Caught in the Act
 

"Pocket deuces!" exclaimed mike l. as he happened to walk by.

What 2+2er had 'em? Hint: He's a liar.

Re: Caught in the Act
 

It took you ten days to answer the last time. You need to do better.

Re: Caught in the Act
 

I was going to leave it to others to elaborate.

Re: Caught in the Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
What 2+2er had 'em? Hint: He's a liar.

[/ QUOTE ]

El Diablo. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]


And a damn good liar he is.

-Zeno

Re: Caught in the Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Pocket deuces!" exclaimed mike l. as he happened to walk by.

What 2+2er had 'em? Hint: He's a liar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing Andy Fox, but it's a white lie so you still go to heaven [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Re: Caught in the Act
 

why did you look at the second card?

Re: Caught in the Act
 

See my reply on mid-stakes.

Re: Caught in the Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
See my reply on mid-stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm lost here. In the mike l. "am I playing too tight" thread everyone seems to think calling a raise with 22 in the small (half size) blind with three or four opponents is a clear call (I thought it was a call but close).

If this was posted five years ago my guess is most of the forum would have thought it a fold or a close call. Has the game changed that much or is my memory failing me?

~ Rick

PS Note that snakehead (assuming he wasn't kidding) seems to think it was a clear fold, but he's sort of an old timer too [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Caught in the Act
 

the current crop of players play far too loose in lots of spots and do not know how to bet their money. the game hasnt changed just the way it is being played.

Re: Caught in the Act
 

I think your memory is proably OK (or as good as it ever was [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] and that the games have indeed changed. They're much looser. The 40-80 game at Commerce, in which this hand took place, is, as you know, uber loose. It does vary between passive and aggressive, but, as you point out, one plays this hand from the blind to flop a set and, except under rare conditions, abandon it without committing further money to the pot if the flop contains three overcards. FWIW, I'm winning at a higher rate this year than ever before, and my sense is my game has loosened up a bit from the pump-or-dump, play very tight from the blinds, never cold-call, never look at the second card when the first one is a deuce way I played a few years ago.

Re: Caught in the Act
 

I agree with rick that it's way closer than most of the posters in the other thread think it is. it's also very game dependent. getting paid off after you flop the set is very important. I don't think you'd be missing much if you always folded this hand.

but andy, why do you never look at the second card when I'm sweating you?

Re: Caught in the Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
the current crop of players play far too loose in lots of spots and do not know how to bet their money. the game hasnt changed just the way it is being played.

[/ QUOTE ]

My question was more in regards to what the people who post on this forum think. No doubt the game has gotten looser, but most opponents in the middle levels I play only know that "2+2=4", rather than "2+2 is the world's best poker strategy forum".

Sorry for the excessive suck up. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Re: Caught in the Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
but andy, why do you never look at the second card when I'm sweating you?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is he'd rather listen to you than play close ones.

Anyway, thanks for the response. I thought I was insane.

~ Rick

Re: Caught in the Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
"one plays this hand from the blind to flop a set and, except under rare conditions, abandon it without committing further money to the pot if the flop contains three overcards."

[/ QUOTE ]

"If" the pot contains three overcards?

~ Rick

Re: Caught in the Act
 

I want to keep my rep up. Especially with you. Given how badly I misplayed the hands we played against each other the other week, can you blame me?