Ribbo and Me

[Mendacious]

Just exactly how bad off do I have to have Ribbo for him not to suck out on me. Hint... very freakin far. Somewhere in London there is a stubbly faced guy wearing a red leather jacket(red?) with a LOT of my money in his pocket. Hope he spends it better than he got it.


Suckout 1 (http://www.pokerhand.org/index.php?page=view&hand=140845)

Suckout 2 (http://www.pokerhand.org/index.php?page=view&hand=140855)

Cheers, and can I borrow the lucky jacket!

[DyessMan89]

Thats just wrong.

[Wintermute]

I would play both those hands the same way he did. Especially the second one. Stop posting "bad beats", they're boring.

[Ribbo]

Since it's okay to post people's names, his is "McGyver_B" in the hand.

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I would play both those hands the same way he did. Especially the second one. Stop posting "bad beats", they're boring.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what he is trying to say, is he shoved his money in with a queen high flush and nut low draw, won half and somehow expected more. Looked to me like his play was the worse.

[Mendacious]

You would pot re-raise with two pair on a flush board with a crummy low re-draw? Then you would have pot equity of .21 like Ribbo did.

I really don't see how you can defend a pot reraise there even slightly.


The flush suckout was even longer odds, but I think I would have played that the same way too, given that at the time he did have a piece of the pot.

[Mendacious]

Very mature.

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Very mature.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should have thought of that before you decided to be "very mature" with your original post.

After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Wintermute]

[ QUOTE ]
You would pot re-raise with two pair on a flush board with a crummy low re-draw? Then you would have pot equity of .21 like Ribbo did.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. It's a mistake to take one hand out of context. Ribbo plays more hands more aggressively than you are used to. As a result, people play back at him with less than optimal holdings--as such, he can correspondingly adjust his requirements a shade lower. Over time, this style wins--the proof is in all the results that have been posted in this forum over the past half year.

The real beauty of this approach against tight players is that they don't even realize they are getting the worst of it in the long run, style-wise, since many of their large losses are "suckouts" in their opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
The flush suckout was even longer odds, but I think I would have played that the same way too, given that at the time he did have a piece of the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
The bulk of the money went in when he had nut low and nut flush draw. That's not a mistake IMO.

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
You would pot re-raise with two pair on a flush board with a crummy low re-draw?

No, he would pot reraise with 2 pair and a naked ace plus second low draw. Since clearly the opponent has a weak flush and knows it. You knew I had the ace, yet you still called anyway. Seems to me, you were trying harder to lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
Looked to me like his play was the worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lest you forget, I KNOW the guy who pot-raised in front of me, What kind of fantasy land do you live in? I was 80/20 to win that hand. You were praying for 4 people to fold, (two of whom had already put more money in the pot) -- or, for yourself two catch a 6 outer.

Paying TWICE the pot to bluff out 4 people when your back up is a 6 outer, is gigantically -EV. Surely you realize that.

Apparantly this hand is not as boring as Wintermute thinks.

[Wintermute]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Looked to me like his play was the worse.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lest you forget, I KNOW the guy who pot-raised in front of me, What kind of fantasy land do you live in? I was 80/20 to win that hand. You were praying for 4 people to fold, (two of whom had already put more money in the pot) -- or, for yourself two catch a 6 outer.

Paying TWICE the pot to bluff out 4 people when your back up is a 6 outer, is gigantically -EV. Surely you realize that.

Apparantly this hand is not as boring as Wintermute thinks.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a283/pfriedbe/baby-crying.jpg

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. It's a mistake to take one hand out of context. Ribbo plays more hands more aggressively than you are used to. As a result, people play back at him with less than optimal holdings--as such, he can correspondingly adjust his requirements a shade lower. Over time, this style wins--the proof is in all the results that have been posted in this forum over the past half year.

The real beauty of this approach against tight players is that they don't even realize they are getting the worst of it in the long run, style-wise, since many of their large losses are "suckouts" in their opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, though I appreciate what I have seen of Ribbo's writing, (this thread excepted), posting a bunch of hands where you win is not "Proof" that you are a winning player. I'm pushing 2000 hands with Ribbo, and even with the $800 on these huge dog suckouts, he is still a losing player in my database.

