| |
Main
Date: 22 Dec 2008 15:20:13
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Poker hand for discussion
|
mccard seems to think that he played this just fine and that he suffered a
bad beat. Any comments?
PokerStars Game #23124523123: Tournament #127001142, $5.00+$0.50 Hold'em
No Limit - Level III (25/50) - 2008/12/21 13:43:54 ET
Table '127001142 628' 9-max Seat #7 is the button
Seat 1: crryyiill (4845 in chips)
Seat 2: mccard (2990 in chips)
Seat 3: Icecreamman6 (4955 in chips)
Seat 4: S.U.K.6 (1665 in chips)
Seat 5: Lars Vergas (2990 in chips)
Seat 6: fbks_moose (7755 in chips)
Seat 7: KISSMYPJS (2225 in chips)
Seat 8: J-Stimpson (1175 in chips)
Seat 9: atype (4110 in chips)
J-Stimpson: posts small blind 25
atype: posts big blind 50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to mccard [Ks Js]
crryyiill: calls 50
mccard: calls 50
Icecreamman6: calls 50
S.U.K.6: folds
Lars Vergas: raises 250 to 300
fbks_moose: folds
KISSMYPJS: folds
J-Stimpson: folds
atype: folds
crryyiill: calls 250
mccard: calls 250
Icecreamman6: calls 250
*** FLOP *** [Ah Ts Ac]
crryyiill: checks
mccard: checks
Icecreamman6: checks
Lars Vergas: bets 300
crryyiill: folds
mccard: calls 300
Icecreamman6: folds
*** TURN *** [Ah Ts Ac] [Qs]
mccard: checks
Lars Vergas: bets 2390 and is all-in
mccard: calls 2390 and is all-in
*** RIVER *** [Ah Ts Ac Qs] [Th]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
mccard: shows [Ks Js] (a straight, Ten to Ace)
Lars Vergas: shows [As Kd] (a full house, Aces full of Tens)
Lars Vergas collected 6655 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 6655
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:51:28
From: charrison100
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 22 2008 6:20 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> mccard seems to think that he played this just fine and that he suffered a
> bad beat. Any comments?
>
> PokerStars Game #23124523123: Tournament #127001142, $5.00+$0.50 Hold'em
> No Limit - Level III (25/50) - 2008/12/21 13:43:54 ET
> Table '127001142 628' 9-max Seat #7 is the button
> Seat 1: crryyiill (4845 in chips)
> Seat 2: mccard (2990 in chips)
> Seat 3: Icecreamman6 (4955 in chips)
> Seat 4: S.U.K.6 (1665 in chips)
> Seat 5: Lars Vergas (2990 in chips)
> Seat 6: fbks_moose (7755 in chips)
> Seat 7: KISSMYPJS (2225 in chips)
> Seat 8: J-Stimpson (1175 in chips)
> Seat 9: atype (4110 in chips)
> J-Stimpson: posts small blind 25
> atype: posts big blind 50
> *** HOLE CARDS ***
> Dealt to mccard [Ks Js]
> crryyiill: calls 50
> mccard: calls 50
Not bad but why not raise?
> Icecreamman6: calls 50
> S.U.K.6: folds
> Lars Vergas: raises 250 to 300
> fbks_moose: folds
> KISSMYPJS: folds
> J-Stimpson: folds
> atype: folds
> crryyiill: calls 250
> mccard: calls 250
Why what did you think he had? I'd probably call too.
> Icecreamman6: calls 250
> *** FLOP *** [Ah Ts Ac]
> crryyiill: checks
> mccard: checks
> Icecreamman6: checks
> Lars Vergas: bets 300
> crryyiill: folds
> mccard: calls 300
When he raised into limpers and then bet on this flop what did you think
he had. I would be thinking A here. This is where I'd dump it.
> Icecreamman6: folds
> *** TURN *** [Ah Ts Ac] [Qs]
> mccard: checks
> Lars Vergas: bets 2390 and is all-in
> mccard: calls 2390 and is all-in
bad card for you. I would love it if he had an A now. I am calling too.
> *** RIVER *** [Ah Ts Ac Qs] [Th]
> *** SHOW DOWN ***
> mccard: shows [Ks Js] (a straight, Ten to Ace)
> Lars Vergas: shows [As Kd] (a full house, Aces full of Tens)
> Lars Vergas collected 6655 from pot
> *** SUMMARY ***
> Total pot 6655
|
| |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 05:34:08
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 22 2008 6:20 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> mccard seems to think that he played this just fine and that he suffered a
> bad beat. Any comments?
