Life is Loco...

Loco is right, that clown has no idea what bad luck is and bitching about it is really pathetic.

Baal you and Loco clearly share a similar bias. You both believe a player who is winning cannot also be running bad. So tell me Baal who's running worse?

A) Player A loses 50k but should have won 200k.

B) Player B wins 50k but should have won 1M.

The obvious answer is that player B is running considerably worse. You and Loco apparently feel that player B should never complain. You are attempting to crucify Newblish for complaining because you find it offensive that a winning player would ever complain about running bad. That's your failure of logic. You have zero evidence to support whether he actually runs bad or not.

so would you ask him to post his equity graph, i want him to be running at least 50buy-ins below ev.

This is where you say "oh but EV is not the only way to run bad" LOL...

Yes Baal I think the posting of an equity graph would be acceptable.

The problem with EV is that it doesn't account for situations where you put in a big percentage of your stack whilst ahead only to be caught on a later street by a call-station fish who shoves the last 10-20% of his stack in after he sucks out.

The EV calculators that exist so far don't do it street by street do they? Last I checked they don't. They just take your equity at the point of all-in.

this is retarded

The only way to accurately calculate whether a person is running good or bad would be to look at their entire database and analyze every hand where they put in over 50bb's. There are far too many flaws in random EV graph generators to take them that seriously.

you only look like a dumbass defending your friend Benjamin its clear he is a clown with no gasp of what a real bad run is, just stop

hi guys

-.-

O_o omahaments

On July 25 2010 18:16 Baal wrote: you only look like a dumbass defending your friend Benjamin its clear he is a clown with no gasp of what a real bad run is, just stop

Baal you're really good at hurling insults without addressing any of my points. Go ahead Baal I'm waiting for you to say something relevant.

If a player has won 40k but should have won 110k is that player not running bad? What is your justification for saying otherwise?

mipwnya wins

On July 25 2010 18:27 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 18:16 Baal wrote: you only look like a dumbass defending your friend Benjamin its clear he is a clown with no gasp of what a real bad run is, just stop Baal you're really good at hurling insults without addressing any of my points. Go ahead Baal I'm waiting for you to say something relevant. If a player has won 40k but should have won 110k is that player not running bad? What is your justification for saying otherwise?

On the contrary, it is you who isnt getting the point but whatever, keep defending his pathetic behavior and lose the respect of the actual poker players on this forum.

Being upset when you run bad is just a retarded behavior, feeling great when you run good also is something one has to get rid of if one wants to make a living off poker without constantly riding an emotional rollercoaster. The question is not even to know whether Newblish runs bad or not, hes just whining in a pretty childish manner, thats just a very immature/retarded approach for a game like poker where you cant predict when youre gonna get rewarded for playing well.

Your main premise is a false assumption to begin with. I first and foremost believe there isn't such a thing as running bad. Nothing should be surprising out of life. Everything that happens to a person has been a possibility. It's been nature doing its own thing, in other words it is equity (sounds familiar?), and it's only ever bizarre to be surprised or upset about it. But I know this isn't exactly commonly accepted, and we can't really run away from the concepts of luck, no matter how little logical sense they actually really make if the world is deterministic (which I maintain). Nature is indifferent, so should you be.

So, using our interpretation that there is such a thing as running bad (again, I think there is only 'running' in actuality...), it doesn't justify complaining about it, because it accomplishes nothing. It's illogical to be upset with something you have no control over. If I lose electricity in my house today because of a big thunderstorm, is it logical for me to cry out loud and scream about how unfair this all is? It makes no sense at all, it was a possibility to begin with, now I have to deal with it as best as I can. The same is true for any situation, the same is true for poker.

If Newblish is angry, let him be angry at himself, for he has nothing else to be angry about. In this way he can learn something. Once you blame external events, you lose your chance at growth. NOTHING easy ever has much new substance or growth. He can curse at the world all he wants, the world doesn't care, and he's not doing himself or anybody a favor.

A player "should" never win a certain amount, since there was always the possibility of him not winning it if he didn't have a 100% chance of winning. Equity stabilizes itself, life wouldn't exist otherwise. We choose to interpret that he "should" or "deserved" to have had that sum. And when we believe this ourselves (delude ourselves) we cause ourselves much unneeded grief.

I don't know why you tell me I'm biased, it's obvious that there was something personal. You're biased yourself, so why use it against me? You are his friend. He's probably very upset right now and you're stepping up for him, so no matter how spot-on I might be, being his friend you are most likely going to refuse to really hear what I have to say. My goal was to upset him, and anybody who has that mentality, a mentality that I once had myself and I sure wish someone would've slapped me in the face back then, too. Understandably, when you've been spoon-fed all your life, you don't grow up as fast as you should.

I don't know who you're trying to convince by telling us you've seen him play and everything and we have no idea. His graphs show exactly what they show. Let the people be judges... I for one think he has nothing to complain about.

Someone who loses are more likely to run bad then someone who wins since people who runs bad on average wins less then those of equal skill who runs good. Thus it's pretty damn unlikely that some retard who happens to win pretty good at NL100 is running super bad.

When you've played poker for a while you'll probably run like 40-50bi under ev over some periods of time and when someone who hasn't played for that long starts to claim stuff it's easy to get annoyed.

On July 25 2010 17:46 Bejamin1 wrote: Baal you and Loco clearly share a similar bias. You both believe a player who is winning cannot also be running bad. So tell me Baal who's running worse? A) Player A loses 50k but should have won 200k. B) Player B wins 50k but should have won 1M. The obvious answer is that player B is running considerably worse. You and Loco apparently feel that player B should never complain. You are attempting to crucify Newblish for complaining because you find it offensive that a winning player would ever complain about running bad. That's your failure of logic. You have zero evidence to support whether he actually runs bad or not.

You are clearly taking Loco's post in a different approach. He is not talking about numbers you know? Sure mathematically Player B is running worse but nobody is referring to that. Loco is saying that Newblish is complaining and not seeing the whole picture because he has no idea what Life really is. From what I understood in the post (not saying is truth or that I take Loco's post as a fact), Newblish has won a huge amount of money by playing poker. Could he be able to win that amount by having a real job and working for more hours? $50k in the real world is a lot you know and people would kill to win 1/100th of that money.

I made a blog post in spanish about how bad I was running, not poker related, in life. My wife and my son got sick from different stuff and they needed special medical threatments and I obviously had to pay for all of that with money I didn't have. I got into a huge debt with the hospital and my parents because I was not able to handle that hit on my own. I'm just 22 and I have to support a family and I use my poker winnings to do that. I did the math and I only need like $600 a month to survive (without paying my parents the money i owe) in which I have basic services covered such as food, electricity, etc plus medicines. I by no means try to complaint here or anything I'm just saying "hey I need $600 a month to live ok but without luxuries" and he is complaining about winning $40k etc when he not realizes that I could live with my family for 5.5 years with that and yet he says "holy shit I must be the unluckiest person in the world". And no, I'm far from being unlucky at anything.

I may not have expressed myself correctly but I tried to make my point as clear as possible.

The question is how fast do you grow up when youre spoon-fed your whole life with raw food loco

On July 25 2010 18:32 MiPwnYa wrote: Being upset when you run bad is just a retarded behavior, feeling great when you run good also is something one has to get rid of if one wants to make a living off poker without constantly riding an emotional rollercoaster. The question is not even to know whether Newblish runs bad or not, hes just whining in a pretty childish manner, thats just a very immature/retarded approach for a game like poker where you cant predict when youre gonna get rewarded for playing well.

Except that being upset is an emotion not a behavior. I think most everyone has some degree of negative feelings when they run bad. Anyone who says they don't is just lying. Nobody is immune to feeling lousy when things aren't going the way they're supposed to for long stretches of time.

