Podcasts Poker Forums

Very kind of you, duffte. Thanks.

Poker is pretty much the only "mental sport" I've ever played where players are encouraged to think that their opponent's are terrible or to specifically seek out the weakest competition possible, it's pretty telling of the community as a whole IMO.

OP should move up to where they respect his raises.

Seriously, its poker, it's not personal. OP will do much better in just about all areas of his life (including poker) if he learns to keep his ego out of it.

1. Bart is the first to admit his mistakes in his podcasts, i.e., that he played a hand badly or didn't know what the right play, got himself in a sticky situation, etc.

2. I'm not looking for his podcasts to be politically correct; I'm looking to learn his thought process on how he played a hand and why. How I apply that in my game is my choice.

3. Coaches/instructors call other players fish, donks,, etc. all the time, no one cares.

4. Bart's podcasts and videos have helped me and I suspect quite a few other people. He's a great analyst and a tremendous resource. He should be thanked for what he brings to the DC poker community, not lambasted.

ES

I'm honestly confused by dufftes post. I get the jist, but w/ all due repect (not poking fun), a lot of it borders on incoherent ramblings. Bart labeled the guy a bad player. Who cares?
I get why the OP cares. It was mostly an ego thing, he has recognized this (good for him btw), so it's over, right?

Quickly assessing things and putting labels on players helps you make decisions at the poker table (and in life also).

At the poker table:
"This guy is probably a thinking player, he's young, geeky looking, socially awkward, wearing a DC sweatshirt, mentioned he lives w/ his mom and probably a virgin. I think he'll fold if I raise here because I can rep....."
"This guy is 40ish years old, wearing clothes from Walmart, drove to the casino in a car missing its windsheild and seems really nervous about playing these stakes, I'm going to create huge pots against him...."
"This guy is 50ish years old has been playing a 47 hour session, smells god-awful, is berating the dealers about bad beats, is stuck 10 buy-ins and his ex-wife stormed into the casino an hour ago to yell at him about paying his child support. I probably shouldn't bluff this guy....."
(As a side note to dufftes post- Are these the people we should be respecting?)

In Life:
"My neighbor (who has multiple tattoos on his face) isn't home and it's early Sunday morning.....he's probably not at church."

"My Taiwanese wife isn't home and it's early Sunday morning.......she's probably not at church. She's shopping at the Outlet Mall and getting really good deals on designer handbags."

"My brother who's a cop and looks like a member of the KKK isn't home and it's early Sunday morning.....he's probably not at church. He's busy working on violating more people's civil rights."

I have no interest in being PC (because it's a waste of time) and see nothing wrong w/ stereotyping people. There's a reason stereotypes exist: It's because they're usually true.
If you do put a label on someone and you turn out to be wrong, no big deal, just change your mind.

"How about Call of Duty then?"

I loved this bit.

The way I see it is this: Bart is a poker player who was doing his job explaining the actions he made and the information relevant to why he made them.

Bart was as quickly as possible trying to produce a read of his opponent's tenancies as he witnessed the action. He then made the play that he thinks appropriate in that spot based on facing an opponent with which certain assumptions could be considered accurate. He relayed this information as a demonstrative tool.

It's not like he's publicly shamed you, mate. The accuracy of these assumptions are not the crux of the matter. The +EV nature of an incorrect profiling of you by an opponent has already been mentioned.

Most of all though, don't worry about it! Spend your time learning and enjoying poker without straining over what another player thinks of your play. Your opponent's perceptions of your play are not to be taken personally - they're just another part of the "Navigating Obstacles" approach to poker thinking that removes the ego, as suggested by The Eightfold Path to Poker Enlightenment (I'd recommend you watch it mate, it'll be just the ticket for you).

Perceive the perceptions of you and use that at the table, but don't take them to heart, pal.

I [...] see nothing wrong w/ stereotyping people. There's a reason stereotypes exist: It's because they're usually true.

To be honest, I´m quite guilty of forming early prejudices as well (in poker / at life), and while I like it at the table, I´m by far not proud of it in non-poker-life. I´d love to be more open - and I have nothing but the most utter respect for people who don´t care for superficial observations, but let facts speak.

And I think duffte is right, respect is a very valuable good and poker players often seem to have lost this respect for humans, not only at the tables. I mean, how respectful is it to call a weak player a "dumb moron who deserves to be raped"? Obviously I don´t feel bad for taking his money, but I don´t like to think of him as a bit of shit who "deserves" it. He´s still a human and the only thing he´s "guilty" of was to decide to sit down with me. That´s it.

But I know that many poker players are supporting welfare organisations (Kiva just to mention, thx again to TecmoSuperBowl!!) and do other stuff, so there´s hope.

