Views on Article.

[B1GF1SHY]

Owned... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[BradL]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should look up per capita. I'll try to use simpler terms for you. It means the highest percentage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm maybe you should look up the definition... it means per unit of population or per person...

[ QUOTE ]
I am crushing games that you may never in your life even be able to beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I thought you said you wouldnt even play 30/60 on pp...

-Brad

[ggbman]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting thread, mainly since it's about me. As you would expect from someone with over 2000 posts here (who isn't a paid 2+2 author) naphands posts is full of logical fallacies. Let's look at a few:
[ QUOTE ]
The poker chronicles guy carries too many self-important notions about himself to be trustworthy in his opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of people would say that Sklansky and Malmuth carry a lot of self-important notions about themselves (little redundancy there?) but would that make them untrustworthy? Whether or not someone's opinions are reliable has little to do with their ego.
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he laughs at others' attempts to produce helpful advice is also despicable.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I laugh at is when people give atrocious advice. That is both despicable and funny. The fact that anyone could have that many misconceptions and still deem themselves worthy of instructing others is rather amusing to me. And I suspect it is rather amusing to some of my blog readers as well, so I posted about it.
[ QUOTE ]
But what is really sad, and I know I am saying this as a 2+2 user, is his utterly unjustifiable and unsubstantiated remarks about 2+2, particularly as pointed out elsewhere, his book list contain 2 titles by Mason Malmuth. What a hypocrite.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is really sad is that you apparently haven't read my blog and would jump to such conclusions. I have no qualms with the 2+2 authors or most of their books and I even find a few of their books to be among the best written. 2+2 books have been a significant help to me and have probably won me hundreds of thousands in my lifetime. I just don't like the prevailing attitude of the 2+2 forum users like yourself . I often talk bad about 2+2ers, meaning trolls like you, not 2+2 the company.
[ QUOTE ]
Being a great poker player is one thing, being able to explain is entirely different and also does not require greatness to teach well.

[/ QUOTE ]
One cannot teach something they know nothing about. They must, at the very least, have a good text or some sort of solid information. The person who wrote that 6 max guide is both an awful teacher and has no clue what he is doing. If he has some sort of text giving him his information, well, I hope a lot of people purchase it. Again I said nothing at all about Sklansky, so that part (like much of your post) is entirely irrelevant.
[ QUOTE ]
to state that playing less than 25% is "marginal" demontrates what an idiot he is. Nothing to back up his statements, no proof of WR, nothing, just hot air.

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyone playing a lower VP$IP is marginal at best and your calling that statement idiotic shows that you don't understand a very important concept about the game. See my book for details. My VP$IP and WR have been posted here just this week and have been posted on my blog dozens of times, take a look if you like.

As far as proof of WR goes there is no such thing in poker. You name the bb/100 and number of hands and I could easily produce a PT screenshot saying I won that much over that many hands. I could take any loser's db, provided they had a decent number of hands, and write a few simple access queries to cull out some losing hands and duplicate some winners and wham, he is a 6bb/100 winner. I don't bother trying to post easily forgeable "proof" because I really don't much care if random guys with over 2000 posts on some dumb forum believe me. While you are posting here daily and not yet playing $10/$20 I am crushing games that you may never in your life even be able to beat. I'm living the proof, which is more than enough for me.
[ QUOTE ]
This article is notable for its total lack of substantive statistics or valid argument, it is just name-calling. Throwing numbers around and making claims without substance is worthless, his ideas need to be subject to scrutiny and rigorous examination of experienced players before making remarks like this. Unfortunately so many will read this and take it as gospel, after all, he's a poker pro right?

[/ QUOTE ]
The point of the article was to point out something I found funny. I am too busy playing, running a rakeback site, and writing a poker book to go around the entire internet posting mathematical refutations to every stupid article some monkey writes on poker. If every argument without mathematical proof behind it is worthless then the bulk of poker literature, including much of 2+2's work, would be worthless. When Sklansky says to fold 2 7 off UTG he doesn’t back it up with a Poker Tracker db showing it played 100k times and losing. Nor should he need to.

My 5% blocks, since you obviously aren't bright enough to figure this out, were merely estimates. I haven’t access to the millions of hand histories necessary to find out exactly what VP$IPs and PFRs and aggression factors lead to what win rates. Nor have I a set of clearly defined win rates for marginal, good, expert, etc. Nonetheless I know a few very important concepts which anyone who has a VP$IP of 20% in a 6 max game doesn’t and that is why I say that they are at best marginal.

As for scrutiny and rigorous examination anyone capable of doing so is too busy playing. I have done enough lurking here to know that very few people who post regularly about short handed play are even marginal. None are what I would consider good. There is no forum of good players who would care enough to scrutinize such a thing because it is something that all good short handed players already understand, much the way you understand (maybe) that playing Axs UTG in a typical $15/$30 on Party is a bad play.

