Good or bad, i don't think we have anything in between

[Apocalypse]

Pokerhand 3/6 on paradise,

UTG is a TAG. Its really nice having him at my table since we push each other in our creativity. Since making money isn't my only reason playing poker im very excited having to actually think about the way i play my hands against him. He plays solid, aggressive, makes nice valuebets/raises and good folds. The table we sit at is tight, and he has obviously loosened up his preflop startingrange.... a tad too much imo, but UTG he openraises down to K8s and Q10o or somewhere in those lines. Now for the hand,

I get Jd10h in the BB, and mr.TAG openraises UTG. It gets folded to me and i call of course.

The flop comes down 9h 5c 7h

I check, he bets i call

The turn is Ah

I check, he bets, i raise...

comments on both streets please

results later after a few responses, thanks

[naphand]

This is good spot to try this, given your read. He has 2 very good reasons to fold here without a valid hand. You have the T/images/graemlins/heart.gif to give you reason to call a 3-bet on a scratchy flush draw, plus of course any 8. If he calls, do you fire again on the River when you miss? I would say yes, when he calls and shows you K9 do you show your cards? You presumably want to set this up for some value raising later? You will be squirming to a 3-bet, but have to call it, surely?

On the other hand, the 3rd suit and A is such an obvious bluff card, he will pretty much call with anything half-decent. How big are his folds?

[vulture]

Hi,

[ QUOTE ]
Good or bad, i don't think we have anything in between

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a lot in between. This play is the perfect example of a play you could make for deception reasons, to give your play some diversity. So this play can be ok, but don't do it every time. An important question here is: what are you going to do when he three-bets the turn? An important thing to help you in your decision is the chance he is able to threebet the turn with for example a pair of nines or sevens. There you play 3-6 the chance he does this is small, so you should probably fold on a threebet (pot = 8BB).

It's a good play when the chance he folds a better hand is there. You say he is able to make good folds and is too loose in his starting requirements. This is a good situation to try this play once in a while, because there is a pretty good chance he has no Ace, considering his starting requirements and there he is able to make 'good' folds your play can work.

I recommend not playing this play too much/ almost never, against UTG raisers; only when the circumstances are optimally, and they seldomly are, except maybe in this case.

Please reply if anyone disagrees,

Vulture

[helpmeout]

Nice semibluff, this is definately worth it, if he has an Ace he may fear you hit 2 pair so probably wont 3bet.

If he doesnt have an Ace or a high heart he is throwing this pretty fast.

If he calls then you still have your gutshot and flushdraw to fall back on.

[vulture]

I forgot the flushdraw. This makes a difference. Now it is even harder for you when you get threebetted on the turn, because you probably have to call. Still this play can be used for giving variety to your game, but don't use it too much. I probably would make the play easier if I didn't have the flushdraw, because I can safely fold the turn when he threebets.

My play would be: check call, check call,......

[vulture]

Hi apocalypse,

I gave the hand some extra thoughts and think that the play is weak, because of the flushdraw. By check-raising you have a 'big' chance he'll call with a flushdraw so you don't know where you are exactly. Because of this chance you should bet the river for winning the pot, when no flushcard hits. Your opponent will only call with a better hand, and considering the turn action there is a big chance het has a better hand. So, you are very likely to put 2BB in your bluff instead of one.
When you hit your flush on the river, there is still a chance he outdraws you and raises the river, which you have to pay off, considering the potsize (that you created for a big part).
The play is much better in case there was no flushdraw.

Regards,

Vulture

[Apocalypse]

Thanks for the responses so far, although i am a bit dissapointed in its quantity since it seemed a pretty interesting one to me

As for the thoughtprocess behind this line of play i guess naphand had it pretty much spot on. The reason is thus multi-fold:

1. Im semi-bluffing with outs to fall back on although they may be all dirty of course so that alone wouldn't make this a profitable line for this kind of pot.

With the scarecard ace of hearts hitting the turn here, i do rate the obviousness of bluff-checkraising here a lot lower than naphand does i think. Im checkraising into the UTG preflopraiser here with an ace on board, and i know he knows i value the position of an utg-raiser high, unlike loose-passive callers who don't care where you're raising from. I wasn't sure however in how much he has seen me catching on in his loosening up there, so i took a chance in upgrading the strength i represented checkraising on an ace like under pretty normal circumstances.

