« P.S. | Main | We Now Return To Our Regularly Scheduled Programming »
 | |
| Latest poker news |
February 7, 2005
Understanding
Today I read a not so nice post about me over at Gambling Blues. It seems to sum up the opinions of about half of the blogging community. He calls me a “raving egomaniac” which just shows how much people fail to see what it is I am doing here.
In a way I can see where they get that. They see me refer to my opponents as “clowns” or “monkeys” or “idiots” and they take that as ego. I suppose that is to be expected. People never see the difference between the statements “all of my opponents are terrible at poker” and “I am great at poker”. The former, which is my assertion 99% of the time, isn’t really a brag at all, while the latter is. If I say that “nobody I play against has a clue” it doesn’t really mean that I am the best ever, it just means that they are all terrible. I do feel like 99.9% of my opponents at Party aren’t even close to being on my level, but that really isn’t any more of a brag than saying “I am the thinnest kid at fat camp”.
That isn’t to say that I don’t think I am an excellent poker player. I do. I just am confident, not really arrogant. I really feel that I know where I stand. I realize that the vast majority of people are below me in poker skill, but I also know that I am a long way from the top. I feel that I do have the potential to get to the top, and perhaps I am wrong there, but even if I am correct I know it is going to take years of hard work. The reason I started this blog actually was to chronicle my attempt to become one of the top players, and if I make it I hope that the archive serves as an inspiration for anyone else who ever really believed their mom when she said “you can do anything you put your mind to”. And if I end up homeless in a gutter somewhere then at least someone might learn from my mistakes.
In any case the point of this blog is not to brag, and for the most part that isn’t what I am doing here. Sure I have my moments of gloating, like when I win a seat in the PPM or have an exceptional day at the ring games, but in reality I am just trying to chronicle my experience. And to chronicle my experience accurately I try to write not just the “I went all-in with bla bla bla and won” stuff, but a more impressionistic view of what it’s like. If I sometimes fail in this regard it is because I am still relatively new to writing and not that good at it yet, but be patient with me. Writing is much like poker, in that you always have room to improve. And much like when I play poker I get better every time I write.
So when I say something like “then some idiot shoved with 9 9 against my aces and cracked them” I am trying to give a snapshot of what went through my head when it happened. Everyone knows that feeling they get when someone bad beats them, that “what a fucking moron” that pops into your head. Usually out of civility you don’t say it, and if you think about it later, even if the play was terrible, you realize that the guy who bad beat you probably isn’t an idiot. He maybe is a lawyer, doctor, or businessman, might be very successful, have a beautiful wife and wonderful kids, be pretty much the happiest guy on earth. But he maybe is terrible at poker, or maybe he is good at poker but for one minute he slipped and made an atrocious play like we all do from time to time. But when you take that beat none of that goes through your head, all you think is “fucking idiot”. Or of you speak Spanish perhaps “maldito rio”. That’s what I try to capture here.
In any case the poster who wrote about me is upset because I was rather rude to that Jason fellow that I called “clueless” after the blogger tournament on Poker Stars. Of course like a bad poker player he sees only half of the picture but uses that to make a judgment. He doesn’t know or even care that the whole thing started when Jason stuck his nose into a conversation I was having with someone else. He doesn’t know or care that the only reason that Jason did so was that I was trash talking the table (and the person who I was originally having the conversation with) because after the last blogger tournament many people, including Iggy (who hosted the tournament) said that I should next time. Those who read my blog had heard me expound on the profitability of it at the table and how I do it frequently and thought that it would be funny, and when I didn’t say a single word in the last blogger tourney I got numerous emails from people who thought it would have been hilarious. So I did it to see if anyone would figure out who I was and/or think it was a good joke.
BG also doesn’t know or care that Jason actually is clueless (in a poker sense) or at least was in his assertion that my play with the A 8 was bad. Or that I was routinely putting in my whole stack with “thin edges” (I was not) or that doing that is never correct (it often is, watch Gus Hansen play for proof). He may be an intelligent human being, a great husband, father, programmer, or whatever. But he doesn’t understand a lot of things about poker theory, especially tournaments.
