Runner-Runner-Rebuy

All interesting points in my opinion, and glad you posted this.

The thing is, I would say that my blog is *the* place to go for open and honest analysis and thinking about poker hands and poker situations. More than any single other blog on the earth. I do more hand analysis than any blogger I know and I always open the floor for comments and encourage as much different thoughts about these situations as I possibly can. I don't ever berate people's opinions on these posts and I wouldn't want to, but I do like to analyze each and every comment and usually do a follow-up comment describing what I thought and what I think having read all the comments I receive.

I also constantly evaluate and re-evaluate my game every minute of every day, whether you realize it or not, though I write about this quite frequently.

So I guess I don't think your whole lawyer point is actually valid, which doesn't surprise me since making generalizations about an entire profession could hardly ever be, due to the enormous differences between the nuances within that group. Although I do find the more litigation-types of lawyers to be a whole lot more intractable and drama-esque, so maybe there is a little something to that, I don't know. But my entire job is about being flexible and understanding other people, and things like precedent that you mentioned have no meaning whatsoever in my line of work.

Btw I am also still surprised at how much you refused (and seemingly still refuse) to consider how loosely you played in the MATH the other night. You made allin calls with any Ace all through the night (at least three times that I saw) as well as with a low pocket pair once. I'm not saying you played it bad at all btw, nor that you played it differently than I might have. But I would admit to playing loose with a big stack. Perhaps we all need to try to be more open-minded about evaluating our own poker games?

Nice post. I mean it.

Cool post. I tend to think there is more drama than there should be, mostly because people probably take things too seriously on the internet. It's not just the poker blogger community, this happens on message boards all the time, even message boards that I believe contain many intelligent people. Personally I try very hard to avoid all that crap, because I think there's more important things in life to get upset about, although there are times where stupid stuff like that gets to me.

Thanks for the comment Hoy. Obviously it doesn't generalize to a whole profession, but I think its almost just as valid as drawing the positive similarities that lawyers/poker players share. I didn't mean to claim all lawyers act this way, I just used the comparison because there seemed to be a correlation to me, it followed up previous posts about lawyers and poker, and it served to get my point across that I wish there was more back and forth on hand analysis instead of egotistical bickering sometimes. I admit I am guilty of this myself, and want to think about it, so I can change it.

I agree you do a ton of analysis on your blog, and its one of my top two blogs to visit for differing views and new insights into the game (Blinders being the other). You always answer questions, and respond to comments as well, and for the most part I think you do a great job.

However, I said this in a comment on your blog and I'll say it again, because it has been somewhat of a repeating occurance - I think you should seriously look at hand histories if your going to post about specific hands, to ensure your not mis-remembering something, then re-enforcing that mistake in your own mind by posting about it without checking. You could end up in a similar situation again with the same player and make a poor decision based on faulty memories.

I don't think I ever disagreed that I made some questionable calls in that particular tourney, only that I wasn't in the hand you were talking about. But, I understand that while I wasn't in that hand in particular, based on the way I was playing, you probably figured it was me. Though, truth be told, I doubt I would ever call off that much of my stack on a naked flush draw. Some questionable calls with A-rag, maybe, if I had a big stack, and was against a small stack all-in.

I admit that is stupid, and I should not do it. And I don't think I usually do, but I was playing a looser game (I was a bit on tilt after getting knocked out of the Sunday Million).

I'll have to re-look at the hand histories, but I'm pretty sure that this happened only one time when I CALLED an all in with A-rag. I might be wrong. I did push a few times with A-rag, and was called by another player, but you know that is a completely different situation.

Though I think I played a loose style, I was still only seeing flops less than 20% of the time. My usual number is closer to 10%. So for me, yeah, I played loose. However, it's obviously not just the number of flops you see, but the situations in which you see them. I can see 5% of flops, but if I only see flops with 5-7off, that's not going to do me very well.

But, it was weird for someone whose $VPIP is closer to 30% to say I was playing loose. I don't disagree, but contextually, it was a strange thing to take in, and probably illicited a response fro me that was.......more defensive than it should have been.

Anyway, we are all guilty of this type of thing from time to time, but hopefully by talking about it, we call all do it less.

