Frank\'s Error in Barron\'s Article
 

Hi Everyone:

I know that Barron's article has been getting a lot of attention (as usual). But there's an error that Frank makes which I don't think anyone has addressed. His error is that even though he's a 2+2er, he didn't read our books as well as he should of.

Specifically, if he had read HPFAP a little better, he would remember the following from page 232:

[ QUOTE ]
However, folding in similar situations is not necessarily correct on fourth street. Tough players will raise on the turn if they hold a mediocre hand that has some potential to become a very strong hand. An example is middle pair on the flop that has now picked up a flush draw. Those of you who automatically fold when raised in these situations are giving up too much. This is especially true at the larger limits, where the games are usually tougher.

A corollary to the principle we are discussing is that if your opponent bets when there appears to be a good chance that you will fold, he may very well be bluffing. What this means in practice is that if your opponent bets in a situation where he thinks he might be able to get away with a bluff, you have to give more consideration to calling him, even with a mediocre hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now while this situation isn't exactly the same, what it means is that against good players who are trying to play as we describe in HPFAP, you just can't be as sure as Frank was. So even though given the way the hand was played it looks as if Frank was beaten, you just can't make this type of laydown.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Frank\'s Error in Barron\'s Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
he didn't read our books as well as he should of.

[/ QUOTE ]

should have, Mason. should have.

Edited to add: (or should've)

Re: Frank\'s Error in Barron\'s Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

I know that Barron's article has been getting a lot of attention (as usual). But there's an error that Frank makes which I don't think anyone has addressed. His error is that even though he's a 2+2er, he didn't read our books as well as he should of.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

Gotta correct you since this is a pet peeve of mine. There is no such thing as "should of". It is "should have" or "should've".

Re: Frank\'s Error in Barron\'s Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he didn't read our books as well as he should of.

[/ QUOTE ]

should have, Mason. should have.

Edited to add: (or should've)

[/ QUOTE ]

'should of' has the same ev as 'should have'

so it dont matter.

chez

Re: Frank\'s Error in Barron\'s Article
 

What about shoulda?

Re: Frank\'s Error in Barron\'s Article
 

[ QUOTE ]

What about shoulda?

[/ QUOTE ]


No. But it gets advanced when you start saying shouldn't've and couldn't've. The expert move is You'dn't've and I'dn't've for the triple contraction trifecta.

Impress your friends!

Friend: "<insert your name>, did you go to the party last night?"

You: "I'dn't've gone even if I knew."

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: Frank\'s Error in Barron\'s Article
 

the triple contraction trifecta

Nice!

If El D saw one of those, he might reply:

"""LOL"""

Re: Frank\'s Error in Barron\'s Article
 

[ QUOTE ]


If El D saw one of those, he might reply:

"""LOL"""

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, he has dropped quite a few of those original comebacks on me in the last few days as I'm guessing both of us are in bed sick with colds while we chug Nyquil, which is the only explanation for both of us posting 50x's apiece.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: Frank\'s Error in Barron\'s Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

I know that Barron's article has been getting a lot of attention (as usual). But there's an error that Frank makes which I don't think anyone has addressed. His error is that even though he's a 2+2er, he didn't read our books as well as he should of.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

Gotta correct you since this is a pet peeve of mine. There is no such thing as "should of". It is "should have" or "should've".

[/ QUOTE ]

you people really need to stop using threaded mode.

Re: Frank\'s Error in Barron\'s Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

I know that Barron's article has been getting a lot of attention (as usual). But there's an error that Frank makes which I don't think anyone has addressed. His error is that even though he's a 2+2er, he didn't read our books as well as he should of.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

Gotta correct you since this is a pet peeve of mine. There is no such thing as "should of". It is "should have" or "should've".

[/ QUOTE ]

you people really need to stop using threaded mode.

[/ QUOTE ]

you finally came around