Why Performance Poker Sucks (steps 1-3)

I really can't fathom why people continue to defend AOK and Performance Poker. The only logical explanation I can come up with is that they have never actually looked at Performance Poker and are just basing their comments on what they read here in the forums. I included some quotes from AOK's site, www.performpoker.com. I'm interested how anyone could defend this.

From http://performpoker.com/Step1.html

How can I convince you that your poker game sucks? Answer the following questions:

1. What percentage of flops do you see (within 3%)? Don't guess, if you don't KNOW then you're a bad poker player. "It depends" is wrong.
2. Have you written down every preflop hand you play, what positions/circumstance you play them in (whether it be calling with them, calling a raise with them, raising with them, reraising with them, etc.), and then how you play them post flop in the 3 most common scenarios for that hand? If you already have this written down and have already quantified them, then you've probably got a game. If you don't have it written out and analyzed, then you DON'T HAVE A PERFORMANCE GAME. It's that simple.
3. What hands do you like to play for a call or raise that are obviously not premium hands (or at least situational premium hands)? If you have ANY hands that fall in this category then you're a bad poker player. (period)

1. First, I would like to congratulate AOK for finding the only situation in poker where “it depends” is the wrong answer. Good thing you made your own site so you could copyright this genius.

My answer is that I don’t know. With the aid of software such as PokerTracker and PokerOffice, most serious online players have a pretty good statistical understanding of how they are playing. I call tell you my VPIP for 6-max NLHE is ~19%. What percentage of flops I’m actually seeing though I couldn’t tell you. Apparently this means I’m a bad player. Accordingly, if I told you the percentage of flops I’m seeing changes depending on table characteristics then that statement would declare that my poker game sucks. I wonder if Phil Ivey could answer what percentage of flops he saw after any given session without guessing? If he was a good player he could.

2. I don’t have every pre-flop hand I play written down. If I did though I think the list would be around…. 169 hands. I couldn’t tell you how I’d play a given hand post-flop in the three most common scenarios either. I couldn’t tell you the 3 most common scenarios post-flop for a given hand because I would have to answer “it depends.” Remember though, “it depends” is wrong. So I admit it. I DON’T HAVE A PERFORMANCE GAME. (Thank God)

3. Wow. Three questions and a third “it depends” from me. It seems AOK thinks that making a situational pre-flop raise with air makes you a bad poker player. (period) If that’s the case then I’m the mayor of Sucksville. Apparently I have it all backwards. I was under the mistaken impression that poker is a situational game. Thanks for clearing that up for me AOK. Would you mind telling me again what screen name I am supposed to send money to on PokerStars to support your site?

The questions could go on, but if you passed this test, then you might have game. If you failed one question, then you don't. Don't ask me to "improve" your bad game. Help me and yourself by realizing that "starting from scratch" isn't a bad thing.

Don’t worry AOK. I won’t ask you to “improve” my game. I’ll just take solace in the fact that starting over isn’t the end of the world.

Yeah, I know this is an abusive, arrogant, obnoxious, annoying, irritating, disturbing section.

What do you know?!? We agree on something! High five AOK!


http://performpoker.com/Step2.html

Folding is also the most overlooked skill by the majority of players. They can't fold. They won't fold. They find reasons to play when they should be finding reasons to fold. They think and then re-think, they try to read minds, they make "reads" to help them stay in a hand, they play pure position plays and know they can steal pots after the flop with any two cards…

My head is spinning… You shouldn’t think? You shouldn’t re-think? You shouldn’t put your opponent on a range of hands? You shouldn’t bother with reading your opponents? You shouldn’t utilize position? You shouldn’t try to steal?

… They think folding will make them look weak in the eyes of their opponents. It deflates their ego. They think they are poker geniuses. They are actually action junkies. These guys are going to be your new best friends, because they are going to make your mortgage payments for you.

You’re not supposed to think, but you’re some how going to beat all the players that actually do? My head is really spinning…

Now, for whatever hands you have reservations about... Like ATs... write 25 times. "I always fold" and the hand. Each hand 25 times. Each time reminding yourself that you are creating a new game, a disciplined game, a money making game that will bring you hundreds of thousands of dollars over your poker career, a game that's going to make you into a poker monster.

