|
|
#71
07-31-2005, 07:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dan Druff and Stars 100/200
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr /> </font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr /> </font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr /> </font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr /> I would be interested to hear any high-limit online players comment on this thread on neverwinpoker. Dan Druff, aka Todd Witteles, 2005 WSOP bracelet winner, has been running so bad in the Stars 100/200 than he is entertaining some notions about a "kill switch" that makes certain players lose. He does NOT say he believes in it, but he seems to be seriously considering it as an idea. Notice he doesn't have pokertracker, so there isn't any hard data. thread is here [/ QUOTE ] Most likely Dan Druff is just hamming it up for all the broke ass idiots on that site. If he was REALLY that upset about all of these beats it would shock me. [/ QUOTE ] When you are losing $1000s day in day out while playing your A game against retards it's very easy to start thinking all kinds of crazy things. [/ QUOTE ] I imagine, Dan, like many other players (including some of the most respected 2+2ers) vastly underestimates the variance inherent in poker. [/ QUOTE ] This is why some of us play NL. [/ QUOTE ] and take a huge pay cut 
|
|
#72
07-31-2005, 07:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dan Druff and Stars 100/200
[ QUOTE ]
you have made some interesting posts, andrew, but in my book you substitute being an [censored] for actually validating your points. [/ QUOTE ] I think the essential tone of your response is on target. Being an obnoxious doof really isn't that productive. While it may be fun to poke you guys from time to time, it doesn't really do anyone any good. As far as defending my positions, there really isn't much point. In truth, I should probably keep my mouth shut, and see if you guys figure things out on your own. As far as the situation with Dan Druff goes, phish gets it exactly right, and does it with a lot more clarity than I would ever have the effort to expend. In part, this is simply an extension of the the whole DERB conversation, where for some strange reason a whole herd of 2+2ers have decided to cast reason to the wind an chant over and over again "statistical outlier" like some crazed cult members. The truth is the tight predictable style of Dan Druff, and the uber nits who worship him, is only the beginning of playing well. Again, it's not my place to explain these sorts of things, and just mentioning them is probably a bad idea. But I have to admit to a certain morbid fascination with the way the "collective" reacts to anything which might challenge their basic assumptions. But on the subject of cordiality, tone, and general pleasantness, I should try to be more of all of those things. And I will endeavor to be less confrontational in my contrariness in the future. - Andrew www.pokerstove.com
|
|
#73
07-31-2005, 08:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dan Druff and Stars 100/200
[ QUOTE ]
The truth is the tight predictable style of Dan Druff [/ QUOTE ] Last night I played with Mr. Witteles. In one hand I opened in the CO and a very LAG player 3-bet me from the button, and he called from the BB with his Th8h... Definitely not within the hand range of a "tight predictable nit." Later, while observing a game I didn't feel like playing in, he raised 65s UTG, 5 handed game, with a CO poster+dead SB. I dunno maybe he's opening up his game more, or maybe he simply enjoys a lot of the regular cast thinking he's a tight ABC nit but he really isn't.
|
|
#75
07-31-2005, 08:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dan Druff and Stars 100/200
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The truth is the tight predictable style of Dan Druff [/ QUOTE ] Last night I played with Mr. Witteles. In one hand I opened in the CO and a very LAG player 3-bet me from the button, and he called from the BB with his Th8h... Definitely not within the hand range of a "tight predictable nit." Later, while observing a game I didn't feel like playing in, he raised 65s UTG, 5 handed game, with a CO poster+dead SB. I dunno maybe he's opening up his game more, or maybe he simply enjoys a lot of the regular cast thinking he's a tight ABC nit but he really isn't. [/ QUOTE ] I don't see either of these plays qualifying as openinng your game up more. In fact, they seem fairly standard, and at least one of them is explicitly mentioned in HEFAP. It might be that you and I have a different idea of what makes up the play of a typical tight player. That's ok, - Andrew
|
|
#76
07-31-2005, 10:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dan Druff and Stars 100/200
[ QUOTE ]
it may be fun to poke you guys [/ QUOTE ] i'm not a member of any clubs here [ QUOTE ] this is simply an extension of the the whole DERB conversation [/ QUOTE ] i wasn't involved in that not that i'm distancing myself from everybody like you are. i even think there are still things i can learn about poker!
