troutsmart
-
Content Count
312 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by troutsmart
-
-
I don't like the fact that at times I've made insulting or brash comments, that though provoked, were not deserved. My second distaste for poker has to do with live play in casinos. I'm not a smoker, and have no problem with smokers, until I walk into a casino and get suffocated, not to mention smelling horrible if I go to a nice restaurant or movie later. I do like the fact that most of the poker rooms are becoming smokefree, but being twenty feet from the slot machines, there is no way to avoid the smoke. Of course, it is my choice to go in the casino, so I have no room to argue this.
-
Professor Plum in the library.
-
Amazing how the pros just keep winning. Guess there is some skill in these games afterall. Congrats to Phil.
-
My current bankroll started with $17 won in a freeroll...after an enormously ugly run of of over 20,000 hands (I didn't think it was possible), I stand at $1600. This wouldn't constitute a fraction of a big roll though. Ask me this again in a couple years.
-
400 hands is an average session for me 3-tabling. If I'm on a great table, I'll play longer, but otherwise I'll be done with it for the day. I average about 1.5 sessions/day.I have respect for those who can regularly play longer sessions online.
-
2005-06-24 23:44:00 Title: Mark Seif Wins Event #22 ($1,500 No-Limit Hold'em) Log: Hand 184 - Nguyen has the button, he limps, Seif raises to $100,000, Nguyen raises to $600,000, Seif pushes all in, and Nguyen calls. Nguyen shows Ad-10d, but Seif has pocket kings (Kc-Kd). Nguyen is the shorter stack, facing possible elimination on this hand. The flop comes Kh-7h-4c, and Seif has flopped a set of kings. The only way Nguyen will survive is if he catches a jack and a queen on the last two cards for a straight. The turn card is the 9c, and Nguyen is drawing dead. Minh Nguyen is eliminated in second place, earning $329,975. Mark Seif wins Event #22 ($1,500 No-Limit Hold'em), earning $611,145 and his second World Series of Poker bracelet this week. www.cardplayer.com
-
Congrats on the win and we wish you more in the future, which we know will surely happen.
-
Now as for the decline of the World Series of Poker, there are some things happening that are a concern.1) Ten handed tables are changing the pace of the events. Warren Karp makes this point in a cardplayer.com interview.2) The structure isn't very forgiving in many events. If you don't win pots early, you're in the hot seat. 3) Logistically speaking, if you make it deep into a tournament, it can keep you out of two other events. A few events have had long first days, short second days, and then come back the final table on the third day.4) Many fans are interested in watching the events, but their proximity, and lack of manners in some instances, has created some tension. 5) The removel of mixed game events in favor of NL events. This is most concerning to me.Those are a few that I can think of right off. However, none of these are such that they cannot be altered in the future.
-
Why do I look forward to the World Series of Poker?1) The competition between established pros to add bracelets (ex. Erik Seidel and Allen Cunningham adding to their collection)2) The open nature and multiple methods provide anybody to find their way to a final table and potentially win (ex. Chris Moneymaker)3) It is at the world series where we identify the "players". There are many highly-skilled players that are unknown or have achieved some success, yet remain off the minds of the vast majority of poker followers. Due to the extensive media coverage, and prestige of the events, we are able to learn about these players. Most name players became such at the world series. (examples are too numerous, but last year we were introduced to David Williams, Greg Raymer, Thomas Keller, Scott Fischman, Josh Arieh, etc.) Michael Gracz is such a player this year having won a WPT event and now a bracelet. Clff "Johnny Bax" Josephy is another. We have simply entered a new era in poker. The World Series of Poker has changed, but is not gone by any means. It is at its potential peak. We should be grateful for how big the game has become and the multiple ways for the everyday player to compete.
-
My initial thought when reading this post was, "Oh no! I can't reveal how pathetic my results are to all these esteemed players." Further thought leads me to believe that my numbers might reflect a certain percentage of those reading and I might not be alone. I keep very accurate records, to the point I'm probably overly anal about it.From March 13-June 13-- Online profit of $583.92 798 hrsFrom March 13-June 13-- Live game profit of $261 23 hrsTherefore, I'm a winning player and have shown a profit, though very small for the time spent. Considering I was playing 50c/$1 limit on March 13, and was well within my bankroll, my BB/100 hand profit has been truly abysmal. Things were fine until the 12th of May, when I showed a profit of $1543 since March 13th. Since March 13th, I have been in a horrendous downturn, from which I have yet to recover. I have stepped down from the 2/4 limit and now am playing 1/2, and analyzing my game for leaks that have attributed beyond the bad run of cards.I might have company in this category.
