|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Question for Paul P
I was playing limit Hold'em on Full Tilt a while ago on a table where you and Jennifer Harman were sitting. For some reason you and Jennifer were talking about her playing every hand preflop. I said that she should do this right now and you said something to the affect of "No, you don't want that". I don't see how I could not want that as it would clearly be a -EV (or at least less +EV) situation for her.
I didn't think much of it until I saw that you made David Sklansky's top 10 smartest poker players list. Is this enough of a mistake for David's list to be revised? I'm guessing it just wasn't meant to be taken literally, but if you actually meant this, do you have a reason? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Question for Paul P
Why would one statement, even if it were incorrect, knock him off the list?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Question for Paul P
That was a joke, probably a bad one.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Question for Paul P
[ QUOTE ]
That was a joke, probably a bad one. [/ QUOTE ] not probably |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Question for Paul P
[ QUOTE ]
That was a joke, probably a bad one. [/ QUOTE ] Definitely. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Question for Paul P
Right...
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Question for Paul P
It was not a joke because a statement couldn't take him off. One statement could take him off the list, depending on how close #11 is. He's at #10. It was a joke because David's not going to revise his list.
What's less funny, my joke or the replies? (After "not probably", which was funny.) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Question for Paul P
I think PP's statement was a joke. The only you lose is if Jennifer Harman can beat you playing 72o, and maybe she's that good.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Question for Paul P
I would have to be able to beat more than 72o. Probably at least her bottom 15% of cards would have to be beat.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Question for Paul P
Maybe because Jennifer is better than you.
|
|
|