If you have a hand that you’re not sure how to play then don’t go to AOK for advice. He’s just going to tell you to fold it. He won’t try to explain the situations where you can play certain hands profitably.

Now, for whatever person comes to you with a question AOK… Like a beginner… write 25 times: “I am creating weak players.” Each person 25 times. Each time reminding yourself that you are creating a passive player, an unimaginative player, a player that will get pushed around, a player that will get bluffed repeatedly, a player that won’t maximize profit, a marginal winner at best that will repeatedly miss opportunities to make hundreds of thousands of dollars over their poker career, a beginner that will stay a beginner for as long as they follow your system.

Done? If you didn't do this exercise and you're ready to go to the next section, then do me a favor. Go to the bathroom, remove the roll of toilet paper, and place this book on the spool. You might as well put it to use, because you're not using it to learn how to play professional level poker. Do the damn exercise before you move on, please. It'll only take an hour unless you're writing with your feet. And I know a guy who could probably do it in less than an hour with his feet as well.

AOK forgot to mention to also wash your hands when you are in the bathroom because he just got done handing you a load of crap.


http://performpoker.com/Step3.html

Why did we go through the exercise of writing, "I always fold..' for almost every hand in poker? Two reasons.

Because we want to be weak-tight players? Because we don’t want to win a lot of money?

One, you need you face those hands that you like playing but shouldn't play. Second, when you eliminate ever hand you fold from a poker deck, what are you left with? Only the hands you play.

Read the second reason again.

Second, when you eliminate ever hand you fold from a poker deck, what are you left with? Only the hands you play.

When you sniff paint thinner, what are you left with? More brain cells than after reading Performance Poker.

I had to re-read that line twice and each time I waited for a punch line that never came. I felt compelled to make my own funny so you wouldn't feel left hanging. AOK's misspellings and poor grammar don't help his cause either.



Step 3 continues on with some specifics on how to play certain hands. I’ll give my further critique later.

I think you make some good points DN, but I also think you (partially) lose sight of pee pee as a guide for beginners. e.g.:

You’re not supposed to think, but you’re some how going to beat all the players that actually do?

The problem with most beginners is not that they think too much -- even if the book makes it sound like that. It's that they're really just looking for reasons to call and not actually analyzing the situation.

If you tell a beginner to put the opponent on a range of hands, their head will gravitate toward the range they're beating. Only lots of experience gets you to the point where you automatically & realistically establish a range based on the betting action.

No, a nit is not going to be robust, experienced players. But they'll beat the typical action junkies at a lot of tables.

AOK convinces new players into thinking this is the best way to play poker, until they're experienced enough to safely discover otherwise. Poker is way too complex to digest in a non linear fashion. If you don't learn from the bottom up, then your game will be a twisted jaded -EV mess.

As an experienced player, you can appreciate the amount of value lost by using AOK's strategies. What you can't appreciate, is that most new players are ill equipped to collect that value without giving it back 2-fold.

I can understand why an experienced player would view AOK's ideas as perverse. I view them as a necessary evil. A valid step incompatible with a full, dynamic, effective game plan. Kind of like learning your ABC's before entering the spelling bee.

..or trying to learn algebra before knowing your multiplication tables....

critique it all you want - I wish I had a simple guide like this when I was a beginner...It would have saved me several hundred dollars...and during that time I would have gained enough experience to break out of the restrictions and learn to adapt to the game (which is the point anyway)

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

I really can't fathom why people continue to defend AOK and Performance Poker.

I defend it (well I've given up pretty much because it feels like running into a brick wall) because I believe that in one post, AOK turned me from being a breakeven player into a steadily winning player and put me on the road to understanding how to develop my game such that I now beat 400SHNL for a living. According to you this type of development is very difficult. I'm afraid not. Given that I know this; I know that I am the proof that you are totally wrong. It's quite simple really.

As such, I really can't fathom why people continue to attack AOK and Performance Poker. Can you not follow this logic?

i like the idea of writing down "i will fold x from early position because ..." much more. especially with a hand like AT. and it is probably a good idea to tell a beginning player to fold J9o from all but the BB when they can check. or something like, "I will not play Qxs because ....." and then list the reasons that this hand will not play well, either in this situation or at all. that would be much more useful of an exercise. and try to get the player to think about why playing this hand from here is bad and see if they can come up with some reasons.

you really do have to teach a new player how to think about the game. i am still pretty new myself (about a year and a half), and i do not have a good game (closing in on good maybe, but not there yet). but i know i have a much better game thanks to the ftr website. the reason it has been so helpful is it allows me to see how other (better) players think through different situations. and that is really the only way that you will actually improve.

