Two More YouTube Know-It-Alls
Tomtektest
"In the summer of 1960, I bought a copy of Radio Electronics -- the first I'd ever seen..." That was nearly 60 years ago, we're talking about here. He mentions this was the beginning of a "ten year quest" to understand more about tube amps.
The bullshit begins here.
- The transformers weren't very good: they'd go up to 25KHz. Actually, that's pretty damn good for 1950s consumer electronics
- Triode finals meant being stuck with low power. A push-pull pair of 811As will get you north of 100W easily. A PP pair of 845s will do over 300W.
- Confuses PP transformer loading with single ended. Contrary to his claim, you don't have DC magnetization problems if you use push-pull -- one of the reasons to prefer it to single ended operation.
It goes on and on, over several videos. He obviously misunderstands feedback, he knows nothing of Nyquist and his stability criteria, confuses decoupling for high frequency stability measures, doesn't know about phase compensation for improving high frequency phase margin. He dismisses the LTP phase splitter simply because he can't understand it even though it's probably the best possible design: balanced AC output if you use active tail loading, and balanced harmonic distortion between phases. Unlike the cathodyne, the LTP also provides voltage gain.
How he could "quest" for ten years and learn so little in nearly sixty years is beyond me. In all that time, he never heard of the Radiotron Designers Handbook, as all he ever studied were consumer magazines, and that's not the best source material. His channel is a must avoid if you really want to learn about hollow state audio. It's just one dumbassed video after another.
Doug Polk
The Mostest Craziestest Fucking Call in all of Fucking Poker History!
You have a $300 open from UTG+1: totally standard. He gets an overcall behind him, and the player on the button calls the open with (3,4-o). Here, Polk makes a big fucking deal about how you should never, never never, like fucking NEVER, call with (3,4-o). He then compares this hand to (J2-o).
There simply is no comparison. A (J2-o) is effectively a one card hand. The deuce does not work with the jack in any way, shape, or form. At least with a (3,4) both cards are working together.
If you review the action, there was an open from up front, and multiple calls before it got to the button with (3,4-o). Was this as "insane" a call as Polk would have you believe? It isn't. It's safe to assume that the original opener wasn't playing threes or fours. It's also not likely the callers were calling with small cards either. The most likely hands ahead of the (3,4) are Broadways (A, K, Q, J, T). That means that they not only block each other, but that the remainder of the deck is likely rich in the very cards (3,4) wants to see: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
The rest of Polk's analysis is similarly flawed. Gal flops a pair of threes on a (7c, 3c, 2s) board. That's not so good as flopping two pair, but here, what can the other players really have? They can't have straights (a deuce and a seven don't stretch that far) Sevens are also unlikely, given the pre-flop action. Overpairs and sets are somewhat likely, but the lion's share of hands are going to be flush draws and bluffs. A hand like (A,K) especially if it has the Ac, just might get stubborn on that board, either believing he can barrel off the small pair, or maybe he's betting for thin value with the best A-high, no pair hand.
On the river, Polk says Gal should just fold. However, that's not the case unless you're playing an absolute fish. What can Art really have here? If he hit a ten or jack, that's not really good enough to shove all-in here. What worse hand can call? A pair of nines? None too damn likely! He still has to worry about being over-paired, so a smaller bet for thin value would make more sense. All the draws missed, except for an unlikely (9,8) runner-runner straight. That could be possible as (9,8) has overcards to the board, but it's a long shot. The all-in is either trips that were trapping from the flop onwards, or it's just what it looks like: a desperation bluff from something like (A,K) or a missed flush draw. Gal certainly doesn't have an auto fold here. Gal calls and wins with his pair of treys. Yes, things could have gone wrong: Art could have been slow playing pocket aces or kings, waiting to see if that club flush came in before dropping the hammer. He could have made a big pair with (Ac,Jc) or hit trip tens or jacks, or even that unlikely runner-runner straight. Those are the chances you take: no guts, no glory. That's just how deep stack, no-limit is.
Why would Polk say this? He has a reputation as a Poker coach/instructor. However, this reminds me of that Paul Newman movie about the pool hustler where Newman tells his eager young gun protege: "I taught you everything you know, but I didn't teach you everything I know". It looks to me like this principle is in operation here. Polk damn well knows everything I just wrote here, and he intends to make this same play in the future, and doesn't want any of his potential opponents to know this. As for Poker coaches/instructors, I don't 100% trust them not to mislead and/or hold back knowledge. If you want to learn Poker, there simply is no substitute for sitting your ass down behind a stack of chips and paying attention to both your successful plays, your mistakes, and those of your opponents. Poker vids, books, web sites, and coaches are a short cut that will hold your losses down while you develop your own game. No substitute for experience here.
Granted, calling raises with hands as weak as (3,4-o) isn't anything you want to make a habit of. It's still something to consider under the right conditions. "An important element to deep stack no-limit Hold 'Em is some trickery so your opponent doesn't always know what you have".
Isn't that what Gal did here?