>
> PokerStars Game #23124523123: Tournament #127001142, $5.00+$0.50 Hold'em
> No Limit - Level III (25/50) - 2008/12/21 13:43:54 ET
> Table '127001142 628' 9-max Seat #7 is the button
> Seat 1: crryyiill (4845 in chips)
> Seat 2: mccard (2990 in chips)
> Seat 3: Icecreamman6 (4955 in chips)
> Seat 4: S.U.K.6 (1665 in chips)
> Seat 5: Lars Vergas (2990 in chips)
> Seat 6: fbks_moose (7755 in chips)
> Seat 7: KISSMYPJS (2225 in chips)
> Seat 8: J-Stimpson (1175 in chips)
> Seat 9: atype (4110 in chips)
> J-Stimpson: posts small blind 25
> atype: posts big blind 50
> *** HOLE CARDS ***
> Dealt to mccard [Ks Js]
> crryyiill: calls 50
> mccard: calls 50
> Icecreamman6: calls 50
> S.U.K.6: folds
> Lars Vergas: raises 250 to 300
> fbks_moose: folds
> KISSMYPJS: folds
> J-Stimpson: folds
> atype: folds
> crryyiill: calls 250
> mccard: calls 250
> Icecreamman6: calls 250
> *** FLOP *** [Ah Ts Ac]
> crryyiill: checks
> mccard: checks
> Icecreamman6: checks
> Lars Vergas: bets 300
> crryyiill: folds
> mccard: calls 300
> Icecreamman6: folds
> *** TURN *** [Ah Ts Ac] [Qs]
> mccard: checks
> Lars Vergas: bets 2390 and is all-in
> mccard: calls 2390 and is all-in
> *** RIVER *** [Ah Ts Ac Qs] [Th]
> *** SHOW DOWN ***
> mccard: shows [Ks Js] (a straight, Ten to Ace)
> Lars Vergas: shows [As Kd] (a full house, Aces full of Tens)
> Lars Vergas collected 6655 from pot
> *** SUMMARY ***
> Total pot 6655
|
| | |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 07:10:49
From:
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
SOCK PUPPET!
> Can we have some HH's that are worth discussing? Also, do we need to give
> the results right off the bat?
>
> Mccard played this hand about as poorly as possible. If you want to play
> this hand then you need to make it 300 pf. When AK pops it to 900-1000
> then you can just fold and move on. If AK just smooth calls (which is ver=
y
> possible) then you need to lead this flop and go from there. If smooth
> called again on the flop then you're going broke on this turn regardless,
> but at least you played it correctly.
>
> -----=A0
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted te=
xt -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 07:26:36
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 23 2008 9:10 AM, toddbryson wrote:
> SOCK PUPPET!
Shut up Xaq morphee you creep!
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
_____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 07:09:14
From: I eat donks
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 23 2008 1:34 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
> Can we have some HH's that are worth discussing? Also, do we need to give
> the results right off the bat?
>
> Mccard played this hand about as poorly as possible. If you want to play
> this hand then you need to make it 300 pf. When AK pops it to 900-1000
> then you can just fold and move on. If AK just smooth calls (which is very
> possible) then you need to lead this flop and go from there. If smooth
> called again on the flop then you're going broke on this turn regardless,
> but at least you played it correctly.
Although a raise would have been better than a limp, why are we getting
inolved at all with such a marginal hand in EP on a full table, without
having enough information on the players behind us?
If we open-raise and fold to a reraise, we would be bleeding chips way
unnecessarily. Far better to fold these type hands until we have got to
know the players better.
Also, I fail to see why we should be going broke if we raised preflop and
AK smooth called. These type of flop shows why position is important.
Forget about leading out on the flop, check-fold and move along. It is
not written in stne that you must bet again after a preflp raise.
especially OOP on a scary flop. Yes, your K high might be good, and you
could take the pot with a continuation bet, but you have no idea where you
stand once you are called, and unless you hit a Q on the turn, you are
check-folding to any sort of a bet anyway, so build up the pot any further?
Even after you hit your miricle Q on the turn, you got to think you are
beat if there are any strong action unless you think your oppoent is an
utter donk. What could he possibly have with that sort of action (calling
an EP preflop raise, calling a flop bet and showing great strength on the
turn) on a board of AATQ?
'Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we'll Keep the red flag flying
here.' The Red Flag
____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:35:52
From: I eat donks
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 22 2008 11:20 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
Of course it was a bad beat! Don't you know that Painted Kojacks are the
nuts before the flop, from whatever position?
Also, gut draws should never be beaten, even on a paired ace flop with
strong preflop action.
Basically its typical of a low stakes buyin tourney, with two donks trying
to out donk each-other . No sure who played it worse. KJ suited
open-limping from EP then call a decent raise, and check-calling the very
dangerous flop on a gut shot when OOP, when he could well be drawing dead,
or AK moving all in on the turn after it was checked to him when the only
hands that could call would have AK crushed.
'Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we'll Keep the red flag flying
here.' The Red Flag
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 17:37:36
From:
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
It would seem that this hand was played with a lack of attention to
some pretty fundamental poker concepts. Calling raises with mediocre
hands and stacks not deep enough for reasonable implied odds to
compensate is bad enough, but to do it OOP is really poor poker. Then
calling with a gutshot on the AAT board is pretty poor. He was
getting 5:1 so its not as awful as the preflop play, but its really
asking for trouble. He obv got lucky on the turn and then unlucky on
the river - but in the end he pretty much got what he was asking for
the whole way, namely to get stacked.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:27:47
From:
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 22, 9:23=A0pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none > wrote:
> <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a5a397e2-f92c-4386-8063-fdeed5b37855@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 22, 8:56 pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:213e5871-0327-4ec8-b246-768d59f18dc5@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 22, 8:40 pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> wrote:
>
> > > <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:e8dc1361-6870-4cc7-961a-d3f9d0543f6e@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com=
...