As it comes to naphands question how big his folds were? well, this kind of line was unprecedented upto this point, in the way that whoever of us raised each other showed the goods the very most of the time to make the raise profitable. So my view was he would fold medium-sized hands on either turn, or river if he was holding a heart. We DID know however we were both light raisers wich should be pointed out for the 'if-he-3-bets' situation later.

Concluding: i view my chances of picking up the pot are pretty okay (i don't think it was a profitable play in the long run of course and to be honest, i don't see why vulture warns me for this because i actually find it a bit degrading thinking that i would actually consider doing this more than once or absolutely maximal twice a session) but if i need to showdown i still have:

2. BIG advertisement value.

The point was, we were getting 'the hang of it' playing each other HU, and i don't think either him or me had a real edge over one or the other. Getting caught in this hand would only truly suck if he would sit out and leave the next one. If i get caught i must seriously put a big pounding to his read on me upto that point, because like i said it was unprecedented and i guess/hope/think very confusing. I hoped that this play would seriously lower his standards in calling me down in the future or at least for a good while until he sees he has to readjust.

As to the hand:

If called on the turn, i would lead any rivercard and if called happily showdown my hand. If a heart would hit the river, I'm not sure wether i would check (although im sure that wouldn't induce him in any way to bluff at the pot) and call or bet and make a call at a raise i would hate hate hate.

If 3-bet on the turn, im really not that all pessimistic (although im sure not liking it either). The point is he knows im raising light and checkraising sure don't mean a flush to him i know for sure. Ax-twopairs, AKh, sets i think he would 3-bet, and actually would make it more likely my heart is clean. A risk i am willing to take considering that would be A9, A7, 99, 77, AA. Then of course, he could be 3-betting the nutflush and im drawing dead...[censored] happens



And now finally finally.. RESULTS:

he called both turn a river with KK, one of them being a heart..o well ... Although it actually took him 3 seconds in calling my riverbet so that was nice i guess /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Then later on, i saw it wasn't all for nothing since he had drastically lowered his callingdown standards to even some aces high wich is very rare at this limit and i could valuebet my ass off.

Any responses are more than welcome.

ps. As for the title vulture, i know its one fat grey area, i just choose titles i think will get people to read. Im such a slut. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[vulture]

Hi apocalypse,

The part that I warned about this type of play, was not to warn you in particular, but to underline the difficulties you are confronted with if your opponent doesn't fold. Can you reply your thoughts on my thinking about the flushdraw makes it less profitable to make the play, just because of the much possible hands which will let him have the best hand and the possible bluff you'll probably have to make if no fourth flushcard hits. I think the play makes that you invest relatively much to pick up a relatively small pot and makes you invest a lot when you are not able to win.

Regards,

Vulture

[naphand]

Yep, given the circumstances you were in, this hand provides a chance to "advertise" as well as a reasonable possibility of winning the pot. You put opponent in a tough spot, but clearly the K/images/graemlins/heart.gif is good enough for him to call the Turn /images/graemlins/mad.gif. Considering the game, the nature of this hand and your cards, it was well-chosen. The draws may be scratchy, but if you hit and he will notice so it works as well as if showing down some real garbage. He knows you cannot be trusted... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Good that it worked out, never underestimate the power of showing down something like this when the right situation arises. This was clearly a meta-game process, and it allowed you to make extra $$ in a situation you rightly describe as tough, not after this hand, you turned a match into a value-fest for your future bets. As in life, timing is everything... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[vulture]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, given the circumstances you were in, this hand provides a chance to "advertise" as well as a reasonable possibility of winning the pot

[/ QUOTE ]

What is a reasonable possibility for you ?

[ QUOTE ]
Considering the game, the nature of this hand and your cards, it was well-chosen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.




[ QUOTE ]
This was clearly a meta-game process

[/ QUOTE ]

What a bullshit.

[naphand]

Presumably Vulture feels he is being preyed upon, rather than being the preyor-upon... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
What is a reasonable possibility for you ?

[/ QUOTE ]

reasonable adj. 3. having modest or moderate expectations.

This has already been explained in the text above. Hero has so far only CR like this with the goods, his oppnent knows this and is capable of making some decent folds. Hero also has some scratchy outs to win the hand with as well. A big scare card falls on the Turn. I would say this looks like a reasonable chance to steal this hand, based on Hero's read, not your personal opinion. If you want a mathematical description you are in the wrong forum.