When the guys from 2 months 2 million invented the tilt room and had fun smashing fruit and crap everyone on LP was saying "OMG AMAZING I WISH I HAD ONE"

Some people go to the gym and work out to relieve stress from their job etc. Poker is a stressful job period and it wears people down.

If releasing his anger in hand histories and blogs helps him come back with a refreshed state of mind then more power to him. This whole thing is nothing more than a bunch of people ganging up and making fun of someone for posting whiny comments. I would also add that although with much less frequency you yourself have made similar comments on hands. We all have.

On July 25 2010 18:31 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 18:27 Bejamin1 wrote:   On July 25 2010 18:16 Baal wrote: you only look like a dumbass defending your friend Benjamin its clear he is a clown with no gasp of what a real bad run is, just stop Baal you're really good at hurling insults without addressing any of my points. Go ahead Baal I'm waiting for you to say something relevant. If a player has won 40k but should have won 110k is that player not running bad? What is your justification for saying otherwise? On the contrary, it is you who isnt getting the point but whatever, keep defending his pathetic behavior and lose the respect of the actual poker players on this forum.

Baal once again you fail to respond to any of my arguments in his defense. Make a comment that actually defends your position with facts or leave.

i agree with you bejamin, there are a ton of winning players that do run bad.

Theres never an instance where it makes sense to argue with someone as narrow minded and retarded as Baal. Dont even bother Bejamin, it's the same as talking to a brick wall(which coincidently is the same as loco). Apparently this idiot thinks im a "clown" after reading one biased blog post. Very clear that he's learned everything there is to know about me.

Anyway, enough of the sarcasm. Baal and Loco are seriously exactly the same on these forums. Trying to argue with them is impossible and ultimately pointless. I dont care what either of them think about me because they have no clue about who i am and what poker means to me.

I appreciate your defense on my behalf though. And again, with reference to my response in locos blog here I am not denying everything loco has written. He is right about a few things. He however has taken it much too far and i think he should seriously be ashamed of himself for bringing in that much sarcasm and bias into the equation. All he really did was just show everyone how much of a prick/judgemental asshole he is, so i honestly couldn't care less. He's making a fool of himself just as much as he is trying to make of me despite using alot of bias and basing his post off of alot of shit that happened over a year ago.

Anyway, i appreciate this blog as a defensive response, though ultimately i dont really care what such a narrow minded faggot like loco thinks of me. I've already summed up what i think about this in his blog post on page 3, so im not sure if i really care enough to further "defend" myself from the likes of our friend with 24600 posts or the guy with 16000+ posts anymore. It is what it is so if people want to judge me based on loco's one sided sarcastic and childish post they can be my guest for all i care - i dont care what they or he think of me if they dont know me.

But again, i appreciate your post Bejamin.

this reminds me a blog post that internetpokers wrote a few months ago about running bad

LP is better than reality shows nowadays

@ Strato

I would summarize your feelings:
1. A player who is winning good money should not be upset about poker.
2. The player should see the big picture about how much poker has given them and how lucky they are to have it in their life.

These are not terrible things to say. However it is lame that a bunch of people want to gang up on someone simply because they feel negative emotions when they run badly at this game. I don't know anyone who hasn't been there. I don't know anyone who hasn't felt legitimately angry after a week of sessions in a row where they get killed by luck and are well below EV.

What pisses me off is that I can guarantee just about everyone on LP has some negative feelings when they run bad. Just because they don't express them doesn't mean Newblish is stupid because he expresses his. If that's what he needs to do to get the emotions out of his system then more power to him.

On July 25 2010 18:41 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 18:32 MiPwnYa wrote: Being upset when you run bad is just a retarded behavior, feeling great when you run good also is something one has to get rid of if one wants to make a living off poker without constantly riding an emotional rollercoaster. The question is not even to know whether Newblish runs bad or not, hes just whining in a pretty childish manner, thats just a very immature/retarded approach for a game like poker where you cant predict when youre gonna get rewarded for playing well. Except that being upset is an emotion not a behavior. I think most everyone has some degree of negative feelings when they run bad. Anyone who says they don't is just lying. Nobody is immune to feeling lousy when things aren't going the way they're supposed to for long stretches of time. When the guys from 2 months 2 million invented the tilt room and had fun smashing fruit and crap everyone on LP was saying "OMG AMAZING I WISH I HAD ONE" Some people go to the gym and work out to relieve stress from their job etc. Poker is a stressful job period and it wears people down. If releasing his anger in hand histories and blogs helps him come back with a refreshed state of mind then more power to him. This whole thing is nothing more than a bunch of people ganging up and making fun of someone for posting whiny comments. I would also add that although with much less frequency you yourself have made similar comments on hands. We all have.

Yea I certainly have, I dont see how posting such hands/comments can make one feel better tho (claiming that the game is unfair etc might actually make one feel more frustrated/upset) and doing it on a daily basis is certainly childish. Tryin to get rid of those negative feelings is a crucial thing and I dont think whining about how unlucky you are does you any good. I do however think its a natural way to react, but not a good one. On a side note,I hope Newbish never plays PLO

On July 25 2010 18:46 Exhilarate wrote: i agree with you bejamin, there are a ton of winning players that do run bad.

surprise surprise

i do think crying is retarded
but why make a thread on this poor guy when there are so many others???????? pick them too

On July 25 2010 18:32 Loco wrote: Your main premise is a false assumption to begin with. I first and foremost believe there isn't such a thing as running bad .

This is an extremely biased worldview that you hold. It's an extremely narrow perspective.

Lets say you're a HU player so you play less hands than most 6M or FR grinders. Lets say you play 300k hands per year. Lets say on average you play a hand worth more than 50bb's of your stack about 3 times in every hundred hands.

That would give us exactly 9000 situations where the player is involved in a hand where more than 50bb's have been put into the pot. Mathematically speaking that is a very small sample size. It is very much possible to "run bad" in those 9000 simulations.

In a world where people play 1,000,000 simulations over time the luck will likely even out for almost everybody. Even then some people will be a standard deviation or two away from where they should be. However the fact of the matter is that people don't actually play 1,000,000 All-Ins a year. In fact most people don't play that many all-ins in their entire career. If you only play 250k all-ins in your entire career your luck can easily be way off where it should be. This is just pure math. Not speculation based on a worldview.

On July 25 2010 18:55 Bejamin1 wrote: @ Strato I would summarize your feelings: 1. A player who is winning good money should not be upset about poker. 2. The player should see the big picture about how much poker has given them and how lucky they are to have it in their life. These are not terrible things to say. However it is lame that a bunch of people want to gang up on someone simply because they feel negative emotions when they run badly at this game. I don't know anyone who hasn't been there. I don't know anyone who hasn't felt legitimately angry after a week of sessions in a row where they get killed by luck and are well below EV. What pisses me off is that I can guarantee just about everyone on LP has some negative feelings when they run bad. Just because they don't express them doesn't mean Newblish is stupid because he expresses his. If that's what he needs to do to get the emotions out of his system then more power to him.

Oh, come on man. Don't do that shit to me. I've done it because he has an extreme cause of delusion. I don't have the time nor the willpower to go and try to teach a lesson to everyone who expresses anger on a poker forum. I've picked him for a good reason, so I could drive a point to everyone. No matter how "violent" that post was, it should be a blessing in disguise, because it should allow him to re-evaluate his beliefs, and others who were guilty of a similar behavior.

