Tommy Angeloitis

[David Sklansky]

Tommy Angeloitis is a rare form of the more common syndrome Can't Let Pot Odds Be My Friend (Also sometimes called Must Fold Because Hand Doesn't "Play Well") The more common version afflicts tight fairly good playing, rather non agressive players who don't like to gamble on close situations .

The rare TA variety is sometimes seen in the higher stakes games. The victim in my experience is almost always a white male who feels a great need to "control" the game. Or at least control those pots he is in. Unlike the simpler form of this disease, those who are afflicted with TA are far more loose and agressive, especially in late position. But like the common sufferer of CLPOBMF, those with TA will fold many profitable hands that often have to be played in a meek check and call fashion. CLPOBMF suffererers do this because they are on a short bankroll, they don't trust pot odds. or because they are uncomfortable playing hands where the correct play is uncertain. TA suffererers on the other hand have no lack of courage as witnessed by their daring plays with much lesser hands. But they do have control issues, possibly something Freudian having to do with being a mere "caller".

Ironically, those with the most severe form of TA are fully aware of the problem but rather than correcting it they brag about it. Just another manifestation of the syndrome. Some of them will admit that they are giving up a bit of EV with their folds but claim it is worth it for the sake of the domination they get with the hands they do play. That argument is absolutely valid. But TA sufferers take it too far. The best players often play passively with highly profitable hands that should be played that way. Their image does not suffer. None of them would do something like fold KQ in the small blind when the button raised or fold A5 suited behind two limpers just because many flops will force them to play passively.

The real shame about those with TA is that most of them have the talent to get really good if not for this horrible disease. Is there any interest on this forum for starting a foundation to deal with it?

[elysium]

hi mr. sklansky
as long as it's tax deductible, i'm sure that we can count on tommy to pitch in. he needs the write-off. among other things, TA leads to higher tax brackets too. ouch.

[The WET BEAVER]

[ QUOTE ]
The real shame about those with TA is that most of them have the talent to get really good if not for this horrible disease. Is there any interest on this forum for starting a foundation to deal with it?

[/ QUOTE ]


The Wet Beaver can be the executive director of this foundation

[The WET BEAVER]

Alot of people have TA. If you look at the Mid and Small Stakes forums, people don't advocate calling much. They always want to raise or fold. They're overaggressive and make moves way too much. Alot of them are in love with Power Raises.

It's like if you have AQ on the button, everybody folds to you and you raise, and you're heads-up with the big blind. An Ace flops and your opponent bets into you. What's the best play for the rest of the hand?

Do you think most people will try to take control?

[Clarkmeister]

Its been a while since we had an official David Sklansky Tommy Bashing thread. Isn't there supposed to be something about 95s included somewhere in your post? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, those with the most severe form of TA are fully aware of the problem but rather than correcting it they brag about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unlike others, myself included, Tommy really has zero interest in "bragging" and has precious little ego at stake. If that is what you get from his writing, then I fear you are missing out on some really good stuff.

As much as you love to bash him for his posts, he has never purported to tell others how to play on this forum. To the contrary, he has studiously avoided doing exactly that for several years now. He merely discusses what works for him. Nowhere do you see him recommend that others emulate him.

Perhaps if you concentrated on correcting those who actually purport to give "advice", we could all learn a lot more from you. But this semi-annual event where you take pot shots at Tommy benefits no one.

[David Sklansky]

I am not bashing him personally. And I never said he gives "advice". But he does describe how he plays and implies that, as you say, "it works for him". Well in no way does it work for him because he would do better if he did not make those plays (mainly ridiculous folds) that he sometimes writes about.

As for the semiannual "bashing", not only will that continue but it MUST continue as long as there are a lot of readers of this forum who are under the impression that the plays he writes about that are horrible might be OK due to some overall game plan. It is my obligation to do that especially if the poster is known to win. I can give some slack to guys like Rounder from the past because he was so obviously incorrect that there was little chance the readers here wouldn't realize it. Not so with Tommy Angelo.

Bottom line: There are many so so looking starting hands that will show a nice profit even if they are played meekly or subotimally on the later betting rounds. Throwing them away will cost you tens of thousands a year in a 20-40 game. Any gain you may accrue from these folds cannot be made up by some nebulous image advantage. 100% of great players agree with me as far as I know. And I tend to believe that most of those who wrongly claim that they do in fact regain this lost EV on other hands are lying to themselves. I really do believe they make these errors not because they think it makes them more money but rather because the way they often have to play these hands makes them uncomfortable.

