Does Hachem have a point or not?

[zachvac]

I have to agree that the all in donkfest with marginal hands is going to be hurtful to poker players everywhere. We are trying to get online poker legalized and you bet many lawmakers will be watching to try and make a determination if poker is a game of skill or luck. If the tv crews aren't careful they will do more harm than good to the game when they edit all of this knowing Barney Franks bill is being pushed and knowing many others are trying like hell to get online poker banned. Hachem may very well be a douche and a whiner but he has point if you get through his horrible rant.

As for exploiting these idiots, I agree, you're a pro so outplay them and exploit them. I also must say that it has to be pretty frustrating to flop a set only to see one of the hyper aggressive donks call you down and push with their J4 suited because the flop came out QJ5 rainbow and they think their middle pair is good only to hit runner runner flush on you and cracking your set of Q's. That type of play being aired right now could be pretty damaging to our cause to get online poker legalized within the US and many other countries and have legal transactions between the banking institutions.

So regardless if Hachem is nothing but a ranting douche bag, he has a point, he doesn't speak it very well but neither do many of us.

*With all of that said, I personally don't have a problem with the hyper aggressive players, I am just concerned at the timing with everything that is going on is all.

Actually if he's right the fact that those guys play bad and are very unlikely to win actually helps our case. If everyone plays perfectly there is a lot more luck in poker.

 

[BM0529]

I've said it on here about 5-10 times, loose aggressive is a weak style of play for about 85-90% of people, they are maybe 10% of people who can eventually master the style into one that wins and it takes about 5-7 years of playing before this can occur, if after that long you're still a losing player under loose aggressive you should probably try another style...Gus Hansen, Rheem, and Scotty Nguyen would be examples of some who have it down well and I'm not so sure I'd even put Scotty totally into that category as he plays tight more frequently than those other two (Dwan is about 70% of the way to mastering it but is not totally there yet)....tight aggressive can be mastered a heck of a lot better and with less years of playing experience (maybe 3 or so years of playing)...nobody is saying you can't ever bluff, but a tight aggressive player who for brief periods in a tourney or session plays loose to me is alot more effective than someone who is going loose aggressive the entire time.

 

[Jarod1231]

The day the main event becomes a donkament is the day I shoot myself in the head.

Or just give up poker. Whichever one seems like an easier decision to make at the time.

You never watched Jamie Gold play did you? lol

 

[GCB]

complaining about bad play is always hard for me to listen to. If its bad play then beat it. You have to play the table you are at, not some ideal table.

Trying win with a table full of players who don't care about their chips is sort of like trying to win a sailing contest in a hurricane. Yeah, the best sailor should win, but the best sailor is going to "win" by docking his boat and heading inland. As for the rest, the luckiest will "win."

I've played some three-round online tournanaments where in the first hand of the round half the table goes all-in and the winner gets half the chips and then the ones who didn't go all-in have to take on the winner with a 1-to-5 stack ratio. I've won that way but you really have to get some cards and take out a couple of the other player's stacks to do it. Mostly it's just tedious.

 

[zachvac]

I've said it on here about 5-10 times, loose aggressive is a weak style of play for about 85-90% of people, they are maybe 10% of people who can eventually master the style into one that wins and it takes about 5-7 years of playing before this can occur, if after that long you're still a losing player under loose aggressive you should probably try another style...Gus Hansen, Rheem, and Scotty Nguyen would be examples of some who have it down well and I'm not so sure I'd even put Scotty totally into that category as he plays tight more frequently than those other two (Dwan is about 70% of the way to mastering it but is not totally there yet)....tight aggressive can be mastered a heck of a lot better and with less years of playing experience (maybe 3 or so years of playing)...nobody is saying you can't ever bluff, but a tight aggressive player who for brief periods in a tourney or session plays loose to me is alot more effective than someone who is going loose aggressive the entire time.

lol what?

 

[MrMuckets]

I'm inclined to agree with Hachem's original rant.

 

[Monoxide]

lol what?

Heh...

He hits $1million on october the 9th, proceeds to lose $989,000 on october the 10th.

Awesome. Ups!

 

[StormRaven]

Actually if he's right the fact that those guys play bad and are very unlikely to win actually helps our case. If everyone plays perfectly there is a lot more luck in poker.

I did not think of that - great point!

 

[upperdawg]

everyone gets upset sometime.this was his day.i still like him..:smile:

 

[Crystal Blue]

Actually if he's right the fact that those guys play bad and are very unlikely to win actually helps our case. If everyone plays perfectly there is a lot more luck in poker.

I did not think of that - great point!

Hypothetical I know, but I'm not so sure about this. I would be inclined to think that if everyone played perfect poker, it would in fact display to the lawmakers that skill is indeed the defining factor.

 

[vanquish]

Hypothetical I know, but I'm not so sure about this. I would be inclined to think that if everyone played perfect poker, it would in fact display to the lawmakers that skill is indeed the defining factor.

how would it "display" that? if everyone played perfect poker, no one would have an edge on anyone else, so the only determining factor of who wins / loses would be variance (luck)

 

[Crystal Blue]

how would it "display" that? if everyone played perfect poker, no one would have an edge on anyone else, so the only determining factor of who wins / loses would be variance (luck)

Let me explain where I am coming from............

Lets look at it from the anti online poker establishments point of view looking in from the outside. To help explain my thought process lets use the following example. ( All hypothetical )

Player one = Married man with 2 children and a mortgage who plays perfect poker.
Player two = Married man with 2 children and a mortgage who plays bad poker.

Player one has a much better chance of being viewed by the anti establishment as someone who displays responsibility both to the game, and to his family because he plays perfect poker. Player two on the other hand, is the kind of player the anti establishment like to use as an example of irresponsibility due to his poor play.

They get excited about player two because it's an excuse for them to imply that he could well be effecting his ability to properly provide for his family due to his poor poker play. He is the sort of player they like to use as ammunition when they claim average Joe is sitting at home in front of his computer frittering away monies playing a game of chance.

They can't use that excuse with player one though. He is much more likely to be seen as someone who is displaying his skill and knowledge of the game, and is much less likely to be financially neglecting his family. Thus they have less ammunition to use in their quest against online gambling.

Yes of course if everyone played perfect poker then luck/variance would become pivotal ( even I know that ) the only real winners would be the pokersites while the players would just be pushing their money around in circles forever more.

My point is that the anti establishment brigade would have far less ammunition to use against online poker if online poker players were all perfect players. They sure would have a big party if all were bad players though. It's all hypothetical anyway as the scenario that all could play perfect poker will never happen. This is just my opinion on what Zach originally said. I hope that explains the way I see it, and it's just an opinion.

 

[crow27]

I have 2 thoughts on this.

First, yes he is bitching about the play by LAGs, but what it sounds like is he doesn't understand why an opponent would throw in say a 250 blind bet just to win a smallish pot with 100 or so players left. The risk/reward is not there in his mind.

2. The ME is the worlds biggest buy in donkament without a doubt. Out of 6500 players, how many are LIVE pros? 100? maybe 150? If that many. Hachem does have a point about how the internet pros make their living. Just play as many tables as you can in the shortest amount of time as you can. There is a difference of playing enough to reduce varience (online), and IMO playing one at a time, live, for real. (real poker skills)

 

[damon789]

Aussie Joe is a smart dude

I can't see Hachem whining about a style that he can't exploit.He is a smart dude and likely has an angle he's exploiting.If not I would be surprised.



Snow

Joe Hachem isn't a douche ,he's actually a very cool guy. He's used his profile to

help out a lot of charities and he always says Gday when I chat to him on

Stars.Classy guy ,not a douche.