>
> > > > It would seem that this hand was played with a lack of attention to
> > > > some pretty fundamental poker concepts. Calling raises with mediocr=
e
> > > > hands and stacks not deep enough for reasonable implied odds to
> > > > compensate is bad enough, but to do it OOP is really poor poker. Th=
en
> > > > calling with a gutshot on the AAT board is pretty poor. He was
> > > > getting 5:1 so its not as awful as the preflop play, but its really
> > > > asking for trouble. He obv got lucky on the turn and then unlucky o=
n
> > > > the river - but in the end he pretty much got what he was asking fo=
r
> > > > the whole way, namely to get stacked.
>
> > > Nice sock puppet Xaq.
> > >No, I am not XaQ - my normal username on here is RonDworkin, but for
> > >whatever reason the last couple of posts I made just put my email addy
> > >in, I think google groupos may have had some kind of update or
> > >something, I don't really know.
> > >Anyhow, I don't know you and certainly am not trying to flame you or
> > >whatever, I just gave my honest assessment of the hand he posted. If
> > >you want to discuss the hand I thats ok with me.
>
> > Not Xaq's PLO buddy RonDworkin come all the way over to RGP to pull for
> > his
> > little friend. How nice.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> >Yes, XaQ is my friend. =A0However, I really don't care one way or the
> >other about any argument that he has on RGP with anyone or if he or
> >anyone else is correct about a hand. =A0I gave my honest opinion, and if
> >you don't want to discuss it that is fine with me.
>
> I see, you always just happen to offer your honest opinion when your budd=
y
> is stalking someone and you haven't posted in what, 6-8 weeks. =A0Yeah, g=
ood
> try Xaq.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
um, I really don't know why I care at this point, but if some of the
members of the group that post regularly here that this guy might
believe could 'splain to him that I am not XaQ that would be swell.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 20:47:22
From: mccard
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
<toddbryson@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:c7bb2f05-3bd0-4f82-8e80-845afc0bc689@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 22, 9:23 pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none > wrote:
> <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a5a397e2-f92c-4386-8063-fdeed5b37855@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 22, 8:56 pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:213e5871-0327-4ec8-b246-768d59f18dc5@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 22, 8:40 pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> wrote:
>
> > > <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:e8dc1361-6870-4cc7-961a-d3f9d0543f6e@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > It would seem that this hand was played with a lack of attention to
> > > > some pretty fundamental poker concepts. Calling raises with mediocre
> > > > hands and stacks not deep enough for reasonable implied odds to
> > > > compensate is bad enough, but to do it OOP is really poor poker.
> > > > Then
> > > > calling with a gutshot on the AAT board is pretty poor. He was
> > > > getting 5:1 so its not as awful as the preflop play, but its really
> > > > asking for trouble. He obv got lucky on the turn and then unlucky on
> > > > the river - but in the end he pretty much got what he was asking for
> > > > the whole way, namely to get stacked.
>
> > > Nice sock puppet Xaq.
> > >No, I am not XaQ - my normal username on here is RonDworkin, but for
> > >whatever reason the last couple of posts I made just put my email addy
> > >in, I think google groupos may have had some kind of update or
> > >something, I don't really know.
> > >Anyhow, I don't know you and certainly am not trying to flame you or
> > >whatever, I just gave my honest assessment of the hand he posted. If
> > >you want to discuss the hand I thats ok with me.
>
> > Not Xaq's PLO buddy RonDworkin come all the way over to RGP to pull for
> > his
> > little friend. How nice.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> >Yes, XaQ is my friend. However, I really don't care one way or the
> >other about any argument that he has on RGP with anyone or if he or
> >anyone else is correct about a hand. I gave my honest opinion, and if
> >you don't want to discuss it that is fine with me.
>
> I see, you always just happen to offer your honest opinion when your buddy
> is stalking someone and you haven't posted in what, 6-8 weeks. Yeah, good
> try Xaq.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>um, I really don't know why I care at this point, but if some of the
>members of the group that post regularly here that this guy might
>believe could 'splain to him that I am not XaQ that would be swell.
um, that you are being xaq's little sock puppet tonight, is all that
matters, right?
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:48:33
From: I eat donks
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 23 2008 2:27 AM, toddbryson wrote:
>
> um, I really don't know why I care at this point, but if some of the
> members of the group that post regularly here that this guy might
> believe could 'splain to him that I am not XaQ that would be swell.
I was a regular poster, but that was before this newsgroup turned into a
spam/religious nutters' feast, and before I started eating donks as part
of my staple diet.
I can vouch to the other donk that Ron and morphdonk are not the same
person. Or at least, I think no. But who knows for sure? For all we
know, Ron and Morphdonk and myself could be the same person with split
personalities, or figments or each-other's imagination. What we do know
for sure is that KJ played that hand horribly.
'Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we'll Keep the red flag flying
here.' The Red Flag
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 20:49:34
From: mccard
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
"I eat donks" <a154cfd@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:150626xmmc.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 23 2008 2:27 AM, toddbryson wrote:
>
>
>>
>> um, I really don't know why I care at this point, but if some of the
>> members of the group that post regularly here that this guy might
>> believe could 'splain to him that I am not XaQ that would be swell.
>
> I was a regular poster, but that was before this newsgroup turned into a
> spam/religious nutters' feast, and before I started eating donks as part
> of my staple diet.
>
> I can vouch to the other donk that Ron and morphdonk are not the same
> person. Or at least, I think no. But who knows for sure? For all we
> know, Ron and Morphdonk and myself could be the same person with split
> personalities, or figments or each-other's imagination. What we do know
> for sure is that KJ played that hand horribly.
