| |
Main
Date: 06 Dec
From: Nick Wool
Subject: critique this
|
Now I know why its called riverstars....Good trapping play by TQ, or fish play
that got lucky? I cant really decide. With TP, decent kicker and a flush draw,
and SB V BB, it could be classfified as decent trapping play, but when I put out
that bet at turn, I was surprised that he didnt push for what little that was
left in my stack.
I *knew* that he had hit on that river...not sure why I bet that 100, just
furstartion of seeing that 3rd hearts, I suppose...
Normally I wouldn't have had second thoughts about losing to that hand....he had
TP and decent draw after all...but it was what the way the guy gloated
afterwards that really got me...reckon he had me on a big pair, and that he was
trapping me all along because he was a favourite to win. On the flop, he was a
marginal favourite, but a big dog on the turn. Anyway, rant over, and he's now
on my list with that kind of thinking.
Seat 2: MikeMcQ1 (2120 in chips)
Seat 3: sooted112 (1290 in chips)
Seat 5: Honest_Nick (1845 in chips)
Seat 6: JpBlAzE8069 (2105 in chips)
Seat 7: pokerfun4321 (2905 in chips)
Seat 8: J-C AA (2035 in chips)
Seat 9: AJinOK (1200 in chips)
Honest_Nick: posts small blind 50
JpBlAzE8069: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Honest_Nick [Kh Kd]
pokerfun4321: folds
J-C AA: folds
AJinOK: folds
MikeMcQ1: folds
sooted112: folds
Honest_Nick: raises 200 to 300
JpBlAzE8069: calls 200
*** FLOP *** [5h Jh Qs]
Honest_Nick: bets 400
JpBlAzE8069: calls 400
*** TURN *** [5h Jh Qs] [7c]
Honest_Nick: bets 900
JpBlAzE8069: calls 900
*** RIVER *** [5h Jh Qs 7c] [8h]
Honest_Nick: bets 100
JpBlAzE8069: raises 200 to 300
Honest_Nick: calls 145 and is all-in
*** SHOW DOWN ***
JpBlAzE8069: shows [Th Qh] (a flush, Queen high)
Honest_Nick: shows [Kh Kd] (a pair of Kings)
JpBlAzE8069 collected 3690 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3690
|
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2006 04:55:56
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: critique this
|
"Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1165380445$916995@recpoker.com...
>> Normally I wouldn't have had second thoughts about losing to that
hand....he had
> TP and decent draw after all...but it was what the way the guy gloated
> afterwards that really got me...reckon he had me on a big pair, and that
he was
> trapping me all along because he was a favourite to win. On the flop, he
was a
> marginal favourite, but a big dog on the turn. Anyway, rant over, and he's
now
> on my list with that kind of thinking.
Big dog?
How is a 2-1 dog priced in a big dog?
1400 chip pot, if he puts you on an overpair, he has to call. And he gets
the rest of your chips if he hits.
If you push right there, he has to call, you don't have enough chips to
price him out.
>
> Seat 2: MikeMcQ1 (2120 in chips)
> Seat 3: sooted112 (1290 in chips)
> Seat 5: Honest_Nick (1845 in chips)
> Seat 6: JpBlAzE8069 (2105 in chips)
> Seat 7: pokerfun4321 (2905 in chips)
> Seat 8: J-C AA (2035 in chips)
> Seat 9: AJinOK (1200 in chips)
> Honest_Nick: posts small blind 50
> JpBlAzE8069: posts big blind 100
> *** HOLE CARDS ***
> Dealt to Honest_Nick [Kh Kd]
> pokerfun4321: folds
> J-C AA: folds
> AJinOK: folds
> MikeMcQ1: folds
> sooted112: folds
> Honest_Nick: raises 200 to 300
> JpBlAzE8069: calls 200
> *** FLOP *** [5h Jh Qs]
> Honest_Nick: bets 400
> JpBlAzE8069: calls 400
> *** TURN *** [5h Jh Qs] [7c]
> Honest_Nick: bets 900
> JpBlAzE8069: calls 900
> *** RIVER *** [5h Jh Qs 7c] [8h]
> Honest_Nick: bets 100
> JpBlAzE8069: raises 200 to 300
> Honest_Nick: calls 145 and is all-in
> *** SHOW DOWN ***
> JpBlAzE8069: shows [Th Qh] (a flush, Queen high)
> Honest_Nick: shows [Kh Kd] (a pair of Kings)
> JpBlAzE8069 collected 3690 from pot
> *** SUMMARY ***
> Total pot 3690
|
| | |
Date: 06 Dec
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: critique this
|
On Dec 6 2006 4:55 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> "Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> news:1165380445$916995@recpoker.com...
> >> Normally I wouldn't have had second thoughts about losing to that
> hand....he had
> > TP and decent draw after all...but it was what the way the guy gloated
> > afterwards that really got me...reckon he had me on a big pair, and that
> he was
> > trapping me all along because he was a favourite to win. On the flop, he
> was a
> > marginal favourite, but a big dog on the turn. Anyway, rant over, and he's
> now
> > on my list with that kind of thinking.
>
> Big dog?
> How is a 2-1 dog priced in a big dog?
>
> 1400 chip pot, if he puts you on an overpair, he has to call. And he gets
> the rest of your chips if he hits.
>
> If you push right there, he has to call, you don't have enough chips to
> price him out.
