Ranting about reads.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
...I should rephrase. There are times when reads allow you to make profitable moves that goes against what is the correct action by default.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Against this imaginary player I am hard pressed to envision a pot where it is correct to call though. I can make them up ofcourse but they dont exist in "real" limit poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not even sure what the example is, but whatever. As usual, it all depends.

[ QUOTE ]
While I agree on never neglecting the size of the pot, I dont like how these boards sometimes tend to ignore the opponent either. Your opponent is just as important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally, I'm basing my recommendations on the reads given. If there's no read given, I'm assuming (or at least, responding as if) the poster had no specific read at the time, which is a common situation I find myself in while multi-tabling.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, it's losing, not "loosing." Just a pet peeve, but I see it enough here that I think it's worth pointing out.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, I didnt know that. English is not my native language so any pointers on grammar are appreciated. Its easier to argue when you are coherrant [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Your English is much better than that of many/most native English speakers! Besides, I'm sure your English is much better than my <insert whatever your native language is.> [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Also, it's "coherent," not "coherrant." (Don't worry, though--English spelling makes no sense, even to us natives.)