Huck Seed Bluffs Into Dry Side Pot, Etc. - Page 3

Smoothcall · #21 04-18-2005, 06:55 PM

No he wasn't depserate or any of those things. Why would you defend him if you don't know what even happpend? Because his name is Huck Seed? No offense but not a good reason to defend when you don't know how it went down.

Smoothcall · #22 04-18-2005, 06:58 PM

What Hucks supposed to be thinking about is eliminating the other player. That is most important.

BG had like an A8 i think Sklansky had k4 and moved in on hucks bet then the k held up. He flopped top pair king. Barry was eliminated.

PuckNPoker · #23 04-18-2005, 07:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No he wasn't depserate or any of those things. Why would you defend him if you don't know what even happpend? Because his name is Huck Seed? No offense but not a good reason to defend when you don't know how it went down.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? (nice vitriol for no reason) I dont care if it was Huck Seed, Huck Fin, or Huck Yu. Some "Pro" makes a play nobody understands so I tried to explain the play based on the info provided (unless you think he is just a complete idiot and betting absolutely and random for no purpose).

With the info provided I came up with a scenario where the play make some sort of "sense". I wouldnt call it a good play (it is play you'd see in a limit cash game), but it makes a little bit of sense within the total confines of maximizing his chance to win that pot.

If you dont like it, fine, I dont care. But I dont see you actually coming up with a scenario which can explain the action.

Smoothcall · #24 04-18-2005, 08:09 PM

I think i was explaining it. He made a bad play. You want to argue he didn't make a bad play because he is a "pro". That is not a good argument. We are not stupid and need you to tell us what he was thinking. I know what he thought he was accomplishing. I just think his thinking was wrong here. No need to get upset. I was just pointing out that you shouldn't try to justify his play if you don't know what happened is all. And you are saying well i don't know what happend but he is Huck seed so i will tell you all why it was a good play, although i don't know what hapeend. But it must be a good play because Huck Seed did it. And he's a "pro". You see where i'm coming from?

Rushmore · #25 04-18-2005, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In the case of #2, I think maybe he put Sklansky on a weak hand, since he limped. He figured that if Sklansky flopped something like middle or bottom pair on an Axx flop, he might give some action, since he couldn't put Seed on an Ace, given the preflop check.

[/ QUOTE ]

If what you say is true, he's making an awful bad play, because in the real world, you can't make plays depending upon the "flop coming Axx," etc., and because there are relatively few hands/scenarios in NL holdem that you can legitimately slowplay preflop.

The last thing you want to do with A6 headsup is to give QJ a free look at the flop, especially if he'd just as soon call preflop anyway.

Rushmore · #26 04-18-2005, 08:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think i was explaining it. He made a bad play. You want to argue he didn't make a bad play because he is a "pro". That is not a good argument. We are not stupid and need you to tell us what he was thinking. I know what he thought he was accomplishing. I just think his thinking was wrong here. No need to get upset. I was just pointing out that you shouldn't try to justify his play if you don't know what happened is all. And you are saying well i don't know what happend but he is Huck seed so i will tell you all why it was a good play, although i don't know what hapeend. But it must be a good play because Huck Seed did it. And he's a "pro". You see where i'm coming from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you are WAY too quick to bark at people. There's no argument here. The poster certainly never said anything to justify your tone, and believe me, any objective person would say that you are being an instigator.

FWIW.

PuckNPoker · #27 04-18-2005, 08:27 PM

The OP asked "why", I came up with what *I* thought was a reasonable explanation for the action. I never EVER said it was a good play. But *I* have found that as a poker player you learn a lot by looking at situations that dont make sense and trying to explain them.

I've still not seen one explanation from you as to what you think Huck was trying to accomplish with his bet. You just say "He made a bad play". I wont argue the merits of the play (since we dont disagree), but you have not put forth a reasonable explanation for the play yet. You just said it was a bad play.

So outside of Huck just betting randomly, what is your explanation for his flop bet?

Smoothcall · #28 04-18-2005, 08:48 PM

What? he got all pissed and said wtf am i talking about. When i originally said no offense. He took offense anyway. Only reason i got harsh is because he did saying wtf am i talking about. Just because i pointed out that saying huck made the right play because he's a "pro" not knowing what even happened. So dude, relax. Just like he should relax.

Smoothcall · #29 04-18-2005, 09:05 PM

First off i'm sorry if i came off harsh in my response. In my original response to you i did say no offense. As i was trying to say please don't take offense to this criticicsm. But you took offense anyway so then i barked a bit as you barked first. Mr' rushmore should be able to see this but i think he wears glasses that only let him see what he wants to see. Anyway i wasn't trying to get into a war with you. Was just trying to point out that it is hard for you to comment on a hand you have not seen or know the details let alone try to explian Huck's reasons. Is that such an outrageous statement? Anyway sorry for barking but i have a tendency to bark back when barked at. But trying to work on it and let people bark and ignore the barking.

Anyway onto the explanantion of what Huck may have been thinking. He was thinking (imo) that he can bet and win the side pot. And may think sklansky wouldn't think he would bluff into the side pot. As he thinking sklansky should think Huck wants to eliminate Barry and why would he bet nothing into a meaningless side pot. Which sklansky might think as that would be proper play. But while hucks thinking is correct that it looks less likely for him to bluff here, there is a reason for that. Because it is a big mistake to bet unless the blinds were much more than what Barry had which i don't think they were.

Smoothcall · #30 04-18-2005, 09:12 PM

And yes he did say stuff to justify my tone. He said wtf wtf are you tlkaing about. I don't care what you think and stuff like that. To me this seemed like barking to me as i said in my orignal response to him no offense. Was i correct in saying it is hard to defend hucks or any views on a subject that he has not seen or known many of the details to? What made that deserve all the barking? So dude open your eyes and stop getitng on my back. I'm not the bad guy. As i said to him. I just look like one because i bark when barked at. But trying to learn to let people bark and ignore it. Even though they are wrong i will only look like the bad guy if i defend myself so its better to just let them yell til they get tired.