>
>
> >
> > Seat 2: MikeMcQ1 (2120 in chips)
> > Seat 3: sooted112 (1290 in chips)
> > Seat 5: Honest_Nick (1845 in chips)
> > Seat 6: JpBlAzE8069 (2105 in chips)
> > Seat 7: pokerfun4321 (2905 in chips)
> > Seat 8: J-C AA (2035 in chips)
> > Seat 9: AJinOK (1200 in chips)
> > Honest_Nick: posts small blind 50
> > JpBlAzE8069: posts big blind 100
> > *** HOLE CARDS ***
> > Dealt to Honest_Nick [Kh Kd]
> > pokerfun4321: folds
> > J-C AA: folds
> > AJinOK: folds
> > MikeMcQ1: folds
> > sooted112: folds
> > Honest_Nick: raises 200 to 300
> > JpBlAzE8069: calls 200
> > *** FLOP *** [5h Jh Qs]
> > Honest_Nick: bets 400
> > JpBlAzE8069: calls 400
> > *** TURN *** [5h Jh Qs] [7c]
> > Honest_Nick: bets 900
> > JpBlAzE8069: calls 900
> > *** RIVER *** [5h Jh Qs 7c] [8h]
> > Honest_Nick: bets 100
> > JpBlAzE8069: raises 200 to 300
> > Honest_Nick: calls 145 and is all-in
> > *** SHOW DOWN ***
> > JpBlAzE8069: shows [Th Qh] (a flush, Queen high)
> > Honest_Nick: shows [Kh Kd] (a pair of Kings)
> > JpBlAzE8069 collected 3690 from pot
> > *** SUMMARY ***
> > Total pot 3690
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2006 09:40:50
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: critique this
|
"Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1165381811$917007@recpoker.com...
>
>
>
> On Dec 6 2006 4:55 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
> > "Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> > news:1165380445$916995@recpoker.com...
> > >> Normally I wouldn't have had second thoughts about losing to that
> > hand....he had
> > > TP and decent draw after all...but it was what the way the guy gloated
> > > afterwards that really got me...reckon he had me on a big pair, and
that
> > he was
> > > trapping me all along because he was a favourite to win. On the flop,
he
> > was a
> > > marginal favourite, but a big dog on the turn. Anyway, rant over, and
he's
> > now
> > > on my list with that kind of thinking.
> >
> > Big dog?
> > How is a 2-1 dog priced in a big dog?
> >
> > 1400 chip pot, if he puts you on an overpair, he has to call. And he
gets
> > the rest of your chips if he hits.
> >
> > If you push right there, he has to call, you don't have enough chips to
> > price him out.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Seat 2: MikeMcQ1 (2120 in chips)
> > > Seat 3: sooted112 (1290 in chips)
> > > Seat 5: Honest_Nick (1845 in chips)
> > > Seat 6: JpBlAzE8069 (2105 in chips)
> > > Seat 7: pokerfun4321 (2905 in chips)
> > > Seat 8: J-C AA (2035 in chips)
> > > Seat 9: AJinOK (1200 in chips)
> > > Honest_Nick: posts small blind 50
> > > JpBlAzE8069: posts big blind 100
> > > *** HOLE CARDS ***
> > > Dealt to Honest_Nick [Kh Kd]
> > > pokerfun4321: folds
> > > J-C AA: folds
> > > AJinOK: folds
> > > MikeMcQ1: folds
> > > sooted112: folds
> > > Honest_Nick: raises 200 to 300
> > > JpBlAzE8069: calls 200
> > > *** FLOP *** [5h Jh Qs]
> > > Honest_Nick: bets 400
> > > JpBlAzE8069: calls 400
> > > *** TURN *** [5h Jh Qs] [7c]
> > > Honest_Nick: bets 900
> > > JpBlAzE8069: calls 900
> > > *** RIVER *** [5h Jh Qs 7c] [8h]
> > > Honest_Nick: bets 100
> > > JpBlAzE8069: raises 200 to 300
> > > Honest_Nick: calls 145 and is all-in
> > > *** SHOW DOWN ***
> > > JpBlAzE8069: shows [Th Qh] (a flush, Queen high)
> > > Honest_Nick: shows [Kh Kd] (a pair of Kings)
> > > JpBlAzE8069 collected 3690 from pot
> > > *** SUMMARY ***
> > > Total pot 3690
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Dec 10:58:48
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: critique this
|
>
>
> Nick, how often did you fail math?
> Every time?
> 52-8=44, not 46
>
What are you talking about? 4 cards on the board, he held 2 cards, making it 6
known cards for him...from his point of view, my 2 cards are unknown, therefore
cannot be included in the calculation.
I held the King of hearts, yet I based the calculation on him having 14 outs,
not 13. Do you see why? If not, there's no point in us having this discussion.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Dec 16:45:59
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: critique this
|
On Dec 6 2006 5:58 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Nick, how often did you fail math?
> > Every time?
> > 52-8=44, not 46
> >
>
> What are you talking about? 4 cards on the board, he held 2 cards, making it
> 6
> known cards for him...from his point of view, my 2 cards are unknown,
> therefore
> cannot be included in the calculation.
Not if he puts you on an overpair. If he does, then he can assume what your two
cards are. Personally, I think you play AhKh, AQ, QQ and JJ the same way, so I
don't put you on an overpair, but I think that was the assumption.
>
> I held the King of hearts, yet I based the calculation on him having 14 outs,
> not 13. Do you see why? If not, there's no point in us having this
> discussion.
>
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: critique this
|
On Dec 6 2006 4:45 PM, steve1127 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 6 2006 5:58 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nick, how often did you fail math?
> > > Every time?
> > > 52-8=44, not 46
> > >
> >
> > What are you talking about? 4 cards on the board, he held 2 cards, making
> > it
> > 6
> > known cards for him...from his point of view, my 2 cards are unknown,
> > therefore
> > cannot be included in the calculation.
>
> Not if he puts you on an overpair. If he does, then he can assume what your
> two
> cards are.