It's for beginner's. It simple and it works. I doubt AOK would claim that it is the most profitable way to play poker, even at the beginner tables, but it certainly can keep one from being a losing player.

Since most beginners are not that hot at reads, situational play, positional play, and a plethora of other advantages earned by more experienced players, PP will at least keep them out of trouble.

Does PP help you move your game up to the 'next level'? Perhaps not. But I think it allows one to form a solid foundation, and build confidence. From there, you can certainly branch off however you choose, once you have a firm grasp of some of the key concepts of the game, and have some experience behind you.

Originally Posted by Rondavu

AOK convinces new players into thinking this is the best way to play poker, until they're experienced enough to safely discover otherwise. Poker is way too complex to digest in a non linear fashion. If you don't learn from the bottom up, then your game will be a twisted jaded -EV mess.

As an experienced player, you can appreciate the amount of value lost by using AOK's strategies. What you can't appreciate, is that most new players are ill equipped to collect that value without giving it back 2-fold.

I can understand why an experienced player would view AOK's ideas as perverse. I view them as a necessary evil. A valid step incompatible with a full, dynamic, effective game plan. Kind of like learning your ABC's before entering the spelling bee.

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

I really can't fathom why people continue to defend AOK and Performance Poker.

I defend it (well I've given up pretty much because it feels like running into a brick wall) because I believe that in one post, AOK turned me from being a breakeven player into a steadily winning player and put me on the road to understanding how to develop my game such that I now beat 400SHNL for a living. According to you this type of development is very difficult. I'm afraid not. Given that I know this; I know that I am the proof that you are totally wrong. It's quite simple really.

As such, I really can't fathom why people continue to attack AOK and Performance Poker. Can you not follow this logic?

Best explanation/defense i've heard. hopefully they get it.

Personally the attacks on AOK and 19hands were very enlightning for me, especially Lambchopdc. but this attack just seems over done and lame really.

perhaps a mod can move this to one of the other attack threads to avoid clutter.

ROFFLE ROFFLE.

DaNutz has made it his life's goal to belittle AOK.

the way i see it, let every beginner (outside of FTR) learn this and practice it and we can all outplay them and take their money

that is all

I really don't like Peformance Poker, nor the fact that FTR is not-so-subtly used to market it, but that's neither here nor there. What I do admire is that aok has the intestinal fortitude to keep putting it out there and keep taking hits for it, most of the time with a smile on his face.

If it keeps beginners out of trouble, fine, although I'm sure there are better starter guides out there. But it has obviously worked and continues to work for people, and if it's all they've got to go by to begin to put together their game then it's better than nothing.

Just a thought: It wouldn't take a lot to redirect all the energy that goes into slamming aok and 19 hands into writing an FTR guide to winning poker. FTR's got a lot of poker brainpower. Quite frankly, if I was aok I'd be pillaging all the constructive criticism levelled at Performance Poker to improve my system.

Originally Posted by Rondavu

AOK convinces new players into thinking this is the best way to play poker, until they're experienced enough to discover otherwise without donking off several deposits because of stupid irrational "plays"

FYP

Danuts, before you continue I would like to know what your goal in this arguement is. You have really perservered to prove your point, so there must be a purpose to what you're doing. Is it because you want everyone to not degrade their skill as poker players so you must have them realize that AOK is wrong? Is it because you really just want to be right (because if this is true, I can tell you right now that everyone (including you) is too deep in this arguement to admit that.)? Do you want AOK to not make money from performance poker so you want to convince everyone that it isn't a good strategy?

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Do you want AOK to not make money from performance poker so you want to convince everyone that it isn't a good strategy?

Actually, the more DaNuts (or anyone) talks about Performance Poker and aok's site, the more money aok potentially makes. Traffic = money.

As they say, any publicity is good publicity... particularly when it comes to Internet marketing. Doesn't matter whether Dnuts is right or wrong, as long as he keeps talking about it, he'll be sending the curious n00bs to aok's site.

...