[ QUOTE ]
Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just did, and in my previous posts. It may disagree with your notions, but you are not playing the hand. Nor are you countering the argument effectively. This is a read-based play, and the situation is a good one to make this kind of move. I happen to believe Apocalypse (who is a very able player) chose well, for the reasons given. I should not have to repeat them, you perhaps need to re-read them.

[ QUOTE ]
What a bullshit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah the fog clears. Your core argument reveals itself.

meta- prefix. 3. occuring or situated behind or after.

"Playing the meta-game" is a reference to strategy based on what has already happened and what is (likely) to happen. Hero makes his play, not only on the basis that it had a reasonable chance of winning the pot immediately based on what had happened i.e. his opponent respecting his raises and making good folds, but would also likely on future hands lead to his opponent calling his raises and bets more, with lesser hands.

Given that Apocalypse did not win his hand, but was able to extract much more from his opponent later, and knowing that Apocalypse is an intelligent and thoughtful card player, I am going to assume he made this play for "meta-game" reasons. This was also his explanation, I believe him. But even if he is making the whole thing up, this would still be a very well chosen spot to pull this kind of play, for all the reasons given. If you only ever see hands is terms of outs and pot odds, you will not move far beyond the realms of mediocrity, maybe you feel you don't have to.

[vulture]

Hi Naphand,

The reason that I asked you the questions in my previous post is that I had posted some arguments against your first post. I'd like to start a discussion. Maybe you are right in your opinion, but until now you haven't given any reasons why my doubts are unfunded. BTW I take back my 'that's bullshit' part, so my apologies, but can you reply on my previous post.
Leaves me to say that I know apocalypse in personal and am aware of his skills.

Vulture

[naphand]

The 3-suited board is going to be scary for his opponent most of the time, in addition to the A. I agree that a UTG raisor is more likely to hold big cards, and therefore if one of those cards is a big /images/graemlins/heart.gif then it makes it more likely he calls. However, as Hero points out he has loosened his opening standards. For this to be de-valued play opponent would need pretty much AA, AK/images/graemlins/heart.gif (he cannot have the A/images/graemlins/heart.gif) or K/images/graemlins/heart.gifQ/J/T/images/graemlins/heart.gif. Any other cards and he is not likely to 3-bet a 3-suited board like this. Even KK with K/images/graemlins/heart.gif does not get 3-bet as opponent is now afraid on an A and thinking he is quite possibly drawing to the flush.

Opponent here has respect for Hero's play. The range of hands he needs for this to be poor is quite small. The A on the board lessens the chance opponent holds an A, esp. AA. If opponent does hold an A it is not the A/images/graemlins/heart.gif and even with a set he may be too scared to raise due to the flush board. Would he even 3-bet AK with K/images/graemlins/heart.gif? This is probably the only hand where he can be sure of his outs. Even so, he does only have TP and is possibly drawing against a weaker flush. The combinations of cards that opponent has mean he is either "behind" to a flush ("if" it is out there) or behind to an A, even holding a set he is pushed to 3-bet unless a very aggressive player. The exception to this is K/images/graemlins/heart.gifQ/J/T/images/graemlins/heart.gif when he holds the nuts. This is a very small range of hands that will certainly be 3-bet, and Hero has him on a lot of other possibilities.

As it happens he does have one of the stronger hands, a big pair with a draw to the nuts, so he is not folding. Do you 3-bet in this spot? I would probably get that sinking feeling in my gut when CR with this hand, but at least the call is easy. The River call is also tough for him when the flush misses, though he can raise if it comes in.

Hero's hand is far from perfect to justify the play for the purposes of winning this hand on its own merits, but there is some chance this will happen (and opponents was clearly thinking hard on the River), and in terms of the meta-game Hero wants to get to SD. There is no point in getting to SD cheap if you want advertising value, as all you are doing is saying "I call down with scratchy draws". Hero needs to raise this hand exactly for the reason that he wants to advertise to opponent that he is capable of making plays in this way. 3-betting is a risk, but I think quite small. Hero puts opponent in a tough spot, opponent has a big hand which in this case is certainly good enough to call the Turn with, but calling the River is tougher. Opponent will "resent" being put under that kind of pressure and will also revise his opinion of Hero's standards and almost be forced to call more in future.

This play has some value here (the pause on the River indicates Hero's judgement was good), and certainly has value in future (and Hero confirms this). The choice is good from a cards perspective against this kind of player, and Hero's subsequent post confirms that it worked as intended, which kinda means he chose the right play.