-
team: desert rollersEvent #2 Allen Cunningham 50*16= 800 Scott Fischman 44*14=616Event #9 Erik Seidel 50*8 = 400 ------------------------- 1816pts
-
crazy hand, but this should have been a massively huge pot if any player played their hand correctly.
-
And Kirill, the Matt Damon lookalike who finished 2nd in a WPT event, is his poker coach.Came across this, and realised is this the same Yevgeny Kafelnikov - $24,600, that was the #1 tennis player just a few years ago?Date / Time: 2005-06-10 03:12:00 Title: End of Day One Log: It's the end of day one in the $1500 Seven Card Stud Event. There are still three tables with 20 players remaining. Play will resume at 3pm tomorrow. Their chip counts are as follows:Abe Almalhi - $86,100, Minh Nguyen - $80,100, Mark Burtman - $70,900, Robert Glenn - $63,500, Cliff Josephy - $50,800, Greg Mascio - $47,400, Glenn Englebart - $47,600, Ardell Willis - $47,400, Carl Brucher - $45,100, Kirill Gerasimov - $35,300, Randy Holland - $32,000, Murray Reinhart - $32,000, Leandro Alvarez - $28,500, Yevgeny Kafelnikov - $24,600, Thor Hansen - $17,800, Lawrence Budenz - $14,200, Richard Tatalovich - $13,000, David Levi - $6,400, Hugo Meija - $3,100, George Rechnitzer - $2,000 -
Team: Desert Rollers I've blanked in every event other than the first, which served me well.Event #2 - Allen Cunningham 50*16= 800 Scott Fischman 44*14= 616 -------- 1416 pts. (as of 6/8)
-
I might be naive in asssuming this, but if Daniel Negreanu has respect for a player's game, then I think I'm safe assuming the player is pretty damn good. I personally thought Josh was a disgrace to sportsmanship upon my initial impressions, but have since gained more respect for him by reading his blog and learning about him in Daniel's blog.
-
lol...that is pretty comical when I think about it. That might have me quitting a lot of sessions. It does always feel good to get back after being stuck a bunch.Leave when down 30 BB? Not me mang Okay... What's going on here? I can drop that in 2 hands... Maybe like 200bb? I hate quitting when I'm down, I'll take a break, make sure I'm not playing wrong, and get back with a vengence sometimes I play my best poker after getting stuck a bunch. -
What do you do on those days that you're stuck?I play hours, as advised in one of Daniel's early articles in cardplayer, but sometimes find myself stuck early in the session. When looking at my records, I've noticed that I've had a few semi-catastropic sessions. I wonder if it wouldn't be best to have a stop loss to control these nightmare sessions. Say 30BB. Your thoughts?
-
dumb of me not to see the straight and additional outs. I still like a raise here in many cases, though if I knew my opponent to be a rock or pretty straight forward, I might opt to fold.