Btw man, do you *honestly* believe that I mention poker books I have read because I like to cite "authority"? Honestly man. I would think that I am doing a horrible job getting my point across on my blog, but then I remember that you seem to be the only person out there who believes this stuff. So I have to think it is somehow your individual perception of what I write that is causing the mixup between my intention and your perception.

Btw "authority" plays no more a role in what I do as a lawyer than "precedent" does. And I work every day to get better at my job just like most trial lawyers do.

Of the lawyer/bloggers I can think of off the top of my head, there seems to be a disproportionate amount of online drama involving them. And after thinking on this, I am not surprised. While playing poker and being a lawyer may have similarities, I do not believe lawyering and post game analysis and skill improvement have anything in common.

One of the interesting threads that came out of the TripJax / Hoy posts about lawyers in poker, is that there appears to be a bit of selection bias going on. Yes, there are many poker bloggers who happen to be lawyers. In the NYC area alone, I can count 8 (if you count Jersey City) of them that are part of our little community. And yes, there has been some drama involving some of the aforementioned folks.

But step back for a minute before you make sweeping generalizations about the relationship between lawyer poker bloggers and drama.

When a stereotype is made, each action by a member of that group that fits within the stereotype serves to reinforce that view further.

So, if the stereotype is that *all* / *most* lawyers tend to lean towards the hostile / dramatic, each individual action by a lawyer engaging in a hostile / dramatic event will amplify that stereotype much more so than a non-lawyer engaging in similar activity.

But if, for example, a non-lawyer poker blogger engages in the same activity, it is not associated with a pre-formed view of that particular person's professional background. So it becomes less relevant.

As for whether or not lawyering bears any relationship to post-game analysis and skill improvement, I agree with you to some extent. Post-game analysis and skill improvement are a personal choice. We are all equipped to some extent or another with the capacity to be self-reflective. I'm not sure, however, what bearing this has on anything other than to serve as a medium through which you can make a veiled attempt to *prove* that lawyers are not *trained* to self-analyze.

Honestly, when I first started reading Hoy's blog, I was one of the unnamed *offenders* of bad play. I donked off a ton of chips with an A-rag hand against Hoy's better A-kicker and lucksacked a three-outer to make a full house. I'm sure that this did not sit well with him at all. Obviously, because he posted about it the next day. Although it might have appeared to some as an *attack*, I actually took the time to think critically about my decision to play the hand in the first place, and then about the actions that I took post-flop. I personally believe that Hoy and I had a very constructive dialogue about the hand, although it was a *tad* irksome at first to be one of the Hoy *offenders.*

I believe that there are many people out there who are naturally inclined to disregard things that Hoy and others say / type because the manner in which it is presented is not as *sensitive* as the manner in which others present things. And yes, there may be times when there is actual hostility involved, but I am not in a position to comment on the motives behind another's actions.

I may be drinking the AFC Kool-Aid these days, but having engaged in several dialogues with these guys, as well as many others throughout our diverse community, I have learned how to take a more critical view of my game. And yes, sometimes the message isn't pretty. There's a lot of brutal honesty involved.

I may not always agree with their view, but that's the best part of the dialogue.

As I had mentioned in a previous post, there is a contextual vitality to every hand of poker that is dealt. Yes, we can talk percentages and position and all of that good stuff. But replaying a single hand over and over even with the same set of opponents will not necessarily result in the same ending. That is because there are so many factors that go into the game. It is something that experience teaches you. And, as a relative newbie to the game, there are plenty of those out there who have way more experience than I.

If you remove the emotional aspect of the whole dialogue, you might find a little nugget of wisdom in there.

Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Spoon boy: There is no spoon.
Neo: There is no spoon?
Spoon boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.

Hoy, I'm a bit confused. Authority plays no part in being a lawyer? Or just in what you do? Law itself is the authority, from which lawyers construct arguments for or against something, right? IANAL, obviously.

Do I think your posts site the fact that you read lots of poker books, talk about how you are constantly analyzing your game, and claim you are the foremost blog covering poker analysis has anything to do something other than establishing yourself as an authority?

Yes, I do. It is not just about establishing yourself as an authority, it is also about your approach to the game, but has a side effect that makes you seem pompous at times. I'm sure I'm not the "only person out there who believes this stuff" as evidenced by the pre-ballot box stuffing win you managed in the Most Hated Blogger Poll.