Most of us don't repress our negative emotions, we simply don't experience them for that long because we offer ourselves some nice reality checks on a regular basis. Newblish is so disconnected with reality that he cannot do this. I figured the best way to help him was by doing what I did. Was it the best I could do to help him? Certainly not, and I'm guilty of being annoyed at his behavior and expressing it there. Doesn't make it any less true, or valuable for him to hear. A close friend isn't ever going to tell him what I did, I'm brutally honest and my friends have come to appreciate that trait in me. Baal is the same, and the people who are hating on us for that are just being idiots.

On July 25 2010 19:03 TimDawg wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 18:46 Exhilarate wrote: i agree with you bejamin, there are a ton of winning players that do run bad. surprise surprise

rofl those were my exact thoughts hahaha

On July 25 2010 19:07 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 18:32 Loco wrote: Your main premise is a false assumption to begin with. I first and foremost believe there isn't such a thing as running bad . This is an extremely biased worldview that you hold. It's an extremely narrow perspective. Lets say you're a HU player so you play less hands than most 6M or FR grinders. Lets say you play 300k hands per year. Lets say on average you play a hand worth more than 50bb's of your stack about 3 times in every hundred hands. That would give us exactly 9000 situations where the player is involved in a hand where more than 50bb's have been put into the pot. Mathematically speaking that is a very small sample size. It is very much possible to "run bad" in those 9000 simulations. In a world where people play 1,000,000 simulations over time the luck will likely even out for almost everybody. Even then some people will be a standard deviation or two away from where they should be. However the fact of the matter is that people don't actually play 1,000,000 All-Ins a year. In fact most people don't play that many all-ins in their entire career. If you only play 250k all-ins in your entire career your luck can easily be way off where it should be. This is just pure math. Not speculation based on a worldview.

This is annoying. You can't make a claim like saying it's a narrow perspective and not back it up with counter-arguments. Not only that, but you've missed the whole point about how this all relates to emotion. In whatever case, like I said, when we make the interpretation that someone is running bad (he's not, the deviation was there from the beginning and he's only running as it is possible to run) , either way, being constantly negative or upset about it doesn't change anything, nor does blaming it on sites being rigged or any fucking thing else that's external. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Address the main issue the next time you post, please.

On July 25 2010 18:32 Loco wrote: Your main premise is a false assumption to begin with. I first and foremost believe there isn't such a thing as running bad. Nothing should be surprising out of life. Everything that happens to a person has been a possibility. It's been nature doing its own thing, in other words it is equity (sounds familiar?), and it's only ever bizarre to be surprised or upset about it. But I know this isn't exactly commonly accepted, and we can't really run away from the concepts of luck, no matter how little logical sense they actually really make if the world is deterministic (which I maintain). Nature is indifferent, so should you be. This, of course, isn't to be applied when it comes to Man's evil toward Man, as there is plenty to rebel against in this case, but only in that natural laws govern everything that we know. So, using our interpretation that there is such a thing as running bad (again, I think there is only 'running' in actuality...), it doesn't justify complaining about it, because it accomplishes nothing. It's illogical to be upset with something you have no control over. If I lose electricity in my house today because of a big thunderstorm, is it logical for me to cry out loud and scream about how unfair this all is? It makes no sense at all, it was a possibility to begin with, now I have to deal with it as best as I can. The same is true for any situation, the same is true for poker. If Newblish is angry, let him be angry at himself, for he has nothing else to be angry about. In this way he can learn something. Once you blame external events, you lose your chance at growth. NOTHING easy ever has much new substance or growth. He can curse at the world all he wants, the world doesn't care, and he's not doing himself or anybody a favor. A player "should" never win a certain amount, since there was always the possibility of him not winning it if he didn't have a 100% chance of winning. Equity stabilizes itself, life wouldn't exist otherwise. We choose to interpret that he "should" or "deserved" to have had that sum. And when we believe this ourselves (delude ourselves) we cause ourselves much unneeded grief. I don't know why you tell me I'm biased, it's obvious that there was something personal. You're biased yourself, so why use it against me? You are his friend. He's probably very upset right now and you're stepping up for him, so no matter how spot-on I might be, being his friend you are most likely going to refuse to really hear what I have to say. My goal was to upset him, and anybody who has that mentality, a mentality that I once had myself and I sure wish someone would've slapped me in the face back then, too. Understandably, when you've been spoon-fed all your life, you don't grow up as fast as you should. I don't know who you're trying to convince by telling us you've seen him play and everything and we have no idea. His graphs show exactly what they show. Let the people be judges... I for one think he has nothing to complain about.

You're basically claiming the the expression of anger can never be a good thing because it is not productive. I think it's good to release anger and stress rather that bottling it up inside and pretending it doesn't exist. Most people feel negative emotions when things aren't going well. I hold the opinion that expressing these emotions and moving on is better than simply ignoring them.

On July 25 2010 19:07 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 18:55 Bejamin1 wrote: @ Strato I would summarize your feelings: 1. A player who is winning good money should not be upset about poker. 2. The player should see the big picture about how much poker has given them and how lucky they are to have it in their life. These are not terrible things to say. However it is lame that a bunch of people want to gang up on someone simply because they feel negative emotions when they run badly at this game. I don't know anyone who hasn't been there. I don't know anyone who hasn't felt legitimately angry after a week of sessions in a row where they get killed by luck and are well below EV. What pisses me off is that I can guarantee just about everyone on LP has some negative feelings when they run bad. Just because they don't express them doesn't mean Newblish is stupid because he expresses his. If that's what he needs to do to get the emotions out of his system then more power to him. Oh, come on man. Don't do that shit to me. I've done it because he has an extreme cause of delusion. I don't have the time nor the willpower to go and try to teach a lesson to everyone who expresses anger on a poker forum. I've picked him for a good reason, so I could drive a point to everyone. No matter how "violent" that post was, it should be a blessing in disguise, because it should allow him to re-evaluate his beliefs, and others who were guilty of a similar behavior. Most of us don't repress our negative emotions, we simply don't experience them for that long because we offer ourselves some nice reality checks on a regular basis. Newblish is so disconnected with reality that he cannot do this. I figured the best way to help him was by doing what I did. Was it the best I could do to help him? Certainly not, and I'm guilty of being annoyed at his behavior and expressing it there. Doesn't make it any less true, or valuable for him to hear. A close friend isn't ever going to tell him what I did, I'm brutally honest and my friends have come to appreciate that trait in me. Baal is the same, and the people who are hating on us for that are just being idiots.

Why do you presume to know so much about him? Your generalizing about his beliefs based on a few blog posts and hand history comments. That's a huge leap in any situation.

On July 25 2010 19:13 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 18:32 Loco wrote: Your main premise is a false assumption to begin with. I first and foremost believe there isn't such a thing as running bad. Nothing should be surprising out of life. Everything that happens to a person has been a possibility. It's been nature doing its own thing, in other words it is equity (sounds familiar?), and it's only ever bizarre to be surprised or upset about it. But I know this isn't exactly commonly accepted, and we can't really run away from the concepts of luck, no matter how little logical sense they actually really make if the world is deterministic (which I maintain). Nature is indifferent, so should you be. This, of course, isn't to be applied when it comes to Man's evil toward Man, as there is plenty to rebel against in this case, but only in that natural laws govern everything that we know. So, using our interpretation that there is such a thing as running bad (again, I think there is only 'running' in actuality...), it doesn't justify complaining about it, because it accomplishes nothing. It's illogical to be upset with something you have no control over. If I lose electricity in my house today because of a big thunderstorm, is it logical for me to cry out loud and scream about how unfair this all is? It makes no sense at all, it was a possibility to begin with, now I have to deal with it as best as I can. The same is true for any situation, the same is true for poker. If Newblish is angry, let him be angry at himself, for he has nothing else to be angry about. In this way he can learn something. Once you blame external events, you lose your chance at growth. NOTHING easy ever has much new substance or growth. He can curse at the world all he wants, the world doesn't care, and he's not doing himself or anybody a favor. A player "should" never win a certain amount, since there was always the possibility of him not winning it if he didn't have a 100% chance of winning. Equity stabilizes itself, life wouldn't exist otherwise. We choose to interpret that he "should" or "deserved" to have had that sum. And when we believe this ourselves (delude ourselves) we cause ourselves much unneeded grief. I don't know why you tell me I'm biased, it's obvious that there was something personal. You're biased yourself, so why use it against me? You are his friend. He's probably very upset right now and you're stepping up for him, so no matter how spot-on I might be, being his friend you are most likely going to refuse to really hear what I have to say. My goal was to upset him, and anybody who has that mentality, a mentality that I once had myself and I sure wish someone would've slapped me in the face back then, too. Understandably, when you've been spoon-fed all your life, you don't grow up as fast as you should. I don't know who you're trying to convince by telling us you've seen him play and everything and we have no idea. His graphs show exactly what they show. Let the people be judges... I for one think he has nothing to complain about. You're basically claiming the the expression of anger can never be a good thing because it is not productive. I think it's good to release anger and stress rather that bottling it up inside and pretending it doesn't exist. Most people feel negative emotions when things aren't going well. I hold the opinion that expressing these emotions and moving on is better than simply ignoring them.