-
Depends on my opponent largely. However, if I feel I'm behind, but my ace or king is good, then it becomes a pot odds problem. Feeling that my opponent has a made hand and no flush draw and my A and K are good.52 cards in the deck - 6 known = 46 cards46 cards - 6 good cards (3 Kings, 3 Aces) = 4040 bad cards/ 6 good cards = 6.7 to 1320 (pot)/40(bet to call)= 8 Based on the math, you're good to go.However, I might disagree with the previously mentioned play of raising here, and the statement that such advise should cause you to throw the book away. I don't necessarily think raising is bad play. Many players will play the hand as this opponent has, with only a high flush draw. They could have middle pair, or a mid-pocket such as 88, 77, or 66. By raising on the turn, you may potentially get your opponent to fold a hand that beats yours. Such an opponent will likely bet the river anyway, so it will cost you the same 2 bets. If the opponent 3 bets you on the turn, you can fold or call. Most of the time, the player will call and check the river, but many times they will fold. Daniel Negreanu explains this much better than I do, and Jen Harman discusses it in SS II as well.a link to Daniel's article on playing the turn:http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archi...d=12911&m_id=45
-
I just finished reading The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King . Very interesting read, with interesting insight into the big game with Andy Beal. Lots of information about Doyle Bruson, Todd Brunson, Chip Reese, Howard Lederer, Ted Forrest, and Jennifer Harman, along with several other top pros. I would like to have seen more information on the mathmatics that Beal used to counteract the pros ability to read hands. This was only lightly touched upon, yet seemed to be a major part of the success Beal had at times. Other than that, I really enjoyed this book, and probably rate it up there with Positively Fifth Street by James McManus.Good stategy books:Theory of PokerSmall Stakes Hold 'emSupersystem I and IIHarrington on Hold'em Vol. 1Inside the Poker MindZen for PokerPsychology of PokerCaro's book on TellsFun reads:Poker NationThe biggest game in townMoneymaker's bookAces and Kings
-
An element of this style is related to game theory and creating random betting patterns. An example of game theory relates to coordination of an action(bet) to an inanimate object(coin). If I were to bet everytime I flipped a coin and it landed on heads, and checked-called everytime it landed tails, there would be no distinguished pattern to my betting. I'm not saying Gus is flipping coins, but an element of his play is based on such randomness I would assume. Barry Greenstein classifies Gus as an active or loose player vs. the common perception of hyper-aggressive. An active or loose player will raise with any two cards. They will also back down to an opponent that plays back at them. They pick up enough pots without confrontation that they can afford to laydown hands, even big hands, the very hands that many players bust out on. This style is not easy to play as it requires a great discipline, which most players do not possess. It requires heart and an element of fearlessness. It requires a tremendous ability to read hands, and most importantly, recognize true weakness or strength in an opponent. In addition, such a player will need a great understanding of the mathmatics of the game, as many of their decisions (primarily those when an opponent play back at them) will be based on odds.Adding in the randomness of game theory, and such players become very formible opponents at the table. Such a style is suited to NL and PL games, as the implied odds are enormous at times, and they can have greater control over the opposition than they might have in a limit stucture.
-
From my observations of both of your styles, starting out at dead even, i believe you could take him heads up daniel. Not because i am on your board telling you this, but your style is a lot more agressive than his, and there is no worse of an opponent you want to face in limit hold'em than someone who is aggressive. In heads-up limit, Howard might be one of the most aggressive players out there. Whether he or Daniel would be more aggressive, I have no idea how it would play out. Many percieve Howard to be a tight player, based on his T.V. airtime, which could make any player appear tight or maniacal based on any given producer's decisions. As for the general discussion, here is my take:Daniel is in the elite category of players in the world. In a multigame format, you would have to look at the big game to find his peers. Combined with his tournament record, he is nearly in a category by himself. As for Daniel's limit game skills, I find it a ridiculous arguement that he is much of an underdog to any player. Daniel built his own bankroll, largely working up the tiers playing limit. Currently Daniel has played 84 hours in competitive cash games this year, excluding his heads-up matches. Much of that has been in a mixed game format, where the game is switched each round. It is likely that he has played less than 1000 hands of limit this year. To be a little rusty would certainly be expected. However, I don't think this is a "Tinman" that the pros want to giving "oil". He has played three limit matches, against top limit players, and stands 1-2. Keep in mind that he has played against specialists for the most part, players that have logged many thousand hands this year against many high-level limit opponents. They are well "oiled" and ready, yet he has willingly taken the competition. He will likely face several more of these specialists, but each will find a more "tuned-up" opponent in Daniel, as the rust fades and his worldclass skill is harnessed. At that point, any +EV will likely be diminished by any that might have capatilized early. Daniel may be flipping coins for large amounts of money, as many contend, but I personally feel there is a tremedous benefit associated with the risk. Are there better places to risk up to 500k? lol. His bankroll may be hindered, padded, or merely dance around back to even, but the intangible benefits might just be exponential. If you look at history, you find a correlation between large risk and reward. The most successful did something unique, something big, and something that most viewed as lunacy. May Daniel have such a fate.
-
Thank you...glad to hear that the wind is appreciated.
Nah, that was a great post.No problem...though I tend to be long winded :-) -
No problem...though I tend to be long winded :-)
the best nlhe players are...
in General Poker Forum
Posted
A no limit player can play tight or loose, and twenty shades in between, but that isn't what is important. Success has little correlation to whether a player is loose or tight, and much more to do with making correct decisions. The greatest players make the greatest decisions.