Yes, but an over-pair with or without an heart? He cannot know that, so the
basis of his outs are 14/46, rather than 14/44. How does he automatically
assume I do not have a heart? I know what you are trying to say, but please
stop feeding the trolls.
> > I held the King of hearts, yet I based the calculation on him having 14
> > outs,
> > not 13. Do you see why? If not, there's no point in us having this
> > discussion.
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 16:00:58
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: critique this
|
On Dec 8 2006 4:16 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 6 2006 4:45 PM, steve1127 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 6 2006 5:58 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nick, how often did you fail math?
> > > > Every time?
> > > > 52-8=44, not 46
> > > >
> > >
> > > What are you talking about? 4 cards on the board, he held 2 cards, making
> > > it
> > > 6
> > > known cards for him...from his point of view, my 2 cards are unknown,
> > > therefore
> > > cannot be included in the calculation.
> >
> > Not if he puts you on an overpair. If he does, then he can assume what your
> > two
> > cards are.
>
> Yes, but an over-pair with or without an heart? He cannot know that, so the
> basis of his outs are 14/46, rather than 14/44. How does he automatically
> assume I do not have a heart? I know what you are trying to say, but please
> stop feeding the trolls.
He's not a troll. He's not being especially polite, but since neither are you,
I don't really hold it against him. His logic makes sense. He can assume that
you'll have a heart 1/2 of the time. Or, if you'd rather, he can treat one of
your cards as unknown since, if you have an overpair, at least one of your cards
must be a non-heart. So then it's 14/45, not 46.
>
> > > I held the King of hearts, yet I based the calculation on him having 14
> > > outs,
> > > not 13. Do you see why? If not, there's no point in us having this
> > > discussion.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 14:05:31
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: critique this
|
"steve1127" <43080896@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1165593658$918375@recpoker.com...
>
> > He's not a troll. He's not being especially polite, but since neither
are you,
> I don't really hold it against him. His logic makes sense. He can assume
that
> you'll have a heart 1/2 of the time. Or, if you'd rather, he can treat one
of
> your cards as unknown since, if you have an overpair, at least one of your
cards
> must be a non-heart. So then it's 14/45, not 46.
> >
Nick and I have history. There's a thread where he showed he has no
understanding of the game at all, started as a BAHH by Mo when his AK got
sucked out on by KT
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 11:50:06
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: critique this
|
"Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1165569382$918286@recpoker.com...
>
>
>
> On Dec 6 2006 4:45 PM, steve1127 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 6 2006 5:58 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nick, how often did you fail math?
> > > > Every time?
> > > > 52-8=44, not 46
> > > >
> > >
> > > What are you talking about? 4 cards on the board, he held 2 cards,
making
> > > it
> > > 6
> > > known cards for him...from his point of view, my 2 cards are unknown,
> > > therefore
> > > cannot be included in the calculation.
> >
> > Not if he puts you on an overpair. If he does, then he can assume what
your
> > two
> > cards are.
>
> Yes, but an over-pair with or without an heart? He cannot know that, so
the
> basis of his outs are 14/46, rather than 14/44. How does he automatically
> assume I do not have a heart? I know what you are trying to say, but
please
> stop feeding the trolls.
Christ, you prove you're a bigger idiot with every post.
It is 100% certain you don't have 2 hearts.
It is 50% at best you have 1 heart. In addition, rational people with Ah or
Kh with a PP push on the flop.
Granted you're a moron, but still.
So 13.5 outs is a conservative estimate.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 11:41:17
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: critique this
|
"Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1165569382$918286@recpoker.com...
>
>
>
> On Dec 6 2006 4:45 PM, steve1127 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 6 2006 5:58 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nick, how often did you fail math?
> > > > Every time?
> > > > 52-8=44, not 46
> > > >
> > >
> > > What are you talking about? 4 cards on the board, he held 2 cards,
making
> > > it
> > > 6
> > > known cards for him...from his point of view, my 2 cards are unknown,
> > > therefore
> > > cannot be included in the calculation.
> >
> > Not if he puts you on an overpair. If he does, then he can assume what
your
> > two
> > cards are.
>
> Yes, but an over-pair with or without an heart? He cannot know that, so
the
> basis of his outs are 14/46, rather than 14/44. How does he automatically
> assume I do not have a heart? I know what you are trying to say, but
please
> stop feeding the trolls.
No
>
> > > I held the King of hearts, yet I based the calculation on him having
14
> > > outs,
> > > not 13. Do you see why? If not, there's no point in us having this
> > > discussion.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 07:25:58
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: critique this
|
"steve1127" <43080896@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1165423559$917268@recpoker.com...
>
>
>
> On Dec 6 2006 5:58 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nick, how often did you fail math?
> > > Every time?
> > > 52-8=44, not 46
> > >
> >
> > What are you talking about? 4 cards on the board, he held 2 cards,
making it
> > 6
> > known cards for him...from his point of view, my 2 cards are unknown,
> > therefore
> > cannot be included in the calculation.
>
> Not if he puts you on an overpair. If he does, then he can assume what
your two
> cards are. Personally, I think you play AhKh, AQ, QQ and JJ the same way,
so I
> don't put you on an overpair, but I think that was the assumption.
If the bad guy doesn't put him on a hand, but makes a range of hands
decision, he figures he's probably trapping, and he's got too many outs to
fold against anything but QQ... and he's beating AKh and JJ right then,
though if the flush does come, he's going broke.
I explained all of that clearly, but the boy just doesn't think.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 07:23:13
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: critique this
|
"Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1165402728$917111@recpoker.com...
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Nick, how often did you fail math?
> > Every time?
> > 52-8=44, not 46
> >
>
> What are you talking about?
