker.com did not exist. When WPT didn't draw every idiot from far and wide, totally convinced of their own future poker fame to any and every event in the universe. When "should I raise UTG with pocket JJ?" showed up on the forums less than eight times a month. When there were less than fifteen posts a month on folding AA BTF. Etc etc etc et al ad infinitum till I friggin' puke.

That's my opinion. If you don't like it, feel free to flame all you want. I brought gasoline and matches!

al

[Easy E]

I kinda long for the "olden daze" when 2+2 was mostly unknown,

Really? What were the games like in the "olden daze", Al? As compared to now?

[DcifrThs]

It is from the time frame you referenced that i got the most out of just reading the forum. many great hands and situations were posted and discussed and, although i didn't get ALL of the sidejokes like about harrington and ray bear hunting in ray's cabin or something (maybe playing poker with the bear), i truly enjoyed those posts and reread them alot.

you speak the truth...but have to admit...games have gotten quite good.
-Barron

[Al_Capone_Junior]

There were still plenty of fish, don't despair. There were just fewer...

WPT trained experts

limp-reraises all-in UTG with A6o

obnoxious people playing poker in casinos

discussions about party poker being rigged

threads on moneymaker's being jesus's brother

waiting lists of more than 5,467,867 people in casinos

etc etc

al

[Paddy]

Hollywood homegame was one of the worst things I've ever seen! Luckily, "The Showdown at the Sands" or some such thing was on another channel at the same time. To be honest, this was pretty horrible as well. I hate the way announcers fabricate drama and excitment all the time, as if there weren't enough drama and excitement inherent to the game.

I think the poker craze will die down soon enough, and only the people who really love the game will stick around. 2+2 will be back to normal, and poker will only be on tv twice a year, and not twice a night.

p

[Sincere]

I must agree. The games werent that bad before. Definately beatable. Plus it was a hell of a lot less annoying than nowadays when you have to wait an hour and a half to get into a game at a real casino because everyone and their mother thinks they are Johnny freakin Chan. Key word being 'thinks'. I dont care how good the games are. I liked poker better before 1998 than I do now. This boom hopefully wont last longer than another 5 years.

[daryn]

i really don't understand why you would want less "WPT trained experts" and "limp-reraises all-in UTG with A6o"

[Your Mom]

I'll bring the cheese....you bring the whine.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Why?

Because I know how to play. Key word being "play." Poker has degenerated into a crap shoot, a card holding contest. This is especially true in tournaments. You can hardly use any plays anymore, there's only the value bet and the call left in a player's arsenal, because you'll simply ALWAYS get called every friggin' time. It's no wonder I do better in games with some decent players, or in tournaments where it's too expensive to attract 986,940 fish. Prior to learning how to PLAY poker, i never played craps and other such unbeatable games. Poker really is becoming FAR less enjoyable these days, thanks to the "WPT trained experts" flooding every game and tournament.

al

[Sincere]

[ QUOTE ]
i really don't understand why you would want less "limp-reraises all-in UTG with A6o"

[/ QUOTE ]

Example: Cash game. Blinds 50-100. 2 limpers to you in late position, you have QQ and make it 400 to go. For purposes of this post lets say all stacks average around 1500-2000, now one of the limpers who is a loose aggressive player capable of having A6o, AK, AQ, KK AA or anything goes all in. Tough to throw away those queens and tough to call. I think thats what he means by " less limp-reraises all-in UTG with A6o"

People who play like that wreck havoc on your decision making and increase your variance a lot.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
People who play like that wreck havoc on your decision making and increase your variance a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely.

al

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
Example: Cash game. Blinds 50-100.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i can really see how people who play 50/100 cash nl would have a problem dealing with people limp-reraising A6o utg. wtf? your example is hopelessly flawed and has more to do with the ability to go all-in in nl (something everybody who plays the game understands).

anyway, i think most of us play poker to make money, and we hope that it's entertaining.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Example: Cash game. Blinds 50-100. 2 limpers to you in late position, you have QQ and make it 400 to go. For purposes of this post lets say all stacks average around 1500-2000, now one of the limpers who is a loose aggressive player capable of having A6o, AK, AQ, KK AA or anything goes all in. Tough to throw away those queens and tough to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? That's the easiest call ever. This example really doesn't make any sense, though.