People on here are far too afraid to challenge forum consensus. Try to remember that the vocal majority here is comprised of marginal to good players. Thus it is not surprising that the forum consensus and the opinions of excellent players might be significantly different.
[ QUOTE ]
This article is notable for its total lack of substantive statistics or valid argument, it is just name-calling

[/ QUOTE ]
That was not a standalone article, it was a post in my blog. If you cared to read my blog or even recent 2+2 posts about me you would find your substantive statistics. But I am guessing that you are just another weak-tight, marginal, 20% VP$IP short handed player who got offended and decided to jump to conclusions in self defense.
[ QUOTE ]
Quite how he came up with the per capita notion is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should look up per capita. I'll try to use simpler terms for you. It means the highest percentage. I am aware that the biggest forum should have the largest number of clowns like you, hence the per capita. Sorry if I don't have time to do a mathematical study to find out exactly which forum does have the highest number of idiots per capita.

And you can see that I don’t post here much. I occasionally like to look at the short handed section for a good laugh. I also like to find out what the forum consensus is just to research the competition. This forum has been invaluable in helping me understand the logic of weak-tight players.
[ QUOTE ]
Many people are intimidated by intellectual rigour, and understandably so, some choose to behave like schoolchildren and call names, usually because they have no argument themselves (but they still "know"). Typical of this childishness is the tactic of ascribing thoughts to others, without proof of course, as a way to make them look pompous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Trust me when I say that there is very little "intellectual rigour" in these forums. It may seem that way to a marginal player such as yourself but to anyone playing at a higher level it isn't. The only thing intimidating about this forum is the signal to noise ratio.

Again much of what I said in my blog post goes back to prior blog posts that you haven’t read. I get emails from various 2+2ers or talk to them in the chats all the time. I always here things like "forum consensus is that you can't win with a VP$IP over 25% so you should reduce yours" or "it is impossible to beat a $10/$20 6 max game for 4bb/100". These statements come from marginal players who gather here with a bunch of their marginal peers to come to poorly founded conclusions. I would much rather (and often do) talk to one expert privately than a bunch of mediocre players publicly

True, not all 2+2ers are as feeble minded as them or you naphand. But the vocal majority are and that is why I choose to mostly stick to my blog. I am too busy winning hundreds of thousands at poker (something you will likely never do) and writing a poker book commissioned by a major publisher (something else you will likely never do) to wade through the noise. While you spend your time worrying about mathematically verifying forum consensus (time that, in your case, would be better spent eliminating run-on sentences and improving the logical structure of your arguments) I will be winning money and improving my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. You have to be kidding me. You have been "crushing" the party 15-30 games for somethin like 3 weeks. (I know because you said so in your blog) I always find it hilarious when you tell someone to read your book. I mean it's pretty damn ironic that you make an article about how multi-tabling makes people miss out on details in their games and then proceed to write a book WHILE PLAYING TWO TABLES AT THE SAME TIME as you say in your blog. I'm sure thats a great way to focus and churn out great material. I always think it's funny when you say how you are crushing these games that in reality, are not that difficult to beat. I play the party 15-30 games, probably beat them for a similar amount, and yet i know this doesnt make me a great poker player. Honestly man, your a full time preofessional poker player and a month ago you were playing 10-20. Yeah i'm sure no one can leanrn to beat those limits. Also in your blog, you post about a 3 month stretch where you broke even last year. I'm not about to comment about your abilities as a player, because i'm sure your solid. But stick to poker, because you look like an ass when you try to pick people arguments apart, and your arguemnts are more filled with holes than the posters that you mnake fun of.

[TheMaroon]

First of all you don't have to quote the entire 8 pg text, we all get what you're referring to. At least if you have to quote then write and quote below.

Second I never specified that I was crushing 15/30. In fact I love how you put the word crushing in quotations even though I never used it. I simply said I was winning hundreds of thousands and that naphands never will. I didn't claim that nobody could beat the games I play in (by default 35% of people can) just that naphands can't.

Third, writing is like playing one table at the most, actually probably less intensive than that since you can put it on pause instantly at any time you like. The quality of the writing doesn't suffer, just the speed. The quality of the poker playing probably does suffer a tad, but not enough to make it unprofitable. I'm willing to play at a reduced bb/100 because it is the only chance I get right now.