I think D-nuts could do a better job if he refrained from dripping sarcasm, back-handed compliments, and other generally childish tactics. Your lame attempt at mockery accomplishes nothing.

Originally Posted by aokrongly

Thanks Warpe!!

Don't take it as an endorsement. My point is merely that while most of the many criticisms of your system are, imo, bang on the money, the energy that goes into making them can be better directed. Let the market decide if your advice has any merit. Personally, I'd fork over my hard earned cash for an FTR book containing Renton's, Fnord's and the advice of many other FTRers any day of the week. But PP is a no sale for me.

A challenge, aok: As an experiment, go make some posts about "counterplay" and "19 hands" on 2+2. If you think FTR criticism is bad, I'd bet you'd get 'ripped' to shreds over there.

...

Originally Posted by aokrongly

(THE PRECEEDING THANK YOU WAS IN NO WAY MEANT TO INFER, IMPLY OR IN ANY WAY TINT THE RECEIVER OF THE THANK YOU WITH ANY SORT OF CONNECTION WITH, APPROVAL OF OR EVEN PASSING LIKING FOR OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ANY SYSTEMS, COMMENTS, STRATETIES OR ADVICE FROM AOK... is that good??? I think that absolves you of any connection.)

Originally Posted by swiggidy

I think D-nuts could do a better job if he refrained from dripping sarcasm, back-handed compliments, and other generally childish tactics.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Danuts, before you continue I would like to know what your goal in this arguement is. You have really perservered to prove your point, so there must be a purpose to what you're doing. Is it because you want everyone to not degrade their skill as poker players so you must have them realize that AOK is wrong? Is it because you really just want to be right (because if this is true, I can tell you right now that everyone (including you) is too deep in this arguement to admit that.)? Do you want AOK to not make money from performance poker so you want to convince everyone that it isn't a good strategy?

I think AOK's system has its merits, but I also feel as if it a very shortsighted approach. I personally feel that such a system is a disservice to a beginning player because it ignores many crucial aspects of the game.

The reason I have been so adamant in my criticism is that I my own development as a player was slowed because I didn't make a concerted effort to understand the the theory and thought processes behind what I was doing. I spent too much time playing micro limits. I moved up in stakes only to have to move back down again too many times. It's not because I wasn't putting in the time. It was because my focus was on how to make more money instead of how to become a better poker player. I don't think that's the proper approach to take. If you concentrate on trying to make correct decisions and becoming the best player you can then the money will find it's way to you in due time.

I do not have a personal vendetta against AOK. I admire his willingness to help beginning players. It's not an easy thing to do. I question his approach though and I also question his motives.

I don't think beginners should be bombarded with poker theory, but I definately don't think it should be ignored either. I mean what happened to teaching a beginner pot odds? What about teaching they how to count outs? These are some of the most basic principles of the game, yet AOK doesn't address them.

It's not only that AOK rarely addresses actual poker theory, but that he has a disdain for it. In his own words, poker theory books "don't embolden, they don't inspire, they don't create - in a word - WINNERS." I have a real problem with statements like that. I don't understand where AOK gets off discrediting so many well respected poker authors and highly successful players. Reading things such as that angers me. That's why my criticism has been harsh at times. My criticism has increasingly become more sarcastic and even somewhat venemous due to my frustration over the fact that hardly anyone seems to understand what is blatantly obvious to me. I'm aware that it might not be the best approach. I won't defend my actions further than to say that my approaches have been a product of my emotions at the time I wrote them.

Performance Poker doesn't ignore poker theory, but we adapt it to the situation, and more importantly we don't treat it like it came from the mountaintop on carved stone. Why? Because we know most poker theory was written by players who play... what? SINGLE TABLE LIVE PLAY!!!

Ok, AOK doesn't ignore poker theory. He just changes it to suit the situation. What does that mean? Furthermore, he implies that somehow internet poker is nothing like live play. Is he serious? Do the same concepts and theories not apply? Again, I do not understand what he is basing these claims on.

Finally, his entire website seems like nothing more than a cheap infomercial to me.

Then one day I decided to put together a "professional level" game. I invented the Performance Poker model (although I didn't know it at the time) and 3 weeks later I quit my job and made online poker my bill paying job. It took 3 weeks to go from break even to thousands of dollars per month playing poker online.

