[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
No malice intended on my post, Buzz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Domester - Thank you. Nor on mine.

[ QUOTE ]
It's just that it seems to me as if you can always find enough things bad about a hand/flop to fold it unless you have the current nuts with more than one redraw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where in this thread did I suggest folding?

I did indicate that I thought the pre-flop raise was ill advised. And I did write [ QUOTE ]
”I think you played the rest of the hand fine. (Without the pre-flop raise, I think it's an easy fold to a bet on this flop).”

[/ QUOTE ] But that is advocating a fold on this flop <font color="red">WITHOUT</font> the pre-flop raise. Here there was a pre-flop raise, (whether I like it or not). As a consequence, the implied pot odds are different than they would have without the pre-flop raise.

Where, in any of my posts did I suggest folding without the current nuts with more than one redraw. There might be some circumstance where playing that tightly would be proper play, but I can’t think of one off-hand - and thus I can’t imagine that I ever suggested it - but if I did, I imagine it was specific for the one, possibly unique, situation in the post. (But I have no recollection of that).

Perhaps you've merely exagerated a tad. You can do what you want, of course, but in my own mind it's often a delicate balance between playing or folding. You may not get to what I think is the truth if you stretch what I write. Maybe what I think is the truth doesn't matter to you. (Indeed in the grand scheme of the cosmos, what I think seems insignificant).

And not that it matters how I play, but where did you get the incorrect notion that I fold unless I have the nuts with re-draws?

At any rate, I hope this post sets the record straight for you.

Buzz