This is a very common misconception about my worldview. I do not repress negative emotions, I guess the best way to put it is that I "reason them out". I use my reasoning abilities to reduce them to a minimum. Anger is a natural reaction, but it should stay just a reaction and not something that eats you from the inside. It can only stay a reaction if you have the right kind of thinking. While it might feel good to release the anger, if you don't learn anything from it then there's nothing positive about it, especially not considering the fact that you can hurt others in the process. If you're composed when facing a situation, you're much more likely to make the best decision than if you're angry.

On July 25 2010 19:12 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 19:07 Bejamin1 wrote:   On July 25 2010 18:32 Loco wrote: Your main premise is a false assumption to begin with. I first and foremost believe there isn't such a thing as running bad . This is an extremely biased worldview that you hold. It's an extremely narrow perspective. Lets say you're a HU player so you play less hands than most 6M or FR grinders. Lets say you play 300k hands per year. Lets say on average you play a hand worth more than 50bb's of your stack about 3 times in every hundred hands. That would give us exactly 9000 situations where the player is involved in a hand where more than 50bb's have been put into the pot. Mathematically speaking that is a very small sample size. It is very much possible to "run bad" in those 9000 simulations. In a world where people play 1,000,000 simulations over time the luck will likely even out for almost everybody. Even then some people will be a standard deviation or two away from where they should be. However the fact of the matter is that people don't actually play 1,000,000 All-Ins a year. In fact most people don't play that many all-ins in their entire career. If you only play 250k all-ins in your entire career your luck can easily be way off where it should be. This is just pure math. Not speculation based on a worldview. This is annoying. You can't make a claim like saying it's a narrow perspective and not back it up with counter-arguments. Not only that, but you've missed the whole point about how this all relates to emotion. In whatever case, like I said, when we make the interpretation that someone is running bad (he's not, the deviation was there from the beginning and he's only running as it is possible to run) , either way, being constantly negative or upset about it doesn't change anything, nor does blaming it on sites being rigged or any fucking thing else that's external. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Address the main issue the next time you post, please.

I'm sorry I guess I assumed you would see my counter-point pretty clearly. You bluntly state that running bad does not exist. That's a narrow worldview if I've ever seen one. If you believe than running bad doesn't exist you're obviously going to disagree with anyone who says they run bad.

On July 25 2010 19:20 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 19:07 Loco wrote:   On July 25 2010 18:55 Bejamin1 wrote: @ Strato I would summarize your feelings: 1. A player who is winning good money should not be upset about poker. 2. The player should see the big picture about how much poker has given them and how lucky they are to have it in their life. These are not terrible things to say. However it is lame that a bunch of people want to gang up on someone simply because they feel negative emotions when they run badly at this game. I don't know anyone who hasn't been there. I don't know anyone who hasn't felt legitimately angry after a week of sessions in a row where they get killed by luck and are well below EV. What pisses me off is that I can guarantee just about everyone on LP has some negative feelings when they run bad. Just because they don't express them doesn't mean Newblish is stupid because he expresses his. If that's what he needs to do to get the emotions out of his system then more power to him. Oh, come on man. Don't do that shit to me. I've done it because he has an extreme cause of delusion. I don't have the time nor the willpower to go and try to teach a lesson to everyone who expresses anger on a poker forum. I've picked him for a good reason, so I could drive a point to everyone. No matter how "violent" that post was, it should be a blessing in disguise, because it should allow him to re-evaluate his beliefs, and others who were guilty of a similar behavior. Most of us don't repress our negative emotions, we simply don't experience them for that long because we offer ourselves some nice reality checks on a regular basis. Newblish is so disconnected with reality that he cannot do this. I figured the best way to help him was by doing what I did. Was it the best I could do to help him? Certainly not, and I'm guilty of being annoyed at his behavior and expressing it there. Doesn't make it any less true, or valuable for him to hear. A close friend isn't ever going to tell him what I did, I'm brutally honest and my friends have come to appreciate that trait in me. Baal is the same, and the people who are hating on us for that are just being idiots. Why do you presume to know so much about him? Your generalizing about his beliefs based on a few blog posts and hand history comments. That's a huge leap in any situation.

Behavior tells us everything we need to know about someone. What, should I take his word when he's telling me who he is? That fool doesn't know anything about himself.

On July 25 2010 19:21 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 19:13 Bejamin1 wrote:   On July 25 2010 18:32 Loco wrote: Your main premise is a false assumption to begin with. I first and foremost believe there isn't such a thing as running bad. Nothing should be surprising out of life. Everything that happens to a person has been a possibility. It's been nature doing its own thing, in other words it is equity (sounds familiar?), and it's only ever bizarre to be surprised or upset about it. But I know this isn't exactly commonly accepted, and we can't really run away from the concepts of luck, no matter how little logical sense they actually really make if the world is deterministic (which I maintain). Nature is indifferent, so should you be. This, of course, isn't to be applied when it comes to Man's evil toward Man, as there is plenty to rebel against in this case, but only in that natural laws govern everything that we know. So, using our interpretation that there is such a thing as running bad (again, I think there is only 'running' in actuality...), it doesn't justify complaining about it, because it accomplishes nothing. It's illogical to be upset with something you have no control over. If I lose electricity in my house today because of a big thunderstorm, is it logical for me to cry out loud and scream about how unfair this all is? It makes no sense at all, it was a possibility to begin with, now I have to deal with it as best as I can. The same is true for any situation, the same is true for poker. If Newblish is angry, let him be angry at himself, for he has nothing else to be angry about. In this way he can learn something. Once you blame external events, you lose your chance at growth. NOTHING easy ever has much new substance or growth. He can curse at the world all he wants, the world doesn't care, and he's not doing himself or anybody a favor. A player "should" never win a certain amount, since there was always the possibility of him not winning it if he didn't have a 100% chance of winning. Equity stabilizes itself, life wouldn't exist otherwise. We choose to interpret that he "should" or "deserved" to have had that sum. And when we believe this ourselves (delude ourselves) we cause ourselves much unneeded grief. I don't know why you tell me I'm biased, it's obvious that there was something personal. You're biased yourself, so why use it against me? You are his friend. He's probably very upset right now and you're stepping up for him, so no matter how spot-on I might be, being his friend you are most likely going to refuse to really hear what I have to say. My goal was to upset him, and anybody who has that mentality, a mentality that I once had myself and I sure wish someone would've slapped me in the face back then, too. Understandably, when you've been spoon-fed all your life, you don't grow up as fast as you should. I don't know who you're trying to convince by telling us you've seen him play and everything and we have no idea. His graphs show exactly what they show. Let the people be judges... I for one think he has nothing to complain about. You're basically claiming the the expression of anger can never be a good thing because it is not productive. I think it's good to release anger and stress rather that bottling it up inside and pretending it doesn't exist. Most people feel negative emotions when things aren't going well. I hold the opinion that expressing these emotions and moving on is better than simply ignoring them. This is a very common misconception about my worldview. I do not repress negative emotions, I guess the best way to put it is that I "reason them out". I use my reasoning abilities to reduce them to a minimum. Anger is a natural reaction, but it should stay just a reaction and not something that eats you from the inside. It can only stay a reaction if you have the right kind of thinking. While it might feel good to release the anger, if you don't learn anything from it then there's nothing positive about it, especially not considering the fact that you can hurt others in the process. If you're composed when facing a situation, you're much more likely to make the best decision than if you're angry.