That's exactly the same rhetoric you hear all the time from people trying to sell you on their schemes. I said earlier that I question AOK's motives. They might not be purely financial, but you can't deny that money is at least part of it when he has affiliate links and explicit directions on how you can "Tip the Dealer." Not only that, but his target audience is those who can least afford to make donations. "If I have helped you then 'tip the dealer'. If Performance Poker has helped you then 'tip the dealer'." I would never ask a beginner that benefitted from my advice to give me money. If they tried I wouldn't accept it. Let's not lose perspective here. The vast majority of the players that are drawn to his site play micro stakes. Even if someone only sent him $10 or $25, that still represents and entire buy-in. Maybe it's just me, but accepting money from someone on a limited BR really rubs me the wrong way.

I have no other motives other than pointing out what I feel is questionable advice. Sure, I love to debate. That should be obvious from the majority of my posts. I hope that doesn't skew anyone's perception of what I am saying though because I feel that my points are valid.

...

I don't understand what all this mess is about. Poker is gambling. Gambling is luck. So therefore there is no skill in poker. In which case it is pointless to argue about what is better because Lee Jones will just one outer you no matter what system you do. WE ALL LOSE.

The run and shoot offense and the Nebraska I-formation pound the ball attack. One flashy, the other basic. They both win. Does the Nebraska offense stunt the development of football players? If so, then why do they have players in the NFL???????

I understand both sides of this argument. I just don't know why there has to be such controversy.

Originally Posted by cardsman1992

The run and shoot offense and the Nebraska I-formation pound the ball attack. One flashy, the other basic. They both win. Does the Nebraska offense stunt the development of football players? If so, then why do they have players in the NFL???????

I understand both sides of this argument. I just don't know why there has to be such controversy.

the swedish hockey federation was for quite a number of years teaching a defence first, trapping game. it is a winning style to be sure. you smother your opponents and occassionally score a goal. however, the players that played under this system did not improve. they have almost no offfensive skill. they can play positional hockey until the cows come home, but they arent as good as those that came before them. not even close.

they have since discarded this system, to the betterment of swedish hockey, which has (before the defence only system) produced a number of excellent players, and will produce more. but there is going to be a gap between the new good players to come, and the ones that are getting older, and sweden will not be a powerhouse in international hockey once the older players retire. it will take a number of years to undo what that system has done to swedish hockey, and unfortunately many of those that could have turned into great players most likely will not because they have been stunted in their growth as players.

i know there are vast differences between poker and hockey, and in the learning of the two, but i felt that i must counter your example.

DN, you just went up several notches in my book. You, too, aok.

I have two quick points that aren't meant to denigrate either of your valuable and diplomatic contributions:

-you can quad-, eight-, twelve-, or sixteen-table online poker. That is a #$%^^&ing Colossal difference and there's no getting around it. Ignoring the differences there is like ignoring the blind structure of a tourney: no, it doesn't change the theoretical poker-play of individual hands, but boy does it change the actual poker-play of individual hands.
-I agree that the whole "no other book I've read has got it right..." line is an essentially unconvincing rhetorical device and represents a certain about of disrespect for the tradition of poker scholarship.

good points Lefou - and diplomatic - 1 thing i must say is that i had read a LOT of AOK's posts and the only time I heard about Performance Poker was when Martindxce mentioned it in another post - And as poetic as it sounds to live life not caring about money, we all need money - I need and want as much as I can get - But as for the "spamming" comments, I just don't get that at all - I had read, From a Renton post, that AOK has a site - I read from an AOK post that he was writing a book - In other words, I've been here since march and only last week did i hear what performance poker was - Obviously the old timers like renton and nuts know a lot more about the posters than I do, but to say he's a spammer is just wrong - I didn't know he was affiliated with it at all (until nuts pointed it out that is)

maybe Nuts is a silent partner of AOK's and just wants to get the word out....Well now we ALL know what AOK sells - thanks nuts

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by swiggidy

I think D-nuts could do a better job if he refrained from dripping sarcasm, back-handed compliments, and other generally childish tactics.

I consider getting quoted by Fnord the highlight of my time at FTR.

That is all.

"I'll answer the question on how I believe online microstakes poker is different than what most books write about (i.e. live single table play)."

Let me point out something. The problem isn't that the books are about live play. After all, we all have the same52-card deck.

