I've got a case of the "Yeah, But..."'s about this whole discussion.
It just seems like while there are lots of excuses we can make
for Barry's play, that it has to be a mistake,
regardless. Of course, one of the problems of all televised
poker (even the good stuff like this) is that we see only the
exciting hands. Perhaps Dan had just check-raised bluffed on
the flop with that big thud-of-a-wad six times in a row.
Of the hands we saw, Dan was very strong every time he made big
check-raises. Even if this is the moment where Dan has chosen a
check-raise bluff, I just feel like Barry doesn't miss much by
folding. He has to be so sure on his read to take was
is effectively an even money bet (because the overbet so
overshadows the dead money).
The other question I'm asking myself is why I am so obsessed with this
"little" hand, and why do I want so desperately to declare that
Barry made a bad play. I guess I'm dying to reach the
conclusion that the pros make mistakes too, and thus I can feel
ok about my mistakes. That's an important part of my poker self
that I want to explore in more depth this year. I have gotten
well beyond the anger about
bad beats, but when I make a poker mistake, I "have at"
myself about screwing up after the session is over. I guess I'm
looking to situations like this to show that strong players will
make mistakes too, and I'm not a bad player because I make a bad
read and put a lot of money in on it (I should note that I am
starting to rely more on reads than math in my NL game lately).
On top of that, I'm also running bad right now, so I'm looking
at my game very very critically, which extends to looking at
other people's games critically as well.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 20:16 (UTC)I've got a case of the "Yeah, But..."'s about this whole discussion. It just seems like while there are lots of excuses we can make for Barry's play, that it has to be a mistake, regardless. Of course, one of the problems of all televised poker (even the good stuff like this) is that we see only the exciting hands. Perhaps Dan had just check-raised bluffed on the flop with that big thud-of-a-wad six times in a row.
Of the hands we saw, Dan was very strong every time he made big check-raises. Even if this is the moment where Dan has chosen a check-raise bluff, I just feel like Barry doesn't miss much by folding. He has to be so sure on his read to take was is effectively an even money bet (because the overbet so overshadows the dead money).
The other question I'm asking myself is why I am so obsessed with this "little" hand, and why do I want so desperately to declare that Barry made a bad play. I guess I'm dying to reach the conclusion that the pros make mistakes too, and thus I can feel ok about my mistakes. That's an important part of my poker self that I want to explore in more depth this year. I have gotten well beyond the anger about bad beats, but when I make a poker mistake, I "have at" myself about screwing up after the session is over. I guess I'm looking to situations like this to show that strong players will make mistakes too, and I'm not a bad player because I make a bad read and put a lot of money in on it (I should note that I am starting to rely more on reads than math in my NL game lately). On top of that, I'm also running bad right now, so I'm looking at my game very very critically, which extends to looking at other people's games critically as well.