You clearly believe that there is a better way to deal with anger than simply releasing it. That's fine but it doesn't work for everybody. Some people like to hit the weights and expand that frustration into something positive (fitness) and some people like to remind themselves how irrational anger is and how unproductive it is and use that to diffuse and release their emotions.

What I'm saying is that neither way is better than the other. Saying someone is childish or stupid because of how they express their anger isn't anything more than you being a prick. If you had a younger sister who was really pissed off and upset about her boyfriend breaking up with her would you tell her why it's irrational to care about someone who treated them like shit/didn't care enough to be with them or would you just let them work through the emotions and get over it aka a good cry and a girly movie with girlfriends?

You don't like that Newblish deals with his anger in a different way than you do. That's fine but frankly keep it to yourself? Not everybody is you man.

On July 25 2010 19:24 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 19:20 Bejamin1 wrote:   On July 25 2010 19:07 Loco wrote:   On July 25 2010 18:55 Bejamin1 wrote: @ Strato I would summarize your feelings: 1. A player who is winning good money should not be upset about poker. 2. The player should see the big picture about how much poker has given them and how lucky they are to have it in their life. These are not terrible things to say. However it is lame that a bunch of people want to gang up on someone simply because they feel negative emotions when they run badly at this game. I don't know anyone who hasn't been there. I don't know anyone who hasn't felt legitimately angry after a week of sessions in a row where they get killed by luck and are well below EV. What pisses me off is that I can guarantee just about everyone on LP has some negative feelings when they run bad. Just because they don't express them doesn't mean Newblish is stupid because he expresses his. If that's what he needs to do to get the emotions out of his system then more power to him. Oh, come on man. Don't do that shit to me. I've done it because he has an extreme cause of delusion. I don't have the time nor the willpower to go and try to teach a lesson to everyone who expresses anger on a poker forum. I've picked him for a good reason, so I could drive a point to everyone. No matter how "violent" that post was, it should be a blessing in disguise, because it should allow him to re-evaluate his beliefs, and others who were guilty of a similar behavior. Most of us don't repress our negative emotions, we simply don't experience them for that long because we offer ourselves some nice reality checks on a regular basis. Newblish is so disconnected with reality that he cannot do this. I figured the best way to help him was by doing what I did. Was it the best I could do to help him? Certainly not, and I'm guilty of being annoyed at his behavior and expressing it there. Doesn't make it any less true, or valuable for him to hear. A close friend isn't ever going to tell him what I did, I'm brutally honest and my friends have come to appreciate that trait in me. Baal is the same, and the people who are hating on us for that are just being idiots. Why do you presume to know so much about him? Your generalizing about his beliefs based on a few blog posts and hand history comments. That's a huge leap in any situation. Behavior tells us everything we need to know about someone. What, should I take his word when he's telling me who he is? That fool doesn't know anything about himself.

Again that's a pretty narrow worldview. I would argue the reasons WHY people behave a certain way is just as important as the behavior itself. Especially when it comes to understanding people and using empathy.

Why do you assume that someones behavior on an internet forum is similar to their real life attitude? You only see a sliver of who people are in anonymous conversations over the internet. Pretending that you can somehow extrapolate that sliver into an entire human being and understand them is bullshit.

On July 25 2010 19:34 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 19:21 Loco wrote:   On July 25 2010 19:13 Bejamin1 wrote:   On July 25 2010 18:32 Loco wrote: Your main premise is a false assumption to begin with. I first and foremost believe there isn't such a thing as running bad. Nothing should be surprising out of life. Everything that happens to a person has been a possibility. It's been nature doing its own thing, in other words it is equity (sounds familiar?), and it's only ever bizarre to be surprised or upset about it. But I know this isn't exactly commonly accepted, and we can't really run away from the concepts of luck, no matter how little logical sense they actually really make if the world is deterministic (which I maintain). Nature is indifferent, so should you be. This, of course, isn't to be applied when it comes to Man's evil toward Man, as there is plenty to rebel against in this case, but only in that natural laws govern everything that we know. So, using our interpretation that there is such a thing as running bad (again, I think there is only 'running' in actuality...), it doesn't justify complaining about it, because it accomplishes nothing. It's illogical to be upset with something you have no control over. If I lose electricity in my house today because of a big thunderstorm, is it logical for me to cry out loud and scream about how unfair this all is? It makes no sense at all, it was a possibility to begin with, now I have to deal with it as best as I can. The same is true for any situation, the same is true for poker. If Newblish is angry, let him be angry at himself, for he has nothing else to be angry about. In this way he can learn something. Once you blame external events, you lose your chance at growth. NOTHING easy ever has much new substance or growth. He can curse at the world all he wants, the world doesn't care, and he's not doing himself or anybody a favor. A player "should" never win a certain amount, since there was always the possibility of him not winning it if he didn't have a 100% chance of winning. Equity stabilizes itself, life wouldn't exist otherwise. We choose to interpret that he "should" or "deserved" to have had that sum. And when we believe this ourselves (delude ourselves) we cause ourselves much unneeded grief. I don't know why you tell me I'm biased, it's obvious that there was something personal. You're biased yourself, so why use it against me? You are his friend. He's probably very upset right now and you're stepping up for him, so no matter how spot-on I might be, being his friend you are most likely going to refuse to really hear what I have to say. My goal was to upset him, and anybody who has that mentality, a mentality that I once had myself and I sure wish someone would've slapped me in the face back then, too. Understandably, when you've been spoon-fed all your life, you don't grow up as fast as you should. I don't know who you're trying to convince by telling us you've seen him play and everything and we have no idea. His graphs show exactly what they show. Let the people be judges... I for one think he has nothing to complain about. You're basically claiming the the expression of anger can never be a good thing because it is not productive. I think it's good to release anger and stress rather that bottling it up inside and pretending it doesn't exist. Most people feel negative emotions when things aren't going well. I hold the opinion that expressing these emotions and moving on is better than simply ignoring them. This is a very common misconception about my worldview. I do not repress negative emotions, I guess the best way to put it is that I "reason them out". I use my reasoning abilities to reduce them to a minimum. Anger is a natural reaction, but it should stay just a reaction and not something that eats you from the inside. It can only stay a reaction if you have the right kind of thinking. While it might feel good to release the anger, if you don't learn anything from it then there's nothing positive about it, especially not considering the fact that you can hurt others in the process. If you're composed when facing a situation, you're much more likely to make the best decision than if you're angry. You clearly believe that there is a better way to deal with anger than simply releasing it. That's fine but it doesn't work for everybody. Some people like to hit the weights and expand that frustration into something positive (fitness) and some people like to remind themselves how irrational anger is and how unproductive it is and use that to diffuse and release their emotions. What I'm saying is that neither way is better than the other. Saying someone is childish or stupid because of how they express their anger isn't anything more than you being a prick. If you had a younger sister who was really pissed off and upset about her boyfriend breaking up with her would you tell her why it's irrational to care about someone who treated them like shit/didn't care enough to be with them or would you just let them work through the emotions and get over it aka a good cry and a girly movie with girlfriends? You don't like that Newblish deals with his anger in a different way than you do. That's fine but frankly keep it to yourself? Not everybody is you man.