|
|
#77
07-31-2005, 10:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dan Druff and Stars 100/200
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The truth is the tight predictable style of Dan Druff [/ QUOTE ] Last night I played with Mr. Witteles. In one hand I opened in the CO and a very LAG player 3-bet me from the button, and he called from the BB with his Th8h... Definitely not within the hand range of a "tight predictable nit." Later, while observing a game I didn't feel like playing in, he raised 65s UTG, 5 handed game, with a CO poster+dead SB. I dunno maybe he's opening up his game more, or maybe he simply enjoys a lot of the regular cast thinking he's a tight ABC nit but he really isn't. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, he is capable of mixing it up a little pre-flop. But the reason I characterize him as being a bit unimaginative is that he doesn't mix it up enough post-flop. The best players are capable of chkraising on any street with anything and they make sure you know it. When I'm in a game, I really don't care how people play pre-flop, it's how they play post-flop that is most important. It is there that you find out which players can be bluffed, induced to bluff, whom you can fold safely to, etc. That's where the real money is made in holdem. Playing a little looser or tighter pre-flop really doesn't matter all that much given how much the flop often defines our hands. (I for one, though would typically not make those plays mentioned above.)
|
|
#78
08-02-2005, 12:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dan Druff and Stars 100/200
I thank those of you who spoke in my defense.
A few points here: 1) Yes, I have run extremely poorly at Stars 100-200 lately. That was the whole point of my post on neverwinpoker. I had been running poorly there for a number of months, but only recently -- after one too many Murphy's Law type days -- did I finally come forward. It got to the point where even a non-conspiracy theorist like myself had to question things. 2) Someone mentioned that I was too easy to bet off on the river after a check-check on the turn. That's not true. Perhaps you were watching me completely miss every hand on Stars, to where I had less than ace high on the river. I've played at high limit games long enough to know that a bet on the river after checks on the turn doesn't mean you need top pair or better to call. 3) I have worked a lot on my shorthanded game in recent times, and I know it has improved. There is still room for improvement (actually almost anyone can say that), but I've actually played a lot of shorthanded poker during 2005. Sadly, if you've been watching me on Stars this year, you haven't seen it in my results, since I have run so poorly there. 4) I am not convinced that Stars is rigged. In fact, I wouldn't even say that it's probable. I have, however, gone through an odds-defying streak of bad luck there that has extended over many months and many tens of thousands of hands. When I say "bad luck", I'm not referring to losses, but rather a disproportionate number of hands where I either get drawn out on or am in a "great-second-best" situation. Those do happen, but this year it has been off the charts how much they have happened on Stars -- without the reverse (sick good luck) occurring for any length of time. Just an extreme case of negative variance? Very well might be, but I figured it was time for me to finally say something either way. 5) I don't care what some of you say. Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbes) needs to be sent off to military school, and Hobbes needs to be put to sleep. Recent events have shown us that friendships with tigers just don't work out.
|
|
#79
08-02-2005, 12:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dan Druff and Stars 100/200
sorry to hear that you are running so piss poor on stars.
i know i hit you with one that i know of...2 outed you in an overpair vs. overpair war. i must say though that even through the short time of playing w/ you, you do play very very well. i have no doubt you'll be up again in no time. good luck. Barron
|
|
#80
08-02-2005, 01:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dan Druff and Stars 100/200
[ QUOTE ]
4) I am not convinced that Stars is rigged. In fact, I wouldn't even say that it's probable. I have, however, gone through an odds-defying streak of bad luck there that has extended over many months and many tens of thousands of hands. [/ QUOTE ] How many thousands are you talking about?
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