I have little doubt about the quality of the thinking in his advice, but at the tables where I have seen him, he has been losing money. I am not winning over the last month at the $200 tables either, so please do not misconstrue my post as a statement that I think I am a "better" player than Ribbo.

Having people play back at you when you are an 80/20 dog is NOT a good thing, unless you are getting better than 4-1. Clearly in this hand Ribbo was NOT inviting play back, if he was, he was a fool. Moreover, you are assuming that if Ribbo had a spade to go with the Ace that he would have pot-re-raised. Frankly, from what I have seen and read, he would have value bet the nut flush with a low re-draw a large percentage of the time. So the "style" thing is only valid if people don't have a read on your "style". But when people read your posts, have played 1000's of hands with you AND read your hand histories, "Style" can be a little predictable.

[Mendacious]

If your play was so correct in both these hands, I'm not sure why your feelings were hurt to the extent that you felt you had to post my multi-poker "alias".

Or was it the jacket remark? If you are "Megaman" enough to wear that jacket and post a picture of yourself in it, you should be able to handle a reference to it-- especially one as vanilla as mine was in that post.

I don't care that much who knows the alias, I just think that was lame of you to do in spite.

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. It's a mistake to take one hand out of context. Ribbo plays more hands more aggressively than you are used to. As a result, people play back at him with less than optimal holdings--as such, he can correspondingly adjust his requirements a shade lower. Over time, this style wins--the proof is in all the results that have been posted in this forum over the past half year.

The real beauty of this approach against tight players is that they don't even realize they are getting the worst of it in the long run, style-wise, since many of their large losses are "suckouts" in their opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, though I appreciate what I have seen of Ribbo's writing, (this thread excepted), posting a bunch of hands where you win is not "Proof" that you are a winning player. I'm pushing 2000 hands with Ribbo, and even with the $800 on these huge dog suckouts, he is still a losing player in my database.

I have little doubt about the quality of the thinking in his advice, but at the tables where I have seen him, he has been losing money. I am not winning over the last month at the $200 tables either, so please do not misconstrue my post as a statement that I think I am a "better" player than Ribbo.

Having people play back at you when you are an 80/20 dog is NOT a good thing, unless you are getting better than 4-1. Clearly in this hand Ribbo was NOT inviting play back, if he was, he was a fool. Moreover, you are assuming that if Ribbo had a spade to go with the Ace that he would have pot-re-raised. Frankly, from what I have seen and read, he would have value bet the nut flush with a low re-draw a large percentage of the time. So the "style" thing is only valid if people don't have a read on your "style". But when people read your posts, have played 1000's of hands with you AND read your hand histories, "Style" can be a little predictable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good god no, I would shove a nut flush with A3 for low just the same. Same with A2 spades if low hasnt hit yet.
Since you clearly have either a bad flush or a set on the flop with that bet, i'm not taking my chances it's one over the other until i have nut low also.

[Mendacious]

what does posting these two qoutes mean?

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
If your play was so correct in both these hands, I'm not sure why your feelings were hurt to the extent that you felt you had to post my multi-poker "alias".

Or was it the jacket remark? If you are "Megaman" enough to wear that jacket and post a picture of yourself in it, you should be able to handle a reference to it-- especially one as vanilla as mine was in that post.

I don't care that much who knows the alias, I just think that was lame of you to do in spite.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was lame of you to post in the first place out of spite of getting sucked out.
And since I care not about people knowing my usernames, you had a lot more to lose from posting it. Maybe next time you will use your brain and think first eh?

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
It was lame of you to post in the first place out of spite of getting sucked out.
And since I care not about people knowing my usernames, you had a lot more to lose from posting it. Maybe next time you will use your brain and think first eh?


[/ QUOTE ]

Posting a suck-out is not spiteful. It is venting. And admitting that you got lucky is actually cathartic. You should try it.

