Question in Ciaffone's PL and NL book

[RikaKazak]

[ QUOTE ]
Not 6 max. Just 6 to the flop. Full ring.

[/ QUOTE ]
ahhh, I'm an idiot, (been drinking) hmmmm, then I find a fold more often, but still, I get in with this more than fold.

[kagame]

against thinking opponents all you can beat is a bluff

also, the important concept herein is that if you call your entire stack is at risk, with that raise your opponent is making you decide if your hand is worth your stack, while if hes bluffing not another cent enters the pot

just a piece of advice, next time you REALLY want to learn something about this great book, dont respond so forcefully when someone reinforces your preconcieved notions, let the discussion grow naturally, this thread closely resembles a dialogue of theoretical masturbation

[Chaostracize]

[ QUOTE ]
just a piece of advice, next time you REALLY want to learn something about this great book, dont respond so forcefully when someone reinforces your preconcieved notions, let the discussion grow naturally, this thread closely resembles a dialogue of theoretical masturbation

[/ QUOTE ]

Little hostile. It is a great book, note I put one question up for discussion not the grounding of the entire book.

I don't believe I responded that forcefully. I was surprised someone would advocate so strongly a fold with such a strong hand to just one raise. I don't understand why you have to commit your entire stack if you call. Why can't you re-evaluate on the turn. Does the villain bet the turn here 100% of the time as you make it sound? I don't believe so. That is just the point I'm trying to make. A thinking opponent can make this raise with a wide range depending on hero's previous actions. I've done it with nothing to make it look like I have a set (case and point, it was against Fslexcduck when she had a set [oops!] and she strongly believed she was going to stack me).

Anyway, I'm not sure what 'preconceived notion' Ciaffone reinforced. How do I let the discussion grow IF I DON'T POST.

Your response is inane.

I like theory. And I like masturbation. Why not put the two together?

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]

just a piece of advice, next time you REALLY want to learn something about this great book, dont respond so forcefully when someone reinforces your preconcieved notions, let the discussion grow naturally, this thread closely resembles a dialogue of theoretical masturbation

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

it would be a vast overstatement to say you understand the basic concepts in the text

[/ QUOTE ]

And from my flush thread:
[ QUOTE ]
as much as i dislike your treatment of people who pointed out that AA is in fact a set in this hand, and other assorted issues i have with your posting

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are you a jackass, but apparently you're a hypocritical jackass. Attacking chaostracize for no apparent reason with very personal comments about his intelligence when he hasn't been out of line is lame as hell. Maybe you're not a hypocrite though, and I should have interpreted your "issues" you had with my posts as being that I wasn't as hostile as you would prefer.