>
> 'Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we'll Keep the red flag flying
> here.' The Red Flag
>
I thought PP had a lot of sock puppets, lol. This is sock puppet mastery,
xaq you are the master sock puppeteer, props to ya.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 22:05:01
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 22 2008 8:49 PM, mccard wrote:
> I thought PP had a lot of sock puppets, lol. This is sock puppet mastery,
> xaq you are the master sock puppeteer, props to ya.
Wow, you're a total moron. I was gone from 5:30cst-11:45cst and have at
least 4 people to vouch for it if you feel like "calling me out" and want
to accuse me of being rondworkin and nick wool.
Fact is, you're a fucking loser, you play like a loser, and you whine like
a loser. It's no wonder you can't finish in the top 2000 of a 5000 person
tournament week after week.
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:23:18
From:
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
And, just for you, this is what I had to say before I even knew that
this was in a thread he was debating on RGP (we are part of a
discussion group and this hand was posted there):
"limping in after a limper is ok with a hand like KsJs is ok I 'spose
if the table has been really limpy (not that I am going to limp it
from EP there), but then he calls a raise and plays a big pot OOP, and
calls the paired board with a gutshot? Its obviously a horribly played
hand. "
And then later when some other members of our group posted about the
thread on RGP I had this to say:
"Ya, I found the thread. Its pretty awful, and it seems like he has a
couple of pretty standard concepts mixed up. When you are short (he's
not really short, but lets just pretend he is since its part of his
thought process) you need to gamble a bit more to get in contention,
which is true, but "gamble" in this context means pushing more and
being more aggro preflop to pick up needed blinds and antes, the
opposite of when you are deep and can gamble by speculating hoping to
hit and stack someone - it seems he has mixed them together and has
decided the time to speculate is when you are "short.""
I never anticipated that those comments would be on RGP, so, as you
can see, it has nothing to do with trying to make XaQ correct, but
those are merely my thoughts on how the hand was played. Also, as one
of the other members of my group very correctly pointed out - it is
FAR more important to worry about your stack relative to the blinds
than it is to the average stack - and 3K in chips at 25-50 is not
short by a long shot.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 20:44:47
From: mccard
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
<toddbryson@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:4d798580-1895-4d41-9a31-a9caed190824@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
> And, just for you, this is what I had to say before I even knew that
> this was in a thread he was debating on RGP (we are part of a
> discussion group and this hand was posted there):
>
So my very own little stalker is posting this HH and ranting in other groups
as well. Nice friend you got there todd or xaq or doggie or whoever.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:08:11
From:
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 22, 8:56=A0pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none > wrote:
> <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:213e5871-0327-4ec8-b246-768d59f18dc5@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 22, 8:40 pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:e8dc1361-6870-4cc7-961a-d3f9d0543f6e@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com..=
.
>
> > > It would seem that this hand was played with a lack of attention to
> > > some pretty fundamental poker concepts. Calling raises with mediocre
> > > hands and stacks not deep enough for reasonable implied odds to
> > > compensate is bad enough, but to do it OOP is really poor poker. Then
> > > calling with a gutshot on the AAT board is pretty poor. He was
> > > getting 5:1 so its not as awful as the preflop play, but its really
> > > asking for trouble. He obv got lucky on the turn and then unlucky on
> > > the river - but in the end he pretty much got what he was asking for
> > > the whole way, namely to get stacked.
>
> > Nice sock puppet Xaq.
> >No, I am not XaQ - my normal username on here is RonDworkin, but for
> >whatever reason the last couple of posts I made just put my email addy
> >in, I think google groupos may have had some kind of update or
> >something, I don't really know.
> >Anyhow, I don't know you and certainly am not trying to flame you or
> >whatever, I just gave my honest assessment of the hand he posted. =A0If
> >you want to discuss the hand I thats ok with me.
>
> Not Xaq's PLO buddy RonDworkin come all the way over to RGP to pull for h=
is
> little friend. =A0How nice.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, XaQ is my friend. However, I really don't care one way or the
other about any argument that he has on RGP with anyone or if he or
anyone else is correct about a hand. I gave my honest opinion, and if
you don't want to discuss it that is fine with me.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 20:23:22
From: mccard
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
<toddbryson@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:a5a397e2-f92c-4386-8063-fdeed5b37855@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 22, 8:56 pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none > wrote:
> <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:213e5871-0327-4ec8-b246-768d59f18dc5@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 22, 8:40 pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:e8dc1361-6870-4cc7-961a-d3f9d0543f6e@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > It would seem that this hand was played with a lack of attention to
> > > some pretty fundamental poker concepts. Calling raises with mediocre
> > > hands and stacks not deep enough for reasonable implied odds to
> > > compensate is bad enough, but to do it OOP is really poor poker. Then
> > > calling with a gutshot on the AAT board is pretty poor. He was
> > > getting 5:1 so its not as awful as the preflop play, but its really
> > > asking for trouble. He obv got lucky on the turn and then unlucky on
> > > the river - but in the end he pretty much got what he was asking for
> > > the whole way, namely to get stacked.
>
> > Nice sock puppet Xaq.
> >No, I am not XaQ - my normal username on here is RonDworkin, but for
> >whatever reason the last couple of posts I made just put my email addy
> >in, I think google groupos may have had some kind of update or
> >something, I don't really know.
> >Anyhow, I don't know you and certainly am not trying to flame you or
> >whatever, I just gave my honest assessment of the hand he posted. If
> >you want to discuss the hand I thats ok with me.
