[ QUOTE ]
When I got home, I had a good laugh.
I got an email from Barry Greenstein about the definition of "counterfeit" and he pointed out that while I was technically correct, there are a lot of people that use the term imprecisely. (kinda like some people use trips and set interchangeable even though they mean different things). But the main thing Barry said was that it was a dumb thing to get in an argument about. I think he was definitely right about that.
As far as my laydown in No Limit Holdem today, you can read about my thought process in my latest journal entry. Since there were three clubs on the flop, in the long run it was definitely a +EV laydown.
[/ QUOTE ]
This argument was pretty stupid. Anyway its nice that we had a lot of new people watch the show. I have to admit I did look up the definition of counterfeit (in poker terms)when I got home. Most of the poker glossaries were consistant with Shirley's definition. However, I did run into some articles using the term in the same way that I did with the double paired board.
Check out a Phil Hellmuth Article here:
http://www.philhellmuth.com/articles.html?id=32
Steve Badger article here:
http://www.playwinningpoker.com/articles/02/22.html
Interestingly this article is about Omaha H/L but refers not to a copy counterfiet of a low but a counterfeit of two pair.