I had a guy like that who bought in for $500 and cashed out +$3000 because he kept backing into hands, such as when he had trips in his hand that he thought was a full house on a paired board but ended up with a straight against a guy who made three of a kind.
I somehow seem to be card-dead or run bad when those players sit down, but at least I don’t spew playing too many hands.
Virtually every NBA/NFL GM would disagree with you. At least the GMs for big market teams not the never contending losers.
If all of them believed that, we’d see more Hinkie-style rebuilds and a few more teams blowing it up. I don’t believe that only rings matter. I wouldn’t embrace a multi-year tank job.
I actually disagree with this. While teams should operate this way, I think lots of GMs are more concerned about keeping their jobs and are often sacrificing championship EV in order to be competitive/make the playoffs to try and save their jobs. Just looking at the NFL this year, with tons of teams making moves to move into playoff contention, but hurting long term championship odds (off the top of my head, moves like Washington trading for Wentz, Miami trading for Hill, Cardinals trading for Hollywood, Vegas trading for Adams). None of those teams have legit title equity this year - but they all gave up a ton of future value to hopefully make the playoffs. Not surprisingly, all the GMs/coaches making those trades are likely on the hot seat (other than Vegas, where it seems to be Davis just being an idiot and wanting to make a splash).
no it’s like sayin you’re a good baseball player cause you do okay in your little league by only bunting, as your personality traits don’t allow you to swing the bat.
that’s fine if it fits your expectations of yourself, you do you. but i wouldn’t be interested to read your opinions on launch angles.
Getting a #1 overall pick or a bunch doesn’t mean much these days.
Philly picked Fultz over Tatum
Mahomes wasn’t a top pick and there have been so many high QB busts
McDavid, a generational talent on the back of years of tanking along with other top picks hasn’t got Edmonton to even a finals.
That’s a dumb analogy.
so is not raising preflop because it doesn’t fit your personality. and repeating over and over how somehow every other known profitable poker strategy is somehow ill equipped for your mysterious low stake game where no one folds but also everyone folds and therefore the best way to play is tight passive and never bet for value.
try being a little more nuanced.
I also think I saw a guy got stacked at least 5 times in double board bomb pots not adjusting from NL. Just amazing.
btw, the entire nonsense about your personality doesn’t even make the faintest logical sense, as you hilariously claim that most of your profits come from bluffing. something which is extremely harder to pull off when you have a personality that “can’t pull off making players react to me”.
that’s why the baseline to almost every player in low stakes is playing a TAG ABC game.
None of your posts ever make any sense. But the dumbest thing of all is how you keep repeating that your patent pending loose tight bluffing style suits you specifically, yet you keep answering every poker hand from that style perspective. The same style you just admitted isn’t the most profitable or close to it, but something you develop out of your personality defects and lack of ability to “make players react to you”.
Every answer you post for a poker hand should be “i wouldn’t play this way due to my personality issue, but the best line is probably XYZ”. since you never do that, it’s obviously you are just doing the same phil hellmuth style where you convinced yourself in your own bullshit, no matter how many glaring contradictions it has.
My personality is I don’t like trying to act like an alpha male at the table and I enjoy trapping those who do and making their poker experience miserable.
I’m not suited to playing in games where you treat opponents as fungible and try to exploit population tendencies instead of looking for individual tendencies to exploit.
My answer to almost every poker question is “it depends” with an interest in examining which conditions open up options that are different from standard lines. I don’t post about the many hands I play where you should play standard lines against “standard” opponents because those are boring.
The fact that you think raising preflop and betting hands is behaving like an alpha male is truely pathetic.
If you just said “im not fit to play good poker because of my social anxieties and i found a way to not lose money” it would have been admirable. Claiming that playing far superior poker to what you do “acting as an alpha male” is an insult to everyone’s intelligence. Claiming that everyone other than you (since literally no one in the world plays the style you propose profitably) is acting like an alpha male is insulting to everyone.
I really can’t figure out if you don’t realize how poor the logic behind your posts is and how easily it is contradicted.
I’ve never said you should never raise preflop, just that sometimes not raising is an option.
My words are meant to be insulting to those who embraced an over-aggressive brand of poker from an era of 2+2 where such aggression fit a culture of toxic masculinity on that forum. They luckboxed into an exploit that worked because it happened to fit their personalities, but wasn’t really as grounded in math and theory as they like to think.
I am not sorry if you feel triggered by this.
no one here is over aggressive. we are all perfectly aggressive. you are arguing, extremely poorly to the verge of a parody, against a play style no one discussed. while I am arguing against your own play style as described by you.
In order for your statement about developing your play style because you do not pretend to be ‘alpha male’ to be true you must by definition argue that any player, at any point in any game in the history of poker who played ‘aggressive’ has done so because they attempt to be alpha male. If you do not claim it then there is an aggressive way to play poker that does suit your personality defect. Why are you not trying it?
Which one is it? Words have meaning.
as an extracurricular can you name more successful poker players who do not fall into the toxic masculinity cesspool which is aggressive poker play? if there aren’t any, is your working thesis is that you are the only successful non poker player not pretending to be alpha male? If there are others, do they play the same style as you? If not, does any of them play a style which includes aggression?
I don’t know how to do polls. I’d like a who gets more tilted poll. Yuv when nbz posts some bizarre line he took or Clovis when someone says Phil helmuth is good.
It appears you have conceded. gjge. you should try swinging the bat.
also i apologize if you’re offended. we escalated from ‘nbz is not good at playing poker’ to ‘yuv is murdering babies’, which is amusingly enough like the 3rd person who claim this in this forum.
sorry it triggers you. you don’t have to be good at everythinig.
Click on the gear thing and one of the options is to build a poll. Click on the gear at the bottom of the “build poll” box to get additional options so you can show who voted.
I was just kind of joking. Your lines confuse me but do your thing man. I really think you would crush big o with your strange style.
There’s a difference between aggressive and over aggressive.
Let’s go with Michael Acevedo’s book Modern Poker Theory p240 as an example. Big blind defense vs a button open with a 15bb stack. His chart has all-in for 18% of hands, call for 58.2%, and fold for 23.8%. My perception is that there was a time when people advocated flatting less in that spot. Do I misremember?