Cris v. William, Round 3 *bing*

CrisBrown · #1 02-03-2004, 02:35 PM

Hi All,

Okay, make of this what you will, but this is my take on the recent brouhaha:

(1) William and I do not like each other and are not and never will be friends. Each of us thinks the other is an arrogant ass. Each of us is always right, including that the other is an arrogant ass.

(2) William and I play poker very differently. His risk-averse, survival-comes-first strategy is closer to what you read in Cloutier or Sklansky. In the loose, fast, fishy SNGs that are prevalent online, "by the book" poker is +$EV, because the fish will pay you off when you get a big hand and will bust themselves while you wait for it (a very nice combination). I used to play William's style, and in a low buy-in tourney with lots of fish, I still would.

But the "by the book" style also has its weaknesses. It's easy to read, which means good opponents won't pay off your big hands. And good opponents won't be busting themselves out while you wait for a big hand; they'll be building a stack with which they can afford to target you. Finally, a "by the book" approach can lead to overplaying the hands you do get, because you're playing so few that a sense of desperation creeps into the pots you do play. And while you won't often bust out early, you will often be short-stacked and desperate on or near the bubble.

(3) I don't play "by the book" poker, and I don't apologize for that. I play (or try to play) +EV poker. It is a much more dangerous style, and it has its own strengths and its own weaknesses. Its strengths are deception, stack growth, and a lesser likelihood of making desperation plays with a big hand because you've been sitting there so long. Its weaknesses are that it's riskier -- you bust out earlier rather than on or near the bubble -- and it places a heavy premium on player- and hand-reading. If you're distracted, or just having a off day, it can cost you a lot of money in a big hurry.

(3) So which of us is right? Well, the books say William is. The WPT money list says I am, as all of the top pros play some variation of loose-aggressive poker, even Howard Lederer. And actually, the answer is ...

... neither of us is right all the time.

In a loose, fast, fishy tournament, play William's style. It will make you money far more often than it costs you. In a tight, patient, tricky tournament, you'll need to play my style at least part of the time, or you'll get blinded into a short stack and picked off like confetti.

It just depends on the situation, and you need to be able to play BOTH styles well in order to be consistently successful.

Cris

William · #2 02-03-2004, 02:53 PM

In a loose, fast, fishy tournament, play William's style

OK, that sounds fair. As long as I am a fish I will keep playing as I do now; and the day I graduate and are ready to join you and the other legends at the WPT, I'll try to upgrade to your style.

At least we got that sorted out and nobody will be laughing his pants off when they read this thread.

Take care,
William

PS. When you're ready to leave all this behind and just move on, say so [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

CrisBrown · #3 02-03-2004, 05:59 PM

William,

I neither said nor implied that you or the other 2+2ers were fish. What I said was that in a tournament where the play is fast, loose, and fishy -- the majority of online SNGs at $55-and-under buyins -- your "by the book" style is indeed the best way to go.

As is your wont, you took what was intended to be a conciliatory, consensus-building dialogue and twisted it into a personal attack on you, then fired back with a snide comment implying that I am making myself out to be a legend of the game.

Apparently, your idea of conciliation is "Be reasonable, Cris, admit that you're wrong and I'm right." Well, that's not going to happen. You play your style. I play mine.

And the readers of 2+2 -- all of whom appear to be literate and intelligent -- can read and decide for themselves which style is better suited to their games.

Cris

Prickly Pete · #4 02-03-2004, 07:05 PM

I hate to jump in the middle of what has been a most entertaining day or 3 of a pissing match for the ages, but...

when I read your first post in this thread, I thought it was blatantly obvious that you thought William was only bright enough to beat the really "fishy" games. (or at least that's all his SNG strategy could accomplish) And that your SNG game went well beyond that.

Please note I'm not commenting here on which of these may or may not be true. Just that this was my reaction to your first post.

Hotrod0823 · #5 02-03-2004, 08:05 PM

And here I thought this was an anouncement of an upcoming 100+9 heads up match !

Frankly I have taken advice and been rightfully correct by both posters.

Diffenent ways to skin a cat and I think these forums would be useless if there weren't differing opinions on each of the hands and theories that are posted.

Just my 2 cents

Hotrod

BTW: I always look forward to what each of you say regardless

ThaSaltCracka · #6 02-03-2004, 08:24 PM

I would agree with Pete, although I bet it was unitentional.
You guys sound like a bunch of nerdy kids arguing over who is smartest. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

William · #7 02-03-2004, 08:33 PM

You guys sound like a bunch of nerdy kids arguing over who is smartest.

I'm certainly not doing that. The issue here is something else.

Stagemusic · #8 02-03-2004, 09:00 PM

OMFG. Why don't both of you just meet up and get the hell married already. You argue worse than people that have been married for 25 years. If you won't consider that, at least consider checking your freaking egos at the door. We who are learning this game have a lot to learn from each of you. I find myself playing both styles (sometimes simultaneously [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] ) and really want to learn from both of you. So for pete's sake agree to disagree and when a situation comes up on the forum that you don't agree try giving your point of view without rancor. We are smart enough to take what works for us and figure it out.

My opinion only. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm certainly not doing that. The issue here is something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would dearly love to for you to expand on this statement William.

ThaSaltCracka · #9 02-03-2004, 09:00 PM

well then you guys are arguing over who has the biggest johnson, my point is who cares [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

DrPhysic · #10 02-03-2004, 09:03 PM

Is it just barely possible that within the games they play that both are right? I read William's argument as being tight agressive, and Cris's as loose agressive. That may be gross oversimplification, but is how i see the argument.

Can anyone imagine Gus Hansen playing all the way through a four day tournament in the same manner that he plays a final table?

In the NLHE portion of SS, D Brunson, makes a significant point about "changing gears". Might apply here. In some circumstances especially long tournaments being conservative, tight agressive applies, in other situations, either early or late in the same tournament Cris's looser style may well be entirely appropriate.

Just a thought.

Not relevant, however, to the underlying "who's the better player" argument. I think we could get up a crowd for that HU $100 game.

Doc