About the hand, you moron.
4 cards on the board, he held 2 cards, making it 6
> known cards for him..
So you failed reading comprehension too.
Let me quote something :1400 chip pot, if he puts you on an overpair, he
has to call
.from his point of view, my 2 cards are unknown,
Wrong.
If he puts you on an overpair (that's the premise there, see it's in black
and white) then you have AA or KK.
therefore
> cannot be included in the calculation.
If you put your opponent on a hand, you damn well DO include it in your
calculations.
>
> I held the King of hearts, yet I based the calculation on him having 14
outs,
> not 13. Do you see why? If not, there's no point in us having this
discussion.
I see it's because you're still an idiot.
I explained this whole thing in the post :
Let's cite THAT too :
Nick, how often did you fail math?
Every time?
52-8=44, not 46
He's got you on an overpair. At best you have one of his outs, and it's
50-50 you do. Further, if you had it, you shoulda pushed harder on the flop,
as a backdoor flush draw would give you extra outs.
You can argue it's 13.5, if you really want to
14-30 is close enough to 2-1 to call it so, surely if you know the opponent
is pot committed for his last 250 if you hit.
He made an intelligent read, assuming you'd play harder with a backdoor
flush draw.
You didn't, which ain't too bright, but you weren't going to get him away
from the hand anyway.
Do you not read posts? Or did you just wanna whine, and someone pointing out
you didn't have a right to piss ticked you off?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: critique this
|
On Dec 8 2006 7:23 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> "Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> news:1165402728$917111@recpoker.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nick, how often did you fail math?
> > > Every time?
> > > 52-8=44, not 46
> > >
> >
> > What are you talking about?
> About the hand, you moron.
Out of your arse as usual
>
> 4 cards on the board, he held 2 cards, making it 6
> > known cards for him..
>
> So you failed reading comprehension too.
Or your writing was just plain stupid.
>
> Let me quote something :1400 chip pot, if he puts you on an overpair, he
> has to call
>
> ..from his point of view, my 2 cards are unknown,
>
> Wrong.
> If he puts you on an overpair (that's the premise there, see it's in black
> and white) then you have AA or KK.
>
> therefore
> > cannot be included in the calculation.
>
> If you put your opponent on a hand, you damn well DO include it in your
> calculations.
he puts me on an over pair, does he figure me to have a heart or not, you
moron? From his point of view, he has 14 outs. He cannot know what is in my
hand...so his out are calcaulated as 14/46, rather than 13/44. My god, you are
stupid, arent you?
>
> >
> > I held the King of hearts, yet I based the calculation on him having 14
> outs,
> > not 13. Do you see why? If not, there's no point in us having this
> discussion.
> I see it's because you're still an idiot.
>
> I explained this whole thing in the post :
> Let's cite THAT too :
>
> Nick, how often did you fail math?
> Every time?
> 52-8=44, not 46
Yes, now I know that you are stupid. so everytime you have a draw, you
automatically assumes that your opponents' cards doesnt contain any of your
outs? So if you are in a 4 player pot with 3 other players, you calculate you
outs as 14/40? Stupid idiot, you cannot know that, so you treat your opponents'
cards as unknown, and use only known cards, that is 14/46 in this case, to
calcaulate your outs.
> He's got you on an overpair. At best you have one of his outs, and it's
> 50-50 you do. Further, if you had it, you shoulda pushed harder on the flop,
> as a backdoor flush draw would give you extra outs.
Why would I want to push and scare him out of the pot? SB v BB situation, an
overpair here is huge. Even with his tp and flush draw, he is a small dog at
flop, and a big dog at turn, yet you want to bet harder to push him out?
Repeat after me, I didnt need any outs, I was ahead. He needed the outs.
> You can argue it's 13.5, if you really want to
> 14-30 is close enough to 2-1 to call it so, surely if you know the opponent
> is pot committed for his last 250 if you hit.
Yes, and he is committed enough to call that last 250 with anything. That was
the whole point of the 900 bet with a stack of 1150.
>
>
> He made an intelligent read, assuming you'd play harder with a backdoor
> flush draw.
> You didn't, which ain't too bright, but you weren't going to get him away
> from the hand anyway.
lol
> Do you not read posts? Or did you just wanna whine, and someone pointing out
> you didn't have a right to piss ticked you off?
You should take a course in writing...you are not making ane fucking sense at
all.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 12:12:07
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: critique this
|
"Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1165569170$918283@recpoker.com...
>
>
>
> On Dec 8 2006 7:23 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
> > "Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> > news:1165402728$917111@recpoker.com...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nick, how often did you fail math?
> > > > Every time?
> > > > 52-8=44, not 46
> > > >
> > >
> > > What are you talking about?
> > About the hand, you moron.
>
> Out of your arse as usual
No, but it seems you failed logic too, as you're about to show.
Did you drop out of school in the sixth grade?
>
> >
> > 4 cards on the board, he held 2 cards, making it 6
> > > known cards for him..
> >
> > So you failed reading comprehension too.
>
> Or your writing was just plain stupid.
Writing was very straightforward.
Anyone of at least average intelligence could follow it easily.
A mongoloid like yourself, alas, shouldn't be trying to understand it, or
playing poker for money either, apparently.
>
> >
> > Let me quote something :1400 chip pot, if he puts you on an overpair, he
> > has to call
> >
> > ..from his point of view, my 2 cards are unknown,
> >
> > Wrong.
> > If he puts you on an overpair (that's the premise there, see it's in
black
> > and white) then you have AA or KK.
> >
> > therefore
> > > cannot be included in the calculation.
> >
> > If you put your opponent on a hand, you damn well DO include it in your
> > calculations.