The problem is that certain authors are thinking about mid-stakes limit play when they talk about strategy. That was the trend in holdem books before this decade.

The old school authors believe that beginners should start in limit, because it protects their bankrolls. I tend to agree.

" The book explains it, but since you brought it up... first, you can't play NL10, NL25 or even NL50 live."

Online and live stakes are different. Low stakes live is like micros on the net. Mid-stakes live is like low stakes on the net and so on.

"Do I understand positional play, GAP theory, and odds? Sure. Better than some not as well as others."

I don't know what this means. The gap theory is simple. You either know it or you don't. And if you've played a quarter-million hands without a decent understanding of position, you must not be paying attention. That you have people limping UTG with KJo and expecting to see a flop makes me wonder.

"The terrible news on that front is, even if I got hit by a bus tomorrow 19 hand won't go away. Simply because it has helped too many people."

OK, so there are rocks at P@cific Poker. What does that prove?

"AOK... put me on the road to understanding how to develop my game such that I now beat 400SHNL for a living."

Now, wait. The 400SHNL game is a whole other animal than the tables AOK claims to beat. In order to play at those levels, you have to throw out most of his theories. Are you folding to a standard raise with TPTK on those tables?

"Go make some posts about "counterplay" and "19 hands" on 2+2. If you think FTR criticism is bad, I'd bet you'd get 'ripped' to shreds over there."

I posted it already. It didn't attract much attention. What there was, was negative.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

"AOK... put me on the road to understanding how to develop my game such that I now beat 400SHNL for a living."

Now, wait. The 400SHNL game is a whole other animal than the tables AOK claims to beat. In order to play at those levels, you have to throw out most of his theories. Are you folding to a standard raise with TPTK on those tables?

You're right. Basically I play nothing like what AOK teaches. But if I hadn't of done what he suggested I do in the start, then I wouldn't have been able to build my bankroll from $10 to the point it is at today. In 1 year.

Why do you people care? People who can't learn good from bad will never be good poker players anyways...

"Why do you people care? People who can't learn good from bad will never be good poker players anyways..."

Hey, I'm learning something about how rocks play with scared money!

Yakuman if you hit the quote button on the top right corner of each post things would be alot easier for you.

I definitely see that there's stuff missing from Performance Poker, it really has simplified things and ignores important aspects like position etc.

I've been working on a system which I think adds those missing elements to the standard opening chart.

Take a looksee.

Originally Posted by Anosmic

wtf?

Originally Posted by Greedo017

Originally Posted by Anosmic

wtf?

yes, wtf indeed

I haven't been involved in this arguement and therefore i dont expect my points to have much merit in people's eyes. However, I would like to point out that when I started out I invested a $50 bankroll. I didn't know much about bankroll management, so I lost all but $1, which i put in a $1 MTT and won $40, eventually getting down to about $8. What I decided is that I would play $2 buy in, and play what I thought was extremely tight poker, which actually happened to be actually a little loose, which I eventually realized. I then worked my way up to a 1k+ BR.
The point of this story is one thing, Phil Gordon will agree with me in his book: The very first thing a beginner has to learn is preflop play. AOK teaches this very well, and also shows the beginners what to do on what they do not know what to do, post flop play. Hopefully, after they have 19 hand strategy as their basis, like I did with preflop play at my basis, they will build improvements in other parts of their game.

I understand Danuts' problem, I hope everyone does. I've learned this lesson my whole life. It's a huge problem in all walks of life. It doesn't mean shit to know information if you do not know the source or the "why" of it. Or it's much easier to know the few theories that govern the action than to know the billions of actions themselves. Because by knowing those theories you in turn will know those actions.

However, I wouldn't dismiss 19 hand strategy as doing this. AOK hopes that through the basis of 19 hand that the players will be able to get better faster. Instead immersing a player in the mile run that is poker immediately, you have him wait 9 seconds to tell him how to run and how to breathe. And during the race while doing these techniques he figures out why these are so efficient, while the other player may have to wait till after he loses the race to possibly (and probably not) learn that his technique sucks.

You can at least accept the possibility that this theory is true, as I will accept the possibility that your point is true.

...

I ran across something Mason Malmuth said once. He speculated that the best opportunity for winrate may be at tables that are half tight-passive and half "live ones," who we call fish. Hmm.

[to this thread] plz die..