[vulture]

Hi Naphand,

Thanks for the reply,

[ QUOTE ]
The 3-suited board is going to be scary for his opponent most of the time, in addition to the A.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but also leaves more possible hands he won't fold on the turn and also not on the river, which are better than Apocolypse's hand(fe pair + flush draw). And isn't that what you want?

[ QUOTE ]
Even KK with K /images/graemlins/heart.gif does not get 3-bet as opponent is now afraid on an A and thinking he is quite possibly drawing to the flush.


[/ QUOTE ]

True, but he will call and you are a big dog against this hand and you put in an extra bet and probably one on the river.

[ QUOTE ]
The range of hands he needs for this to be poor is quite small.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. There are a lot of hands he can have, f.e. all flushdraws with a pair and bigger hands. He also won't fold the river considering the relatively big pot.

[ QUOTE ]
... and even with a set he may be too scared to raise due to the flush board.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is true, the player is weak tight IMO and doesn't fit the information Apocalypse gave us about him.

[ QUOTE ]
Would he even 3-bet AK with K /images/graemlins/heart.gif?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not, but he won't fold on any street either and he wins the pot with apocalypses extra bets.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a very small range of hands that will certainly be 3-bet, and Hero has him on a lot of other possibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but he still puts in extra bets on a street where he has the worst hand and has a small chance to let a better hand fold.

[ QUOTE ]
3 -betting is a risk, but I think quite small. Hero puts opponent in a tough spot, opponent has a big hand which in this case is certainly good enough to call the Turn with, but calling the River is tougher.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the opponent of Apocalypse but I could make the threebet with a relatively big range of hands that are better than his, with the intention of checking the river. I think the additional risk is relevant. I don't agree the opponent is in a tough spot, almost with every hand it's relatively clear what to do, and Apocalypse is really exploitable now. This wouldn't be a problem (or a much smaller problem) if there was no flushdraw. The opponent will probably lay down small pocket pairs with no flush draw so that's an advantage of the play. I don't agree with the difficulty for the opponent to call the river. I think in most situations it's an easy call or fold or raise. It is much more difficult for Apocalypse to decide to bet the river or not.

[ QUOTE ]
...and Hero's subsequent post confirms that it worked as intended, which kinda means he chose the right play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the link between that it worked (I assume you mean by work that he won the hand?) and the conclusion that the play was good. I had two outers against me on the turn that hit on the river and my opponent called a bet (wrongly)on the turn. He won, but made a costly mistake on the long run.

The point is IMO, that Apocalypse needs to make his hand when called on the turn to win the pot and that there is a very big chance he will be called. Ofcourse you sometimes have to make a play, which is maybe not even a winning play on the long run, just for the sake of variety or deception. I know that. But I think you have to pick the right situation to do, otherwise it could turn out to be very costly. I think this was not the right situation, because of the turn card. What do you say about my thinking that the play would be more appropriate when no /images/graemlins/heart.gif hit the turn?

Regards,

Vulture

[naphand]

The desired effect of making a meta-game play is not so much the result of this individual hand, but of opponents subsequent plays. Apocalypse indicates that he was able to make a lot of value plays against him after this. So it worked as a meta-game play. You cannot dispute this without declaring that Apocalypse is lying or imagining things.

You seem to be entirely focussed on the results of this hand, which is a very narrow viewpoint to take. This was a play Apocalypse wanted to showdown, with the intention of getting more bets out of opponent later. That worked. So what if he put in extra bets here? SO WHAT? He gets them back and more later PLUS there was a reasonable chance he wins this hand. You appears to be arguing that scare cards are not scare cards because they are co-ordinated (but that is one type of scare card) and that Hero is wasting bets. He is not if the play works, as it did. I'm not sure how to phrase this to get it across to you, but maybe it's better you speak to Apocalypse as the what happened after this hand, as a consequence of his play.

When a scare card comes on the Turn, it is even better when it is not only an overcard but completes a draw of some kind. Your logic that it gives his opponent more reasons/hands to call is nonsense. It only gives opponent reasons to call when he has high /images/graemlins/heart.gif card/s. These are only a quarter of the pack, so in the majority of cases he will not have one and the 3rd/images/graemlins/heart.gif will be a scare card for him. Even with a big /images/graemlins/heart.gif opponent is going to be hard pressed to 3-bet this with just 1-pair.

