for the record, everyone supports NBZ doing his own thing. The only “issue” is when he unironically claim that anyone playing differently is doing so because of their toxic masculinity.
to which he adds, unironically again, the use of ‘trigger’ and ‘mad, bro’. but i do humbly accept his admission of defeat with that meltdown post. it was brave.
perfect. what part of your personality restrict you from playing an aggressive yet not over aggressive style? it can’t be the alpha male one, cause we’re not discussing over aggression.
I’m selectively aggressive. I don’t default to aggression. If two options seem close to the same, I probably take the less aggressive route.
how about as a thought experiment try taking the aggressive route whenever you deem the two options close? just for science, you know, as a free-thinking intellectual.
it will be interesting to both see the actual poker results over a large sample and how it effected your social interactions, or perhaps didn’t despite your fears.
i really think i’m breaking through to you here. it’s quite the scene.
What makes you think I didn’t settle on being less aggressive after losing when being more aggressive?
Because when asked why you are playing passive you answered because you avoid toxic masculinity and alpha male mentality. You didn’t answer “because I tried the proper amount of aggression, without being over aggressive, and it didn’t work maybe you guys can help me figure out why”.
I actually do pretty well in big O.
There’s rarely just one reason for everything.
Oh, for sure. So what do you think makes you unsuccessful playing a superior poker style and forces you to play a sub-optimal one which completely blocks your ability to ever move up in stakes and profit?
We came to the mutual conclusion that ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘alpha male’ has nothing to do with it, which i’m very proud of you for that breakthrough. Now let’s tackle the real issue.
He was half asleep and had just flown in from China so he was probably pretty close to autopiloting.
I know I have a tougher time watching for and picking up live reads when I’m too tired.
We haven’t both come to that conclusion.
Damn, I always get ahead of myself.
Lets try numbering it out. Here are statements you’ve made ITT:
A. You play a passive poker style
B. You consider “Over-Aggressive” poker style to derive from toxic masculinity.
C. There is an “Aggressive” poker style that is different than “Over-Aggressive”
D. When facing two similar valued routes, you choose the passive one.
E. You have tried playing “Aggressive” poker style before, with negative results.
Do you see how these points lead us to the unavoidable conclusion that your aversion and lack of success playing “Aggressive” yet not “Over-Aggressive” style cannot possibly be because of point B, toxic masculinity?
That is, of course, unless your answer to “Is there any poker player in the world who doesn’t suffer from toxic masculinity and alpha male behavior other than you” is “no”. You avoided that question before when you went to the child molester angle instead as your rebuttal.
There is no such thing as good weak passive poker. If Bruce wants to play poorly more power to him. Just stop with the endless posts trying to pretend the poor play is some kind of moral stance.
I play a passive poker style against certain types of players. I don’t think that all aggression in poker is due to toxic masculinity, but I think that toxic masculinity is a big part of why certain players play aggressively.
At my heart, I am a psychology-based player who seeks to exploit individual tendencies. I don’t enjoy playing online because that seems more about exploiting population tendencies. Much of what I describe is useless in an online setting.
My baseline strategy is to play tight and passive while gathering information about my opponents and fitting them to various profiles. A common player profile that I encounter is someone who is much more aggressive than usual while employing hand ranges that are too wide and inappropriate bet sizing. They bluff too much. They seem to get off on bluffing, like it feeds their egos. They often talk trash at the table and this table talk often includes elements of misogyny and homophobia. On 2+2, this sort of behavior seemed to be the online persona of some of the BBV crowd (but not limited to BBV).
When someone bets too big with too wide of a range, they are making a mistake. At least some of the time, the exploit of this mistake is to let them bet for multiple streets, not to come over top of them on early streets. Elements of toxic masculinity come in when people are incapable of even considering passive lines because it makes them feel weak or they think it makes them look weak.
I believe that one of my strengths as a player is that I don’t have that ego-driven desire to appear strong. I think it’s better for me if they think I’m not as big of a winner as I actually am, if they think I am more predictable than I actually am.
I’ve seen Clovis, myself, jwax, watevs post about 5k+ sessions, tournament wins etc here. Bruce, have you had any big wins in the last few years?
There really has never been any evidence posted you are a “big winner,” including you getting wrecked last time in Vegas.
once again none of this makes sense and contradicts itself in every paragraph, as everyone here been telling you that the best way to be a winning player in low stakes is to underbluff and bet for value while you discuss the over-bluffing player profile.
Also you claim that your skill is to find spots to -bluff-. aka, spot where you pretend to be strong when you are not. that is the literal definition of what you claim you are not. you sir, more than anyone in this thread, win at poker by your drive to appear strong.
your winrate would improve greatly if you stop thinking that betting hands affect your persona.
I mean good players play aggressively because most players are too passive and let them do it profitably, not bc they’re alpha hot shot egomaniacs. If people are gonna just c/f every flop they miss or every turn overcard, it makes sense to keep betting. It’s not some revelation that this is very exploitable, so good on ya for keeping these guys in check and taking down some small pots, but small pots aren’t where the real money is at in poker. You’ve gotta get paid in bigger pots every once in a while, and that’s just not gonna happen if everyone thinks you’re a huge nit. But you seem quite content with your style, so whatever, you do you.
it’s not even that. at the stakes nbz plays you can just play a reasonably TAG ABC game and profit steadily. People like to call. It’s true that underbluffing can be exploited easily at higher stakes, but not where NBZ plays. So his entire theory is absurd, as there is already a style devoid of masculinity.
Tight and Aggressive are not on the same axis.
5k big blinds?
$ in a 2/5 or similar game, so 1k bb+? I don’t think Bruce is regularly playing 5/10+.