I don't hate, you, in fact, I like you. I votes for waffles. I actually think we are a lot alike, and its easy to see faults in other people that I have in myself. But I'm not the only person out there that interprets some of the things you say in a negative way, which admittedly, and I mention this in the parent entry, is easy to do online where tone is difficult to interpret.

Ok, Just saw Bwop's comment. I should have never called out the lawyers, or at least realized what I was getting myself into.

1) The generalization was to illustrate a point, not to say something about all lawyers..
2) I do get constructive things out of Hoy.
3) I think self analysis is needed more by all, including myself.
4) Hand histories are not subject to opinion.

That just about covers it.

VinNay,

On point 1: I personally believe that any generalization opens you to debate from any member of the generalized group that refuses to be placed into a box. Unfortunately, this may actually detract from the overall point of your post. But I understand that lawyers as a group are often to subject to such things. That's the nature of the profession, I suppose.

On point 4: I'm not following your point here. Are you saying that the actual histories themselves (just the facts here in terms of who raised / called / folded in a particular instance) are not subject to opinion, or are you saying that the rationale behind each of the aforemention factual events is not subject to opinion? I would certainly hope that you meant the former.

All lawyers are over-billing fishcakes.

Nice post Vin.

CK -

Point 1 - I'm not really complaining about the reaction. The Lawyer bit wasn't REALLY the point of the post, but at the same time, I don't feel to bad about it. Lawyers are a scum-sucking leech on society. :) Like you said, occupational hazard.

Point 4 - The former, obviously. The hand histories themselves (just the facts) are not subject to opinion. The rational behind the actions of course are subject to debate. I was just referencing Hoy's occasional comment on hands where he gets all the actual details wrong.

The 1-4 points started as a response to you, and ended up being a recap of what I thought the important points of the post were. Didn't mean to cause confusion.

Glad to see where I stand in your personal pecking order of life.

Have a nice life in your little box.

I don't know what blogs you read and stuff but I think it just depends. I like Hoy's blog but I don't read them as seriously as I used to because I felt like I wasn't getting as much out of them as I used to. I'm not saying I'm too good for it or anything. Just, not there for me personally. On the other hand, guys like cmitch and gnome are ones I religiously read these days because their situations are more interesting to me. But it might also be that they tend to post cash game situations vs Hoy's tournament situations and since I play a lot more cash games, that's just what I prefer.

I also like entertainment but generally, I enjoy getting poker thoughts out of a blog. So, even though I have Waffles on bloglines, it's rare that I read his blog. Same goes for quite a few people. Nothing against them. Just I have them on bloglines cuz I wanna at least skim through what they write but generally, I don't get much out of it and in that case, I don't read them as religiously as I do others. But that's the same no matter where it is. I mean even 2+2, you have to sift through a lot of garbage sometimes, just to get to the good stuff.

CK - I thought it was an obvious joke, thats what the smiley face means.

Hey Vinny, it's your play Adolph. Can I have my views back please?

That's my point exactly.

A lot of the whole *drama* of which you speak often starts with with a misunderstood joke.

And, on top of that, for someone who really wants to engage in constructive dialogue, you sure do resort to name-calling (even jokingly) real fast.

Anyway, I was hoping this thread would move into a constructive direction.

But it appears that it has not.

Great Post Vin. You just HAD to bring lawyers into it!? Having something resembling a winning argument will only get them mad.

While i disagree with your drama angle, I may be in your corner on the objective analysis portion, at least for Hoy(wink).

I have nothing else to add, just crunching on some pop corn.

I think the lawyer generalization was really a red herring that detracted from the core message at the heart of your post, VinNay, which was a valuable musing about the poker blogosphere.

Skidoo - yeah, I was probably stretching it a bit with the drama angle.

Pirate - Your right, the lawyer generalization was a distraction, but I thought it was a good way to talk about the difference between logical analysis and critical thinking. In retrospect, I should have used something else to parallel can contrast the ideas.*

BTW** - I assume most of your work representing hard working and often under-represented Pirates is Pro Bono work, so don't think my generalizations apply to you. You are however a Canadian, so I have a whole other list of generalization on that. Watch for upcoming post.

*No lawyers were hurt in the posing of this comment
**This is meant to be light hearted and funny, not serious.