>
> Not Xaq's PLO buddy RonDworkin come all the way over to RGP to pull for
> his
> little friend. How nice.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>Yes, XaQ is my friend. However, I really don't care one way or the
>other about any argument that he has on RGP with anyone or if he or
>anyone else is correct about a hand. I gave my honest opinion, and if
>you don't want to discuss it that is fine with me.
I see, you always just happen to offer your honest opinion when your buddy
is stalking someone and you haven't posted in what, 6-8 weeks. Yeah, good
try Xaq.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 22:26:26
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 22 2008 9:23 PM, mccard wrote:
> <toddbryson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a5a397e2-f92c-4386-8063-fdeed5b37855@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 22, 8:56 pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> wrote:
> > <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:213e5871-0327-4ec8-b246-768d59f18dc5@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 22, 8:40 pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >news:e8dc1361-6870-4cc7-961a-d3f9d0543f6e@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > It would seem that this hand was played with a lack of attention to
> > > > some pretty fundamental poker concepts. Calling raises with mediocre
> > > > hands and stacks not deep enough for reasonable implied odds to
> > > > compensate is bad enough, but to do it OOP is really poor poker. Then
> > > > calling with a gutshot on the AAT board is pretty poor. He was
> > > > getting 5:1 so its not as awful as the preflop play, but its really
> > > > asking for trouble. He obv got lucky on the turn and then unlucky on
> > > > the river - but in the end he pretty much got what he was asking for
> > > > the whole way, namely to get stacked.
> >
> > > Nice sock puppet Xaq.
> > >No, I am not XaQ - my normal username on here is RonDworkin, but for
> > >whatever reason the last couple of posts I made just put my email addy
> > >in, I think google groupos may have had some kind of update or
> > >something, I don't really know.
> > >Anyhow, I don't know you and certainly am not trying to flame you or
> > >whatever, I just gave my honest assessment of the hand he posted. If
> > >you want to discuss the hand I thats ok with me.
> >
> > Not Xaq's PLO buddy RonDworkin come all the way over to RGP to pull for
> > his
> > little friend. How nice.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >Yes, XaQ is my friend. However, I really don't care one way or the
> >other about any argument that he has on RGP with anyone or if he or
> >anyone else is correct about a hand. I gave my honest opinion, and if
> >you don't want to discuss it that is fine with me.
>
> I see, you always just happen to offer your honest opinion when your buddy
> is stalking someone and you haven't posted in what, 6-8 weeks. Yeah, good
> try Xaq.
Wow. Soon you'll be as batshit crazy as igotskillz if this keeps up.
Merry fucking Christmas.
Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 17:48:48
From:
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 22, 8:40=A0pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none > wrote:
> <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e8dc1361-6870-4cc7-961a-d3f9d0543f6e@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It would seem that this hand was played with a lack of attention to
> > some pretty fundamental poker concepts. =A0Calling raises with mediocre
> > hands and stacks not deep enough for reasonable implied odds to
> > compensate is bad enough, but to do it OOP is really poor poker. =A0The=
n
> > calling with a gutshot on the AAT board is pretty poor. =A0He was
> > getting 5:1 so its not as awful as the preflop play, but its really
> > asking for trouble. =A0He obv got lucky on the turn and then unlucky on
> > the river - but in the end he pretty much got what he was asking for
> > the whole way, namely to get stacked.
>
> Nice sock puppet Xaq.
No, I am not XaQ - my normal username on here is RonDworkin, but for
whatever reason the last couple of posts I made just put my email addy
in, I think google groupos may have had some kind of update or
something, I don't really know.
Anyhow, I don't know you and certainly am not trying to flame you or
whatever, I just gave my honest assessment of the hand he posted. If
you want to discuss the hand I thats ok with me.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 19:56:22
From: mccard
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
<toddbryson@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:213e5871-0327-4ec8-b246-768d59f18dc5@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 22, 8:40 pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none > wrote:
> <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e8dc1361-6870-4cc7-961a-d3f9d0543f6e@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It would seem that this hand was played with a lack of attention to
> > some pretty fundamental poker concepts. Calling raises with mediocre
> > hands and stacks not deep enough for reasonable implied odds to
> > compensate is bad enough, but to do it OOP is really poor poker. Then
> > calling with a gutshot on the AAT board is pretty poor. He was
> > getting 5:1 so its not as awful as the preflop play, but its really
> > asking for trouble. He obv got lucky on the turn and then unlucky on
> > the river - but in the end he pretty much got what he was asking for
> > the whole way, namely to get stacked.
>
> Nice sock puppet Xaq.
>No, I am not XaQ - my normal username on here is RonDworkin, but for
>whatever reason the last couple of posts I made just put my email addy
>in, I think google groupos may have had some kind of update or
>something, I don't really know.
>Anyhow, I don't know you and certainly am not trying to flame you or
>whatever, I just gave my honest assessment of the hand he posted. If
>you want to discuss the hand I thats ok with me.
