I personally think exploitative play is more useful than GTO if you want to make money at the casinos, or even online at lower stakes (or the real prize, here at Replay). If you match exploitative against GTO, well, that’s a tough matchup for an exploitative style when there is nothing to exploit. But does anyone actually play leak free poker? Maybe Polk and others are moderately close in certain tightly defined settings. Let’s say that’s true… is that any reason why we have to say mean spirited things about those that advocate for the benefits of an exploitative style?
As an aside, GTO, while the term comes from John von Neumann’s incredibly brilliant Game Theory, really has little to do with that branch of advanced mathematics, and is just the effort of bright poker players trying to imagine what play between perfectly strong players would like like, and really more recently has devolved into something even less grandiose, imitation of AI (solver) solutions on how to construct ranges across across all streets and boards. While AI’s have recently become arguably stronger than the strongest humans, there is no reason to believe that they are anywhere near close to perfect yet.
"Have you ever made a poker decision based on a hunch or gut reaction? "
Agreed, JoeDirk called me superstitious on another thread for suggestion just that…
I forget the year or tournament, but there was a clip of Daniel N. arriving at his table just in time for the first hand. First flop produced a flush draw, which he bet all his chips on, then left when it didn’t hit.
Anyone who does that has a very special relationship with the game, or they play a lot of low level tournaments on replay.
He seems to process many of the qualities from Doyle’s era, and good knowledge of all aspects of the game, coupled with a personality that seems to make other players let him get away with all the table talk, which is probably just a poorly disguised fact finding tool. Advantageous? Sure. Cheating? Eh.
How do you cheat at poker, anyway? Collusion at the table? Spectator relaying real time info, somehow? Ace in the boot?
You are mis-characterizing what I said. You were saying that you should play 53o because you never know what’s going to happen, which is total nonsense. That is different from reading opponents based on their actions. Don’t drag me into your trolling. Your reasoning makes zero sense to me, so please stop referring to me. I am no longer engaging. Peace.
Did any of you even read/listen to what Dnegs said?
He said that he knows it’s not possible but it FEELS like the game is rigged.
I mean, really, we’re all getting our panties in a bunch because the guy is saying exactly what I and, I expect, many of you feel when you think you’re playing your A-game and keep getting whipped!
I’ve had aces cracked three consecutive times and I’m telling you, I was screaming to everyone that would listen to me that the game was rigged. I knew then and I know now that it was just Lady Luck having her little “joke” on me.
Dnegs, I think, lives in my world where what I FEEL does not have to correlate to reality! I admit it, Dnegs admitted it.
What I feel, what you feel, what Dnegs feels, really does not have to correlate to reality. It’s called being “being human, having emotions”.
I would have a serious objection if Dnegs stated, as a fact, that the game was rigged or even if he stated it as his opinion. He didn’t do that. He said something like “I know it’s not possible but I feel like Doug Polk” and so on.
Dnegs did not help himself with his potty mouth but I haven’t seen anything that tells me that he stated the game is/was rigged as his belief.
JoeDirk in your strive to be right you keep on twisting my words. Not the first time! You seem to have a very high sensitivity about having too be right at all times.
I never said that you should play 53o, only that you can, you said that you should always fold 5-3o. And then this:
Whatever else you said is superstition not strategy.
I’m not referring to you, only quoting you…
Any two card combination is a potential winner. It all depends on what the board produces and your opponents hand.
I used the grudge match as an example, not as a maxim.
I don’t get why people get triggered by their own rigid thinking and get the idea that their wrongness impacts me.
Of course Daniel would never say that it was rigged. It would open him up to lawsuits and laughter.
By putting it out there in a cursing manner was very low class especially after he has declared that you shouldn’t play poker if you can’t shrug off a big loss.
I still vote for having this thread removed. I don’t think anything Click has had to say has in anyway detracted from the fundamental immorality of his assertions.
Did I miss something ?theanalyst01
You wrote a 5 paragraph epistle how DN has feelings and I responded with a one liner how he’s contradicting himself about his feelings What am I not getting???
WOW, that’s a lot hoohaa to dissect.
Please specify what you mean by;
a) fundamental
b) immorality
c) assertions
Please also specify what my assertions are and what part of it is immoral.
Thanks!
I vote for cancelling people who call for censorship of opinions they don’t like. I’m frankly fed up with people who don’t understand the concepts of free speech, libel/slander or any other words they recently picked up from Twitter Law School. Fatuous arguments that people must be protected from anything someone finds uncomfortable are all the rage these days. This trend must stop and the people advocating for it must be publicly rebuked.
If you disagree with something, make your argument and let ideas play out as they will. This has been the hallmark of societies that value information and the furtherance of knowledge. Attaching “morality” to speech and using it as an excuse to silence others has been the hallmark of every failed ideology in human history. Nothing is gained by silencing others, ever.
For reference - I would never advocate for anything the National Socialists stood for. I find every word out of their mouths to be despicable. However, I agree with the 1977 SCOTUS decision defending their right to say it. If speech this reprehensible is protected, then speech that is merely disagreeable is certainly protected. Grow up people and learn to defend your ideas rather than trying to silence others: NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY v. SKOKIE | FindLaw
FYI - I am not saying anyone here is a bad person. I am saying that some people are advocating for extremely bad ideas. I defend ideas and try not to attack the people holding ones that differ from mine. Some very intelligent, educated people hold ideas that are regressive and damaging. I am happy to debate them in any forum. I am also happy to hold them as friends and respect their opinions on other matters. We must be free to disagree. Just because we disagree does not mean we are enemies.
Well stated. My personal dilemma lately has been to understand why some people who disagree with me send me into an adrenalin over-dose while the same disagreement with other people doesn’t even register on my emotional rector scale. Fortunately, the discussion of Negreanu’s approach to poker, no matter who opines, doesn’t seem to bother me at all.
I do think that Negreanu has shown ample evidence of tilt in this match, and it is probably hurting him on top of his mistakes and Polk’s running better than EV in a few of their sessions. Now that he’s back to being down a million, he’s really going to need to get over it and keep his head in the game.
I’m all for free speech. I don’t think free speech includes slander and other kinds of baseless accusations against others. I see no need to censor Click from being able to make posts in general, but would myself have this thread removed if I was a moderator for this site, since I think this thread is essentially abusive toward a real human being. I don’t see that Daniel’s being famous somehow makes it ok to baselessly suggest that he is a cheater. I don’t see that Click has retracted that suggestion at any point here.
I think suggesting maliciously that someone else is a cheater when you know that is not true is very simply, very fundamentally immoral. It might not be up there with murder or a whole lot of other things, and might be so small even as to seem like the word immoral is too strong, but I think the word still obviously applies. You might say that you did not come cleanly out and make that suggestion: no, you do something rather more untasteful, and indirectly suggest it as a question.
Does that make you a bad person? I doubt it. We all do embarrassing, inappropriate things from time to time. If we recognize and agree that those things were inappropriate, then we apologize. If you really don’t feel that was inappropriate, I can only say our sense of morality differs.
