Podcasts Poker Forums

Tecmo nailed it (as so often), and OP, letting your ego-hit beside (which you obviously took), the naked argument of saying Bart was wrong by making conclusions too quickly based on one single hand is off, imho. It´s live poker, we don´t have the time to watch 100´s of hands to build a proper profile, supported by our HUD´s. We have to build that profile very quickly - and we risk that it´s incomplete or even wrong. But even if it turns out to be completely wrong in 20%, in 80% it´s correct or at least close to, so I don´t see the problem ...

If you think stacking off with kings on an 8-high board leads you to the conclusions Bart reached (have you listened to the podcast?), then yeah...that's bad poker.

My advice: get rid of notions that a player is bad or good and think more in terms of tendencies. Players have leaks and strengths and labelling someone good or bad is probably painting the with too broad a brush.

The fact that you called his monster 3bet with QTo and the part where you fail to recognize that being labeled as a donk is actually good for you, says enough about your true skill level..

OP, this is clearly about your ego and not Bart's analysis. You are now trying to portray that it was always just about the analysis, but if that were true, then you would have had plenty of other opportunities to criticize Bart. He's done like 400 broadcasts of various natures and you just so happen to think he got it wrong in the section where he criticizes your own play. I hope you see where the obvious bias in your perception causes issues with lending proper credibility to your statements.

OP, this is clearly about your ego and not Bart's analysis.

I hope you're not trying to clear up his misperceptions.

I started the thread because I was offended. Pure ego--I agree.

That doesn't change the fact that profiling a person off of a single hand is bad, and it points to what is possibly a larger problem that Bart may or may not have--justifying his own bad play on the subsequent hand by making the villain out to be so horribly bad that they can't possibly be sophisticated enough to play a better hand (postflop) the way I did in that spot. He even put pocket tens in my shoving range on an AKJ board--based off of me shoving KK on a coordinated board in the only hand he remembers seeing me play (aside from the supposed limp from the c/o).

I left that session with a net profit of $2600, so he was able to see me play several other hands after the hand in which I stacked him. No mention of those, obviously...I suspect because they don't support the read he had on me.

Anyway, I'm being petty, and admit its been about ego. If you think
No other points have been raised that were worth discussing, that's fine.

The fact that you called his monster 3bet with QTo and the part where you fail to recognize that being labeled as a donk is actually good for you, says enough about your true skill level..

The part where reading his obvious squeeze for what it was and my actual hand not mattering in that spot says a lot about your own skill level.

Bart nailed the flop and still almost laid his hand down. You don't realize how calling there completely disguises my hand and makes it an easy steal on any board he doesn't connect with in a big way? Like I said, he had been actively 3betting and was actually appearing a bit spewy himself. After the qt hand, more people at the table started playing back at Bart and his aggression started to work against him. I'm sure that wasn't a session he wants to remember accurately.

I was lucky to flop the nuts. Every other time he flops less than two pair, i'm taking the pot solely by playing my position.

I commend you for admitting it was about your ego.

As for basing reads off 1 hand, I agree we should take those reads with a grain of salt, but sometimes 1 hand can in fact allow you to infer a great deal. I'm not going to get into the merits of the KK hand strategically, but I'd imagine he probably didn't mention future hands that you played which changed his read because it didn't affect future hands being discussed. I could be wrong though since I haven't listened to that particular episode.

ah you gotta play the player not your cards right

do you by any chance have some money online some where, so you can teach me your superior way of thinking in a 50k hands HU grudge match?

ah you gotta play the player not your cards right

do you by any chance have some money online some where, so you can teach me your superior way of thinking in a 50k hands HU grudge match?

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

.05/.10 blinds?

ah you gotta play the player not your cards right

do you by any chance have some money online some where, so you can teach me your superior way of thinking in a 50k hands HU grudge match?

The player and the position.

I commend you for admitting it was about your ego.

As for basing reads off 1 hand, I agree we should take those reads with a grain of salt, but sometimes 1 hand can in fact allow you to infer a great deal. I'm not going to get into the merits of the KK hand strategically, but I'd imagine he probably didn't mention future hands that you played which changed his read because it didn't affect future hands being discussed. I could be wrong though since I haven't listened to that particular episode.

Thanks. I think listening to the podcast is essential to getting the point im trying to make. One hand can tell you a lot, but...well, please just give it a listen.

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.

Thanks. I think listening to the podcast is essential to getting the point im trying to make. One hand can tell you a lot, but...well, please just give it a listen.

I don't have a current sub, but if somewhere down the road I listen, then I'll make sure to come back and tell you how wrong or right you were

Thanks! I appreciate the feedback you've already given.