Podcasts Poker Forums

Page 4: History rewritten on Deuce Plays Premium

or track by Email or RSS


JasonTornado

Avatar for JasonTornado

28 posts
Joined 10/2011

How did he mention you in the podcast? I can understand all of this if he called you out (by name) but if he's just like "some recreational player opened to $35..." etc. I think this is kind of excessive.



It wasn't by name, and it wasnt a question of other people knowing he was referring to me. But he went much further than "recreational player".

Anyway, even I feel like I've exhausted this topic and probably anything more than the first post was already too much.

Posted over 2 years ago

nawhead

Avatar for nawhead

2485 posts
Joined 10/2009

A-LX

Avatar for A-LX

588 posts
Joined 09/2009

Not yet, but I'm moving to brazil soon and will be glad to indulge you.

.05/.10 blinds?


meh too low, nvm then Grin

Posted over 2 years ago

JasonTornado

Avatar for JasonTornado

28 posts
Joined 10/2011

meh too low, nvm then Grin



How about Call of Duty then?

Posted over 2 years ago

duffte

Avatar for duffte

2568 posts
Joined 04/2008

i think both sides are wrong

for one bart should not rate a villain good or bad, or use incompetent established terms as "recreational player" that imply you are superior to them in the matter of knowledge and such in a more sophisticated way. this is a "leak" if you will that is born out of disrespect and might let barts students think that it is this piece of mind that makes you a winner. while it is not. what makes bart a winner is what he thinks this player does and more importantly how to react to that. so why would you even find a general term for those leaks (most common, most general is "fish".. cool, he is a fish, im gonna win. nope)?

on the other hand i am on jasons side. i am not surprised that you are making fun of him, i am not surprised you tell him to shut up and be happy that you are perceived as being "bad".. while something is missing in all of that, namely respect. the reason i hate being seen as a poker player is exactly this. there is no idea of companionship between players, that are simply playing a game. there is no respect for yourself (your game), no respect for others and their game. it is me against the world!

and you guys are proposing jason to do the same thing, congratulations. jason got caught on the wrong food, now he is hurt and oh yeah, hes gonna tilt, im gonna make so much money out of that idiot. hahah im gonna make him suffer so badly.

speaking professionally this may be part of the game. but why is it taken off the tables then?

instead of trying to solve this issue you are trying to take advantage over people, trying see where jasons flaws are and kill him. nobody in here was talking about how unstable jason's understatement of his own game might be and nobody was talking about that somebody that is kinda famous in here was disrespectful to another player, simply because this has found acceptance in the entire community (hes a bad fish). you are the ones being listened to, so fuckin think before you say something. i mean what am i saying, i even expect that from you lol.

i was being insulted by stupid dc coaches as well, not in their videos though, but off the tables as well..
you are thinking i should be smarter than that? see their childish dumb behaviour as what it is? open your mouth then.

what would you do if a tennis trainer would say that in front of your entire class? "daniel is more of a reacreational player, he is bad" i would feel disrespected for a good reason. if another player would say that to me, i would feel the same. but in the actual case it is down to how influental a voice is to make it a big deal. even if your colleague would be saying that there should be a discussion about that, just because it came up. thats what it is all about isnt it? we try to grow upon this game. so lets go.

this discussion should be about respect for your and villains game and lead to a mindset that is actually +ev for everybody and would let the image of poker players blossom to a beautiful flower with cute little rabbits jumping around and the sun smiling at you. two dots and a semicircle, dude.

this thread was posted to me on skype with something like, "lol what a small mind that boy is". all you do in here is hoist yourself upon his back. wow.

Posted over 2 years ago

JasonTornado

Avatar for JasonTornado

28 posts
Joined 10/2011

direstraights

Avatar for direstraights

1891 posts
Joined 12/2011

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.

Posted over 2 years ago

eselspiele

Avatar for eselspiele

34 posts
Joined 10/2010

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

Posted over 2 years ago

meowjr

Avatar for meowjr

535 posts
Joined 02/2011

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.

Posted over 2 years ago

theaddicane

Avatar for theaddicane

57 posts
Joined 09/2010

"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.

Posted over 2 years ago

Tackleberry

Avatar for Tackleberry

3561 posts
Joined 10/2009

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. Smile

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.

Posted over 2 years ago

duffte

Avatar for duffte

2568 posts
Joined 04/2008

"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

Posted over 2 years ago

meowjr

Avatar for meowjr

535 posts
Joined 02/2011

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.

Posted over 2 years ago

terp

Avatar for terp

2005 posts
Joined 01/2008

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.

Posted over 2 years ago

TecmoSuperBowl

Avatar for TecmoSuperBowl

Tribe Leader
5686 posts
Joined 01/2009

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.

Posted over 2 years ago




HomePoker ForumsPodcasts → History rewritten on Deuce Plays Premium