You aren't seriously suggesting that I by posting the hand history with your alias "RIBBO", known to all, that this is equivalent to posting an alias that no one knew.

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was lame of you to post in the first place out of spite of getting sucked out.
And since I care not about people knowing my usernames, you had a lot more to lose from posting it. Maybe next time you will use your brain and think first eh?


[/ QUOTE ]

Posting a suck-out is not spiteful. It is venting. And admitting that you got lucky is actually cathartic. You should try it.

You aren't seriously suggesting that I by posting the hand history with your alias "RIBBO", known to all, that this is equivalent to posting an alias that no one knew.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of interest, exactly HOW did you think I would take it?

[Mendacious]

Well I didn't think it was too much to hope for that you would be amused <blush> at your good fortune. I mean somebody posts 2 hands where I take down $$$$$$$$, I don't think I would take it so badly that I would feel the need to berate their play and post their alias.

We all make moves a pots where we are WAY behind-- it doesn't tarnish your reputation that you were <gasp> way behind when you shoved. Although I am not overly fond of your reraise with two pair, it wasn't thoughtless, just horribly far behind given what I had.

I suspect you would have been understandably pissed if I had posted these hands and you had been scooped.

But as I said, in the original post, "Cheers". Better that it went to somebody that I like, instead of some a-hole.

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I didn't think it was too much to hope for that you would be amused <blush> at your good fortune. I mean somebody posts 2 hands where I take down $$$$$$$$, I don't think I would take it so badly that I would feel the need to berate their play and post their alias.

We all make moves a pots where we are WAY behind-- it doesn't tarnish your reputation that you were <gasp> way behind when you shoved. Although I am not overly fond of your reraise with two pair, it wasn't thoughtless, just horribly far behind given what I had.

I suspect you would have been understandably pissed if I had posted these hands and you had been scooped.

But as I said, in the original post, "Cheers". Better that it went to somebody that I like, instead of some a-hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think I played badly on the hand, it wasn't as badly as you by blowing your cover afterwards.
Good players don't create alternative play names then announce it to the world because they lose half a pot.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Looked to me like his play was the worse.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lest you forget, I KNOW the guy who pot-raised in front of me, What kind of fantasy land do you live in? I was 80/20 to win that hand. You were praying for 4 people to fold, (two of whom had already put more money in the pot) -- or, for yourself two catch a 6 outer.

Paying TWICE the pot to bluff out 4 people when your back up is a 6 outer, is gigantically -EV. Surely you realize that.

Apparantly this hand is not as boring as Wintermute thinks.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a283/pfriedbe/baby-crying.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]


Foul. This situation clearly called for Erik Estrada, not the whiny toddler. I cite you for incorrect use of a picture. Felicia, is that a banning infraction?

-g

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was lame of you to post in the first place out of spite of getting sucked out.
And since I care not about people knowing my usernames, you had a lot more to lose from posting it. Maybe next time you will use your brain and think first eh?


[/ QUOTE ]

Posting a suck-out is not spiteful. It is venting. And admitting that you got lucky is actually cathartic. You should try it.

You aren't seriously suggesting that I by posting the hand history with your alias "RIBBO", known to all, that this is equivalent to posting an alias that no one knew.

[/ QUOTE ]


Some people think that homoerotic love is the best kind of love.

--g

[Mendacious]

Lol--so you were watching the chat, just not responding. I have an alias for each party affiliate, for bonus purposes. I just happen to be working off tons of Multi-poker bonus, and I have rakeback there. I just thought posting the alias in the manner that you did was spiteful for no reason.

Honestly, you are worse than my wife with the never wrong stuff.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol--so you were watching the chat, just not responding. I have an alias for each party affiliate, for bonus purposes. I just happen to be working off tons of Multi-poker bonus, and I have rakeback there. I just thought posting the alias in the manner that you did was spiteful for no reason.

Honestly, you are worse than my wife with the never wrong stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

...while others are very much in support of gay marriage.

