American players dissed...

[VBM]

an article by some guy Roy Brindley...

[nuclear500]

If anyone is familiar with the competitive PC First Person Shooter "Professional" community one easily understands this argument - the same argument has been played out since 1996 in that community and has absolutely no difference here.

Its a senseless argument that only the lower-end-of-the-spectrum players make. The top end always recognized the other side of the Ocean and thats all that really matters.

[Kevmath]

Just as a note, that article was done in September. You can read more about his exploits (including busting out Greg Raymer at the PPT and bashing players at the site he's sponsored by) at Roy "The Boy" Brindley

Kevin...

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
an article by some guy Roy Brindley...

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the article but Roy Brindley is a clueless moron.

[samurai_tony]

roy is quite opinionated and i dont entirely agree with his analysis but i have to admit that when watching lederer make that call i was totally baffled and had it not been for his other numerous results and reputation i am sure he would be totally taken apart here if he went on to win it.
Rather than just berate roy for saying something controversial and outright dismissing it, maybe focusing on what it shows us abuot perception and maybe how those players making these calls and raises do so well, the biggest problem though with judging tv poker is pertty much at no point do you have an accurate assesment of the blinds/stack sizes/average stack in the tournament/how long till the blinds go up/ pot size etc etc so im sure a lot of these calls and raises make a lot more sense when viewed in context.

[wray]

There have been many bets that IF called would have made the player look like an idiot. Instead they look like gods because everyone folded.

Dan Harrington is one of my favorite players. In the 2004 WSOP (with about 15 people left) someone called and then was raised. Dan reraised all-in with about 1 million chips with something like 2 6. The others then folded. He obviously got the others to fold on his tight rep but can you imagne what kind of bashing he would have taken had someone called him?

[zaxx19]

Id much rather make this play with 6-2 than with K-Q...I think it is pretty obvious why.

[wray]

But my point is that he looked like a hero instead of a knucklehead.

I assume you'd rather call with 2 6 instead of KQ so you'd have 2 live cards?

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
Id much rather make this play with 6-2 than with K-Q...I think it is pretty obvious why.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually debatable thinking, IMO.

AK, AKs, AA, KK and QQ are likely calling anyway, so being called holding KQ or 26 doesn't make that much of a difference--you're in hell, even if deuces and sixes are live and one of your KQ holding would not be. Hell is hot no matter what hell you go to.

On the other hand, if you make the play with KQ, you're definitely still in purgatory against all pocket pairs up to jacks.

My guess is that if you make the play with KQ, one of the problems people have is the ostensible misunderstanding of the table (and brilliant TV commentators) to think that you might have absurdly thought you had the best hand.

If getting called by any pair up to jacks is a possibility, I'm all about holding KQ here.

[zaxx19]

If its an overpair...you are screwed forget salvaging 5% or something I mean in that case we should be talking more about offsuit and suited.... Otherwise yes 6-2 is gonna give you 2 live cards against A-K or A-Q or just generically 2 overcards...hey I see some crazy calls especially by large stacks KQ KJ AJ(I think I saw this when I did it lol)

That being said QJs is a nice hand to be all in with IMHO in steal restel type situations only like 40-60 against AKo not bad at all in fact only marginally worse than socalled "coinflips" like QQ versus A-K.