Have you ever been berated because of SSH? Hand post...

Prelude008 · #1 01-26-2005, 04:53 AM

Hi,

I was just berated at my 3-6 table for the hand that I am posting. Can you please give me your thoughts about my play of this hand.

I only ask because I won the hand and one of the players who lost the hand called me an idiot, he said I was stupid for chasing a gutshot, then I became a moron who was advised to read books, especially on odds. I just finished SSH and they concept of not folding in large pots was on my mind during this hand.

3/6 Texas Hold-Em

UTG+1 raises to 6

Hero calls (UTG+2) with [ 7h, 7s ]
SB raises to 9

UTG+1 calls (3)
Hero calls 3

Pot = $27 (9 bets)

** Dealing Flop ** : [ Ah, 9c, 6d ]
SB bets (3)
UTG+1 calls (3)
HERO calls (3)

Pot = $36 (12 bets)

** Dealing Turn ** : [ 5h ]
SB_1 bets (6)
UTG+1 raises (12) to 12
HERO calls (12)
SB calls (6)

Pot is $76

I am thinking that I have 4 outs for a straight (8) or 2 outs for a set (7) which I felt would have been good

** Dealing River ** : [ 8d ]
SB_1 bets (6)
UTG+1 calls (6)
HERO raises (12) to 12
SB_1 calls (6)
UTG+1 calls (6)

** Summary **

Main Pot: $108 | Rake: $3
Board: [ Ah 9c 6d 5h 8d ]
SB had [ Kc Ac ] [ a pair of aces -- Ac,Ah,Kc,9c,8d ]
UTG+1 had [ As 6s ] for[ two pairs, aces and sixes -- As,Ah,9c,6s,6d ]

HERO collected $108 [ 7h 7s ] [ a straight, five to nine -- 9c,8d,7h,6d,5h ]

Comments or suggestions? Am I am applying some of the SSH concepts correctly. Thanks.

edtost · #2 01-26-2005, 04:55 AM

why did you see the turn?

Prelude008 · #3 01-26-2005, 05:01 AM

Looking for a 7 for the set and there was the backdoor straight that was possible.

private joker · #4 01-26-2005, 05:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Looking for a 7 for the set and there was the backdoor straight that was possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything is "possible." Doesn't mean you have odds to see it. The backdoor straight is about 1 out, and the set is 2 outs. And even if you hit your set, it's not the nuts. But let's give you 3 whole outs. You need to be getting 15:1, and you're not getting it. Fold the flop.

private joker · #5 01-26-2005, 04:58 AM

They were right to criticize you for chasing. Fold that flop 100% of the time. There are two overcards to your pair, and you're not getting anywhere near the odds to catch a 2-outer.

colgin · #6 01-26-2005, 11:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
They were right to criticize you for chasing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they were wrong to criticize him for chasing. Why would you want to correct your opponent's mistakes. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

bernie · #7 01-28-2005, 06:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They were right to criticize you for chasing.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were effing morons for criticizing him. Or anyone else for that matter.

b

private joker · #8 01-28-2005, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They were right to criticize you for chasing.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were effing morons for criticizing him. Or anyone else for that matter.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously. And this point has been made clear several times in this thread. But to say someone was "right to criticize" you means their judgment was correct poker whereas yours was not; in the real world, it is "wrong" to make a "right" criticism. Are we going to continue beating the dead horse about not tapping the glass? It's getting old. We all know not to do it, I hope.

bernie · #9 01-28-2005, 06:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are we going to continue beating the dead horse about not tapping the glass? It's getting old. We all know not to do it, I hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

2 responses said they were 'right' in saying something. Dead horse? Yeah, for those that know better.

[ QUOTE ]
But to say someone was "right to criticize" you means their judgment was correct poker whereas yours was not;

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at this line above, and think of the situation and see if it applies. Or how it can be interpreted given this thread.

In the context of table chat, it's wrong. And the fact that they do it in that context is not correct poker. Their judgement sucked in saying this. Playing poker doesn't end when the pot is pushed.

That said, I know what you're getting at. I don't see it applying to this table coach. His intent isn't to 'help' the player, but to belittle him and show his false superiority. He's right to 'think' it, but not say it. Which is what I think you're trying to say.

When someone says they are right to criticize when the situation is a player being berated, it is directly linked to the confrontation unless otherwise noted.

This will always come up when new posters cycle in. Probably even more-so now that the forum gains more and more new posters. We will see a wave of shortterm high winrate experts, know-it-alls and table coaches.

Just like many of the other dead horse/redundant concepts that are gone over time and again. I don't assume that everyone 'knows better'. Many don't.

b

private joker · #10 01-28-2005, 06:51 PM

Bernie I am not defending the table coaches' actions. Do not tap the glass. I'm trying to help the 2+2 poster by telling him he played the hand poorly. When I said they were "right" to criticize him, I am saying they were right IN their criticism, meaning their logic and poker skills were correct. They were wrong in their actions to criticize him, but that's not what we're talking about. How can it be?

What good does it tell the 2+2 poster that the table was wrong to tap on the glass and inform him he sucks? That's mean. We're here to help each other. If you want to create a different thread to inform 2+2ers not to tap the glass, go right ahead. But every person here who is telling the OP that the other guys were "right" means that they were correct about him misplaying the hand. We just want the OP to realize that he misplayed it.