So did I have to be as rude to him as I was? Probably not. But when someone with absolutely no clue what they are talking about insults a play which is perfectly fine, much like when I get bad beat, I get that “fucking idiot” thought in my head. So I write it here. Do I regret it? Certainly not. If someone is going to go nosing into my business they are going to get a lashing, especially if they criticize a textbook play. If you can't handle that then sit there and mind your P’s and Q’s. And if you are going to criticize someone’s play you better either be right or admit you were wrong, especially when you figure it out mathematically, and in either case don't go crying like a 12 year old girl when they call you clueless.
I do regret that a lot of people don’t understand me, and I realize that it’s my fault for writing the way I do. It puts a lot of people off, some of whom are probably great human beings. Granted most of the poker bloggers out there probably aren’t very good poker players but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t excellent people. We all know people we love who are just terrible at poker. In fact some of the people I respect most couldn’t beat a $2/$4 game over 100k hands if their life depended on it.
I realize that speaking my mind the way I do is going to put a lot of those people off and prevent me from having any meaningful relationship with a lot of them, but I'm okay with that. I have enough friends anyway. What I don’t have enough of in my life (and I think few of us do) is honesty. I mean that brutal exchange where you give and receive unadulterated opinions. It rarely exists in relationships with other people, because no matter how honest you are with them you are always going to hold some things back, like the guy in the cliché whose wife asks him if she looks fat in a dress. And it certainly doesn't exist in the media, though the blogging revolution is starting to bring it back. That is what blogging is for me, a chance to speak my mind with freedom. If I make some enemies along the way, so be it. Nobody ever spoke their mind without offending someone. And most of the greatest men in history, the Lincolns and Churchills, had plenty of detractors. So I figure that if my speech makes me an outcast, well, at least I have good company.
Posted by themaroon at February 7, 2005 1:31 AM
Comments
I find that a of people mistake confidence for arrogance. Apparently believing you're better at something than 99% of other people must always be arrogance even when it's obviously just a statement of fact.
I usually find you only get accused of arrogance by people who are jealous of your position. I wouldn't give those people a second thought.
I'm terrible at poker. Really, really bad. I manage to throw money away in so many different ways it's unreal. And yet I can honestly say I'm a winning poker player. People seem to think because you win at poker you must be good at it. Not even close to true. Instead of actually thinking about their play and whether or not they're correct they just subscribe to the view that if they're winning they must be good at it and anyone who says otherwise is obviously being a dick.
Anyway, I don't see arrogance or ego when I read your posts. I just see someone who knows what they're good at and who isn't afraid to let people know it.
Posted by: swills at February 7, 2005 6:06 AM
Swills is right. If you really know that you have good skills at something you don't have to be afraid to show them. Let people teach from you.
Posted by: ipf poker at February 7, 2005 9:13 AM
Don't take this wrong, but you do have a serious ego, man. It's HUGE! You call people monkeys because they are bad... compared to you. You are good compared to them. So good, that they are like another species when compared to your poker prowess. Admitting that there are better players than you doesn't diminish the fact that you are full of your own dominance at the tables. Why are you denying it?
Don't take this wrong, but you don't need to justify yourself. I am surprised that you seem so bothered by the "blogger communities" opinion of you. You deny that you are bothered one second, you relish in their distain then next, but you then proceed to spend hundreds of words explaining your actions. Why?
What makes your blog great is that you write in an unadulterated flow of conciousness. You are expressing real emotions, thoughts, and real opinions about poker. You don't hold back. Your real ego, your real anger, your real reactions to your opponents always come through. It's brilliant. So don't justify, just keep it up.
Posted by: Seed at February 7, 2005 11:52 AM
No need to justify dude--If I played well at your level I'd probably be throwing around some monkey comments my damn self.
Posted by: Human Head at February 7, 2005 12:24 PM
Dude... get over yourself. Just because you think you're a good player, whether it's true or not, doesn't give you free reign to act like an ass. I mean it's your choice, but it doesn't seem to make much sense.
I'd wager a guess that Otis is two to three times the player you are and you don't see him acting like an ass. You can be a good player and be respectful at the same time.
Posted by: CJ at February 7, 2005 3:06 PM
Just started reading your blog a few weeks ago so I don't know much about any rifts between you and other bloggers. That being said, what I do know is that I chose to read this blog because it is the most entertaining of any of the sites that I looked at. Your foul mouthed honesty and brutal insights into other "monkeys" is actually quite refreshing. Whatever faults you may have, speaking your mind openly and without reservation is not one of them. That's why I read...keep doing it.
