Why the self-hate internet players? internet players rock!

I just read a blog, one of many I've seen, the purpose of which it seems to me is to "put down" internet poker players. We have all seen commentary about internet players - how bad we are, what luck boxes etc. etc. etc.

I have recently seen commentary from Daniel Negreanu, Chris Ferguson and many other pros that indicates a change of attitude about the quality of internet players. I heard a discussion where, as best I could determine, the complaint of pros was the widespread adaptation of aggressive play which all of the most heralded players used back in the day where it's practictioner's dominated other more popular styles of play- Doyle Brunson talks of this at length in Super System 2 - the other complaint is tournament size.

---

I responded thusly to the blog:

I wish I was "donkey" enough to win 12 million dollars at poker! This year he,by his own admission and my own observation, played poorly. Last year although he got very, very lucky - with the exception of his infraction of hand discussion rules that no one suprisingly complained about, his play was not that of a donkey.

I often wonder why the internet players are singled out for suspect play (by some pros and suprisingly some internet players) and the professional players make plays similarly suspect nothing is said. I can't imagine what would be said of Varkonyi, MoneyMaker, Raymer, Hachem, Gold or Yang if they won their tournaments by playing TWICE to boot!

It's funny, the one thing that everyone who writes poker books agree on is "change gears to match your opponents style" but the main thing they do about internet players consistently winning is wine about tournament size and to "change games" what will they switch to when (if) internet players dominate HORSE - pinochle? - lol

Merlin333

What I always say is "you're better beat 'em"

ps. I've seen a million photos of Doyle holding 10 2 and smiling after having won the WSOP - I have NEVER seen it with such a derisive caption.

---

I can see a certain self serving element to the argument pros make while making derisive comments about internet players. I might too if, just as holdem became the most popular card game on the planet a bunch of "overnight" interlopers swoop down and snatch up the big cash!. I put it in the same place of the guy I just busted from the button with trip 4's who played UTG for a min raise who has nothing better to do than namecall and whine in the loser's lounge about my "donkey play" - get over it - play better - you're better than me then win. I have NO sympathy for the "tournament size argument" every internet player is intimately familiar with 2, 3,4, 10 thousand player fields. (Don't give me the faster hands argument either. No matter how many hands per hour, the time taken to win a 10 thousand player tournament you have to beat 10 thousand players). I'd argue it is easier to start big stack, spread the game out over days and slow blind increase. Plus the influx of players because of the internet is the reason for the big payday.

Internet players stop the self-hating. There are a lot of top flight internet players you can go to any site that has pros and see them whacking a pro or two on a daily basis. In the local games I play in (and I'm a newbie) if I'm not whacking the local pros some other internet player is. A lot of us are good and thats the fact Jack - the pros who can't just have to get used to it.

What do you think?

Merlin333

• Read More »

Poker Rigged? What do YOU think?

Dec 2, 2007 2:22 pm

The problem here is in the definition of the word "rigged". Rigged, bad beat, getting caught in a bluff, being outplayed and making a move and getting caught are not synonymous. I doubt anyone who is even marginally on top of the stories of security and procedural breaches, admissions by the sites themselves, third party exposé's and paybacks* to players by sites themselves can say breaches don't exist. We all have to admit to that since recovering from being cheated is most often internally investigated and most don't have the legal and technical expertise to properly investigate and press for recovery you are effectively at the mercy and integrity of the site for redress. *Payback defined here as a refund to an account not associated with a promotion. All of these things exist. I bet no one here is going to deposit 1,000 of their own money in AbsolutePoker today and everyone has a heightened observation of "strange things" happening. Much of this can be resolved my regulation and penalties for malfeasance, insurance that sites have the financial ability to cover what they owe, are fined and penalized in cases of breaches and a uniform baseline of externally verifiable operational integrity of anyone operating a site is in place. All of this being in effect will have absolutely no effect on "bad beats" real or perceived, getting caught in a bluff or being outplayed.

As for being "rigged" there is scarcely an enterprise that humans participate in where if someone can cheat someone will. Proper procedures should be able to detect "rogue" employees and rogue sites certainly the environment for both exist now.

The only protection we have as players is the existence of verifiable methods of secure operations, enforcement with teeth to punish those who either purposely or through ineptitude operates outside uniform, external guidelines. It appears that the people involved in the Absolute scandal were all close-knit insiders (including Mark Seif) who blogged and held the position to the end that "this was impossible","be careful there may be a defamation suit". Who can say from a perspective of close, personal knowledge that there are no rigged sites, rigged games and that every hand dealt is perfectly above board? I am absolutely sure (pun intended) that everyone making this claim of "not rigged hold a position within the sites from which to make this claim from fact. Given the millions sites can easily make and the existence of technological means to establish secure operations I can think of no other reason than greed, stupidity or to rig the site for more and more profits (a combination of greed and stupidity) to advocate no meaningful oversight. In my view those who believe that linking security and legalization reduces the likelihood of removing prohibition are fooling themselves.

