• Welcome Notice

    Welcome Guest to SexForum!

    New Zealand’s Fastest Growing Adult Entertainment Forum!

Sugar Daddy Diaries - Shaye the 18 year old

Daok: I scooped in a MTT on GG poker recently and am keen to put some (50k USD) on the line in a 5/10 NLHE HU match up on the same site if you're keen.

Online grinder v B&M grinder could be fun for the forum who could spectate the game in real time.

No hate btw i enjoy your presence on the forum.
 
bigdicktrump said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...

Also if I win he has to stake me (25%) for more regular higher level cash play (generous but yet to be negotiated ROI).

I believe him - he is a very wealthy man.

All good if he rejects this part since I didn't put it into the original message.
 
Last edited:
OnlyHermes said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
Let’s not make this fine thread about me and the little dick guy’s hysterics.

Sounds like you’re doing great, so well done, you’re clearly a good player. I’m not an online guy; I don’t want to go up against someone with GTO Wizard (or whatever) in their phone. (Not accusing you).

My skillset is based on exploiting the mistakes players make face-to-face, using live tells, speech play, psychological manipulation, accurately putting people on ranges and aggressively destroying their strategies. It's not pretty.

Also, I don’t play for fun or ego. I support 30+ people through my gambling, virtually everyone I grew up with who’s survived. I do this by playing weak, rich players. If you want to make real money in this game, I suggest you find out how to get invited into big soft home games; it’s where the money is.

I do host an unraked home game at my house, but you’d need at least the $50k in cash to get into it. But you’ll hate my guts when you see me cover you 4 or 5x and realise what a predatory cunt I am at the table.

Sorry, everyone else, for side-tracking this excellent thread.
 
This response says quite a bit, both about how he wants to present himself and what he’s possibly trying to deflect. Here’s a clear-eyed take:





1️⃣ What he’s conveying (intentionally):





  • He positions himself as a live exploitative player rather than an online GTO (Game Theory Optimal) grinder.
  • He says he doesn’t care about ego contests and only plays profitable spots (soft, rich opponents).
  • He emphasizes that poker is his livelihood and supports a lot of people, which is why he picks “soft” targets.
  • He offers an alternative (his private home game) but on terms that are harder to verify and advantage him (large cash buy-in, on his turf).







2️⃣ What this signals (reading between the lines):





  • Avoiding public scrutiny: Declining an online heads-up challenge where results are transparent, tracked, and unambiguous.
  • Positioning himself as above it: He frames the decline as being too professional and pragmatic to engage in “ego” battles, rather than lacking skill.
  • Possible protective excuses: Bringing up GTO tools is a common pretext people use when they feel outclassed or want to avoid online play.
  • Creating an intimidating persona: Calling himself a “predatory cunt,” emphasizing big bankroll, speech play, and psychological manipulation—this can be a strategy to discourage further challenges by making himself look formidable.







3️⃣ Red flags or credibility questions:





  • Any real multimillionaire pro who truly plays massive stakes would have no trouble demonstrating competence in a tracked online environment if they wanted to.
  • Emphasis on unverifiable home games (“you’ll need $50k cash to sit with me”) is exactly where less skilled players can still maintain an illusion of success because no records exist.
  • The attempt to reframe the challenger as naive or small-time is a classic deflection.







Summary Judgment:


This reply is not the statement of someone eager to prove their skill in a transparent venue. It’s a carefully worded dodge, wrapped in bravado and framed as moral high ground. He may well be a successful live player—some are purely live exploiters—but this answer leans heavily on reputation projection rather than any willingness to back it up in public.





If you’re evaluating credibility, treat this as a pretty standard poker brag/deflection combo, and be aware that many real pros, even exploitative live ones, don’t feel the need to talk like this.
 
Yes—this definitely adds useful context.





What this challenge was:





  • A clear, transparent, public invitation:
    • $50,000 bankroll commitment (not trivial, but not nosebleed either).
    • Played online at 5/10 NLHE heads-up tables (i.e., moderately high stakes, but still widely trackable and observable).
    • A fair format: each player has the same conditions (same platform, same software).
    • Public accountability: spectators can watch the match in real time, no ambiguity about results.







How this clarifies the guy’s response:


This context reinforces that his reply was a defensive sidestep. The challenge was:


✅ Not ego-driven, just a legitimate test of skill.


✅ Not low stakes—$50k is serious.


✅ Perfectly suited to verifying real ability.


✅ Hosted on GG Poker, where all hands are recorded.





His refusal to participate in this, combined with the blustery explanation about only playing live “soft targets,” strongly suggests:





  • He either doesn’t feel comfortable his edge would hold up in a fair online setting against an experienced grinder.
  • Or he wants to avoid any environment that makes results permanently verifiable and shareable.
  • Or both.







What stands out most:


The fact that he didn’t counter with any comparable format—e.g., “Sure, let’s play live at a casino, here’s a casino I trust,” or “Let’s stream a live match”—but instead pivoted to his private, unraked home game is telling. That’s the least transparent possible venue.





Verdict with this added context:


His response is a textbook example of someone protecting a cultivated reputation without risking transparent exposure. Whether he’s outright bluffing about being a “multimillionaire pro” or simply knows he’d be at a disadvantage online, this decline is extremely consistent with wanting to maintain the myth rather than demonstrate skill under scrutiny.





If he were genuinely confident, this would have been a golden opportunity to:





  • Publicly showcase his talent, and
  • Cement credibility once and for all.







Instead, he passed—and wrapped it in a story about how only amateurs care about proving themselves. That doesn’t make his claims impossible, but it’s absolutely a credibility ding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top