Posted by: TheGraveWolf at February 7, 2005 4:13 PM
You completely missed the point CJ. I am just being honest. If that makes me an ass, so be it. I don't walk on eggshells, I write what goes through my head. If you did the same, simply wrote exactly the words that went through your head, don't you think you would offend people at some point?
You certainly could be a far better poker player than me and be respectful, but you can't be brutally honest and respectful at the same time.
Posted by: Matt at February 7, 2005 5:46 PM
You said it yourself that you need confidence to play well. Feeling proud of how you play isnt something that you should feel bad about. I dont know why people take such offense to calling people on party idiots, they all are, i have never seen one player on there that i thought was good, im sure several exist but the truth is that people on party poker are some of the worst players in the world
Posted by: Nick at February 7, 2005 5:58 PM
Congrats, you are earning your "most hated" award for 2005 already! Keep up the good work!
Told you we were in the same camp. At least I put my name first, lol.
Posted by: Felicia at February 7, 2005 8:18 PM
You do realize you are battling a flea, right? You said it yourself. How this is still going on after 4-5 days and 4-5 posts is beyond me. C'mon IBustChumps. The reason I read your site is because of your unchecked bravado, never change. But you gotta stop writing about this boring ass battle you had with Mr. Nickel & his sidekick Dime Time. Go bust some more chumps already. Sorry, but it had to be said.
Posted by: sirsloth at February 8, 2005 2:53 AM
Less mumbling!
Plenty monkeys to be found in the jungle!
Posted by: mewl at February 8, 2005 3:43 AM
Actually, Matt, I didn't miss your point. I've never said you "can't" be an ignorant asshole. That's everyone's god-given right. We can all be ignorant assholes if we wish. I simply said you don't have to be. You choose to be an ignorant asshole. Then you act like a little girl when someone calls you on it. What did you think was going to happen?
Posted by: CJ at February 8, 2005 10:26 AM
It is the hallmark of the asshole to claim that he is misunderstood. You are not misunderstood. You are a jerk.
Yeah, I got that you were screwing around with the table when you were posting "blogger this" and "blogger that." It was even fun to insult you in the chat because I usually try to restrain myself. When you started insulting the play of the rest of the table, you crossed the line.
Was it right to call the push with A8o? Possibly. Did all of your bully-raising put you in a position where you would have to call off a significant piece of your stack with a middling hand like A8o? Yes. A9 was just as likely as QJ in that spot and you know it. Pretend to omniscience all you want but you tied your own hands on the play; that you got sucked out on is karmic justice if not poker justice.
Posted by: ugarte at February 8, 2005 3:48 PM
Ugarte,
Um ...... what? What does "forced" mean. If "forced" means "make a +EV call" then fine, he's forced.
Posted by: Mike at February 8, 2005 9:09 PM
Yes, that is exactly what it means, but you are taking a very narrow view. It was a +EV call after a -EV raise. And is it as +EV if the guy is holding a bigger ace? A medium pair? He got lucky (philosophically, of course) that the guy was holding only QJ.
He pats himself on the back because of the wide range of hands he thought the guy might have. Bravo. That makes the call look great in Poker Stove but not so much if you take a more realistic look at the guy's probable holdings. QJ was a lot less likely than hands that would have left him shaking his head after the call.
Posted by: ugarte at February 9, 2005 9:21 AM
Wow, Just found your blog.
I was at that table from the start. I even posted excerpts of the chat on my site. I had no idea it was you. I didn't talk back because I sensed it was a joke.
Yes, the trashtalk and early bullying was very effective. It definitely got to me, shut me down. Unlike others, I wasn't pushing with trash, I was waiting for a big hand to trap you. Which meant I didn't play hands I should have played along the way to accumulate chips. So, when I finally DID play, I was basically pot committed just entering the pot with a raise. My bad, and I deserved to lose.
As for the rest of it... there's a difference between honesty and 'brutal honesty'. I can understand it and respect it as a tactic at the table. Away from the table is another matter.
Well played,
BSN
Posted by: BSN at February 11, 2005 9:13 AM