-g

[ QUOTE ]
Well I didn't think it was too much to hope for that you would be amused <blush> at your good fortune. I mean somebody posts 2 hands where I take down $$$$$$$$, I don't think I would take it so badly that I would feel the need to berate their play and post their alias.

We all make moves a pots where we are WAY behind-- it doesn't tarnish your reputation that you were <gasp> way behind when you shoved. Although I am not overly fond of your reraise with two pair, it wasn't thoughtless, just horribly far behind given what I had.

I suspect you would have been understandably pissed if I had posted these hands and you had been scooped.

But as I said, in the original post, "Cheers". Better that it went to somebody that I like, instead of some a-hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironic how you make a post to tease or vent or whatever at Ribbo's expense, but then seem to whine because your alias was revealed. Sounds like the law of unintended consequences in action. Surprised the crying baby hasn't appeared yet. -- correction, the baby has appeared

[Wintermute]

[ QUOTE ]
what does posting these two qoutes mean?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's just to let the reader understand why I'm unleashing the crybaby pic on you.

Look, I didn't mean any real offense by it, just breaking your balls--but posting bad beats is getting boring. Just like posting observed hands at the higher levels to point out how easy the games are to beat, as Ribbo has been prone to do.

...

Speaking of which, it could be that you just caught Ribbo on a bad day--it looks like he did actually venture into the $1k and $2k games for a few hands today, and the results were not very rosy given what he might have expected based on his previous observed HH posts... no, not very rosy at all.

[Mendacious]

The baby did appear on your post until now.

Why post 4 times on a topic that is "boring" to you?

The point of post was not crying, it was that it was RIBBO -- of all people-- who was bad beating me when I was miles ahead on the $200 tables.

[Mendacious]

How is posting two hands where Ribbo made money, posting at his expense? I didn't know you people were so sensitive about WINNING!

[sy_or_bust]

This forum is gradually going down the toilet, and it's not because the posters are terrible /images/graemlins/frown.gif. There seems to be great PL08 stuff in here, even in this thread, but the noise level is absurd. So is calling out a 2'er for 'sucking out' on you without attemping any strategic content. Please stop?

[Mendacious]

PS I never get tired of the crybaby picture, even when it is directed at me!

[TheWorstPlayer]

Not enough hands posted to keep WM, Rib and gerg posting on topic. I'll play more and post more. And I'm gonna get xorbie to post, too.

[MyTurn2Raise]

Hey, are we working together to improve our games on this forum? Or, to compare our stacks?

[dcasper70]

I'm very curious as to how this thread would have gone had the OP changed the HH player names, only to later reveal the participants....

[kurto]

I would be curious for someone to actually discuss the hands. I have to admit I was confused, particularly with the first one. I rather enjoy Ribbo's hand postings and was rather puzzled by his play on both hands. (Though more the first)

For hand 1... 2 pair and a weak low... I'm not sure I get his pot sized bet. I would think he would berate someone else if they posted this hand and played it the same way, no? I understand he has the Ace, but anyone with A2 and a weaker flush might stick around, anyone with a set...

For the second one... I am newer to this game, but my first thought is, against semi-decent players, do you call pot sized bets on the flop with a low that's likely split, no counterfeit protection, and no real high draws except for a backdoor flush?

I know I'm new at the game so perhaps I'm missing something. My first thought was he's either on tilt or a maniac.

From Hand 2 on the river:

Hero : noooo
Hero : I freakin had you colc
Ribbo: ship it

That's funny for some reason.

[ QUOTE ]
For hand 1... 2 pair and a weak low... I'm not sure I get his pot sized bet. I would think he would berate someone else if they posted this hand and played it the same way, no? I understand he has the Ace, but anyone with A2 and a weaker flush might stick around, anyone with a set...

[/ QUOTE ]

What hands should he be afraid of? Only a set plus A2 or big non-nut flush plus A2 have him in trouble. Do you check-fold just because someone might have these? I think playing hands like this aggressively are what gets hands like nut flush (or set) + A2 paid off in the long run. Maybe I am overstating table image, but I think this looks like a great flop for Ribbo as most anyone else will have trouble playing on facing heat with this board. Unfortunately, the OP had one of those few hands that could take the heat and pray that Ribbo didn't have the nut flush + nut low draw. But even then, Ribbo has outs, as the result shows.