How do you know if one is better than the other? You have no practice with it. Let me ask you this, if you were a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp, would it help you more to lift some weights to dissipate your anger/grief or would making use of reason be a wiser choice? Life experiences make for different coping mechanisms. Some are indefinitely more valuable than others.

Cleanthes once opined that the wicked man is "like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes." ... I believe that as long as you have this worldview you are a wicked man.

On July 25 2010 19:37 Bejamin1 wrote: Why do you assume that someones behavior on an internet forum is similar to their real life attitude? You only see a sliver of who people are in anonymous conversations over the internet. Pretending that you can somehow extrapolate that sliver into an entire human being and understand them is bullshit.

Does it really matter what he's like "in real life?" When he created the account Newblish, he created an online persona that may or may not be true to his actual tendencies in person. But it doesn't matter how "accurate" his online persona is with regards to his physical form because all that matters on this site is how the online persona acts and interacts with other netizens.

I didn't get the sense that Loco is claiming to have completely analyzed Newblish as he is away from the computer. He just saw the evidence/data that was available to him (excessive bitching, casual remarks about certain topics, blogposts, etc.), drew conclusions from the evidence at hand that disgusted him, and made a post about it.

Newblish can defend himself or, in a more healthy way, just laugh it off if Loco's ideas about him are so far-fetched and off-the-mark. I mean, if Newblish is actually a totally grounded, healthy, emotionally restrained and practical person in real life, he must view his own online bitching as more of a joke than anything else. No need for you, as his friend, to get so worked over it when someone has a bone to pick with this "inaccurate" online persona.

"You don't like that Newblish deals with his anger in a different way than you do. That's fine but frankly keep it to yourself? Not everybody is you man"

So it's ok for Newblish to vent his anger on here about some retarded crap but it's not ok for me to "not keep to myself" ... isn't that hypocritical and the most biased statement ever?

I don't believe in stealth living. I speak my mind. Don't act like an idiot and I won't react. If I act like an idiot I'm happy if there's anyone there to catch me in the process and make me aware of it, so should you.

On July 25 2010 19:46 Sanai wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 19:37 Bejamin1 wrote: Why do you assume that someones behavior on an internet forum is similar to their real life attitude? You only see a sliver of who people are in anonymous conversations over the internet. Pretending that you can somehow extrapolate that sliver into an entire human being and understand them is bullshit. Does it really matter what he's like "in real life?" When he created the account Newblish, he created an online persona that may or may not be true to his actual tendencies in person. But it doesn't matter how "accurate" his online persona is with regards to his physical form because all that matters on this site is how the online persona acts and interacts with other netizens. I didn't get the sense that Loco is claiming to have completely analyzed Newblish as he is away from the computer. He just saw the evidence/data that was available to him (excessive bitching, casual remarks about certain topics, blogposts, etc.), drew conclusions from the evidence at hand that disgusted him, and made a post about it. Newblish can defend himself or, in a more healthy way, just laugh it off if Loco's ideas about him are so far-fetched and off-the-mark. I mean, if Newblish is actually a totally grounded, healthy, emotionally restrained and practical person in real life, he must view his own online bitching as more of a joke than anything else. No need for you, as his friend, to get so worked over it when someone has a bone to pick with this "inaccurate" online persona.

Exactly. If I'm so far off, there shouldn't have been such a reaction. Do people react to trolls in such a way? No... we have a good laugh, or not.

"How do you know if one is better than the other?" -Loco

I said neither was better than the other. They're just different. Releasing the anger through working out or posting cathartic blogs is no different than rationalizing it to diffuse it's intensity. They're both a method of dealing with anger in a way that prevents it from negatively effecting your game on the tables. They both have the positive result of stopping the anger from entering a persons play on the tables.

You're sitting here and belittling someone for dealing with negative emotions in a way that annoys you because it's not the way you think it should be done. That's pathetic and you need to get a life. You're not doing anybody a service. You're just being a dick. You're trying to push your worldview and opinion on others.

Show me some studies that say it's better to deal with poker anger by rationalizing it than it is to go hit a watermelon with a baseball bat and feel the release of tension. The only thing you're backing your opinion up with is more of your own opinion. Why should everyone else live their life the way you think is right? Who made you the authority on these matters?

holy crap you guys who the f cares lol

On July 25 2010 19:47 Loco wrote: "You don't like that Newblish deals with his anger in a different way than you do. That's fine but frankly keep it to yourself? Not everybody is you man" So it's ok for Newblish to vent his anger on here about some retarded crap but it's not ok for me to "not keep to myself" ... isn't that hypocritical and the most biased statement ever? I don't believe in stealth living. I speak my mind. Don't act like an idiot and I won't react. If I act like an idiot I'm happy if there's anyone there to catch me in the process and make me aware of it, so should you.

You weren't expressing your point of view. You were insulting some directly in a clearly over-the-top manner. If you wanted to be constructive you could have simply written a blog about how you feel whine-blogs and whine-hand-history posts are negative for the poker community. How you feel they are the wrong perspective to take when things don't go well.

Instead you made a dickish sarcastic blog about a friend of mine making yourself look like a stupid asshole. Don't pretend you were doing something in service of the community. You were just being a dick.

On July 25 2010 20:02 bigredhoss wrote: holy crap you guys who the f cares lol

uhh this

On July 25 2010 19:58 Bejamin1 wrote: "How do you know if one is better than the other?" -Loco I said neither was better than the other. They're just different. Releasing the anger through working out or posting cathartic blogs is no different than rationalizing it to diffuse it's intensity. They're both a method of dealing with anger in a way that prevents it from negatively effecting your game on the tables. They both have the positive result of stopping the anger from entering a persons play on the tables. You're sitting here and belittling someone for dealing with negative emotions in a way that annoys you because it's not the way you think it should be done. That's pathetic and you need to get a life. You're not doing anybody a service. You're just being a dick. You're trying to push your worldview and opinion on others. Show me some studies that say it's better to deal with poker anger by rationalizing it than it is to go hit a watermelon with a baseball bat and feel the release of tension. The only thing you're backing your opinion up with is more of your own opinion. Why should everyone else live their life the way you think is right? Who made you the authority on these matters?

Well, anybody who wishes to have the results and behavior that Newblish exhibits are free to use his wise and extremely practical anger management techniques. For those who wish to become Men they might want to look the other way, though.

What I'm trying to do is not tell anybody how they should live their lives, but rather force them to re-evaluate it. Nothing more.

Again, you're being hypocritical. How is it pathetic of me to post these messages but it's not pathetic of someone to vent his hatred toward himself on these boards, and constantly complain about his bad luck in life when there are people who are starving to death as we are typing these messages? ... Mind boggling.

And if your models in living are people who hit watermelons with baseball bats instead of wise men, then I don't know what to say to you.

On July 25 2010 20:09 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 19:47 Loco wrote: "You don't like that Newblish deals with his anger in a different way than you do. That's fine but frankly keep it to yourself? Not everybody is you man" So it's ok for Newblish to vent his anger on here about some retarded crap but it's not ok for me to "not keep to myself" ... isn't that hypocritical and the most biased statement ever? I don't believe in stealth living. I speak my mind. Don't act like an idiot and I won't react. If I act like an idiot I'm happy if there's anyone there to catch me in the process and make me aware of it, so should you. You weren't expressing your point of view. You were insulting some directly in a clearly over-the-top manner. If you wanted to be constructive you could have simply written a blog about how you feel whine-blogs and whine-hand-history posts are negative for the poker community. How you feel they are the wrong perspective to take when things don't go well. Instead you made a dickish sarcastic blog about a friend of mine making yourself look like a stupid asshole. Don't pretend you were doing something in service of the community. You were just being a dick.