>
>
> he puts me on an over pair, does he figure me to have a heart or not, you
> moron?
Well, shithead, he KNOWS you don't have 2.
It is 50% likely AT BEST you have 1.
Further, a rational player with AA ah or KK kh PUSHES on the flop. If a
heart hits the turn, you can't fold, and you might be a 5-1 dog.
From his point of view, he has 14 outs. He cannot know what is in my
> hand...so his out are calcaulated as 14/46, rather than 13/44. My god, you
are
> stupid, arent you?
No, Nickie, you're simply a shit for brains.
Your holdings are AA or KK
You will have a heart 50% of the time.
That eliminates a half an out if it's pure random.
You didn't push. That decreases the likelihood of a heart, if you aren't an
idiot.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > I held the King of hearts, yet I based the calculation on him having
14
> > outs,
> > > not 13. Do you see why? If not, there's no point in us having this
> > discussion.
> > I see it's because you're still an idiot.
> >
> > I explained this whole thing in the post :
> > Let's cite THAT too :
> >
> > Nick, how often did you fail math?
> > Every time?
> > 52-8=44, not 46
>
> Yes, now I know that you are stupid. so everytime you have a draw, you
> automatically assumes that your opponents' cards doesnt contain any of
your
> outs?
.
No, shithead, IF I put him on a hand, I determine what cases I'm facing,
assign likelihoods of those cases, and assess accordingly.
So if you are in a 4 player pot with 3 other players, you calculate you
> outs as 14/40?
If I know that 2 of them have AA and one has KK, I calculate it as 12.5 out
of 40.
Stupid idiot, you cannot know that, so you treat your opponents'
> cards as unknown, and use only known cards, that is 14/46 in this case, to
> calcaulate your outs.
Nick, you incredible shithead.
Assume your opponent has "an overpair".
That's THE ASSUMPTION.
Q high flop, AA or KK
If it's AA, 50% of the time it contains 1 heart, 50% it doesn't.
44 cards left, 13.5 outs, if your opponent doesn't react to his holding a
heart there.
Now you didn't push on the flop, which anyone rational. holding an overpair
with a H would do there. I realize you're a moron; we proved your stupidity
in the AK vs K-T discussion a year ago, but he doesn't know you're a retard,
so he drops the likelihood of you having the Kh.
We don't need to discuss the fact that you bet too little to price him out
if he figured 13 outs, do we?
>
> > He's got you on an overpair. At best you have one of his outs, and it's
> > 50-50 you do. Further, if you had it, you shoulda pushed harder on the
flop,
> > as a backdoor flush draw would give you extra outs.
>
> Why would I want to push and scare him out of the pot?
Because, shithead, if he has a pair and a flush draw he's slightly ahead.
Because, shithead, in that situation most people would push with AK, so
almost anyone calls with top pair OR a flush draw, where you're ahead.
Because, shithead, given your idiot play on the river, you can't muck when
you're drawn out on anyway, so you can't play well post flop.
SB v BB situation, an
> overpair here is huge. Even with his tp and flush draw, he is a small dog
at
> flop, and a big dog at turn, yet you want to bet harder to push him out?
Pair and a flush draw is generally ahead.
>
> Repeat after me, I didnt need any outs, I was ahead. He needed the outs.
Repeat after me : it's the probability of winning the hand if you go all in.
If his is greater than yours, you need pot odds to call.
If yours is very slightly greater and you price him in, you're simply an
idiot.
>
> > You can argue it's 13.5, if you really want to
> > 14-30 is close enough to 2-1 to call it so, surely if you know the
opponent
> > is pot committed for his last 250 if you hit.
>
> Yes, and he is committed enough to call that last 250 with anything. That
was
> the whole point of the 900 bet with a stack of 1150.
Shit for brains.... if he PUTS you on an overpair, he can fold on the river
if he misses.
If his read says you have AA or KK and he misses his outs on the river, he
can fold.
>
> >
> >
> > He made an intelligent read, assuming you'd play harder with a backdoor
> > flush draw.
> > You didn't, which ain't too bright, but you weren't going to get him
away
> > from the hand anyway.
>
> lol
>
How much have you lost this year?
> > Do you not read posts? Or did you just wanna whine, and someone pointing
out
> > you didn't have a right to piss ticked you off?
>
> You should take a course in writing...you are not making ane fucking sense
at
> all.
I'm making complete sense.
1) you don't think your opponent can reason, despite his play indicating he
can.
2) You can't think at all.
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2006 09:07:14
From: Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
Subject: Re: critique this
|
On Dec 5 2006 8:47 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> Now I know why its called riverstars....Good trapping play by TQ, or fish
play
> that got lucky? I cant really decide. With TP, decent kicker and a flush
draw,
> and SB V BB, it could be classfified as decent trapping play, but when I put
out
> that bet at turn, I was surprised that he didnt push for what little that
was
> left in my stack.
>
> I *knew* that he had hit on that river...not sure why I bet that 100, just
> furstartion of seeing that 3rd hearts, I suppose...
I think everything up to the turn bet was fine. Either check the turn or
push. You left yourself with only 245 chips. He had 14 outs, which you
correctly calculated, and your 900 bet was cleverly designed to take away
his odds. What you are missing is that he didn't think he was
drawing...he was fairly sure he was ahead and he was going to let you hang
yourself. Also, he knew that even if he was behind, if he hit he was
going to get the rest of your chips, which he did. Once he called the
flop bet, you should have been worried. Like I said, check the turn, or
push. Your 900 chip bet means the rest are going in anyway.
Oh, one last thing...you rely to heavily on odds. In a tourney it is
vitally important to not lose all your chips. You put all your chips at
risk with just one pair, with an obvious flush draw on board. Odds be
damned, if you lose you are out.
