Weak Tight you say Mikel?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh I think this is the "second" person Subfallen. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Perhaps an English expert can clarify.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or perhaps we could just use the the internet!

"Grammatical person, in linguistics, is deictic reference to the participant role of a referent, such as the speaker, the addressee, and others. Grammatical person typically defines a language's set of personal pronouns. It also frequently affects verbs, sometimes nouns, and possessive relationships as well.

English traditionally distinguishes three grammatical persons:

The personal pronouns I and we are said to be in the first person. The speaker uses this in the singular to refer to himself or herself; in the plural, to speak of a group of people including the speaker.

The personal pronoun you is in the second person. It refers to the addressee. You is used in both the singular and plural; thou is the archaic second-person singular pronoun.

All other pronouns and all nouns are in the third person. Anyone or anything other than the speaker and the addressee is referred to in the third person."

[skp]

Babe,

I think you ought to try the following for a week and see what happens:

1. Every time a solid playing black, yellow or white guy raises preflop, just smoothcall his raise with KK and AA and show aggression postflop instead.

On the other hand, if a not so solid playing brown guy raises (when he is in your town starting tommorow), you should call all bets to the river and then fold...heh

2. Always bet missed hands on the river when headsup (even AK or AQ which is normally a check and showdown hand for most of us on the river). It sounds like guys in your game are willing to fold to your river bets even if they have an overpair to the board because you always show them a big overpair when they do call.

[amulet]

Erika, Howard Bliss asked me to tell you that this was a value bet on the river.

[mike l.]

who's erika?

[andyfox]

So a respected poster (deservedly so) posts this:

"5 handed 20/40. mediocre type limps utg, i raise on the button with AKo. Flop comes KQ8. He check calls. Turn 8 he check calls. River 9. He checks. He's exactly Jack Ten. I know it. I feel it. He wants to check-raise. But I have a good two pair. It's 5 handed. I have to bet, dammit. So I do. He check-raises. Damn, I hand read well - he does have JT and the voice in my head tells me to fold. I've been listening to lately and it's been working well. Why didn't I listen this time and check? Now what. Every part of my body is telling me to fold. It's gotta be the right play. But then my ego takes over and I want to prove myself right. I call. He shows JT and drags the pot. I hope I never do that again."

He "knows" he is beat but bets and calls a raise. Nobody says much, except that he should have trusted his spidey sense.

Now Pokerbabe says basically the same thing, except that she saved $120 instead of losing $80.

And apparently it's a crime against humanity.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
Now Pokerbabe says basically the same thing, except that she saved $120 instead of losing $80.

[/ QUOTE ]

given the hand ranges that will call or cr this river, pokerbabe breaks even by betting and calling the cr.

6 ways to have qq and gain a bet. 3 ways to have jj and cr to lose 2bets. now if she can fold to the cr......

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
So a respected poster (deservedly so) posts this:

"5 handed 20/40. mediocre type limps utg, i raise on the button with AKo. Flop comes KQ8. He check calls. Turn 8 he check calls. River 9. He checks. He's exactly Jack Ten. I know it. I feel it. He wants to check-raise. But I have a good two pair. It's 5 handed. I have to bet, dammit. So I do. He check-raises. Damn, I hand read well - he does have JT and the voice in my head tells me to fold. I've been listening to lately and it's been working well. Why didn't I listen this time and check? Now what. Every part of my body is telling me to fold. It's gotta be the right play. But then my ego takes over and I want to prove myself right. I call. He shows JT and drags the pot. I hope I never do that again."

He "knows" he is beat but bets and calls a raise. Nobody says much, except that he should have trusted his spidey sense.

Now Pokerbabe says basically the same thing, except that she saved $120 instead of losing $80.

And apparently it's a crime against humanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Babes description was different. Just saying 'solid playing black guy' isn't enough to warrant the river check as a solid player can be raising preflop and play to the river with a little wider range than just QQ or JJ. If she mentioned he had tight raising standards no matter the position or whatever weakie limps in prior, that's can paint a little clearer picture.

She also made no mention of her 'spidey sense' during the hand. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I will say though, that live you can get that read easier just by how they check call during the streets. She also made no mention of that.



Basically her initial post is :

Solid player in CO raises a limper, I 3 bet on the button with KK.

Flop comes 10 high 2-tone. check, check, I bet, 2 calls.

Blank on turn: check, check, bet, limper folds, solid guy calls

River J: check behind.

Pretty bare bones really.

b

[BarronVangorToth]

Agreed, not knowing the people involved, and from the description given, I think this is a bet on the river.

Factor in other factors - reads on the players - specific info from being there - some other tidbits - sure, this could be a case for checking.

But not from what is given, I don't think.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[skp]

But is she saying the same thing as BK?

I didn't read her post as an example of her spidey sense going off and letting her hands follow what her brain is telling her (which is what BK didn't do). Rather, I read it as an illustration that generally speaking, she and this particular opponent of hers know each other's game so well that it can only mean that they are not being in the least bit deceptive against each other.

I mean, for Babe to know that this guy can only have JJ or QQ means that she also must know that he knows with certainty that she can only have QQ, KK, or AA (if she bets the river).

To me, that means that Babe is being too predictable and indeed that is what her opponent has said in this thread.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Hi skp

You are correct that knowing opponents means they are often "predictable". That makes it easy for me to check when I am behind and to bet when I am ahead. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Oh, wait....this is too easy isn't it?

Hey, maybe we can rendevous for lunch at the Indian restaurant and we can discuss the babe's play over some curry. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]