[citanul]

Hi,
I'm amongst the many who believe you to be wrong.

I'm not going to stoop to the name calling that you're using, and would ask that you please, if you're going to continue to argue this or any other point, lay off the "bullsh*t" and other such, it does indeed make you look silly. If you believe that you have a point to argue, phrase it intelligently and without insult, and maybe people will converse with you in a kind manner.

For some reason, Greg is being incredibly nice to you here. Stop trying to belittle or berate him, perhaps think about what he says, and if you disagree, say why.

I don't remember the actual action on the hand perfectly, ie, the exact stack sizes or the bet sizes.

However: What Greg and everyone else has been saying is true. Even bullies have hands occasionally. Seeing as how you're apparently a Gus fan, you probably watched the PSI event. Notice that often the hands he takes down people with are ones where they come at him and he DOES have a hand. That's the way it is with bullying. That the other players have told him that Greg was bullying does not mean that they said "he's been betting the flop blind with all sorts of trash, is easilly trapped for all his chips, etc," as you seem to imply. I'm pretty sure that Greg's final raise on that hand was about 1/4 or 1/5 the size of all of John's chips, and about 1/3 of Greg's remaining chips.

As has been pointed out, it is very unlikely that John is ahead at this point in time in the hand, since a player who has survived to that point with a large number of chips has just put in the third raise.

The argument that the implied odds are clearly there means that you think that John could, if he has a better hand, get quite possibly more chips from Greg, when John hits his hand, than Greg has. (I'm pretty confident that's the degree of wrongness you are on this.) And of course, if John does not hit a Jack on the flop, he's gone. There's no way he can continue.

If a name player had pushed all in OR called at this point, I'm pretty sure that the discussion would be about how that's a pretty crazy play, not how ballsy it was.

Now, in the final case, I think. Let's say that Greg in fact HAD trash, and John calls. And then the flop comes blah blah blah. And then Greg throws out a bet, because well, he's insane, or so you suppose. Now, John raises, because he's a perfect player and knows that Greg both has crap AND missed the board. Does your belief in Greg's insanity also make it so that you believe that he would call a raise with crap on the flop?

This bores me for now, and I don't like to make extra long posts.

Please think before you continue your argument.

And Greg, good to see you posting more even though very busy I'm sure. I wish we'd see more strategy and less having to respond to this stuff.

citanul