Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3). If he can beat a 10 with an overpair less than KK that means he has exactly two holdings and they are JJ and QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is the case and he never bluff checkraises, why on earth would you not bet here and fold to a raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

DING DING DING!!!

Lawrence

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

Hi Lawrence,

Yes, Sincity guy suggested this as the other possible play here. However, as I noted before, I don't see his hand unless I pay off a ch/raise.

Thanks for the input.

LGPG

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

Uh I think this is the "second" person Subfallen. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Perhaps an English expert can clarify.

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

Hi El,

Of course, it's incorrect to be results oriented here. I mentioned earlier in the tread that if I am going to fold to a checkraise, I don't get the heuristic benefit of seeing scott's hand. Maybe that isn't really important to you, but gaining information like that from a player that I really RESPECT is worth alot to me.

I do understand your point that missing a bet on the river when he holds QQ can be a big mistake OVERTHE LONG RUN.

Your point is well taken.

Thanks for the input.

Babe[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

[ QUOTE ]
solid playing Black guy. HEY, the fact he is Black is irrelevant

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the "second" person Subfallen. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Perhaps an English expert can clarify.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

heuristic benefit

[/ QUOTE ]


For those few (where "few" = 0-2 people) wondering what my favorite three bits of this thread are...

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

So if a similar situation came up where all the action was the same, and your reads were the same, would you bet or check the river?

Another boring thread . . . way too long. The river bet is a gimme.
 

Easy river bet, not even close. Another example of a sub-optimal play (as Obi correctly points out), which is defended with all the "you dont know the local customs, players, facial ticks, etc" bulls**t. (Although this potentially (albeit marginally) useful information is inexplicably left absent from the original post).

If he has a 7, he check-raises turn. There is no flush, two pair is not a risk with the pair on board, only hand he can possibly have that you cant beat is 89s.

The check on the river is weak. Let's move along to some real posts. Where's Tommy?

TSP

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

(Teddy) .... Bet the river.

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

it is 3ed person. do you want an explaination? his remake was pointless to any poker discussion, and i am not sure an english lesson adds anything.

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

1st person: I (e.g.: I am the greatest.)

2nd person: you (e.g.: You are the greatest)

3rd person: they (e.g.: Derek is the greatest)

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Uh I think this is the "second" person Subfallen. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Perhaps an English expert can clarify.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or perhaps we could just use the the internet!

"Grammatical person, in linguistics, is deictic reference to the participant role of a referent, such as the speaker, the addressee, and others. Grammatical person typically defines a language's set of personal pronouns. It also frequently affects verbs, sometimes nouns, and possessive relationships as well.

English traditionally distinguishes three grammatical persons:

The personal pronouns I and we are said to be in the first person. The speaker uses this in the singular to refer to himself or herself; in the plural, to speak of a group of people including the speaker.

The personal pronoun you is in the second person. It refers to the addressee. You is used in both the singular and plural; thou is the archaic second-person singular pronoun.

All other pronouns and all nouns are in the third person. Anyone or anything other than the speaker and the addressee is referred to in the third person."

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

[ QUOTE ]
but gaining information like that from a player that I really RESPECT is worth alot to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really need to see that he has JJ when he checkraises you? Since your read on him is so perfect, I wouldn't think you'd need to see his hand to know what he has. Either your read is not so perfect and you should be betting, or you really don't need to see his hand and you should be betting.

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but gaining information like that from a player that I really RESPECT is worth alot to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really need to see that he has JJ when he checkraises you? Since your read on him is so perfect, I wouldn't think you'd need to see his hand to know what he has. Either your read is not so perfect and you should be betting, or you really don't need to see his hand and you should be betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have nothing else worth adding, but i was wondering this same thing.

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

[ QUOTE ]
(Teddy) .... Bet the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen this mentioned much in this thread. Given the situation and Teddy knowing that Babe wouldn't fall for the check-raise shouldn't he bet out? Babe can't fold to that...thoughts?

Re: Another boring thread . . . way too long. The river bet is a gimme.
 

only hand he can possibly have that you cant beat is 89s.

No,that is no true. For openers, Teddy is most likely not raising preflop with 8,9 suited. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] So, that is really not a hand I am putting him on. The hands I put him on were JJ or QQ.

As for the lack of my description of "local players habits, etc.", please recall that I described Teddy as solid. What this means is that he doesn't spew chips aimlessly and he's not going to make too many mistakes. I thought that was self-explanatory.

Sorry if you are bored. Go get a job or something.

Re: Another boring thread . . . way too long. The river bet is a gimme.
 

[ QUOTE ]

The hands I put him on were JJ or QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do Jacks and Queen check-call that flop and check-call that turn...?

Regardless of what your image is, you could have AK / AQ easily enough to warrant check-raising somewhere IF one were to put him on those holdings...

Barring some magical twinkle he gave off on the river Jack, I still can't see this not being a bet, with the information we were given.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but gaining information like that from a player that I really RESPECT is worth alot to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really need to see that he has JJ when he checkraises you? Since your read on him is so perfect, I wouldn't think you'd need to see his hand to know what he has. Either your read is not so perfect and you should be betting, or you really don't need to see his hand and you should be betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sums up my thoughts on this perfectly. If the assumptions that PB is making her decisions on are correct, then a bet is clearly right. If they are not correct and he has a wide enough range that there is a benefit to gaining info here, then a bet is clearly right.

Let me reiterate that last point. If there is any benefit from seeing his hand, then betting is clearly the correct move. Does that make sense, PB?

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

Sorry if these comments are taken out of context Barron. The fact that I see some humor in these remaks apparently eludes you. However, I was certainly not making a racial slur against Scott. My point was that I was simply describing him as a black guy and that I used the term black guy was "irrelvant" to the post.



LGPG

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: Another boring thread . . . way too long. The river bet is a gimme.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The hands I put him on were JJ or QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do Jacks and Queen check-call that flop and check-call that turn...? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Barron, did you miss the part where I said Teddy had pocket Jacks ? Yes, Jacks and Queens do check call that flop and turn.

Regardless of what your image is, you could have AK / AQ easily enough to warrant check-raising somewhere IF one were to put him on those holdings...

[img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] This statement is confusing, as I cannot check raise him since he acts first in the hand. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Barring some magical twinkle he gave off on the river Jack, I still can't see this not being a bet, with the information we were given.
Well, Barron, don't feel too bad about that. Apparently, nobody can see this check on the river except me and maybe Teddy. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

LGPG
Babe [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: Another boring thread . . . way too long. The river bet is a gimm
 

Why do you need/want to see his hand so badly?

Re: Another boring thread . . . way too long. The river bet is a gimm
 

Hi errant.

I actually think that handreading is a very important skill and I like to see whether I am reading well or not. I don't ALWAYS try to see what my opponents have, but in this case, against THIS player, I really wanted to know.

Does that seem too weird to you?

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: Another boring thread . . . way too long. The river bet is a gimm
 

Well I'm not going to lie and say that I agree with the check... and I don't think you presented this hand in a terribly constructive manner... but both are beside the point.

If you felt you had a rock-solid read on this player, and that seeing his hand here would help verify that read, and having that knowledge was more important than playing this hand for maximum value, then I have no problem with your play.

Regardless I don't think it's too weird, just peculiar.

Ciao

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

Subfallen,

That is hilarious. lol. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Actually, I was going to say it was the 4th person, but then I remembered that you were from somewhere named Blue and would not understand.

The next time the Babe (3rd person) has a question about anything in the English language, she is coming to you for clarification.

No need to mention his race . . .
 

If you were in a hand with more than one player, the poster could arguably say "white guy" and "black guy" if she was interested in trying to differentiate between the two (certainly, there could have been other, more appropriate, ways to do it, like UTG, MP, LAG, TAG, player1/player2, solid, tricky, loose, passive, etc).

However, since she is only describing one opponent, she could have said "guy" or "player" without any reference to color, race, gender, etc.

I find the reference to "black" guy in the original post to be offensive since it was totally unnecessary, and I hate the republican-esqe way an attempt was made to legitimize said reference.

TSP

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that I see some humor in these remaks apparently eludes you.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't - they are quite the thing that makes this thread great (other than you not agreeing that you should bet the river).

Especially amazing is you not knowing betwixt 2nd and 3rd person and then using "heuristic" in a sentence.

All sorts of comedy genius in this thread - especially when "the black guy" in question joins the discussion.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

oh, there were two players . . .
 

How 'bout just solid player and loose player?

Re: oh, there were two players . . .
 

Sorry you take offense to the term Black guy. It was not meant to be offensive.

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

boy i wish i wasnt sitting in atlantic city playing at the "taj".oh,i wish i was playing in ur game.listen i know ur opp.dosnt have AA i also know the only hand he can have that can beat me is pocket jj and he cant have that hand because if he is anykind of ploayer he would of check raised me on the flop with his overpair so bet out on the river for value there are so many hands he could have that he would call ur river bet.even as weak as AQ,

Re: oh, there were two players . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
How 'bout just solid player and loose player?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about a solid player and a loose pair of shoes?

Re: oh, there were two players . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry you take offense to the term Black guy. It was not meant to be offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't note the race of the local loaded lady. Why?

I admit to being amused at how you capitalize the B in Black guy. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: oh, there were two players . . .
 

more importantly HOW CAN SHE IGNORE THE MATH OF THE RIVER PLAY

Re: oh, there were two players . . .
 

I love Robyn. One of my favorite people.

But she was wrong to identify one of her opponents as a Black guy. Unless she was saying that his being black was relevant to the play of the hand. Which she says she was not.

Re: oh, there were two players . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
more importantly HOW CAN SHE IGNORE THE MATH OF THE RIVER PLAY

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way she ignored El D's last post.

It's a Vegas local thing. They don't play for the same reasons most of us play. It's not for fun, or money even. It's on some level a way to prove they are superior to others, or to prove to themselves that they are smart. That's why so many are cranky all the time, especially when others are having fun and not playing "right". If those players aren't playing right, they can't see how *smart* the local is. So the local then needs to *explain* to those players how smart they are. You can see a glimpse of it in the tone of Babe's posts in this thread.

Another byproduct of having to prove to yourself and others how smart you are is to check behind because it's vitally important to see that one's narrow read was correct. Even more important than the sacrificed EV.

You have to have played out here to get it.

But the Babe's play worked for her, so that's fine with me. I don't know why everyone's so worried about it if she's ok with it. Let it go. The Babe's good people and her style works for her.

Re: oh, there were two players . . .
 

"Let it go. The Babe's good people and her style works for her."

That's what I was trying to say, with less success.

Re: oh, there were two players . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
But she was wrong to identify one of her opponents as a Black guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, I think you're being too harsh on her. I thought she was just trying to be nice and didn't want to say directly that he wasn't very smart.

Re: oh, there were two players . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
t's a Vegas local thing. They don't play for the same reasons most of us play. It's not for fun, or money even. It's on some level a way to prove they are superior to others, or to prove to themselves that they are smart. That's why so many are cranky all the time, especially when others are having fun and not playing "right". If those players aren't playing right, they can't see how *smart* the local is. So the local then needs to *explain* to those players how smart they are. You can see a glimpse of it in the tone of Babe's posts in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have only played in vegas a few times, but I have seen enough to know that this post could not be more correct.

Re: oh, there were two players . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
t's a Vegas local thing. They don't play for the same reasons most of us play. It's not for fun, or money even. It's on some level a way to prove they are superior to others, or to prove to themselves that they are smart. That's why so many are cranky all the time, especially when others are having fun and not playing "right". If those players aren't playing right, they can't see how *smart* the local is. So the local then needs to *explain* to those players how smart they are. You can see a glimpse of it in the tone of Babe's posts in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have only played in vegas a few times, but I have seen enough to know that this post could not be more correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats what so fun about taking their cash.

Re: oh, there were two players . . .
 

nh

Re: oh, there were two players . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But she was wrong to identify one of her opponents as a Black guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, I think you're being too harsh on her. I thought she was just trying to be nice and didn't want to say directly that he wasn't very smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, so wrong...

Re: Weak Tight you say Mikel?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let me reiterate that last point. If there is any benefit from seeing his hand, then betting is clearly the correct move. Does that make sense, PB?

[/ QUOTE ]

A bet pretty much guarantees that she *doesn't* get to see his hand. Either he calls and most likely mucks without showing, or he checkraises and Babe mucks. I think the point people are missing is that Babe wanted to find out if she was right in ruling out hands other than QQ/JJ. And I also think she knows she's costing herself value on this one hand in order to gain this information.