[Mendacious]

I think the play with 2 pair is thoughtful, but I still don't like it, mostly because it is paying 2-1 to get the pot. I think the odds are going to be terrible if there is a caller, and the odds are pretty good that one person has a low draw with clubs, and table image was not working in Ribbo's favor, in that I in particular-- and probably most others-- know that he is capable of making huge moves at pots on draws. (Admittedly this move will get him paid more often when he actually HAS the nuts, so it may be +EV from that standpoint, although I would want to have a better draw than he had to make this move)

This play falls into a category of play that I would call fancy, but dubious. In otherwords, the logic of the play is very advanced, but in the real world it is flawed.

Raising a flush board because you have the Ace, or raising because you have blocker cards to the hand you are afraid of usually means you are heavily discounting the information that the better in front of you is telling you, and that the fold that you are hoping for is probably NOT coming.

Other than bad beats, this is probably the number 1 way for good players lose money.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the play with 2 pair is thoughtful, but I still don't like it, mostly because it is paying 2-1 to get the pot. I think the odds are going to be terrible if there is a caller, and the odds are pretty good that one person has a low draw with clubs, and table image was not working in Ribbo's favor, in that I in particular-- and probably most others-- know that he is capable of making huge moves at pots on draws. (Admittedly this move will get him paid more often when he actually HAS the nuts, so it may be +EV from that standpoint, although I would want to have a better draw than he had to make this move)

This play falls into a category of play that I would call fancy, but dubious. In otherwords, the logic of the play is very advanced, but in the real world it is flawed.

Raising a flush board because you have the Ace, or raising because you have blocker cards to the hand you are afraid of usually means you are heavily discounting the information that the better in front of you is telling you, and that the fold that you are hoping for is probably NOT coming.

Other than bad beats, this is probably the number 1 way for good players lose money.

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]

Raising a flush board because you have the Ace, or raising because you have blocker cards to the hand you are afraid of usually means you are heavily discounting the information that the better in front of you is telling you, and that the fold that you are hoping for is probably NOT coming.


[/ QUOTE ]

Many people bet the flop then fold to a raise with a K-high flush if they have no low draw. I would probably try this raise with his hand since he has a decent (not great) draw against a flush, a low draw that may steal half the pot if the opponent won't let go of his non-nut flush, and knowledge that you cannot possibly have the nuts. I think those 3 things add up to a reasonable pot sized semi-bluff looking at this hand in a vacuum. I wouldn't even call this advanced, but you need to know your opponent is capable of folding flushes to probably make it completely correct. If his table image is that of a reckless maniac, then the move might be a bit dubious, but I am not going to fault him for a move I think is fairly solid play.

Discrediting big hands due to blockers is more suspect, but this situation is different. He knows you don't have a nut flush. That is an huge informational advantage. This would be similar to bluffing a JT945 rainbow board with QQQQ in the hole. If you have QQQ3 you have blockers, but this bet becomes more suspect. With QQQQ or the naked ace with a 3 flush on board you don't just have blockers to a big hand you have the nuts totally blocked. A worse straight or flush should feel a ton of pressure to call that bet.

[Wintermute]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the play with 2 pair is thoughtful, but I still don't like it, mostly because it is paying 2-1 to get the pot. I think the odds are going to be terrible if there is a caller, and the odds are pretty good that one person has a low draw with clubs, and table image was not working in Ribbo's favor, in that I in particular-- and probably most others-- know that he is capable of making huge moves at pots on draws. (Admittedly this move will get him paid more often when he actually HAS the nuts, so it may be +EV from that standpoint, although I would want to have a better draw than he had to make this move)