EDIT: And another thing that can be drawn from dufftes post is that maintaining respect for the opponents at the tables, regardless of how bad we think they are - prevents us from losing respect for our own game and eventually playing on auto-pilot because we "are so god-like that we just have to sit down and collect the dead money". I guess most of us have been guilty of that from time to time ... at least I had. For sure.

"and see nothing wrong w/ stereotyping people. There's a reason stereotypes exist: It's because they're usually true."

the only reason stereotypes exist is to be judgemental and stubborn. what i was trying to name is that respect for yourself will result in respect for others, or the other way round. the second you find yourself judging something you might not be man enough to see where you really are at. just bec somebody is in a worse position than you are, wether they have less experience in poker, are homeless or drug addicts.. does not make you awesome. further on you will be blind for your own development and rest in your position, bec you are better than the poorest. wooow. word on the street is, that this is the definition of arrogance.

+ this

Poker is pretty much the only "mental sport" I've ever played where players are encouraged to think that their opponent's are terrible or to specifically seek out the weakest competition possible, it's pretty telling of the community as a whole IMO.

and what tackleberry said

Hey guys, if your gonna quote me please use the entirety of my statement. You left out the part about being able to change your mind.

Also, Tackleberry says he's fine w/ stereotyping at the poker table, just not in life.

Duffte you said, "The only reason stereotypes exist is to be judgemental and stubborn."
Sorry, but that's just not true. Refer to my earlier post.

not to get too off topic and sociological, but the reason stereotypes exist is probably quite simple - the human mind tries to spot patterns. poker has taught me a lot about how people perceive things and about how they allow incomplete logic to bloom to a flawed, complete explanation (in their minds).


to bart: what duffte says is a good point. though i have not gotten to play the podcast in question yet, i believe that it's generally a good idea to avoid gratuitous use of labels. we should aim to describe poker players in terms of *poker tendencies,* not people labels.


to jason: congrats on your study and work to improve your game. as others have mentioned, ego can be a giant shackle in this game, so try to address this however you can. as far as the hands in question: you are probably overthinking the KK hand with your concern that you are getting raised by an 'aggressive' player. some spots in NLHE simply suck and there is little we can do - this is generally one. download pokerstove and try to think about spots like this in terms of actual ranges. play around and you will probably find that bart will have to raise a TON of air here to make this stackoff OK.

as for the other hand, you've gone about half the way. you recognized that he is light here, but you've come up with a half-plan: 'i'll take it away when he doesn't flop much.' i assure you it's not quite as easy as this, and you're putting in quite a bit of money with quite a marginal hand just for the opportunity. your flop check is also rather poor, since bart is probably not c/f this board often. if he is, i doubt you get money from him on the turn.

Stereotypes are necessary for us to function. Without the ability to generalize, then we'd fumble over ourselves in every aspect of life.

the only reason stereotypes exist is the be judgemental and stubborn

This statement couldn't be more false.

"What people call “stereotypes” are what scientists call “empirical generalizations,” and they are the foundation of scientific theory. That’s what scientists do; they make generalizations. Many stereotypes are empirical generalizations with a statistical basis and thus on average tend to be true. If they are not true, they wouldn’t be stereotypes. The only problem with stereotypes and empirical generalizations is that they are not always true for all individual cases. They are generalizations, not invariant laws. There are always individual exceptions to stereotypes and empirical generalizations. The danger lies in applying the empirical generalizations to individual cases, which may or may not be exceptions. But these individual exceptions do not invalidate the generalizations."

Stereotypes don't merely exist to be judgemental and stubborn. They exist because X ended up being true in most instances. And they are quite helpful and necessary, not only in life, but in poker as well. To demonize stereotypes is akin to demonizing pit bulls because an owner of said pit bull decided to train it to fight. In the wrong hands, pit bulls, much like stereotypes, can result in a negative impact, but that doesn't make pit bulls evil. They don't exist only to fight, much like stereotypes don't exist only as a result of being stubborn.

With that being said, duffte's overall point is valid. Respect is often lacking in the poker community and no one is perfect in that regard. Fortunately, I've found that DC seems to handle itself better than other online communities.

With regard to Jason, I bet he will be the first to admit that he didn't exactly approach this whole topic in a manner that would result in a mature, respectful conversation. When someone presents a conversation in an accusatory tone, then the obvious result will be people being on the offensive and defensive. Had he presented his issue like this:

"Bart seems to have made a mistake in assessing reads. My evidence is X. Because of X, I feel that Bart may be incorrectly making plays. Thoughts?"

The conversation thereafter would clearly be more respectful.