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 06 Dec 17:15:48
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: critique this
|
On Dec 6 2006 5:07 PM, Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> On Dec 5 2006 8:47 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > Now I know why its called riverstars....Good trapping play by TQ, or fish
> play
> > that got lucky? I cant really decide. With TP, decent kicker and a flush
> draw,
> > and SB V BB, it could be classfified as decent trapping play, but when I put
> out
> > that bet at turn, I was surprised that he didnt push for what little that
> was
> > left in my stack.
> >
> > I *knew* that he had hit on that river...not sure why I bet that 100, just
> > furstartion of seeing that 3rd hearts, I suppose...
>
> I think everything up to the turn bet was fine. Either check the turn or
> push. You left yourself with only 245 chips. He had 14 outs, which you
> correctly calculated, and your 900 bet was cleverly designed to take away
> his odds. What you are missing is that he didn't think he was
> drawing...he was fairly sure he was ahead and he was going to let you hang
> yourself. Also, he knew that even if he was behind, if he hit he was
> going to get the rest of your chips, which he did. Once he called the
> flop bet, you should have been worried. Like I said, check the turn, or
> push. Your 900 chip bet means the rest are going in anyway.
>
> Oh, one last thing...you rely to heavily on odds. In a tourney it is
> vitally important to not lose all your chips. You put all your chips at
> risk with just one pair, with an obvious flush draw on board. Odds be
> damned, if you lose you are out.
My point is that a 900 bet is effectively the same as a jam when you have a
stack of 1150, with the exception that the 900 might give an illusion of
non-existant implied odds. Even if he had ace high, he should be calling that
250 at river once he called the turn bet, agreed?
Well, yes, in a tourament, you lose and you are out...However, if I cant put my
chips at risk on the board at flop and turn when its SB V BB with KK, having
raised it coming in...when can I put them at risk? Jamming at flop hoping he
fold a draw would be playing scared, surely?
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2006 09:32:33
From: Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
Subject: Re: critique this
|
On Dec 6 2006 9:15 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
> On Dec 6 2006 5:07 PM, Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
>
> > On Dec 5 2006 8:47 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> >
> > > Now I know why its called riverstars....Good trapping play by TQ, or fish
> > play
> > > that got lucky? I cant really decide. With TP, decent kicker and a flush
> > draw,
> > > and SB V BB, it could be classfified as decent trapping play, but when I
put
> > out
> > > that bet at turn, I was surprised that he didnt push for what little that
> > was
> > > left in my stack.
> > >
> > > I *knew* that he had hit on that river...not sure why I bet that 100,
just
> > > furstartion of seeing that 3rd hearts, I suppose...
> >
> > I think everything up to the turn bet was fine. Either check the turn or
> > push. You left yourself with only 245 chips. He had 14 outs, which you
> > correctly calculated, and your 900 bet was cleverly designed to take away
> > his odds. What you are missing is that he didn't think he was
> > drawing...he was fairly sure he was ahead and he was going to let you hang
> > yourself. Also, he knew that even if he was behind, if he hit he was
> > going to get the rest of your chips, which he did. Once he called the
> > flop bet, you should have been worried. Like I said, check the turn, or
> > push. Your 900 chip bet means the rest are going in anyway.
> >
> > Oh, one last thing...you rely to heavily on odds. In a tourney it is
> > vitally important to not lose all your chips. You put all your chips at
> > risk with just one pair, with an obvious flush draw on board. Odds be
> > damned, if you lose you are out.
>
> My point is that a 900 bet is effectively the same as a jam when you have a
> stack of 1150, with the exception that the 900 might give an illusion of
> non-existant implied odds. Even if he had ace high, he should be calling
that
> 250 at river once he called the turn bet, agreed?
Of course.
>
> Well, yes, in a tourament, you lose and you are out...However, if I cant put
my
> chips at risk on the board at flop and turn when its SB V BB with KK, having
> raised it coming in...when can I put them at risk? Jamming at flop hoping he
> fold a draw would be playing scared, surely?
Personally, I don't want to take this big of a risk on that flop. I'd
prefer to see a flush draw fold, but if he calls and hits, at least I got
my money in ahead (if he only has a flush draw on the flop he is about
37%, but if he has top pair AND a flush draw then he is about 57% and is a
favorite). I would have check raised all in on the flop. With that flop
he is going to bet for sure, especially since you raised preflop. Turns
out he would have called anyway, and I would have got my money in as a dog.
------
brewmaster at brewcam dot com
"Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
you look at it right" -RH
________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Dec 18:14:28
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: critique this
|
On Dec 6 2006 5:32 PM, Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> On Dec 6 2006 9:15 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > On Dec 6 2006 5:07 PM, Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 5 2006 8:47 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> > >
> > > > Now I know why its called riverstars....Good trapping play by TQ, or
> > > > fish
> > > play
> > > > that got lucky? I cant really decide. With TP, decent kicker and a flush
> > > draw,
> > > > and SB V BB, it could be classfified as decent trapping play, but when I
> put
> > > out
> > > > that bet at turn, I was surprised that he didnt push for what little
> > > > that
> > > was
> > > > left in my stack.
> > > >
> > > > I *knew* that he had hit on that river...not sure why I bet that 100,
> just
> > > > furstartion of seeing that 3rd hearts, I suppose...
> > >
> > > I think everything up to the turn bet was fine. Either check the turn or
> > > push. You left yourself with only 245 chips. He had 14 outs, which you
> > > correctly calculated, and your 900 bet was cleverly designed to take away
> > > his odds. What you are missing is that he didn't think he was
> > > drawing...he was fairly sure he was ahead and he was going to let you hang
> > > yourself. Also, he knew that even if he was behind, if he hit he was
> > > going to get the rest of your chips, which he did. Once he called the
> > > flop bet, you should have been worried. Like I said, check the turn, or
> > > push. Your 900 chip bet means the rest are going in anyway.