Not Xaq's PLO buddy RonDworkin come all the way over to RGP to pull for his
little friend. How nice.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:37:51
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 22 2008 7:56 PM, mccard wrote:
> <toddbryson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:213e5871-0327-4ec8-b246-768d59f18dc5@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 22, 8:40 pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> wrote:
> > <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:e8dc1361-6870-4cc7-961a-d3f9d0543f6e@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > It would seem that this hand was played with a lack of attention to
> > > some pretty fundamental poker concepts. Calling raises with mediocre
> > > hands and stacks not deep enough for reasonable implied odds to
> > > compensate is bad enough, but to do it OOP is really poor poker. Then
> > > calling with a gutshot on the AAT board is pretty poor. He was
> > > getting 5:1 so its not as awful as the preflop play, but its really
> > > asking for trouble. He obv got lucky on the turn and then unlucky on
> > > the river - but in the end he pretty much got what he was asking for
> > > the whole way, namely to get stacked.
> >
> > Nice sock puppet Xaq.
>
> >No, I am not XaQ - my normal username on here is RonDworkin, but for
> >whatever reason the last couple of posts I made just put my email addy
> >in, I think google groupos may have had some kind of update or
> >something, I don't really know.
>
> >Anyhow, I don't know you and certainly am not trying to flame you or
> >whatever, I just gave my honest assessment of the hand he posted. If
> >you want to discuss the hand I thats ok with me.
>
> Not Xaq's PLO buddy RonDworkin come all the way over to RGP to pull for his
> little friend. How nice.
McFart..i dont think they have to gang up on you to make you look silly .
A gang of one will do fine !!
Look at it this .. at least you are making big hands in big pots
OF COURSE IT WAS NO GOOD !!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
---
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 20:41:45
From: mccard
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
"FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:vgv526xnkc.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 22 2008 7:56 PM, mccard wrote:
>
>> <toddbryson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:213e5871-0327-4ec8-b246-768d59f18dc5@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 22, 8:40 pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> wrote:
>> > <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:e8dc1361-6870-4cc7-961a-d3f9d0543f6e@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > > It would seem that this hand was played with a lack of attention to
>> > > some pretty fundamental poker concepts. Calling raises with mediocre
>> > > hands and stacks not deep enough for reasonable implied odds to
>> > > compensate is bad enough, but to do it OOP is really poor poker. Then
>> > > calling with a gutshot on the AAT board is pretty poor. He was
>> > > getting 5:1 so its not as awful as the preflop play, but its really
>> > > asking for trouble. He obv got lucky on the turn and then unlucky on
>> > > the river - but in the end he pretty much got what he was asking for
>> > > the whole way, namely to get stacked.
>> >
>> > Nice sock puppet Xaq.
>>
>> >No, I am not XaQ - my normal username on here is RonDworkin, but for
>> >whatever reason the last couple of posts I made just put my email addy
>> >in, I think google groupos may have had some kind of update or
>> >something, I don't really know.
>>
>> >Anyhow, I don't know you and certainly am not trying to flame you or
>> >whatever, I just gave my honest assessment of the hand he posted. If
>> >you want to discuss the hand I thats ok with me.
>>
>> Not Xaq's PLO buddy RonDworkin come all the way over to RGP to pull for
>> his
>> little friend. How nice.
>
> McFart..i dont think they have to gang up on you to make you look silly .
> A gang of one will do fine !!
>
> Look at it this .. at least you are making big hands in big pots
>
> OF COURSE IT WAS NO GOOD !!
>
hey there, village beggar, nice shot. So now you admit you are also a Xaq
sock puppet too, lol.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 19:40:59
From: mccard
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
<toddbryson@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:e8dc1361-6870-4cc7-961a-d3f9d0543f6e@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> It would seem that this hand was played with a lack of attention to
> some pretty fundamental poker concepts. Calling raises with mediocre
> hands and stacks not deep enough for reasonable implied odds to
> compensate is bad enough, but to do it OOP is really poor poker. Then
> calling with a gutshot on the AAT board is pretty poor. He was
> getting 5:1 so its not as awful as the preflop play, but its really
> asking for trouble. He obv got lucky on the turn and then unlucky on
> the river - but in the end he pretty much got what he was asking for
> the whole way, namely to get stacked.
Nice sock puppet Xaq.
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:55:34
From: mccard
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
Morphy, you lost the argument, give up, move on, grow up, get a life.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 12:57:08
From:
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 23, 3:00=A0pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none > wrote:
> "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:aeb626xslf.ln2@recgroups.com...> On Dec 22 2008 6:55 PM, mccard wrot=
e:
>
> >> Morphy, you lost the argument, give up, move on, grow up, get a life.
>
> > There is no argument sparky, just a poorly played hand and a donk to
> > defend it.
>
> Thanks for all your input. =A0As all of you losers have dissed the way I =
have
> played this hand, I have adopted this model and will be playing it
> regularly. =A0This many donkey losers can't be any more wrong if they try=
. =A0I
> don't expect I'll be losing any more than the 20% the hand was supposed t=
o
> lose when I got my chips all in. =A0Thanks again.
I hit reply mostly because I just couldn't help it after reading
this. But then I sat here for a minute lost for words and couldn't
figure out exactly what to say. So I will just say Merry Christmas,
Mccard, and all the best to you.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 15:09:12
From: mccard
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
<toddbryson@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:541e84aa-9653-4c00-a696-153e3faf2fea@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 23, 3:00 pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none > wrote:
> "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:aeb626xslf.ln2@recgroups.com...> On Dec 22 2008 6:55 PM, mccard
> wrote:
>
> >> Morphy, you lost the argument, give up, move on, grow up, get a life.
>
> > There is no argument sparky, just a poorly played hand and a donk to
> > defend it.