Regardless of the reason, one thing is clear. Tommy Angelo often talks of making plays, usually folds, that cost him and anybody who makes them lots of money. These folds are the mirror image of Mike Caro's cold raise calls with KJ. They are so bad that no overall strategy benefits enough from them to make the plays in any sense right. If someone is playing this way and still winning, he is not to be applauded regardless of how many fans he has or how nice guy he is. He must be exposed as someone who is making a critical errors even he might be able to overcome them in good games 20-40 or below. Someone who if only he would come to his senses might start really win big in 80-160 games that are not so forgiving of even one big type of mistake.

[TheLoser]

Any time I see a post posted by Tommy I read and re-read it. I love his style of play and the way he writes, keep it up Tommy! You kind of bring up a point of how he could be playing higher limits if he changed some things. I think Tommy could play any limit he wanted to but just likes to live comfortible and does not feel the need to step up. I am basing this soley on reading his web site and posts on this forum and could be completely wrong, but this is my read.

[karlson]

Haha. I too, was getting bored not seeing any Tommy bashing by David recently.

But David has a good point. I read most of Tommy's posts. I finish them, and say, "Wow. That was fun to read." I realize that often the plays described within are suboptimal, but I don't care. But in that sense, I'm not a typical reader. There's always a dozen responses with "Wow, what a brilliant play" or something along these lines, and there are probably countless more thinking it, and if that's what David is going out to correct, I'm all for it.

I remember when I first began reading these forums. Tommy was a god. He was a great writer, posted every day, and everyone respected him. Newbie's conclusion: He must be the greatest poker player in the world. You'll forgive me, Tommy, for not standing by that statement now.

However, on the other side, I remember something David wrote about what it takes to become a great poker player. He vehemently denied that it has anything to do with discipline or focus, or any such traits. His argument was basically that if you play enough, you will have no choice but to learn these things, but you can play low to mid-limit forever and still not know anything about proper bluffing frequency.

However, I think that for the average player, perhaps one with no aspirations of becoming a great player, it's quite difficult to develop discipline and proper state of mind. Many times players convince themselves that a play is correct even though, away from the table, they would never dream of advocating it, say, on these forums, or to a friend. For this, I can think of no better coach than Tommy.

But, you have to keep in mind that he sometimes ignores pot odds, so you have to double-check his analyses.

Oh, and as far as David posting more. Yeah, yeah, do that. Maybe he's bored that no one is here to debate with him. Maybe that's our fault. But I can hardly believe that there is not at least one thread a day on this forum that David reads and goes "Wow. No one here understands what's going on in this hand." So next time you see that David, please do post something.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not bashing him personally

[/ QUOTE ]

its a poker forum - how do you figure that posting a sarcastic criticism of a regular poster containing nothing other than bland assertions is not bashing someone ? - tell me that tommy angelo doesnt get up your nose and i'll call you a liar

i find the argument that this attack is justified because tommy angelo is a winning player giving bad advice bizarre and galling - your argument is based on the notion that his advice will be given more credence than joe blow the poster - that seems right but what "responsibility" does a guy whos name appears in a darker shade of red have to only post stuff thats accurate ? - i would of thought that responsibility might extend to providing a balanced view rather than a sarcastic attack

i confess to enjoying tommy angelos posts - everyone one i read makes me feel like i'm playing poker and causes me to think in a constructive way about how poker is played - if i need to brush up on some high school maths i will get around to reviewing more of your posts

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 confronting to suggest that they dont have all the answers - the security that a scientific analysis provides is removed

the great game players thrive in a world of uncertainty

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Gamblor]

If I'm not mistaken (and I could very well be mistaken), some of Tommy's folds have even me, a relative middle-limit newbie, scratching my head.

Such as?

Tommy raises first in, in late position i.e. cutoff, with an AJo-type hand.

He gets three-bet by a tight, solid button, who knows and respects his play. Tommy, now out of position, folds before the flop, reading the opponent for a AK-AQ, AA-JJ hand.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm with DS on this one.

At the same time, the deluge of responses to DS's post indicate that Tommy does indeed have somewhat of a legion of followers on this forum (I, for one, love his posts more for the Poker Essays type lessons - that is, poker lifestyle/knowledge lessons). If DS disagrees with Tommy's opinions on plays, well, isn't that what the forum is all about?