Fourth, I don't have qualms with playing 4 or fewer tables (though I am not sure even 4 is optimal), I have qualms with playing 12 or advising others to do so. Fifth the point of poker isn't to play higher stakes, it is to make more money. I would gladly crossbook my $10/$20 6 max hourly rate with just about any 4 table $15/$30 player and would come out ahead. In fact I am not sure I myself can make more playing 4 tables of $15/$30. And I highly suspect that nobody playing any limit less than $80/$160 (and likely nobody at that level) in a casino can outpace the rate I earn playing 2 $10/20 6 max online.
[ QUOTE ]
you look like an ass when you try to pick people arguments apart, and your arguemnts are more filled with holes than the posters that you mnake fun of.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's because you haven't got the mental capacity for logical arguments. You only think there are logical holes because you aren't intelligent enough to avoid inventing them. If you take my statement "I win x amount of money at poker and you never will" to mean "I crush $15/$30 specifically" I can't help it if there is a logical flaw in your misinterpretation. If you take "naphands could never beat the games I play in" to mean "I must be an excellent player because I can beat game x" then again, the logical hole is caused by your misinterpretation. I suggest repeating second grade reading class.

Naphands' poorly written and unresearched diatribe strayed from one irrelevant topic to the next and every sentence he managed to keep on topic I shoved up his ass. His argument had very little logic at all but what little it did have was faulty and I pointed it out. Still his was years ahead of yours. Neither of you possess any critical reading ability, that much is certain.

PS, to the guy who proved my point for me: There are .99 clowns per capita inhabiting this forum. Consider yourself one of them.

<font color="red">Scoreboard:</font>
themaroon: 2
forum monkeys: 0.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to state that playing less than 25% is "marginal" demontrates what an idiot he is. Nothing to back up his statements, no proof of WR, nothing, just hot air.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Anyone playing a lower VP$IP is marginal at best and your calling that statement idiotic shows that you don't understand a very important concept about the game. See my book for details. My VP$IP and WR have been posted here just this week and have been posted on my blog dozens of times, take a look if you like.


[/ QUOTE ]

My vip is less than 25%. Played ~300,000 hands (shorthanded 3/6 - 10/20) in the last 2 years with a decent win rate and I'm not particularly good.

Whats the important concept that means I'm just running good?

chez

[jujujaja34]

FWIW, I've played against TheMaroon in the 5/10 6max and IBustChumps at the 10/20 6max and I think his purported winrate is quite believable.

Also, what he states regarding this forum's "consensus" on VPIP has a lot of merit.

jujujaja34

[naphand]

The Maroon is a prize clown and he will feel the full force of my argument later today once I finish playing. Just about everything he says in his answer confirms the view I think most of the Forum will have of him: he is a mouthy, arrogant, self-centred and pompous little boy with very little capacity for constructing logical debate. His "argument" mostly consists of mud-slinging and name calling while making assertions he can never prove. He appears to believe that just by saying something and repeating it often enough it will become accepted. The actions of an intellectual dwarf more concerned with protecting his "status" in the eyes of his blog readers, than in providing any kind of substance.

And if we are all monkeys why are you even here? Oh yes, you find it amusing don't you. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Unfortunately, the tone of your response indicates quite the opposite, you appear to be somewhat peeved. Aren't you supposed to be too busy playing to have the time for this kind of thing. Looks like I hit a nerve...I'll be back later and we all know you will too.

PS
The scoreboard thing, real stroke of genius. Straight out of "Roy of the Rovers" and about as intellectually challenged, the kind of childish and meaningless pap we have seen repeatedly from you. The funny thing is, you appear not to realise how moronic it makes you look. A case of "Stupid and too stupid to know it".

[naphand]

There is no consensus. But when learning the game it is probably a lot more sensible to follow a strategy which limits your capacity for post-flop mistakes. As a player develops and comes to grips with his game environment, he can naturally start to tailor his own game and introduce more hands. There is nothing surprising about this, nor is it inconsistent with a lot of the received wisdom. But as is painfully obvious, playing a first-rate post-flop game will require a lot of attention and reads and this is difficult when multi-tabling. Many players quite naturally prefer to play a more formulaic game (tighter, more ABC) in order to play 4 tables at once and earn more per hour. This is why dick-waving WR posting achieves little, as it is always a personal decision. In fact how we play as individuals is entirely personal, and The Maroons "who is the king of the castle" style monologues are entirely irrelevant. Even if he turns out to be a good player, PT allows us to simply avoid him and continue to play and win at rates we determine to our own satisfaction. While this idiot continues to deride and put down others "for laughs" it merely demonstrates how far he is from even mastering his own emotions. That he needs this kind of thing when he is "too busy" is even more alarming. Endless ego-building preening suggests a much more deeply rooted inadequacy. Could he be making up for something [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]. Even his poker handles suggest some kind of inferiority complex (he needs to reaffirm he is better than champions, and he feels somewhat isolated, or marooned). Keep a check on local mall-shootings for news of this clown. The Maroon needs to get a life that requires less ego-support from his peers, or he will end up an emotionally busted.

[Danenania]

Mr. Douche,

We are obviously too thick skulled and uncreative to appreciate your finely tuned intergalactic wisdom. I wouldn't waste anymore time here when you could be out winning mere millions in mere seconds.

[stigmata]

Nobody cares that you payed $300 for a set of headphones.

It really doesn't impress people.