Thursday, October 14, 2010

You Can't Handle the Proof!

There is a discussion about an SnG hand going on at the FTP message boards here. The hand in question is actually very interesting; the difference between play options is very thin, and the correct play is not as intuitive as you might think. I suggest you read through it if you have the time. I was surprised to find that my inital instinct (fold pre) also proved to be the most profitable play in this case.

What I find funny about this thread is the stubbornness of the posters who insist that they are right, even after they are proven wrong. They just slightly change their opinion... only to be proven wrong again. And they still don't give up!

"horseplyr" is particularly amusing. I've tangled a bit with him before on some issues. His MO is the following: he will not commit to any specific action in an HH analysis unless another poster who he has deemed "worthy" comments on the hand. He will then claim the comment as his own and defend it vehemently, despite all evidence he is wrong. Any evidence brought forth against "his" opinion is wrong, simply because that person does not have the experience "necessary experience" that the ones he has deemed worthy possess.

Basically, he's a sheep.

He's a follower who only knows what is good if someone tells him it is. He cannot think for himself; he only goes along with what the "best" players do. Read the thread for yourself. He goes from confused, to non-committal, to argumentative, to ABSOLUTELY sure I am wrong... all without offering any proof that he is correct. The only proof you will find in the thread is my math showing thaT a fold is best.

So, why does horseplyr not offer up any proof? Either:
a) he really doesn't understand why he's choosing his opinion (much like a sheep follows a shepherd and doesn't understand why)
or
b) there is no way to prove he is correct.

Or both.

I think I'm done posting in the thread; I've certainly made my point. However, I will continue to monitor the thread to see just how much more arguing goes on (and how foolish horseplyr makes himself look in the process).

No comments: