Strangely Played Hand in 10K at Harrahs

[TroutMaskReplica]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone else has pointed this out yet

[/ QUOTE ]

Just what is it that you think you are "pointing out"? If you are in the habit of "pointing out" things why not try using the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why not read Sklansky's original post and "point out' for the folk who you don't believe are capable of doing things for themselves, where it says in that post that a "raise behind is likely". I sure would like you to "point that out". Oh, seems like that little tid bit "a likely raise behind" was so important that Sklansky felt it necessary to make another clarifying post that "pointed out" that very point. While you are pointing things out why not point out that my Harrington Post was based on Sklansky's origianl post. That is if you are still "pointing out" things.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy there - I was just "pointing out" that you mis-quoted the Harrington book seemingly with the intention of suggesting it somehow contradicted Sklansky's play in that situation. You left out a key line from the text - as you say yourself "the whole truth" etc.

I wasn't relating what you said to how Sklansky set up the description in his original post although you're right, there's nothing explicit about a raise behind being likely. If he had pointedly included that qualification this discussion would likely have been less interesting though.