This is borne out by the results, even with the best /images/graemlins/heart.gif high card, opponent did not 3-bet. Arguing that his opponent was likely to raise with a lot of hands like this does not make sense. He had the best card for 3-betting according to your logic, and didn't raise. Apocalypse was right. Trying to argue that he would 3-bet these hands after the event is like trying to talk the tide back out to sea.

I think the points I made are correct, that his opponent even when holding a big /images/graemlins/heart.gif is not likely to raise if Apocalypse reads his read of him (i.e. opponents read of Apocalypse) correctly. It appears he did, He did not get 3-bet, and there are few hands opponent could have where this would happen. That there are hands opponent would call with is beyond doubt, he probably call the large majority of them This also is good, as Apocalypse is happy to SD here, with the intention of loosening up his opponents for later plays. If opponent folds GOOD, if opponent calls GOOD. What is this "Hero had to put extra bets in". But this is precisely the point of the play. CALLING DOWN ACHIEVES NOTHING FOR THE META-GAME. This is the point you appear to be missing. Arguing that Hero cost himself extra bets un-necessarily is missing the entire meta-game principle that Hero is trying to develop here. A "loose" raise here gets a big return on later hands. Hero is not costing himself extra bets, he is investing an extra bet or two with the intention of getting a return on them on later rounds. His investment worked, it seems.

[vulture]

A late reply, but I hope you'll read it,

[ QUOTE ]
The desired effect of making a meta-game play is not so much the result of this individual hand, but of opponents subsequent plays. Apocalypse indicates that he was able to make a lot of value plays against him after this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what you mean by a meta-game play. I just have serious doubts if the effect of the play will give him that much of an advantage in later rounds to make up for the -EV move he makes in this hand.
I am almost sure that he is NOT able to make a lot of extra value plays (caused by this play), against him after this.
And where does he indicate that he was able to make the value plays after this play?!

[ QUOTE ]
So it worked as a meta-game play. You cannot dispute this without declaring that Apocalypse is lying or imagining things.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what I declare, well.. not that he is lying, but that when he was playing the hand he was imagining things that aren't there IMO. (I would like to hear what Apocolypse thinks of this after reading the posts).

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be entirely focussed on the results of this hand, which is a very narrow viewpoint to take.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am absolutely not. My previous posts are absolutely also about the so called META-game effect. The way you think about it is very narrow minded IMO. You don't think about if the play will give the META result Apocalypse wants. You just don't seem to have any doubts about the play and if it will work and your arguments are never based on quotes out of previous posts. You have an opinion about my way of thinking, but in none of your posts you can justify this by arguing one of the statements I made. This is what I call narrow-minded.

[ QUOTE ]
This was a play Apocalypse wanted to showdown, with the intention of getting more bets out of opponent later. That worked

[/ QUOTE ]

On what ground do you conclude that it worked?!

[ QUOTE ]
So what if he put in extra bets here? SO WHAT? He gets them back and more later PLUS there was a reasonable chance he wins this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I am arguing. He won't get the lost bets back (and don't tell me now that he won the hand, so he don't needs to get them back, because that's absolutely not the point. At the time he made the move it was a bigtime -EV move, for just this hand). And what we are arguing is if the long run effect wins more for him than the short term loss.

[ QUOTE ]
You appears to be arguing that scare cards are not scare cards because they are co-ordinated (but that is one type of scare card) and that Hero is wasting bets. He is not if the play works, as it did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, on what grounds are you drawing the conclusion that the play works!?

[ QUOTE ]
Even with a big /images/graemlins/heart.gif opponent is going to be hard pressed to 3-bet this with just 1-pair

[/ QUOTE ]

3-bet or call; it doesn't matter. The chance that the opponent lays down the hand has diminished incredibly and this was the most important reason why playing the hand like Apocolypse did; so playing the hand with the intention of pushing him off a better hand and if called having a good chance to win. Both sides of this thinking I have argued in previous posts, so if you want to reply on this please quote out of the previous posts. It wasn't just for showing what Apocolypse was able to do; the chance that the opponent folded was very important in the consideration and that's exacly what Apocolyse told me.

[ QUOTE ]
It appears he did, He did not get 3-bet, and there are few hands opponent could have where this would happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the main point. The point is that IF threebetted Apocolypse has to call, which makes him very exploitable on the turn against a good player. And if called (and there is a very big chance the opponent will call), the opponent almost always will call with the better hand, which he won't fold at a riverbet.

