proximity poker tour 2014....

[proximity]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

"Almost definitely beat" is often a call in limit if the pot is big enough.

Fur coats and all:

http://www.fekali.com/pwf/miscellanea/furcoat.html

don't worry, I won't be laying down kings full anytime soon.

sklansky loved that cocktail waitress fantasy but omg if he'd see the girls when the whizz walks into horseshoe....

[proximity]

Originally Posted by Track Collector

Thus, much of my winnings from the entire session were undeserved.

at least you're not living a lie like roy cooke.

seriously, you don't want to be complacent but i basically "write it how i see it" in my game descriptions. and what i saw was a guy that you wouldn't think was a novice player. what i saw were some good poker instincts. what i saw was a game with tremendous potential for plenty of future fun and profits.

what would i raise those hands to? it depends on a lot of stuff but i'm still going to give a general Charles town answer.... $9 plus the size of the pot.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

"Almost definitely beat" is often a call in limit if the pot is big enough.

Fur coats and all:

http://www.fekali.com/pwf/miscellanea/furcoat.html

You gotta love those Albanians.

[wiffleball whizz]

Originally Posted by proximity

don't worry, I won't be laying down kings full anytime soon.

sklansky loved that cocktail waitress fantasy but omg if he'd see the girls when the whizz walks into horseshoe....

Yeah sure.....

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by proximity

at least you're not living a lie like roy cooke.

it isn't that he's living a lie. It's just that he advocates strategies that were found in poker books in the 1990's. It's as if online poker, all the math, and the strategies of brilliant young players never happened. Against typical mid stakes online players, he'd be a TAGfish.

There are much better players out there who should have that column if CardPlayer cared about its readership.

[wiffleball whizz]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

it isn't that he's living a lie. It's just that he advocates strategies that were found in poker books in the 1990's. It's as if online poker, all the math, and the strategies of brilliant young players never happened. Against typical mid stakes online players, he'd be a TAGfish.

There are much better players out there who should have that column if CardPlayer cared about its readership.

**** Roy Cooke and his ancient 30/60 column.....guy is from the Stone Age with his 1998 articles.....

If you need real estate give him or his wife misty a call.....there always available to help.......had that same photo in card players for 20 years!!!

[proximity]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

it isn't that he's living a lie. It's just that he advocates strategies that were found in poker books in the 1990's. It's as if online poker, all the math, and the strategies of brilliant young players never happened. Against typical mid stakes online players, he'd be a TAGfish.

There are much better players out there who should have that column if CardPlayer cared about its readership.

well, it's all over now as he's moved to 2/5 no limit.

cardplayer has lost its limit ambassador.

[proximity]

Originally Posted by wiffleball whizz

If you need real estate give him or his wife misty a call.....there always available to help.......had that same photo in card players for 20 years!!!

i need 3610 tier credits to make diamond.

but it looks like the only extra benefits i get are a $100 dinner, access to the diamond lounge, and the ability to jump up in the poker line (which is just rude)?

what exactly goes on in the horseshoe diamond room?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

it isn't that he's living a lie. It's just that he advocates strategies that were found in poker books in the 1990's. It's as if online poker, all the math, and the strategies of brilliant young players never happened. Against typical mid stakes online players, he'd be a TAGfish.

There are much better players out there who should have that column if CardPlayer cared about its readership.

I have read much worse poker literature than Roy Cooke's columns. And another thing: Being a great player is one thing; but being able to clearly present your thinking process on paper is something altogether different.

Cooke has played a positive role in this game...and I'm not ready to criticize him.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I have read much worse poker literature than Roy Cooke's columns. And another thing: Being a great player is one thing; but being able to clearly present your thinking process on paper is something altogether different.

Cooke has played a positive role in this game...and I'm not ready to criticize him.

Cooke is a decent writer. I'm not saying that they should hire a bad writer to replace him.

But you know, it isn't as though Phil Newall doesn't exist, to pick one example. Heck, there are some semi-anonymous posters on 2+2, like Death Donkey and DougL, who write very well and would crush Cooke at limit hold 'em.

The problem with Cooke isn't that he can't clearly present his thoughts-- it's that his thoughts on limit hold 'em are dead wrong and players who follow them will play the game badly.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Cooke is a decent writer. I'm not saying that they should hire a bad writer to replace him.

But you know, it isn't as though Phil Newall doesn't exist, to pick one example. Heck, there are some semi-anonymous posters on 2+2, like Death Donkey and DougL, who write very well and would crush Cooke at limit hold 'em.

The problem with Cooke isn't that he can't clearly present his thoughts-- it's that his thoughts on limit hold 'em are dead wrong and players who follow them will play the game badly.

There is no "right or wrong" advice in poker. What is right today can easily become wrong tomorrow...because the nature of the game is in a constant state of flux. Cooke's advice is wrong today...and Newall's advice will likely be proven wrong tomorrow.

PS...I have read Newall's first book...and his writing skills didn't impress me enough to read his second one.

[proximity]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn26NOoV_lQ

roy: i just don't want it no more.

misty: if your 40-80 limit hold'em career is over because you want it to be over, i'm glad.

roy: i do.

misty: it's just... you never quit anything since i've known you.

roy: i mean why couldn't the shulmans tell me my articles weren't that good right from the start?

misty: we have everything roy. real estate, casino comps, everything but the truth! WHAT'S THE TRUTH DAMN IT!!!

roy: I'M AFRAID!

misty: i'm afraid too!! death donkey? newall? doug l? aunt hortense?
YOU CAN'T WIN ROY!!!

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

There is no "right or wrong" advice in poker. What is right today can easily become wrong tomorrow...because the nature of the game is in a constant state of flux. Cooke's advice is wrong today...and Newall's advice will likely be proven wrong tomorrow.

PS...I have read Newall's first book...and his writing skills didn't impress me enough to read his second one.

It isn't an issue of the game changing, although that has happened to some extent. Rather, the math has gotten more advanced.

But also, Cooke has always, as long as I have read him, gotten some pretty fundamental things wrong about limit hold 'em. For instance, limit is a pre-flop game and he spends almost no time writing about pre-flop, and further sometimes makes some awful pre-flop plays based on his description of hands.

If you read his columns, you'd think that the route to being a winning limit hold 'em player is to make some specific exploitative plays on the turn and the river against particular players, and that's just totally wrong.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It isn't an issue of the game changing, although that has happened to some extent. Rather, the math has gotten more advanced.

But also, Cooke has always, as long as I have read him, gotten some pretty fundamental things wrong about limit hold 'em. For instance, limit is a pre-flop game and he spends almost no time writing about pre-flop, and further sometimes makes some awful pre-flop plays based on his description of hands.

If you read his columns, you'd think that the route to being a winning limit hold 'em player is to make some specific exploitative plays on the turn and the river against particular players, and that's just totally wrong.

I don't read his columns, but I read his books, which are comprised of his columns. Yes...he doesn't talk much about pre-flop play, because pre-flop play does not make for interesting reading. Would YOU be able to write column after column about pre-flop play?

Making value bets in the latter stages of the hand -- or saving a bet here and there -- through experience and guile, may not appeal to the "modern" player...but they have a positive effect on the long-term bottom line -- and they make for interesting reading. I don't know the man, and I can't be sure if his achievements in poker are what he has reported them to be...but I have enjoyed his books...and have benefited from his advice -- in and out of the game. The fact that much of his advice has been proven wrong by the advancement of the math of the game doesn't concern me much...because I don't need the poker author to hold my hand throughout my gambling career. All I need is a little guidance and motivation at the start...and I can usually figure out the rest on my own.

[wiffleball whizz]

Happy holidays from the cookes