[BeavisChrist]

How is my statement about set over set not logical? I was responding to the person who said something to the effect of "in all my years of playing I've only seen set over set once." I see it all the time... especially in a room with a gigantic bad beat jackpot. It makes a lot of sense to me that there would be a high frequency of set over set. My statement was more like "I don't know where you've been playing for years without seeing set over set, but in my card room it's quite common." Not logical?

As far as posting in the correct forum - I've read dozens of posts here regarding PStars NLHE games which would have to all be considered low stakes by your definition. This is "mid to high stakes" - in my game there are usually several stacks that are $800-$1200. The max buy in at Stars is $1000.

I'm sorry if I infringed on your little world of "experience and poker knowledge" - in my mind this was more of an advanced question - I had no idea it was such a simple calling situation. If I had already known the answer to my question, I would have also known it was simple, yes?

[ QUOTE ]
It becomes clear that your do not have the capacity to think about the game logically or to think logically at all. Which is not to say that you are dumb...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, software developers usually aren't known for being very logical. I'm just happy you could get your point across without being condescending [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]