Saturday, 6 September 2008


Can't win a fucking hand at the moment. Maybe not playing well, maybe don't know how to play at all.

I call a raise on the button with AQs, flop it Q high, the other guy has AA. I call a minraise with TT in position, lead a 9 high flop, third guy gets it in, he has a set.

Last night, I played a home game. I didn't play particularly well, a bit looser than I'm comfortable with, but I was doing okay. Some guy limps UTG. He's a retarded bad player who limps an extremely wide range. A couple of other limps, I check with Q9s. I can't remember what the flop was, but I called a bet legitimately and by the turn I had a gutshot and a flush draw. The other guy shoved. The pot offered me a fair bit better than 2.5 to 1. I had 13 sure outs and because this guy is completely fucked in the head, I figured I might have four more. Sure enough he had paired his kicker. His holding: Q8. I missed all 17 outs. Still, I had a stack, and used it to shove several times. Some horrible loosetard, who had earlier called a raise with 96 in the small blind ffs goes, you don't have any skill, don't you know any other moves, play flops blah blah. And I said, stfu, this is skill, which didn't satisfy him. So I shove AT, and retard, who has pissed his stack down to a couple of K, calls with J9. Obviously he rivers a 9.

So I chisel it back up to about 7K and this other guy, who has been pretending to have a clue, making a big show of going over hands when he has to make a call, limps. I have J9 in the SB, and I consider pushing, but I've pushed a fair bit over limps, so I figure he may be trying a trap, and instead of folding, my more usual play, I complete and BB checks. The flop is all spades, which is meh, but it checks round. The turn makes me a straight and I bet out. Mr Hollywood shoves and I snapcall. Basically, yes, he can have the made flush, but he can have lots and lots of other hands: Asx with or without a pair, two pair, air, whatever. I can't fold a straight and I betted enough to make it very hard for me to fold, so that I could get value from the calltard and one-card. Well, he had the flush. He had limped with J2s. WTF?

See, that right there is what makes poker hard to bear sometimes. I was fifth in this tourney. The remaining players were W, a weak player who basically donates online; the calltard, who is a complete fish, only still in the game because he sucked out on me twice; the fish who called my raise with 96 and basically hit every flop every hand, and played nearly every hand at that; and a guy who thinks that J2s is a decent hand to limp fivehanded just because you have a big stack. Not making any money in that company is rubbish.

But how come I wasn't better situated? How come I didn't have a bigger stack? Wouldn't a decent player have won there? I dunno. I just dunno.


Anonymous said...

boots sez:

"...maybe don't know how to play at all."

"And I said, stfu, this is skill, which didn't satisfy him."

"Can't win a fucking hand at the moment."

One of these days I might tell you about the end of my gambling "career", but it's outrageous enough that I won't tell it here. Suffice it to say that it provided what might have been my first clue about the true nature of reality and how, although Berkeley might have been nuts, he wasn't entirely nuts.

So you get all like, "dude I gots skill" and some gonzo isn't impressed and rivers right over your ass, do I have that right? I'm no poker player, sometimes your descriptions leave me scratching my head.

Here's the deal, and even though you might think I'm dumber than a box of rocks, consider it.

Is it better to do the wrong things for the right reasons, or the right things for the wrong reasons?

I mean, skill is a guidline, sure. But the pragmatist in you must be raging at how unrelated skill can be to results.

The really important question, which only a madman would ask, is whether it is possible to do the right things with no clue whatsoever about the maths and the skills involved.

The answer is yes, it is.

Dr Zen said...

I've told you a million times though that that's of no fucking practical value to me. I am trying to learn the things that work and avoid the things that don't. I don't care what they consist of, just that I learn them.

Anonymous said...

boots sez:

I share your frustration from the other side, things that were inconceivable to me before are now so obvious that I can't fathom what to say to someone who doesn't see them.

There is a concept that I think is essential to your learning the thing, or things, that I think you want to learn. But I don't know what to call it, or even if it has a name.

I have gotten that you think no God exists, so calling it "God's will" would be silly. I think free-will exists so calling it "fate" would be silly. Maybe calling it something like "cosmic equilibrium" would work. It isn't woo-woo bullshit whatever it's called, it's very real, maybe the realest thing there is.

This medium sucks for a discussion of it.


Anonymous said...

boots sez: newsguy's servers have moved and their smtp server is upfucked, innat swell?