They are lacking.
And the original question was asking you to post all of your hands where you made crazier calls.
I don’t even know what you’re talking about or getting at. That I am making it up? ok man, cool story, put up or shut up
1 Like
Also, maybe more important than the stakes (i honestly can’t see this happening in even nanostakes cash games but let’s put that to the side) is the stack depth. Online cash much less lol donkaments and sngs aren’t gonna see anything deep relative to live cash.
Let’s assume it’s 1cent/2cent. A 150 double straddle deep hand is still way different than a 50bb hand.
Did you somehow forget that the Hu4Rollz is unrelated to this “crazy calls” facet of the discussion? In fact, you went hard with Hu4Rollz specifically to avoid this facet of the discussion!
bruh they’re not even in the same column lol
you also can’t appear to read - I didn’t call in that hand, my opponent did. I am confused what you are even asking, and you appear confused as well. I advise taking a nap.
the guy that didn’t know horse was a limit game til 20 minutes ago is posting hand ranking charts. such unintentional self ownage.
1 Like
I didn’t say nor imply you did…
Ok this is just getting fucking weird.
like did you not post “oh wait horse is all limit games nvm” earlier?
1 Like
While I agree with your point that the bigger the stakes make a hand crazier, I’ll bite the bullet like I alluded to in that other post and take it one step further, and say that even in a local $1/2 game I could not see this happening ever without some very extenuating circumstances, and I have a very good (imo lol) reason for thinking so: after the dust settled I obv immediately thought of Postle, like most people, but not because I was comparing Robbi to Postle, rather, I was comparing Garrett to Postle.
See, the things that Robbi said about Garrett, what she imagined Garrett was doing, bullying and pushing around and betting and raising all the time, is what Postle was actually doing. Recall that mf did not slow down or make it subtle, and I watched all 100+ hours of that bullshit. And no point did anybody even contemplate some crazy shit like a J4o call when they were all frustrated or drunk or both or simply knew he was out of line. The closest was an A-hi call on a river for a much smaller pot in BB and $$ terms. People were trying to push back, like minraising turns with J4o, to which Postle would shove in their face and… wait for it… they’d snap fold their J4o. He was getting people to fold their A-hi after 3b shoving rivers with only 20% effective behind and what not. And these games were much smaller as well, like mostly $1/3! (although they’d throw on crazy straddles and what not)
And i’m ready to admit that this is coloring my perception in the opposite way, but the Postle business just firmly makes me believe this isn’t a thing at any stakes.
Bruh you really thought I’d forgotten (or didn’t know) HORSE was minbet instead of, oh, let’s say, pretending in order to try to get you to play a different mix that I preferred more? That’s wild.
Also, why did you invent the “nvm” and tack it on like I said “no” to h4r then or in any other post? That’s not a thing that happened in objective reality.
The stakes definitely matter, imo. Where I think CW et al are off is that they seem to want to assume that she belonged at these stakes from a skill perspective. It seems pretty clear she didn’t, which makes her innocence more suspect if she was being staked for 100%. But not that suspect, imo. People make dumb decisions with money all the time, especially guys when attractive women are involved.
Regardless, her playing at stakes that are way above what her skill level warrants is what dramatically lowers the significance of her play to me. She’s maybe competitive in $2-5 games (granted I play like a few times a year now and my estimation of her ability is based on the few hands I watched her play and her attempts to bullshit her justification afterwards), and in lower stakes games people do frequently make bizarre plays that make little sense from a theory perspective.
1 Like
The “she is inconsistent line” is simply not based on anything we know about human psychology. People’s stories are never consistent, especially in high profile or traumatic situations. This ranges from minor cognitive dissonance to innocent people confessing to murder they didn’t commit.
People’s (cops and juries) poor understanding of this phenomena is why many innocent people end up in jail. It’s very dangerous.
1 Like
Agree. My frustration is the idea she is just good enough that the j4 hand sticks out so much from her tiny sample size but bad enough that she chooses the same terrible spot to cheat.
It should be called the Goldilocks theory.
Yes, you should flag posts that need mod attention. Both you and Clovis should drop the name calling.
I have literally no idea what you’re prattling on about.
so are you saying no? you’ve not accepted, and I’m not playing this idiotic child’s game anymore. accept or don’t. I think you most likely suck badly at poker and I’d love to play you. if you don’t, I think you should stfu wrt other people’s skill level in here.
1 Like
Might as well lock it up…
1 Like
I know you are joking but I want to use your post to make an important point.
With the exception of one poster itt, I think everyone is debating in good faith and believe they are applying logic. My position since the start is just that a couple people are making well known logic errors. Saying so is not meant to be an attack on their character. It’s meant to illuminate some of the common mistakes made in these kinds of debates.
I strongly disagree with CW and Jwax but hold no ill will towards them. I think they are wrong but that in no way equates to bad.
1 Like