> > >
> > > Oh, one last thing...you rely to heavily on odds. In a tourney it is
> > > vitally important to not lose all your chips. You put all your chips at
> > > risk with just one pair, with an obvious flush draw on board. Odds be
> > > damned, if you lose you are out.
> >
> > My point is that a 900 bet is effectively the same as a jam when you have a
> > stack of 1150, with the exception that the 900 might give an illusion of
> > non-existant implied odds. Even if he had ace high, he should be calling
> that
> > 250 at river once he called the turn bet, agreed?
>
> Of course.
>
> >
> > Well, yes, in a tourament, you lose and you are out...However, if I cant put
> my
> > chips at risk on the board at flop and turn when its SB V BB with KK, having
> > raised it coming in...when can I put them at risk? Jamming at flop hoping
> > he
> > fold a draw would be playing scared, surely?
>
> Personally, I don't want to take this big of a risk on that flop. I'd
> prefer to see a flush draw fold, but if he calls and hits, at least I got
> my money in ahead (if he only has a flush draw on the flop he is about
> 37%, but if he has top pair AND a flush draw then he is about 57% and is a
> favorite). I would have check raised all in on the flop. With that flop
> he is going to bet for sure, especially since you raised preflop. Turns
> out he would have called anyway, and I would have got my money in as a dog.
>
>
> ------
> brewmaster at brewcam dot com
>
> "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
> you look at it right" -RH
I agree with the naked flush draw is about 37%, but he would be a small dog with
14 outs, at about 49.4%, but still an easy call/jam with the dead money in the
pot plus any FE if he jammed rather than called. Its with15 outs when a drawing
hand becomes a small favourite, at 53.7%.
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 16:42:43
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: critique this
|
On Dec 5 2006 11:47 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> Now I know why its called riverstars....Good trapping play by TQ, or fish play
> that got lucky? I cant really decide.
I think he should have done everything he could to have gotten all the money in
on the flop. Once he just calls your flop bet, there's no reason not to jam the
turn. The 100 bet on the river is meaningless. You might as well check-call
there in case he had KT and was drawing to a straight and feels like bluffing.
The 100 bet accomplishes nothing.
With TP, decent kicker and a flush
> draw,
> and SB V BB, it could be classfified as decent trapping play, but when I put
> out
> that bet at turn, I was surprised that he didnt push for what little that was
> left in my stack.
>
> I *knew* that he had hit on that river...not sure why I bet that 100, just
> furstartion of seeing that 3rd hearts, I suppose...
>
> Normally I wouldn't have had second thoughts about losing to that hand....he
> had
> TP and decent draw after all...but it was what the way the guy gloated
> afterwards that really got me...reckon he had me on a big pair, and that he
> was
> trapping me all along because he was a favourite to win. On the flop, he was
> a
> marginal favourite, but a big dog on the turn. Anyway, rant over, and he's
> now
> on my list with that kind of thinking.
>
> Seat 2: MikeMcQ1 (2120 in chips)
> Seat 3: sooted112 (1290 in chips)
> Seat 5: Honest_Nick (1845 in chips)
> Seat 6: JpBlAzE8069 (2105 in chips)
> Seat 7: pokerfun4321 (2905 in chips)
> Seat 8: J-C AA (2035 in chips)
> Seat 9: AJinOK (1200 in chips)
> Honest_Nick: posts small blind 50
> JpBlAzE8069: posts big blind 100
> *** HOLE CARDS ***
> Dealt to Honest_Nick [Kh Kd]
> pokerfun4321: folds
> J-C AA: folds
> AJinOK: folds
> MikeMcQ1: folds
> sooted112: folds
> Honest_Nick: raises 200 to 300
> JpBlAzE8069: calls 200
> *** FLOP *** [5h Jh Qs]
> Honest_Nick: bets 400
> JpBlAzE8069: calls 400
> *** TURN *** [5h Jh Qs] [7c]
> Honest_Nick: bets 900
> JpBlAzE8069: calls 900
> *** RIVER *** [5h Jh Qs 7c] [8h]
> Honest_Nick: bets 100
> JpBlAzE8069: raises 200 to 300
> Honest_Nick: calls 145 and is all-in
> *** SHOW DOWN ***
> JpBlAzE8069: shows [Th Qh] (a flush, Queen high)
> Honest_Nick: shows [Kh Kd] (a pair of Kings)
> JpBlAzE8069 collected 3690 from pot
> *** SUMMARY ***
> Total pot 3690
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 11:02:43
From: Mr. Peoples
Subject: Re: critique this
|
Keep underbetting every time it seems to work for you
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 06 Dec 11:36:47
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: critique this
|
On Dec 6 2006 11:02 AM, Mr. Peoples wrote:
> Keep underbetting every time it seems to work for you
>
>
lol...whatever...you are clever
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Dec 11:45:01
From: Mr. Peoples
Subject: Re: critique this
|
clever enough to know how to bet too... but hey i'm sure you do just fine
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Dec 12:00:45
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: critique this
|
On Dec 6 2006 11:45 AM, Mr. Peoples wrote:
> clever enough to know how to bet too... but hey i'm sure you do just fine
>
>
I bet you do...overbet the pot always, right? You'll get far...
Care to mention how that was an 'underbet' given the stacks?