Notwithstanding the foibles of lawmaking in the US congress (foibles it appears to me all politicians of all parties and countries have) separating these issues strengthens the "prohibition crowd's" argument by letting them add "NO poker without oversight just so site operators can make millions and we can be cheated" to their mantra and it lets the "stop prohibition crowd" to add "I'd rather have NO Poker rather than poker without oversight so I can be cheated"to theirs. If the sites are not careful this "open environment" will be what kills online play.

Did anyone notice that just within the last few weeks the main sites just purchased and/or developed and installed software to detect multiple / defunct accounts? Having done this earlier would have given "PotRipper", "BullDozer" Et.Al. one less avenue to compromise their sites. I bet the cost of this was much less that the cost to site traffic, reputation and movement towards not being legalized.

This can be seen that a least some sites know the importance of having an honest, secure game.....but being forced into accountability by catastrophic event is not accountability ©2007 Jon Holt Merlin333

• Read More »

POKER QUOTES :

fictional:

Lancey Howard to Eric Stoner * (Edward G. Robinson to Steve McQueen)

final scene in the "Cinncinnati Kid" -1967 / After a marathon tournament to decide who is the best stud poker player in the land. Lancey (thinking the "Kid" is bluffing) turns over a flush to "the kids" high straight and then :

• Lancey says : Gets down to what it's all about, doesn't it? Making the wrong move at the right time.
• "The Kid" says : Is that what it's all about? {flipping his down cards up to show an Ace high straight}
• Lancey says : You're good kid... but as long as I'm around you're only second best....don't forget that"

1. Vannevar Bush, Architect of the internet

If scientific reasoning were limited to the logical processes of arithmetic, we should not get very far in our understanding of the physical world. One might as well attempt to grasp the game of poker entirely by the use of the mathematics of probability.

2. Daniel Negreanu on Becoming an Elite poker player

Regarding a hand he folded pre-flop based on his read of an opponent Daniel said . "If you never try to play above the rim and just make automatic decisions based solely on the numbers, you simply never will become an elite poker player.

3. Doyle Brunson

It's not the cards that you have all the time that makes you a winner or a loser.

You can't hold enough hands coming into these tournaments without making some courageous plays. (these "courageous plays are what know-nothing namecallers call "donkey plays"

Try to decide how good your hand is at a given moment. Nothing else matters. Nothing!

4. David Sklansky on Poker

"When we play, we must realize, before anything else, that we are out to make money."

Put yourself in their shoes before you decide on the best way to take their shirts.

5. General David Shoup

The commonest mistake in history is underestimating your opponent; happens at the poker table all the time.

6. David Spanier (1901)

The odds are merely a framework for play, like the lines of a tennis court.

7. From "Big Deal" by Anthony Holden

"Poker may be a branch of psychological warfare, an art form or indeed a way of life - but it is also merely a game, in which money is simply the means of keeping score."

8. David Mamet on Poker

"Poker reveals to the frank observer something else of import-it will teach him about his own nature. Many bad players do not improve because they cannot bear self-knowledge."

9. Bobby Baldwin on Poker

"You cannot survive without that intangible quality we call heart. The mark of a top player is not how much he wins when he is winning but how he handles his losses. If you win for thirty days in a row, that makes no difference if on the thirty-first you have a bad night, go crazy, and throw it all away."

10. Jack Strauss on Poker

"Limit poker is a science, but no-limit is an art. In limit, you are shooting at a target. In no-limit, the target comes alive and shoots back at you."

11. From the gentleman's handbook on poker

The strong point in poker is never to lose your temper, either with those you are playing with or, more particularly, with the cards. There is no sympathy in poker. Always keep cool. If you lose your head you will lose all your chips.

12. Pug Pearson on Poker

"The real things to know is that folks will stand to lose more than they will to win. That's the most important percentage there is. I mean, if they lose, they're willin' to lose everything. If they win, they're usually satisfied to win enough to pay for dinner and a show. The best gamblers know that."

13. From A Girlhood Among Gamblers by Katy Lederer

The cardinal sin in poker, worse than playing did cards, worse even than figuring your odds correctly, is becoming emotionally involved.

14. Amarillo Slim on Poker:

"It never hurts for potential opponents to think you're more than a little stupid and can hardly count all the money in your hip pocket, much less hold on to it.."

Besides lovemaking and singing in the shower, there aren't many human activities where there is a greater difference between a person's self-delusional ability and actual ability than in poker.

15. Steve Badget

Once you start thinking you have nothing left to learn, you have everything to learn.

The odds are merely a framework for play, like the lines of a tennis court.T

 

16. Rick Bennet

In the long run there's no luck in poker, but the short run is longer than most people know.

 

17. Crandall Addington, Texas oil millionaire

If you reraise a raiser, and he doesn't raise you back, you know he has kicker problems.

18. Alfred Alvarez (2001)

Serious poker is no more about gambling than rock climbing is about taking risks.

