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."

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
but gaining information like that from a player that I really RESPECT is worth alot to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really need to see that he has JJ when he checkraises you? Since your read on him is so perfect, I wouldn't think you'd need to see his hand to know what he has. Either your read is not so perfect and you should be betting, or you really don't need to see his hand and you should be betting.

[ErrantNight]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but gaining information like that from a player that I really RESPECT is worth alot to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really need to see that he has JJ when he checkraises you? Since your read on him is so perfect, I wouldn't think you'd need to see his hand to know what he has. Either your read is not so perfect and you should be betting, or you really don't need to see his hand and you should be betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have nothing else worth adding, but i was wondering this same thing.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
(Teddy) .... Bet the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen this mentioned much in this thread. Given the situation and Teddy knowing that Babe wouldn't fall for the check-raise shouldn't he bet out? Babe can't fold to that...thoughts?

[PokerBabe(aka)]

only hand he can possibly have that you cant beat is 89s.

No,that is no true. For openers, Teddy is most likely not raising preflop with 8,9 suited. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] So, that is really not a hand I am putting him on. The hands I put him on were JJ or QQ.

As for the lack of my description of "local players habits, etc.", please recall that I described Teddy as solid. What this means is that he doesn't spew chips aimlessly and he's not going to make too many mistakes. I thought that was self-explanatory.

Sorry if you are bored. Go get a job or something.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

The hands I put him on were JJ or QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do Jacks and Queen check-call that flop and check-call that turn...?

Regardless of what your image is, you could have AK / AQ easily enough to warrant check-raising somewhere IF one were to put him on those holdings...

Barring some magical twinkle he gave off on the river Jack, I still can't see this not being a bet, with the information we were given.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but gaining information like that from a player that I really RESPECT is worth alot to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really need to see that he has JJ when he checkraises you? Since your read on him is so perfect, I wouldn't think you'd need to see his hand to know what he has. Either your read is not so perfect and you should be betting, or you really don't need to see his hand and you should be betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sums up my thoughts on this perfectly. If the assumptions that PB is making her decisions on are correct, then a bet is clearly right. If they are not correct and he has a wide enough range that there is a benefit to gaining info here, then a bet is clearly right.

Let me reiterate that last point. If there is any benefit from seeing his hand, then betting is clearly the correct move. Does that make sense, PB?

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Sorry if these comments are taken out of context Barron. The fact that I see some humor in these remaks apparently eludes you. However, I was certainly not making a racial slur against Scott. My point was that I was simply describing him as a black guy and that I used the term black guy was "irrelvant" to the post.



LGPG

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

[PokerBabe(aka)]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The hands I put him on were JJ or QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do Jacks and Queen check-call that flop and check-call that turn...? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Barron, did you miss the part where I said Teddy had pocket Jacks ? Yes, Jacks and Queens do check call that flop and turn.

Regardless of what your image is, you could have AK / AQ easily enough to warrant check-raising somewhere IF one were to put him on those holdings...

[img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] This statement is confusing, as I cannot check raise him since he acts first in the hand. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Barring some magical twinkle he gave off on the river Jack, I still can't see this not being a bet, with the information we were given.
Well, Barron, don't feel too bad about that. Apparently, nobody can see this check on the river except me and maybe Teddy. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

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

[ErrantNight]

Why do you need/want to see his hand so badly?