[ QUOTE ]
I think thats what he means by " less limp-reraises all-in UTG with A6o"

[/ QUOTE ]

I and everyone else I know who play NL love the guys who limp re-raise all-in w/ A6o. In fact, in one game, the host used to get out the phone and start making calls (this is before this poker-mania) when a guy like that with a lot of money would show up.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Because I know how to play. Key word being "play."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It's no wonder I do better in games with some decent players, or in tournaments where it's too expensive to attract 986,940 fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Al, sounds like you could benefit from learning to play better. Knowing how to play also means knowing how to adapt your game correctly in each situation.

Have you tried deep stack ring NL? We've always had a good selection of games here in the Bay Area, but it sounds like LA also has a good selection of games and the Bellagio apparently has a 10-20 going a lot now in addition to some other Vegas NL games. Play in an NL game where multiple people have a few hundred (or more) BB in front of them and then you'll get to use the full aresenal of poker moves - and truly punish those "WPT experts" you so dislike. Me? I love 'em!

[astroglide]

deep stack...like 2 grand in a 50/100 nl game?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I know what adjustments to make against a field of loose players, I just dislike the added variance.

I like deep stack NL (ring or tournament). I play on a couple sites where you can have a large stack compared to the size of the blinds. Even so, my comments are mostly NOT meant to cover no limit ring games. (I realize that wasn't clear). They were meant for tournaments and limit hold'em ring games. Hell in any no limit ring game, it's all about edges, big or small. But when your arsenal is mostly taken away in tournaments, which are my primary focus much of the time, I get annoyed! I WANT my biggest edges, and smallest variance in tournaments.

al

[daryn]

i'm still not seeing your point, and i am pretty sure close to everyone on this forum would agree with me, i would rather play at a table full of monkeys then "good players" like yourself /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

on second thought...

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
on second thought...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea. So you DO see my point. The frustration factor has gone WAY up in the last two years. THAT's my point.

al

[Sincere]

You guys are reading to much into the example. It was just a hypothetical situation.

[ QUOTE ]
your example is hopelessly flawed and has more to do with the ability to go all-in in nl

[/ QUOTE ]

There is also a huge difference between going all in and calling all in. The later is something I like to avoid as often as possible. Whether or not the player is a fish or not has nothing to do with the fact that these type of players make you make more aquard decisions. What if you take my example and change the hand to 10,10. Then whatcha gonna do?

[astroglide]

the fact remains that it is a "tough" (*ahem*) decision because all the chips are going in. if i had to agonize over calling a clown's all-in limp-reraise with queens i would switch to a lower limit.

[daryn]

no, my second thought was that i actually might want to sit at a table full of players like you.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Al,

I agree that, in tournament play, I'd rather have players whom I can predict (to some extent) rather than players who are likely to play any two cards in any situation.

In ring play, I don't worry about the "any two will do" crowd, because I know that, sooner or later I'll get back anything I've lost in weird beats, plus interest. But in tournament play, it can be annoying to play good poker for an hour and a half or more, only to bust out on the bubble to a weird beat.

Cris

[Sincere]

If I had my choice of my opponents it would be:

1. Average players
2. Monkeys
3. Experts

I like playing against average players. My varience is lower, thus the swings less intense. But my skill level vs. them allows my win rate to stay almost as high w/ less swings than if I were playing w/ monkeys. IMO

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I do believe you are trying to insult me. Real classy. You just believe what you want. I'm a real fish, that's right. Come to my table whenever you want, because if you believe that, you're just as big a fish as all the rest of the internet morons who are making poker less and less enjoyable.

al

[daryn]

the point is if you have a proper bankroll (i'm gonna assume you do) then variance really shouldn't be an issue, it's all about EV.

send in the monkeys! er.. clowns.

[daryn]

sorry al if i insulted you but it just seems like you are missing something. it's clear you're not going to learn it however, so i'm just gonna say nevermind at this point.

see ya!

[el_grande]

As soon as that woman checked through her full house on the river I turned it off. No more.

That is hilarious when you think she is slowplaying, then checks it through on the river. The moment of realization that she is a total poker idiot.

[Sincere]

Your 100% right. However I hate swings and variance and am perfectly fine with having a slightly lower hourly rate if I can reduce my varience a good amount. I guess Im just conservative. To me, when your varience is higher it takes a heck of a lot longer for you to get to the so called long run.