>
> Thanks for all your input. As all of you losers have dissed the way I have
> played this hand, I have adopted this model and will be playing it
> regularly. This many donkey losers can't be any more wrong if they try. I
> don't expect I'll be losing any more than the 20% the hand was supposed to
> lose when I got my chips all in. Thanks again.
>I hit reply mostly because I just couldn't help it after reading
>this. But then I sat here for a minute lost for words and couldn't
>figure out exactly what to say. So I will just say Merry Christmas,
>Mccard, and all the best to you.
No worries, here have a little laugh.
http://www.inquisitr.com/13000/apple-says-no-to-iboobs-app-for-iphone/
|
| | |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 15:44:18
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
"mccard" <no_won@no_won.none > wrote in message
news:GGW3l.3761$hr3.1783@newsfe01.iad...
> Morphy, you lost the argument, give up, move on, grow up, get a life.
How could he lose it?
You idiot called preflop. Terrible play.
You called the flop with no odds, and no implied odds. Even if he pushes
every time you hit, he's going to suck out over 20% of the time. You're
drawing too slim for your stack size.
You call preflop, you're an idiot.
You call ON the flop, you're a fucking idiot.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 22:01:15
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 22 2008 6:55 PM, mccard wrote:
> Morphy, you lost the argument, give up, move on, grow up, get a life.
There is no argument sparky, just a poorly played hand and a donk to
defend it.
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 14:00:44
From: mccard
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c5905@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:aeb626xslf.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 22 2008 6:55 PM, mccard wrote:
>
>> Morphy, you lost the argument, give up, move on, grow up, get a life.
>
> There is no argument sparky, just a poorly played hand and a donk to
> defend it.
>
Thanks for all your input. As all of you losers have dissed the way I have
played this hand, I have adopted this model and will be playing it
regularly. This many donkey losers can't be any more wrong if they try. I
don't expect I'll be losing any more than the 20% the hand was supposed to
lose when I got my chips all in. Thanks again.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 13:25:07
From: I eat donks
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 23 2008 8:00 PM, mccard wrote:
> Thanks for all your input. As all of you losers have dissed the way I have
> played this hand, I have adopted this model and will be playing it
> regularly. This many donkey losers can't be any more wrong if they try. I
> don't expect I'll be losing any more than the 20% the hand was supposed to
> lose when I got my chips all in. Thanks again.
Hmmm, I am feeling a bit peckish, a big Mc would make a lovely snack...Are
you free, my dear Mcdonk?
'Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we'll Keep the red flag flying
here.' The Red Flag
----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 15:21:22
From: mccard
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
"I eat donks" <a154cfd@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:ji1826xj6l.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 23 2008 8:00 PM, mccard wrote:
>
>> Thanks for all your input. As all of you losers have dissed the way I
>> have
>> played this hand, I have adopted this model and will be playing it
>> regularly. This many donkey losers can't be any more wrong if they try.
>> I
>> don't expect I'll be losing any more than the 20% the hand was supposed
>> to
>> lose when I got my chips all in. Thanks again.
>
> Hmmm, I am feeling a bit peckish, a big Mc would make a lovely snack...Are
> you free, my dear Mcdonk?
>
>
Sorry, dude, I'm not gay, too old to change now.
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 16:32:16
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 22 2008 5:20 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> mccard seems to think that he played this just fine and that he suffered a
> bad beat. Any comments?
>
> PokerStars Game #23124523123: Tournament #127001142, $5.00+$0.50 Hold'em
> No Limit - Level III (25/50) - 2008/12/21 13:43:54 ET
> Table '127001142 628' 9-max Seat #7 is the button
> Seat 1: crryyiill (4845 in chips)
> Seat 2: mccard (2990 in chips)
> Seat 3: Icecreamman6 (4955 in chips)
> Seat 4: S.U.K.6 (1665 in chips)
> Seat 5: Lars Vergas (2990 in chips)
> Seat 6: fbks_moose (7755 in chips)
> Seat 7: KISSMYPJS (2225 in chips)
> Seat 8: J-Stimpson (1175 in chips)
> Seat 9: atype (4110 in chips)
> J-Stimpson: posts small blind 25
> atype: posts big blind 50
> *** HOLE CARDS ***
> Dealt to mccard [Ks Js]
> crryyiill: calls 50
> mccard: calls 50
> Icecreamman6: calls 50
> S.U.K.6: folds
> Lars Vergas: raises 250 to 300
> fbks_moose: folds
> KISSMYPJS: folds
> J-Stimpson: folds
> atype: folds
> crryyiill: calls 250
> mccard: calls 250
> Icecreamman6: calls 250
> *** FLOP *** [Ah Ts Ac]
> crryyiill: checks
> mccard: checks
> Icecreamman6: checks
> Lars Vergas: bets 300
> crryyiill: folds
> mccard: calls 300
> Icecreamman6: folds
> *** TURN *** [Ah Ts Ac] [Qs]
> mccard: checks
> Lars Vergas: bets 2390 and is all-in
> mccard: calls 2390 and is all-in
> *** RIVER *** [Ah Ts Ac Qs] [Th]
> *** SHOW DOWN ***
> mccard: shows [Ks Js] (a straight, Ten to Ace)
> Lars Vergas: shows [As Kd] (a full house, Aces full of Tens)
> Lars Vergas collected 6655 from pot
> *** SUMMARY ***
> Total pot 6655
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 19:04:30
From: mccard
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
"FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:g5o526x1db.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 22 2008 5:20 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
>
>
A guy who begs for a $3.5 stake to play, and a guy so full of himself that
when he loses an argument he stalks the winner like a puppy following his
mommy. Really a sad bunch.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 17:23:27
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 22 2008 7:04 PM, mccard wrote:
> "FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:g5o526x1db.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Dec 22 2008 5:20 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> A guy who begs for a $3.5 stake to play, and a guy so full of himself that
> when he loses an argument he stalks the winner like a puppy following his
> mommy. Really a sad bunch.