OK, without flaming, the rationale of my betting is to get people to call
without the odds...In that hand, I put him on a Q, or a flush draw, in both
cases he wasnt getting anywhere near the correct odds to call both the flop and
turn bet. The turn bet was to induce him to committ to the pot but giving some
illusion of implied odds (1150 left in my stack, 900 bet)....once he called the
turn bet, he would have had to call with ANY hand at river for 250 more on that
pot, even an ace high, or decues.
Now it turn out he had both the Q and the flush draw...at flop, it was about a
coinflip, but at the turn, he wasnt getting the right odds to call, as my 900
bet, once called by him, would have had him calling at a blank river as well,
even if he somehow thought he was behind, no?
Now can we hear your side of the arguement? Or are you only good for making
snide remarks?
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Dec 12:30:53
From: Mr. Peoples
Subject: Re: critique this
|
My side? Ok...
You're mistake is assuming that people you play against care about correct odds
in the first place. You assume they think the hand through just like you. So
now you say he wasn't getting the correct odds to call - well so what, maybe he
doesn't have a damn clue about odds or maybe he does but not enough for it to
affect his decisions.
Maybe poor playing on his part if he doesn't take the odds into account but the
odds aren't everything. For you to say "oh well I wasn't giving him the correct
odds to call" just says you learned poker after watching it on TV in 2003.
Maybe when you get some more experience at all levels and types of games you'll
better understand that odds are only a small % of most people's choices.
And I made the remark in the first place because you've been posting these types
of posts from day one - nothing's changed.
On Dec 6 2006 5:00 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 6 2006 11:45 AM, Mr. Peoples wrote:
>
> > clever enough to know how to bet too... but hey i'm sure you do just fine
> >
> >
>
> I bet you do...overbet the pot always, right? You'll get far...
>
> Care to mention how that was an 'underbet' given the stacks?
>
> OK, without flaming, the rationale of my betting is to get people to call
> without the odds...In that hand, I put him on a Q, or a flush draw, in both
> cases he wasnt getting anywhere near the correct odds to call both the flop
> and
> turn bet. The turn bet was to induce him to committ to the pot but giving
> some
> illusion of implied odds (1150 left in my stack, 900 bet)....once he called
> the
> turn bet, he would have had to call with ANY hand at river for 250 more on
> that
> pot, even an ace high, or decues.
>
> Now it turn out he had both the Q and the flush draw...at flop, it was about a
> coinflip, but at the turn, he wasnt getting the right odds to call, as my 900
> bet, once called by him, would have had him calling at a blank river as well,
> even if he somehow thought he was behind, no?
>
> Now can we hear your side of the arguement? Or are you only good for making
> snide remarks?
>
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Dec 13:38:55
From: arlo payne
Subject: Re: critique this
|
On Dec 6 2006 5:30 AM, Mr. Peoples wrote:
>
> My side? Ok...
>
> You're mistake is assuming that people you play against care about correct
> odds
> in the first place. You assume they think the hand through just like you. So
> now you say he wasn't getting the correct odds to call - well so what, maybe
> he
> doesn't have a damn clue about odds or maybe he does but not enough for it to
> affect his decisions.
>
> Maybe poor playing on his part if he doesn't take the odds into account but
> the
> odds aren't everything. For you to say "oh well I wasn't giving him the
> correct
> odds to call" just says you learned poker after watching it on TV in 2003.
> Maybe when you get some more experience at all levels and types of games
> you'll
> better understand that odds are only a small % of most people's choices.
>
>
>
> And I made the remark in the first place because you've been posting these
> types
> of posts from day one - nothing's changed.
I am very impressed.
A great post and the correct mindset for most games.
You really hit dead center on what most new players that think they understand
the game overlook when thinking how others play.
Just from this one post I would say you are a winning player.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Dec 12:34:45
From: Mr. Peoples
Subject: Re: critique this
|
Thank you sir
On Dec 6 2006 6:38 AM, arlo payne wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 6 2006 5:30 AM, Mr. Peoples wrote:
>
> >
> > My side? Ok...
> >
> > You're mistake is assuming that people you play against care about correct
> > odds
> > in the first place. You assume they think the hand through just like you.
> > So
> > now you say he wasn't getting the correct odds to call - well so what, maybe
> > he
> > doesn't have a damn clue about odds or maybe he does but not enough for it
> > to
> > affect his decisions.
> >
> > Maybe poor playing on his part if he doesn't take the odds into account but
> > the
> > odds aren't everything. For you to say "oh well I wasn't giving him the
> > correct
> > odds to call" just says you learned poker after watching it on TV in 2003.
> > Maybe when you get some more experience at all levels and types of games
> > you'll
> > better understand that odds are only a small % of most people's choices.
> >
> >
> >
> > And I made the remark in the first place because you've been posting these
> > types
> > of posts from day one - nothing's changed.
>
> I am very impressed.
> A great post and the correct mindset for most games.
> You really hit dead center on what most new players that think they understand
> the game overlook when thinking how others play.
> Just from this one post I would say you are a winning player.
>
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 06:32:25
From: ben carr
Subject: Re: critique this
|
Nick, you could have bet more before the flop. He had two to one on his
money and most people will call with anything there. That was the only
spot you could have taken down the pot. After the flop he was married to
the pot and would never leave it. But, Im sure you didnt want to run him
off when youre holding kings. Your opponent probably figured he had the
best hand after the flop with or without the draw. Always underbetting
will get you into trouble.
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 23:39:16
From: Douglas Dunn
Subject: Re: critique this
|
Nick Wool wrote:
<snip stuff >
I'm ok with his play. I wouldn't put you on a big pair in a blind vs
blind situation. I probably would have let you commit the chips
yourself if I was the BB too. I certainly wouldn't assume I was behind
in the hand just because an aggressive blind was firing in some bets.
Doug
|
|