 

Hold'em is a game of calculated aggression: If you cards are good enough for your to call a bet, they are good enough to raise with.

19. Anonymous

A faint heart never filled a spade flush.

Money isn't everything ... unless you're playing in a rebuy tournament.

When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience.

 

21. Louis Kreiger

 

I believe in poker the way I believe in the American Dream. Poker is good for you. It enriches the soul, sharpens the intellect, heals the spirit, and - when played well, nourishes the wallet.

 

20. Vince Burgio

If you're a competitive person and you commit yourself to something, you have no choice but to endure

• Read More »

I Just won the WMFE Suited Pockets Tournament...

I win 1st place WMFE Suited Pockets over

Note the FT RB Ranking tournament behind where I went out with

• Read More »

NAMECALLERS - THINK ABOUT IT....

Last evening yet another loser started calling the guy who busted him (not me this time) a "donkey". His statement "how could you call me with " was a statement that frequently betrays the utter stupidy, the opressive need to sound "expert" to hide your loss and utter lack of knowledge of the game most namecallers have. (The whiner put in a minimum raise UTG, the 55 guy called - the flop JJ guy goes all in 55 guy calls - the turn river note the JJ guy could have easliy gotten busted with a Q)

I must say first I AM NO EXPERT but I am a student of the game and have come to know a few simple, obvious things :

1. Don't slowplay jacks, particularly online, particularly early
2. Your table can't see your Jacks and Jacks are not a "lock hand"
3. There are MANY opportunities to get your jacks busted from a variety of ways and its not just from others holding AA, KK,QQ either
4. Only rookies play only the strength of their hand and expect everyone else to fold and LET them win a pot
5. Whatever you do, whatever your skill level "putting someone on a hand" is a guess (decision based on incomplete information) sometimes you're wrong sometimes you're right. The higher your skill level and familiairity with your competition the more often you are right - making a wrong decision does not make you a donkey. It happens to every poker player every day regardless of skill level.

Now I am one to not believe that the printed words of a writer of poker books should be slavishly followed. I also think it's childish to ape the words you hear pro's say on TV (TVpokerese). I swear people seem to think it's cool to say something is "sick" and I've hear it used in so many situations I'm confused by what it is supposed to mean - but thats just me. I am one to test what I read and find out for myself the value or lack of value in what I read. I find it suspicious that a current winning, poker pro would write EVERYTHING HE KNOWS FOR GENERAL CONSUMPTION - I wouldn't. PLUS even if they did, your proper application of those writings is what matters. For example: Every artist is familiar with the same brush, paint and easel as Rembrandt, every basketball player is familiar with the same, court, ball, dribble and shot of Michael Jordan BUT almost no one else can use the same tools as they could no matter how much you read their "how I do it books". But having said that, this is one of the writing's most poker books agree on, I have found accurate so I'll relate them here. In "Super System 2" Doyle Brunson, in defense of being criticized for losing 580,000 with in the final event at Bellagio in 2003 and winning the championship with "trash pocket hands" in 1976 with : and 1977 with said this:

"Today's tournaments are structured to be a lot faster.... You've got to play almost every hand when you're anteing high" At the very least you 've got to see the flop. It's not at all suprising I won the 1976 and the 1977 World Championship with trash hands"

"...... I'd rarely play those hands. There's little reason when the ante doesn't force you to play. A major exception is when I play a pot for the sole reason of trying to steal it Then it doesn't matter what I have. I mean I could be playing the hand without even looking at my holecards. At such time, I'd be playing my money, my position and a particular player. My hand wouldn't matter. If I was forced to look at it because I got played with, I might find two Aces, A-K or trash.... I hadn't made a pair all day, and I'd had to stay alive by stealing some pots, but on this particular play (referring to 2003), my read was wrong.

This is a capacity good pros have most amateurs don't - TO PLAY WITH NOTHING FOR REASONS OTHER THAN YOUR HAND. In non-professional games, you are also more likely to find players in a pot who chase and hit where a pro would have folded streets earlier.

One key indicator whining players of this particular low level betray is that most times their "whining about getting caught" mentions only his hand versus the busting hand. There is often little mention about preceding play and players tendicies, how many are seated at the the table, level in the tournament, stack & table position, ante/blinds or any of those "unimportant, inconvenient contributing facts/factors" that contributed to the demise.

So the next time you call someone a "donkey" think first - are you showing how little YOU really know about the game? At least consider that if you find yourself in this position a LOT (whining in the losers lounge) maybe you need to learn something...

OK I gotta admit I get more than a little perturbed by people copying "TV Code words" - it's weak make up your own stuff or at least use the words per their definition - so sue me... LOL

JonHolt(Merlin333)

p.s. If I had a nickel for everytime Jacks busted me, I'd have more money than Bill Gates -

p.s. I know I didn't bleep the word d**key this time..... what can I say

check this article out:

http://www.railbirds.com/protip.php?articleID=68

• Read More »

Websters Donkey Definition........

• Read More »