Well you're free to believe whatever you want, but you don't know anything about my motives. I made the blog as it is because there's more chance people will read through it if it's entertaining. Nobody is here for a lecture.

On July 25 2010 19:46 Sanai wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 19:37 Bejamin1 wrote: Why do you assume that someones behavior on an internet forum is similar to their real life attitude? You only see a sliver of who people are in anonymous conversations over the internet. Pretending that you can somehow extrapolate that sliver into an entire human being and understand them is bullshit. Does it really matter what he's like "in real life?" When he created the account Newblish, he created an online persona that may or may not be true to his actual tendencies in person. But it doesn't matter how "accurate" his online persona is with regards to his physical form because all that matters on this site is how the online persona acts and interacts with other netizens. I didn't get the sense that Loco is claiming to have completely analyzed Newblish as he is away from the computer. He just saw the evidence/data that was available to him (excessive bitching, casual remarks about certain topics, blogposts, etc.), drew conclusions from the evidence at hand that disgusted him, and made a post about it. Newblish can defend himself or, in a more healthy way, just laugh it off if Loco's ideas about him are so far-fetched and off-the-mark. I mean, if Newblish is actually a totally grounded, healthy, emotionally restrained and practical person in real life, he must view his own online bitching as more of a joke than anything else. No need for you, as his friend, to get so worked over it when someone has a bone to pick with this "inaccurate" online persona.

Loco wrote a blog rife with inaccuracy and filled with insults. Nobody is disputing that Newblish has posted some whine-blogs or whine-hand-histories. What offended me as his friend is that Loco is claiming he's delusional, crazy, an idiot, and has no clue what running bad is. This is simply not true. I'm not just going to sit back and allow someone to slander a friend of mine when they clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about.

He has no clue what bad luck is, and this should be fucking obvious already... give me a break. He's delusional and so are you right now, you are way too emotional to see any of this clearly.

It's not like I said that the guy is a scammer and you absolutely need to defend his reputation. There's absolutely no real reason for you to react the way you are reacting now, no matter how close to the guy you might be. Everyone knows that he's a whiner, nothing has changed, except some more people are aware of it now. Big deal...

Loco honestly you're not worth this trouble. I see what Newblish meant in his reply on your blog. You're just too stupid and narrow-minded to ever admit you're wrong about anything.

It is way out of line to make a personal hate blog about another individual on this site. The crap you're spewing out about how you're trying to help others face their issues is just a load of bull. Sending a kindly PM suggesting an alternative to whine-blogs and whine-hand-histories is helping. Trying to publicly humiliate someone without any actual evidence of whether they run bad or good is just you being a dick. What you're doing is effectively alienating a good poker mind from the community by ostracizing him and attempting to humiliate him. That doesn't help LP in fact it hurts it.

On July 25 2010 20:28 Loco wrote: "He has no clue what bad luck is, and this should be fucking obvious already"... give me a break. He's delusional and so are you right now, you are way too emotional to see any of this clearly.

Actually I'm not emotional or delusional. I'm extremely logical and rational. You're making bold and frankly insulting claims about a friend of mine with zero evidence. Last I checked you've never seen his database or done a proper analysis of all hands over 50bb's. So how do you know whether he runs bad or not?

You've not made one reply to this counter-point. The reason why is because you can't. You have zero evidence. All you have is your opinion. That's why your a retarded asshole and that's why your sarcastic and insulting blog designed to humiliate my friend offends me. You're a stupid asshole and I'm calling you out on it.

On July 25 2010 20:42 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2010 20:28 Loco wrote: "He has no clue what bad luck is, and this should be fucking obvious already"... give me a break. He's delusional and so are you right now, you are way too emotional to see any of this clearly. All you have is your opinion. That's why your a retarded asshole and that's why your sarcastic and insulting blog designed to humiliate my friend offends me. You're a stupid asshole and I'm calling you out on it.

" What you're doing is effectively alienating a good poker mind from the community."

I'd be surprised if he can even tie his shoelaces together without any help, you're accrediting him way too much.

you guys are hilarious... me and Baal are soooooo narrow-minded and we always think we're right... that's why we had a go against each others for years and now we're great friends... makes perfect sense.

Loco. I dare you to actually respond to my challenges of your opinions validity.

1. Why was writing an attack blog which ostracizes a good poker mind from the community better than simply PMing him and talking about it with him personally?

2. Why haven't you addressed the fact that you have zero evidence to support your claim that he doesn't run bad. I've seen his database. I know he runs bad. What do you have?

On July 25 2010 21:00 Loco wrote: I'd be surprised if he can even tie his shoelaces together without any help, you're accrediting him way too much.

There it is folks. Plain as day for everyone to see. Pretty obvious you just don't like Newblish. He's a solid winning player at 1/2 and 2/4 NLHU over a pretty good sample size. You've clearly made your angry blog about him as some sort of personal vendetta. This quote alone pretty much destroys any credibility of your opinions about him. If I want to learn about someone the last person I'm going to ask is someone who dislikes them.

1. It's not like I haven't tried that approach. When he made whiny posts I responded with normal criticism and explaining to him how his thinking was flawed. We chatted a bit on msn, he agreed that he had a lot of work to do. His behavior never changed and he never came back to ask me questions about how to do this (which I would've gladly answered). Leading to this.

2. I've already covered all this bullshit about running bad already that's why I'm ignoring it, you either just want me to keep wasting my time repeating myself or you don't have the capacity to understand it. Give me a break, nobody on this site has anything to complain about, having the opportunity to play poker for a living is a dream come true and that should say enough in itself.

Okay then Loco lol...

1. So why make a blog about it? How is trying to humiliate and ostracize a valuable poker mind from the community a good thing? Seems like you only did it to get attention.

2. You're basically denying the existence of running bad based on your worldview. You're wrong. Mathematics proves that you're wrong. Luck and variance affect a players results significantly even over the long-term. Even in 300,000 hands you might play only 10,000 pots where you invest 50bb's or more. That means you're really only dealing with 10,000 simulations of the situation where luck plays a huge role not 300,000. That's a relatively small sample size. It'd be difficult to play enough hands in ones life to actually see luck "balance out" for everyone. Some people run better in those big situations than others. Lots of people are one, two, or more standard deviations away from the mean in their large pots over their lifetime. Sorry Loco but running bad exists. The fact that you're in denial about it and have a delusional opinion on the matter based on your worldview is moot.

hahahha longple

listened to the song 3 times now, its addicting

lol alienating a good poker mind? lololol

On July 25 2010 21:58 Baal wrote: lol alienating a good poker mind? lololol

He's a winning player at 1/2 and 2/4 NLHU. I think that saying he has a good poker mind is a fair statement. What is your justification for stating otherwise? My opinion is based on the fact that he's a successful player who I know has put a good amount of time into understanding the game. Your opinion is based on a personal bias against him, you lose Baal.

my 2009. pretty good example of runbad over a large sample size.


lots of haters and shit in here but whatever

cliffs?

Is this just another thread with loco on his crusade to make everyone see the world the way he sees it?

Yes SakiSaki. That would be it exactly. I'll cross-post my final response from the other blog to this one. Response below.

