BOOKS, THE MISINTERPRETATION OF POKER and KNOW IT ALLS


I've been in a few conversations about a few "ABC" situations, where some people misplay a pocket pair or two pair and someone chimes in with the old, "I would have just moooved all-in and won it there."

I no longer offer these people advice for two reasons:

1) They are from Texas and know they are right based on where they live.

2) They don't comprehend what they read and don't learn from experience.

THESE ARE BAD PLAYERS.


I tried to break down why I play "Poker" with some of these players instead of cards in their tournaments they like to run. I'm not even going to mention my distaste for their not wanting to ever play a ring game. They are strong advocates of playing "Good Cards," and have a big distaste for an ATC player(Any Two Cards).

I try and tell them that "Good cards are a good idea, but if you let someone outplay you, what's the point?" And you get the nose to the sky act and asked "So you just do the opposite of what all the books tell you to do?"

First, books don't tell you how to play poker, experience does that. Books are just study guides for a test.

In regards to the "opposite of books statement, and their tournament play," I tell them this.



"The shortest distance between two points on the earth is a straight line and if everyone gets in line and plays the way YOU think a book tells you to play, I'm just going to turn around and go the other way and you can sit in traffic waiting on a hand. I'll have a better chance of making the final table hope to see you there." -Trae


I'm glad these people have their heads in their asses. A bunch of ostriches I swear, and I get a rep as a LAMF.


Shake'n haters,
Trae