We all get heated, angry, emotional, etc., and that often results in us choosing different words and a different tone than what we would really like to use had our emotions not clouded the issue. We all know this situation very well. This is tilt. And when we tilt, we can often cause others to tilt, especially on the fearless and anonymous interwebs. To take duffte's sentiment further, we must all try to manage our own tilt and that will in turn result in a higher level of respect overall.

baby picture avatars. 'nuff said.

i dont wanna fight over this, i know what you mean and i agree.
i just wanna say that what you are describing is what i was saying.
stereotypes are judgemental imo, bec people define themselves with em and they are stubborn, because they reduce individualism to quantify. and in the matter of poker i think those generalizations are really harming your game. this especially is true if you forget about what makes you superior to the stereotype in question and rest in the position you defined by stereotyping him.. which is the reason i posted this.

There is no danger in stereotyping a player so long as you understand how substantial the evidence underlying it is.

This is the same as our understanding of sample size when discussing stats from a HUD. Our stereotypes are useful in that they are the generalization of what we know so far. Their usefulness decreases when we become attached to them and fail to incorporate new evidence into our understanding of villain/game/whatever.

i dont wanna fight over this, i know what you mean and i agree.
i just wanna say that what you are describing is what i was saying.
stereotypes are judgemental imo, bec people define themselves with em and they are stubborn, because they reduce individualism to quantify. and in the matter of poker i think those generalizations are really harming your game. this especially is true if you forget about what makes you superior to the stereotype in question and rest in the position you defined by stereotyping him.. which is the reason i posted this.

Agree with all of this.

The thread has turned into a pretty interesting discussion.

Now that I've gotten over the blow to the ego, I can admit that I'm a big fan of Bart's podcast. Perhaps that's why the comments he made in the podcast stung so much. I have learned a ton from the podcast, and it has obviously resulted in money in my pocket, so I cant be TOO mad.

I think the issue of stereotypes or profiling someone based on a single hand has been pretty well addressed. I'll just add that as much as I'm complaining about the label Bart assigned to me, I admit that I did the same thing to him when I sat down--granted, I had much more evidence (his podcasts) to know he was aggressive and capable of representing a strong hand on a wet flop like the one that came when I had kings. I can lay down kings to a lot of players in that spot, but because I felt my stack (at 100bbs) was too small to call and evaluate the action on the turn, I felt that it was shove or fold and folding to a player who not only isnt aware of the strength of my hand but is also capable of making a semi-bluff on a board like that, I felt getting it in was better than folding. At 150bbs I'd probably call and fold on most turns if he came out betting.

In the QT hand, I honestly felt like my cards didn't matter. We all have an idea of what we are capable of post flop, and since I felt he was light, I thought he'd check fold to most flops he didn't nail. I checked the flop because I was still under the impression that he was light and that he'd fold to any bet I made (I felt his range was heavily weighted toward small pairs and suited connectors)--plus there was probably a little steam involved after having my kings cracked by 45 (I'm working on keeping my tilt in check).

I dont think checking is that bad on that flop. My stack was small enough that any bet he makes on the turn--short of a complete bluff--most likely commits him to the pot. Obviously I'm betting if he checks, and if he has a small pair or small suited connectors then I get no more money anyway.

For the record, against good players, and especially really good, thinking players like Bart, I'm more likely to bet when I flop a strong hand.

Note to self: x/r and barrel turns when deep vs JasonTornado.

Note to self: x/r and barrel turns when deep vs JasonTornado.

Note to self: bet/call and shove over turn barrel when deep vs TecmoSuperBowl

Bah!

% chance that OP is an epic troll?

This thread is so awesome

JasonTornado and TravD should go bowling together

Jason, I would have kept quiet myself, and used my fishy image to lay some srious pwnage on Bartman later.

I think one of the most profitable images in poker is when a good reg thinks you are a fish. You can really exploit them, knowing they will be playing very ABC vs you.

Bart- I dont play live NL but i subscribe and very much enjoy your podcasts, keep up the good work. I think you articulated yourself very well in this thread fwiw

% chance that OP is an epic troll?

48% chance.

67% chance I've never even played live poker.

Jason, I would have kept quiet myself, and used my fishy image to lay some srious pwnage on Bartman later.

I think one of the most profitable images in poker is when a good reg thinks you are a fish. You can really exploit them, knowing they will be playing very ABC vs you.

Bart- I dont play live NL but i subscribe and very much enjoy your podcasts, keep up the good work. I think you articulated yourself very well in this thread fwiw

Thanks. You're absolutely right.

48% chance.

67% chance I've never even played live poker.

I'd say 99.99999% chance to both