NOT BAD .. U R STILL BATTING 0.00.. The stakes were offered in all cases
and I responded to the tasks and or challenges involved .
Secondly .. you will kindly note that I make the initial posts and then
get stalked by a whole herd of responders
REALLY .. try and keep up !!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 16:16:15
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 22 2008 5:20 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> mccard seems to think that he played this just fine and that he suffered a
> bad beat. Any comments?
>
> PokerStars Game #23124523123: Tournament #127001142, $5.00+$0.50 Hold'em
> No Limit - Level III (25/50) - 2008/12/21 13:43:54 ET
> Table '127001142 628' 9-max Seat #7 is the button
> Seat 1: crryyiill (4845 in chips)
> Seat 2: mccard (2990 in chips)
> Seat 3: Icecreamman6 (4955 in chips)
> Seat 4: S.U.K.6 (1665 in chips)
> Seat 5: Lars Vergas (2990 in chips)
> Seat 6: fbks_moose (7755 in chips)
> Seat 7: KISSMYPJS (2225 in chips)
> Seat 8: J-Stimpson (1175 in chips)
> Seat 9: atype (4110 in chips)
> J-Stimpson: posts small blind 25
> atype: posts big blind 50
> *** HOLE CARDS ***
> Dealt to mccard [Ks Js]
> crryyiill: calls 50
> mccard: calls 50
> Icecreamman6: calls 50
> S.U.K.6: folds
> Lars Vergas: raises 250 to 300
> fbks_moose: folds
> KISSMYPJS: folds
> J-Stimpson: folds
> atype: folds
> crryyiill: calls 250
> mccard: calls 250
> Icecreamman6: calls 250
> *** FLOP *** [Ah Ts Ac]
> crryyiill: checks
> mccard: checks
> Icecreamman6: checks
> Lars Vergas: bets 300
> crryyiill: folds
> mccard: calls 300
> Icecreamman6: folds
> *** TURN *** [Ah Ts Ac] [Qs]
> mccard: checks
> Lars Vergas: bets 2390 and is all-in
> mccard: calls 2390 and is all-in
> *** RIVER *** [Ah Ts Ac Qs] [Th]
> *** SHOW DOWN ***
> mccard: shows [Ks Js] (a straight, Ten to Ace)
> Lars Vergas: shows [As Kd] (a full house, Aces full of Tens)
> Lars Vergas collected 6655 from pot
> *** SUMMARY ***
> Total pot 6655
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 15:25:36
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: Poker hand for discussion
|
On Dec 22 2008 3:20 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> mccard seems to think that he played this just fine and that he suffered a
> bad beat. Any comments?
>
> PokerStars Game #23124523123: Tournament #127001142, $5.00+$0.50 Hold'em
> No Limit - Level III (25/50) - 2008/12/21 13:43:54 ET
> Table '127001142 628' 9-max Seat #7 is the button
> Seat 1: crryyiill (4845 in chips)
> Seat 2: mccard (2990 in chips)
> Seat 3: Icecreamman6 (4955 in chips)
> Seat 4: S.U.K.6 (1665 in chips)
> Seat 5: Lars Vergas (2990 in chips)
> Seat 6: fbks_moose (7755 in chips)
> Seat 7: KISSMYPJS (2225 in chips)
> Seat 8: J-Stimpson (1175 in chips)
> Seat 9: atype (4110 in chips)
> J-Stimpson: posts small blind 25
> atype: posts big blind 50
> *** HOLE CARDS ***
> Dealt to mccard [Ks Js]
> crryyiill: calls 50
> mccard: calls 50
> Icecreamman6: calls 50
> S.U.K.6: folds
> Lars Vergas: raises 250 to 300
> fbks_moose: folds
> KISSMYPJS: folds
> J-Stimpson: folds
> atype: folds
> crryyiill: calls 250
> mccard: calls 250
This mistake leads to all others. Not much point reading past here.
> Icecreamman6: calls 250
> *** FLOP *** [Ah Ts Ac]
> crryyiill: checks
> mccard: checks
> Icecreamman6: checks
> Lars Vergas: bets 300
> crryyiill: folds
> mccard: calls 300
Retardation is alive and well on Stars.
> Icecreamman6: folds
> *** TURN *** [Ah Ts Ac] [Qs]
> mccard: checks
Lucky sob, and then he checks, lol.
> Lars Vergas: bets 2390 and is all-in
> mccard: calls 2390 and is all-in
> *** RIVER *** [Ah Ts Ac Qs] [Th]
> *** SHOW DOWN ***
> mccard: shows [Ks Js] (a straight, Ten to Ace)
> Lars Vergas: shows [As Kd] (a full house, Aces full of Tens)
> Lars Vergas collected 6655 from pot
Serves you right.
> *** SUMMARY ***
> Total pot 6655
|
|
