Heh, sometimes you get a beat so nutty all you can do is laugh. *cry*

[PuppyKicker]

[ QUOTE ]
As I say its a better game now but it has always been quite tight, many ignore it and play 6 max or go straight to 15/30.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really interesting. Do you think overall it might be better for someone to go with 3-6 than 5-10? And why 6 max?

I ask because I flit around in limits a lot, primarly because I get bored. I go from 2-4 to 30-60 and everything in between (the money means zippo to me). I should probably post this seperately, so I will, but I love hearing thoughts on various limits and how easy/hard, tight/loose, aggressive/passive they are.

[Tosh]

5/10 6 max players have traditionally been a LOT worse than the full game players. FWIW I am of the opinion that even some of the better 5/10 full players would make more crushing the 3/6 games.

[partygirluk]

Wtf are you talking about? Your line makes no sense. If you believe the probability that he has KK rather than QQ to be high enough to merit one more bet, then fine. But Cap the turn rather than bet out the river! Why make it cheaper for him to hit his two outer? Why make it cheaper for other draws to hit?

You stated that (one of) the reasons you smoothcalled PreF was to protect your hand postflop, yet you fail to do so. You action throughout this hand are inconsistent with each other and totally at odds with your reasoning! Please try and open your mind and see that your logic is deficient.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
You know, I definitely did not post this so that someone could critique me on my play. Not to sound too snotty, but when I want your damn advice, I'll ask for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If 74o is coming along preflop for 3 bets, not capping is a huge mistake.

Nonetheless, you are my hero.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You continually flip flop between your pre-hand reads/strategies and your post-hand analysis. They are inconsistent with each other (as I have already pointed out), yet are the basis for your whole argument.

1 - You claim CO is so weak-tight that he's gone into check-call mode after being raised once on the flop when he had an overpair, yet in this hand you got to checkraise him twice and he 3-bet you each time so that means your plan was correct. No.

2 - You expect UTG (a maniac) to cap preflop, but not lead the flop? So then CO leads and you get to CR and force everyone to call 2 bets cold so again it validates your plan? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're either illiterate or being purposely stupid.

1. He would have gone into check call mode HAD I BEEN THE ONE WHO CAPPED. Because I did NOT cap, he did NOT put me on AA or QQ, which he almost certainly WOULD have had I capped. At the most I would have been able to raise him once, if that. This is a function of MY table image and HIS together. Christ, this is so simple.

2. No, I expect him to lead the flop, letting the KK raise him (because even the WT player doesn't fear this maniac with KK in his hand) and letting me 3 bet, forcing the maniac to call two bets (and likely fold) and the fish to call two bets (and hopefully fold, or at least make a brutal call). As it happens, I was able to make the fish call two cold anyways, and the maniac realized (as did I) that the UTG probably had AA, KK, or QQ or he would not have behaved as he did.

Jesus, try to at least show some glimmer of intelligence when you criticize. At least show that you understand the most basic strategic issues in the hand before you type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, you sure told me.

I take it all back - you're the best poster EVAR! When does your book come out?

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of being the only one defending this guy, and being called him again lol, he seems to have reasonable reasons for his play. You may not agree, and hell I *don't* agree, but I understand what he was doing and why it wasn't totally silly, as some people are intimating. He's showed stats that indicate he's a solid winning player, and so I really don't understand the level of anomosity here. It looks like a play that could have gone both ways, and he had a read on the players at the table that made him play it the way he did. Had the fishy player not hit, it would have been a pretty nice line on the hand.

But then again, I like flamewars, so carry on ...

[/ QUOTE ]

The animosity is because he posted a stupid not-very-bad-beat story, was told he played it wrong, and now he's treating everyone here like we're stupid and he's God.

He's also reverse-analyzing this hand and fitting it into some "plan" that shouldn't work based on his descriptions of the opponents involved.

[PuppyKicker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of being the only one defending this guy, and being called him again lol, he seems to have reasonable reasons for his play. You may not agree, and hell I *don't* agree, but I understand what he was doing and why it wasn't totally silly, as some people are intimating. He's showed stats that indicate he's a solid winning player, and so I really don't understand the level of anomosity here. It looks like a play that could have gone both ways, and he had a read on the players at the table that made him play it the way he did. Had the fishy player not hit, it would have been a pretty nice line on the hand.

But then again, I like flamewars, so carry on ...

[/ QUOTE ]

The animosity is because he posted a stupid not-very-bad-beat story, was told he played it wrong, and now he's treating everyone here like we're stupid and he's God.

He's also reverse-analyzing this hand and fitting it into some "plan" that shouldn't work based on his descriptions of the opponents involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't sound like that's what's happening at all. His reasons have been quite consistent, insofar as I've read these posts. You may disagree with them, but I don't see much in the way of reverse analysis. He does seem to have a God complex, I'll agree. Yet I also think some of the criticism has been pretty ... dumb, frankly.

So really, where's the beer? Huh?