Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein's worst game

[randomstumbl]

[ QUOTE ]
You might be right. But I know when we play a similar dealers choice set up, we are very specific about calling a game. When the dealer calls Omaha hi/low...I play a very aggressive low card game (as I think you mentioned). When the dealer calls O8...that's a different ball game. By the way, the pots are much larger when we play Omaha hi/low (no qualifier).

I'd really like to know the answer for sure from someone who plays in the game.

Dave

[/ QUOTE ] Didn't Daniel fold a better low in the hand example? I think that should answer your question.

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]

Relax, beset. Mendacious is not making a "do you see why" comment, it's a genuine question.


[/ QUOTE ]

Apologies. Misunderstood.

[scdavis0]

I'm sure it's courtesy in the big game to allow the player to only show his 73 if he can't win the high.

Barry was talking about showing over his whole hand.

[Mendacious]

Er... go back and read my initial post on the thread before you started correcting my grammer. I said:

[ QUOTE ]
I think it was just a case of taking a shot, missing, and hoping your low was good, (which it was). Pretty LAG for Barry, especially in a limit game, but you have to mix it up or you won't get paid.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is pretty much what both Barry and Gerg said. My point was that this play began as a bluff, not an ad.

[Wintermute]

I was thinking more of this comment of yours, which is what piqued my interest in the thread the most:

"This means Barry has already committed to dumping probably $20K into this hand for this "ad" when he makes his retarded -EV re-raise. Seems like very little bang for his buck to me. Moreover, if for instance no low came and a straight or flush was made and Barry showed his ridiculous JJ hand, nobody would take that at face value."

[Mendacious]

Grow up and stop revising history. You posted a long rant criticising my first post (which was right on the money-- straight from Barry himself) before baiting me into the comment you just quoted. Aren't you kind of embarrassed at all pettiness? I know I am, but its fairly obvious what the root cause is. You treat this forum like it is your playpen sometimes. This is one thread where it was not really appropriate.

[Wintermute]

[ QUOTE ]
Grow up and stop revising history. You posted a long rant criticising my first post (which was right on the money-- straight from Barry himself) before baiting me into the comment you just quoted. Aren't you kind of embarrassed at all pettiness? I know I am, but its fairly obvious what the root cause is. You treat this forum like it is your playpen sometimes. This is one thread where it was not really appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gosh, Mendacious! I had no idea you felt that way... I am *truly* sorry for forcing your hand into writing things you knew were dead wrong, and for turning the holiness that is this forum into my playpen.

Let's let the healing begin:








(wait for it)

[barryg1]

I didn't read Daniel's blog, but I didn't win the low on this hand. He must have assumed I did or, from his point of view, why else would I have shown my hand. The low card on the river paired me and made my hand look even sicker. I guess he was too steamed up that I raised him out and so interested in belittling my play, that he didn't read the hand correctly.

Barry

[Mendacious]

So was the Johnny Cochran/Chewbacca picture a "call" and the baby picture a "raise" or the other way around. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] I'm confused, so I fold. Your LAG style of posting is too hard for me to deal with. More +EV for you. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[TGoldman]

I think it's become obvious to everyone by now that you and Wintermute need to just admit to your true feelings for each other and run away together.