Re: 50/100 hand. Comment please
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. I simply don't think that someone who plays like you do has very good results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this coming from? I'm very interested in hearing your extensive research for making this claim. I think I do quite well as a pokerplayer. I wouldn't put myself in the expert category, but I'd certainly say I'm bordering on very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not ass kissing at all, but this is rdiculous. From the players I've played with extensively, nickla is the last person I want at my table.

The rest of your comments are pretty good, though.

Re: 50/100 hand. Comment please
 

I think it's okay. I don't see how you can throw hand reading and the river card out the window and call the river bet just because you called the turn bet. It looks like you are behind on the turn but the board isn't scary enough to fold. On the river it is. I also think the 3rd player is easily overlooked on a webpage but should impact decisions.

Krishan

Re: 50/100 hand. Comment please
 

I thought it was an interesting hand, which might provide the forum with an interesting discussion. Do _I_ need to be in doubt of how I think one should play it to make a handpost?

Re: 50/100 hand. Comment please
 

Was the hand called down? Do you know what the result was?

Re: 50/100 hand. Comment please
 

"Why are everyone so consumed with the whole "if you call turn you HAVE TO call river" idea?"

Not sure if everyone is obsessed with this idea, but your general point is good one. I think especially so when an opponent shows aggression on the turn and still bets when an overcard to the board hits on the river. In my experience, that usually means a damn good hand.

Re: 50/100 hand. Comment please
 

Interesting coincidence, but see the current post "Interesting Hand Against a Two-Plus-Twoer" where our hero bets a scare card Ace on the river and got the KK to fold.
Now, it is much less likely that he would have bet that scare card if he hadn't pegged the "two-plus-twoer" as a "deep-thinking solid" player (or as I would characterize it, someone who is a bit too predictible and manipulable). And the two-plus-twoer's tendency to fold big hands at the end may save him a bet here or there, but will put him in many situations where he will be put to a tough decision that another player would've avoided.

Re: 50/100 hand. Comment please
 

Nikla,

I quickly read through most of the posts in this thread but I may have missed it - would you have called the river if it were not a diamond, and specifically the Q of diamonds?

Luke

Re: 50/100 hand. Comment please
 

i would have seen the last bet in most situatuions(depending on the players)...the pot was already large and u had put a significant amount in it

Re: 50/100 hand. Comment please
 

These hands really aren't comparable. I could point out why, but I'm sure you can figure it out yourself.
As for your general argument, tricky players are always tougher than straight forward players. But as long as I am aware of their perception of me, I can use that perception to my benefit aswell.
Furthermore, if you knew me at all you would know I'm very deliberate in taking my hands to showdown. It seems your inital asessment that I'm a "big laydown = great player" type has become the focal point of your argument. In short, you continue to argue image and metagame, I wish you didn't.
As pokerplayers, identifying situations in which you're beat is an integral part of playing well. I'm not saying you won't find situations where you should call even if you will lose the overwhelming majority of the time. This just isn't one of those situations in my opinion.

Re: 50/100 hand. Comment please
 

If river blanks, I'm calling.