[/ QUOTE ]
I completely disagree. This looks like a near-ideal spot to take a stab at the dry-ace bluff. You fired a weak-looking bet into a raised pot; he can push all his chips in and expect you to fold *most* of the time (range of hands), unless you are allergic to money. In addition, he has very STRONG draws to both high and low. Speaking of which, why is everyone calling 2nd nut low draw a weak low draw? It's not weak at all. Only the perfect hand--flush w/ A2--has Ribbo in bad shape here, and even then he's not drawing anywhere near dead (almost 20% equity here). Now, consider how this play looks if you're holding ONLY the Q-high flush, with no low draw. Or ONLY the low draw, but with a much weaker flush. The action easily could've progressed as it did in this hand, and his bet would pick up the pot frequently. When it didn't, he'd have much greater equity than 20%, perhaps even enough to make the move +EV. Also, what happens if he does turn up the Ax suited, and the turn and river brick for you? Playing this hand in the manner he did allows him to get maximum payoff in the situation where he does hold nut flush to your second-nut.

[ QUOTE ]

This play falls into a category of play that I would call fancy, but dubious. In otherwords, the logic of the play is very advanced, but in the real world it is flawed.

Raising a flush board because you have the Ace, or raising because you have blocker cards to the hand you are afraid of usually means you are heavily discounting the information that the better in front of you is telling you, and that the fold that you are hoping for is probably NOT coming.

[/ QUOTE ]
The most significant determining characteristic for whether this dry-ace bluff is going to work is the quality of your opponent. I am not surprised that you underestimate the strength of that play given that you only play against the weakest players at $100 level (according to your blog). At the 200 level, even, against a number of opponents, it probably isn't that wise, but in this case Ribbo had STRONG BACKUP.

[ QUOTE ]

Other than bad beats, this is probably the number 1 way for good players lose money.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, overestimating the quality of your opponent (so that you can attempt bluffs) is a costly mistake. I don't think it's number 1, however; I think number 1 way good players lose money is playing better players for higher stakes.

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
So is calling out a 2'er for 'sucking out' on you without attemping any strategic content.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really did not see this as calling Ribbo out at all. The fact that he was way behind in both of these hands does not make his play bad per-se, just wrong under the circumstances. I did not berate him in any way, I even said "cheers".

The two pair hand two me is very interesting because of Ribbo's huge raise. This is certainly not a "low content" hand in the slightest, and posting it is not calling anyone out.

The flush draw out hand is another interesting situation. I think most players would have played that hand as Ribbo did, but again, he was a huge dog. Less content to this one, I agree.

Both hands have gotten divurgent commentary. Is it really necessary for me to pre-digest the hands for you to consider it "content"?

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, what happens if he does turn up the Ax suited, and the turn and river brick for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying you would have folded my hand to Ribbo's raise? If not, then all of the crap about quality of opponent is just a pointless dig. Moreover, the quality of opponent analysis is severely limited when you are up against 4 people. Nor can you really discount Ribbo's table image in your analysis of what he should expect from his opponents.

So, I don't think 4 people fold their hands often enough to make this the right play when you paying twice the pot to steal it. I don't give that play much fold equity relative to the bet size under the circumstances. But obviously this is a totally subjective thing.

As for the quality of the draws, you are right, he does have draws both ways, and his bet does maximize his prospects for getting his money back. However, I think if he gets a caller, a nut low draw with clubs is the most likely bet to stand up to that sized raise. In this case it was a nut low with counterfit protection and the 2nd nut flush.

[ QUOTE ]
Playing this hand in the manner he did allows him to get maximum payoff in the situation where he does hold nut flush to your second-nut.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is merit to this, but without the nut low draw and counterfit protection I fold this hand to his raise easily.
His raise just felt wrong for the situation if he held the nut flush.

Out of curiousity, how would you have expected Ribbo to play the nut flush in this situation? How about the nut flush with a "Strong" low draw? I'm on the fence on this point with evidence in both directions.

[FeliciaLee]

I think these little rivalries are funny. So juvenile, yet so hilarious at the same time.

Usually it's me that everyone loves to hate, so it's interesting to see the flaming focused on someone else for a change.