[ QUOTE ]
That there are hands opponent would call with is beyond doubt, he probably call the large majority of them This also is good, as Apocalypse is happy to SD here, with the intention of loosening up his opponents for later plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think this play will make him loosening up that much in later rounds. The opponent won't call down big losing hands after seeing this. The META-result will be there, but is much smaller that you think IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing that Hero cost himself extra bets un-necessarily is missing the entire meta-game principle that Hero is trying to develop here. A "loose" raise here gets a big return on later hands. Hero is not costing himself extra bets, he is investing an extra bet or two with the intention of getting a return on them on later rounds. His investment worked, it seems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not arguing that Hero 'costs him extra bets unnecessarily within the entire meta-game principle that Hero is trying to develop here.' I am arguing that the META-game he tries to play here is wrong and that there are much better oppurtunities to make a META-game move. And again why do you think it worked?!

Regards,

Vulture

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
Then later on, i saw it wasn't all for nothing since he had drastically lowered his callingdown standards to even some aces high wich is very rare at this limit and i could valuebet my ass off.

[/ QUOTE ]

7th post down "Thoughts and result" by Apocalypse.

[vulture]

Ok,

Missed that. It still doesn't prove that his loosening up is because of the play, but ok.. let's say Apocalypse is fairly sure about the causality between the play and the later results.
Still I doubt if the play on the long run wins that much extra bets from the opponent. Even if it did, the opponent is a very stupid player, while Apocalypse tells he's a solid player. The main point of my post still stands though: there are much better situations to play a meta-game move and this play still is IMO very rarely effectively enough to make up for the mistakes that are involved in the individual hand (not always there Apocalypse says he wins the vitually lost bets back by valuebetting his ass off).

Regards,

Vulture

[Apocalypse]

sorry for my response this late people, but i shut my computer down for two weeks with the electric cable out symbolically because i had been sitting my ass down at the thing for way too long /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

as far as the discussion goes on between you two it seems to center about two points (or just one followed up by another) that vulture makes regarding my analysis:

1. Im somewhat imagining things when i think this kind of play can loosen up my TAGgy oppoonent in future hands to make this play profitable nonentheless it is -EV standalone

(i know you don't want to say this in these terms since you know me and probably *cough* don't want to hurt my feelings or something *cough* but thats the bottomline)

and....that IF he would loosen up because of this play he is

2. Not a TAG but weak tight

well i can be very short about this.

ad 1. He did loosen he did loosen up he did loosen he did he did he did he did!!! I guess i can show this out at a point where im taking handhistories from paradise support and load them into PT, and we'll see at that point or something

But that would mean he isn't a TAGgy player to your knowledlge now is he?

ad2. for chrissake, im playing 3/6, u 100/200 how bigga difference do you think our standards are???!?!?! Everybody upto winning players at 10/20 could be considered weak-tight in your mind that way. a 3/6 TAG at paradise means a 'thinking' opponent oppossed to extreme laggy no-brainers i come across almost a 100% of the time. This guy was a relief and fitted the description i gave in previous posts. Does this mean he is really really good? Does this mean i am good enough to make these kind of judgements about what is 'real' good, and relatively 'good'. Hell no, i am a weaktight bitch if i sat at your table. Its all relative baby. I adjust to this guy in his manner of being a 3/6 TAG, where i 3-betted my red aces against 100/200 poster ikke on a KsQs10sXo after leading out the turn(very bad move at 3/6 paradise), because i try to adjust. Please, try to do the same..at the table and off the table...


ps. for any responses ill try to check up the next few days.

[vulture]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Als antwoord op:</font><hr />
i know you don't want to say this in these terms since you know me and probably *cough* don't want to hurt my feelings or something *cough* but thats the bottomline

[/ QUOTE ]

This line makes me think you don't know anything about me. I ENJOY HURTING YOUR FEELINGS.

As reply at your post: you totally missed the main points out of my previous posts. Without questioning if the meta-thoughts worked, there are much more interesting things about the hand.

Regards,

Vulture

[vulture]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Als antwoord op:</font><hr />
2. Not a TAG but weak tight

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely NOT a main point out of my previous posts. You pick out one quote and place it totally out of its context. But still love you, I am not trying to hurt your feelings :-)