skp
12-03-2003, 06:09 PM
British Columbia Supreme Court News Release:
Huey, Dewey, and Louie (the court has no idea if the spellings of the plaintiffs are correct) have presented their case in their defamation action against Mr. Andy Fox
The star witness for the plaintiffs was skp who testified as to the power of the ducks as evidenced by this hand he played in a 10-20 game on November 29, 2003:
The star witness was on the button with the red ducks. A maniac raised in early position and was coldcalled by a relatively unknown player. The star witness recalled expert evidence from another case where the expert opined that "until you see evidence to the contrary, you should assume that an unknown player plays poorly". The star witness then duly noted that the blinds in this hand craved action. The star witness coldcalled. The blinds called and there were 5 of 'em looking at the flop where, of course, the third plaintiff, "Louie" made his grand appearance:
KsQs2c
Maniac bet. Unknown raised. Star witness coldcalled. sb folded. bb coldcalled. Maniac hit it again. Unknown capped. All 4 were in.
Turn: 5s
bb faked a betting motion and checked. Maniac bet. Unknown called and star witness raised. bb folded. Other two called.
River: Kh
Maniac checked. Unknown player bet. Star witness called as did maniac.
Unknown mucked. Star witness showed Huey and Dewey. Maniac mucked. Star witness won the pot.
The plaintiffs rested their case following this powerful testimony. Mr. Fox and his counsel were left speechless.
The court found in favour of the plaintiffs but has reserved judgment on damages.
(don't worry Andy, it's only in the British Columbia courts where defamation awards are pretty laughable).
In all seriousness, I think that this was pushing the envelope but I liked my play on the hand. What say you?
Huey, Dewey, and Louie (the court has no idea if the spellings of the plaintiffs are correct) have presented their case in their defamation action against Mr. Andy Fox
The star witness for the plaintiffs was skp who testified as to the power of the ducks as evidenced by this hand he played in a 10-20 game on November 29, 2003:
The star witness was on the button with the red ducks. A maniac raised in early position and was coldcalled by a relatively unknown player. The star witness recalled expert evidence from another case where the expert opined that "until you see evidence to the contrary, you should assume that an unknown player plays poorly". The star witness then duly noted that the blinds in this hand craved action. The star witness coldcalled. The blinds called and there were 5 of 'em looking at the flop where, of course, the third plaintiff, "Louie" made his grand appearance:
KsQs2c
Maniac bet. Unknown raised. Star witness coldcalled. sb folded. bb coldcalled. Maniac hit it again. Unknown capped. All 4 were in.
Turn: 5s
bb faked a betting motion and checked. Maniac bet. Unknown called and star witness raised. bb folded. Other two called.
River: Kh
Maniac checked. Unknown player bet. Star witness called as did maniac.
Unknown mucked. Star witness showed Huey and Dewey. Maniac mucked. Star witness won the pot.
The plaintiffs rested their case following this powerful testimony. Mr. Fox and his counsel were left speechless.
The court found in favour of the plaintiffs but has reserved judgment on damages.
(don't worry Andy, it's only in the British Columbia courts where defamation awards are pretty laughable).
In all seriousness, I think that this was pushing the envelope but I liked my play on the hand. What say you?