The worst thing about all this is that Loco sits on his high horse being critical of Newblish for something he probably does quite regularly himself. It just drives him crazy that any winning player could ever have something to complain about. It makes him so angry that a guy who has all of 426 posts in 3+ years of having membership on this site could complain once and a while. Those blogs he posts once every 3+ months and the odd hand history with accompanying comment must really get his panties in a knot, so much so he decided to write a hate filled blog about this villain living in our midst! How did the readers of LP not notice these random hand history posts that nobody else but Loco decided to read. He's making sure the poker community is protected by making certain no obscure hand history comment goes unread or unchallenged for it's validity!

I'd love to put a camcorder in your room Loco. I'd love to see what it looks like when you have a session where some ultimate fish is up 4-5 buy-ins on you purely because they've run sick good. I'm so sure you never express any feelings of frustration or anger when this happens. You probably beat yourself with a little whip exclaiming "Bad Loco! Bad! Why would you allow yourself to get irrationally angry at bad luck in poker! This is not productive!" I'm glad we have you here Loco to tell us what is and isn't acceptable behavior. I don't know what we'd all do without your moral compass protecting us from bad behaviors posted once in a blue moon. I'll make sure to put the word out. Newblish needs a time-out.

Our hero "El Loco Opinionato" has once again saved the day with his unsolicited advice!

I thought everyone already knew that Loco was one of the saddest cunts on here? Wait gonna spend an hour making a blog on how sad he is...

ahahaha

On July 25 2010 23:10 Bejamin1 wrote: You probably beat yourself with a little whip exclaiming "Bad Loco! Bad! Why would you allow yourself to get irrationally angry at bad luck in poker! This is not productive!"

ROFL maybe thats cuz im drunk as fuck but this had me laughin 10 good seconds

I don't get how you guys spend hours arguing over the validity of someone else's whining about bad beats. My mind is like imploding on itself atm.

On July 25 2010 23:10 Bejamin1 wrote: You probably beat yourself with a little whip exclaiming "Bad Loco! Bad! Why would you allow yourself to get irrationally angry at bad luck in poker! This is not productive!"

Sigh... It hasn't occured to you that if I don't believe in "running bad" I don't believe in bad luck either? -_-

I dont get angry about poker anymore... You're free to believe everybody to be as weak-minded as you and Newblish...

Its hard to escape the condescension when you make such ridiculous claims about me... No matter how much of a dick I was to your friend, you should realize that I am in a totally different class as a player than both you guys. I think its reasonable for you to hate my guts and all but it doesnt make any sense to disrespect my skills at a game where you yourself dont consider yourself to be an expert...

Let me get this straight,

You said in your blog that - "While there are people who genuinely run like shit at this game, and I mean like real shit, for the longest periods of time, there are others who are delusional"

and

"They don't understand how lucky they are to live where they live, in the time where they live."

Despite your recent quote: "Sigh... It hasn't occured to you that if I don't believe in "running bad" I don't believe in bad luck either? -_- "

and: "I first and foremost believe there isn't such a thing as running bad. Nothing should be surprising out of life. Everything that happens to a person has been a possibility. It's been nature doing its own thing, in other words it is equity (sounds familiar?), and it's only ever bizarre to be surprised or upset about it."

So basically you're nothing but a walking/talking machine of contradictions. First you admit that people actually can run bad(or like shit as you stated) over long periods of time in your first quote, but then you somehow write that you dont believe bad luck or running bad exists at all? Secondly you write that we should "understand" how "lucky" we are to be born in this great country and time? I thought that "nothing should be surprising out of life"? I thought that we are supposed to just take things for what they are and realize that it was just "life equity" and just nature doing its thing?

You are absolutely fucking ridiculous. You seem to just spew out random shit with the ultimate goal of just pissing people off and arguing just for the sake of arguing. Like i still just cant wrap my head around this, you have 16,733 posts on this site of which most if not all of them are just arguing/writing your opinion on topics that you 1. contradict yourself on repeatedly. 2. Argue just for the sake or arguing. 3. Waste your own time. I have no clue why i even bothered to write this response because you're like an "immovable object" so to speak, that will not budge or ever admit he could be wrong. All this has ended up doing is make you look like an idiot. FINALLY after really paying attention to any of your arguments, all that people can see are glaring contradictions and shit that ultimately is hypocritical to say the very least. Congratulations.

Seriously,

GET
A
LIFE.

The only reason why I made mention of these things is because they are inevitable for the point that I was influenced/pushed in making. The only way I would truly be contradicting myself is if that initial blog post was 100% my own doing and that I was clear those were my beliefs there. Rather, I am just aware that there is no avoiding the talk of luck in poker, no matter how I don't believe in it, and writing a philosophical essay initially would not have accomplished anything of what was desired by both the external party and myself. So when I said that there were people who truly ran like shit at poker, I meant that they ran extremely below EV for longest periods of time, which is what you were -- I believe unjustifiably -- complaining about (since you're never doing anything wrong apparently... just kidding but still -_-) and how I believe the term is the most used in poker, but you should know as well as I do that EV isn't everything in poker... far from it. I'm not the first one to believe running bad to be a myth, and that there's only playing your hands optimally and putting your money in as a favorite repeatedly that counts. Emotions only get in the way of this so I propose an autonomous will, which inherently rejects luck.

This is an extremely complex subject to get into if I want you to try and understand my beliefs towards luck. I doubt you do, but I'll still clarify. The "life equity" is not applied where your own rights have been taken from you. Yes, I believe I am indefinitely more lucky than the person who was born into poverty and couldn't do jack shit about it because of the current systems of government, and yes I consider myself indefinitely more lucky than a person who survived the horrors of a Nazi concentration camp. But if I were to bubble the money in a poker tournament, or if I was to get 2 out'd for 500bb against a fish then I don't believe luck applies, only equity, and for this same reason I'm not surprised that rain falls from the sky and I don't yell at it because it has wet me. For this same reason again I'm not going to be surprised whenever something I might perceive to be negative happens to me in poker, because it is the natural order of things for which I have no control over and therefore no reason to worry about. I might be making things very complicated but it's the same thing any good poker player is going to tell you, the good comes with the bad and it's only our interpretations of it that make it difficult to deal with.

So if I am ever angry in poker, it's always going to be an anger directed towards myself because I believe I could've done better. This kind of anger can be beneficial and is not nearly as long-lasting and damaging as the kind of anger you're expressing and are going to keep having because you cannot for the hell of you direct it towards yourself, you (evidently) always need a source to blame all your grief on when you believe you're being unlucky.


I am indeed an immovable object, not because I cannot be proven wrong though, but rather because I hold most opinions to be very unimportant/uneducated. So don't waste your time with insults and childish, insecurities exhibiting statements like "get a life". Your whole last paragraph is one big insecurity statement obvious to anyone who understands the basics of psychology. If you've been here a long enough time you should know that I've admitted to being wrong, and the very fact that I don't get into arguments with Baal and that we are friends prove that we can both admit being wrong. We have had to, since we clashed for a long time on LP and we seemed to be -- and perhaps were -- the greatest rivals on here, and are now good friends.


Lastly, and unrelated to your last message, there's been some talk of me "pushing my views" or "telling people how they should live" but my issue (the one that gets to me) with you and other people is never that they don't share my perspective on things, but that they are (or at the very least seem to be) oblivious to how either a) lucky they were initially in life or b) ungrateful/cowardly they currently are when facing adversity. These are the things that set me off because it seems as though we aren't sharing the same reality. And perhaps we aren't...

On July 25 2010 21:48 longple wrote: listened to the song 3 times now, its addicting

omg its sooo good especially at the end when the epic solo
when the horse drowns sad memories

wow crazy blog. interesting that benjamin was so anti a blog bashing on a person. then made one bashing on loco. i am with loco that you should not complain on forums as it is pointless. focusing on how unlucky you thought you were is not really productive.