Tommy Angeloitis

[Schmed]

there is a bad player in my regular 10-20 game that I have noticed has gone to calling or raising from an EP and folding to a raise/reraise. This has me perplexed. What could you possibly have that wouldn't be worth one more small bet in a pot that is THAT big. He's throwing away hands that he's getting 4,5,6-1 on a call.

The only scenario where I could see this as being a correct strategy is if the player who reraised me showed me his AA to my AQo or something.. even then I think I have to call one SB.

Is there anything I am missing here?? Are there scenarios where it would be correct for a player to fold for one small bet preflop??

[Broyle Dunson]

We all basically rise to our own level of incomptence.Im struggling with 15/30,30/60 but after my sessions I always watch the 80/160 games and higher.The best players that win the most money and lose the least,and always seem to play in the biggest games,have the passive/unconventional check calling strategy in their gear box and employ it in a balanced overall game plan.Thats just a fact.

[Glenn]

Your post is 100% correct. There are people who play like this, and people in this forum who admire tham. They are on the long road to mediocrity. There are plenty of people who post here who are not as flashy or interesting, and they don't justify their play in some holistic fashion, but they are the ones making real money playing poker. Folding KQ in the SB to a button raise is dumb, not zen. I like reading Tommy's stuff, I even have his CD. And he can play however he wants. However, I think what you did was important to alert his growing group of followers to think for themselves and not blindly do things that don't make sense just to be more like Tommy.

[David Sklansky]

"as for the substance - the beauty of games like poker arises from the fact that they are played by people - that gives such games a dimension that defies a bland scientific analysis - tommy angelos posts reflect that dimension - as an expert in a couple of games that have such a dimension it is common for mainstream theory to be split between those who derive the answer solely from a technical perspective and those who can find answers in a broader context - the great technicians will achieve considerable success but the greatest game players are the ones who can do both - its also very common that the technicians become passionate critics of the guys who can do both - in my view thats because the technicians find it comforting to suggest that they dont have all the answers - the security that a scientific analysis provides is removed "

Guess what. I agree with all that. But Tommy Angelo is NOT one who can do both. Not if he makes the plays he says he does. These are horrible plays that suggest a lack of understanding of some of the important aspects of winning ring game holdem. Yet he posts these plays with pride.

This forum is designed to make readers winning poker players. Sure there are some readers who benefit from Tommy's posts because they are interesting or often provide insight. I actually was impressed with his decision to fold the K5 suited to make sure the opponent would win a pot too small to get him off tilt. I've done that too. But the readers who benefit are only those who know enough to dismiss some of the plays he writes about as clearly wrong and go on to the other stuff. But what about the less advanced reader who doesn't really how bad these plays are? Especially when he sees all the fans Tommy has.

I tried to put up a humorous post that sought to explain why Tommy plays the way he does. A post that I actually thought he would take good naturedly. And now that I see how strongly some people are coming to his defense, I am more sure than ever how important it is to emphasize how incorrect some of his plays are- in the eyes of not just the technicians, but also the more artistic top notch players.

[samdash]

I agree with your intentions David but I think you might be taking it a little too far. I remember a specific thread where Tommy didn't raise out of the BB with AKs against 3 limpers and you replied with a one liner. That was good. That one line you replied with was enough for me, an intermediate player to understand that while Tommy is a talented winning player, he was giving up money in this situation. But I don't think all of this indepth analysis is a good thing to have in the forums.

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there anything I am missing here?? Are there scenarios where it would be correct for a player to fold for one small bet preflop??

[/ QUOTE ]

The classic example, which supposedly actually happened in hand between Tommy and Ray Zee, is Tommy open raises from late postion, Ray three-bets right behind him, folded back around to Tommy, who folds pocket deuces.

The rationale being that he would check-fold any non-deuce flop anyway. Makes enough sense in that particular situation, but Tommy says he does it fairly often, so I imagine there are other scenarios where it probably is a mistake.

[DcifrThs]

Tommy has a CD?

And just because tommy isn't going to play A6s behind two limpers doesn't mean the people who read his stuff won't do it...that is hand that should be played in that spot...same with KQo in the sb...

just because i enjoy tommy's posts, his outlook, and "money in the jar" policy doesn't mean i'm going to start tossing hands left and right in order to practice my mucking skills, although those are coming along quite nicely (i can now get two cards to hit the dealers pinki from the 8/7 3/4 seats better than 1 in 15 times using the thumb/middle finger underhand mucking method lol).

I do agree its important to let everyone know where the good professor stands because it is possible that players will imitate the artist and his "syndrom"...but most of us don't actually change our style of play or hands we play because tommy's tossin' em.

now if tommy's got TA...what does Elysium have? 'cause i want some of that lol.

-Barron

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
I tried to put up a humorous post that sought to explain why Tommy plays the way he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense intended David, but I think your problem is that you are not the greatest writer nor are you particularly funny. You would be better off just making a post that explains some of Tommy's errors in a logical well-thought out manner, which is your strength. And leave the real writing to Tommy.

[samdash]

If you think your opponent has to have that quality of a hand (the ones you listed) to 3 bet here I agree with the fold.

[David Sklansky]

There are hands you might consider folding for three bets behind you after making it two, but a pair of deuces isn't one of them. Not only is that fold wrong it is a mistake that should be obvious and cast aspersions on anyone who doesn't know why its wrong.