|
|
#141
03-23-2005, 03:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: mike
Hey Diablo, I buy into that. Other players from here whom I play regularly against(BK, schneids, gonores, occasionally Nikla) have a relationship with me where we are constantly posturing and reposturing. For whatever reason, this relationship has not developed with stox. It's partially because I haven't played a ton of hands against him and partially because there isn't as much ego involved between us as between me and the players whom I interact with more frequently. I'm sure at some point it will get there, but at the time of this hand, it hadn't.
-James 
|
|
#142
03-23-2005, 03:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: mike
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Yeah the thread is bad. Sadly I don't get to choose how many people respond nor how they respond. I'll also stay away from posting hands where I know I made a mistake based on a read of a certain player because it makes the whole thread a mess anyway. [/ QUOTE ] James, honestly that is not why the thread turned into a mess. The reason it's a mess is because when you post a hand, there a dozen or more replies discussing the hand as it was posted, and then you come back and reply that a fundamental aspect of the hand as originally posted was incorrect and fix it, it tends to derail the discussion. (I'm referring obviously to originally saying this was a hand from a shorthanded game and then coming back and saying "oh wait, no, it was really six handed"). What happens is you have people replying to posts that were written on the assumption that this was short who are now viewing it as a six-handed hand, and you have people replying who don't who is assuming what and you basically have two different hands being discussed at once all interleaved and confused. I've seen that happen with other threads too, and it never ends well. I'm not trying to bust your balls here, and I find these hands interesting and think it is great that you are posting them; I'm just pointing out something that contributed to this discussion getting off track. In general, I think once there is enough discussion it is often better to not correct things that were wrong in the original post, especially something as fundamental as this, and just let it get discussed as it was posted, even if that's not how it actually happened. [/ QUOTE ] Yes I was shocked at this hand and thought it was a joke how they could put each other on such narrow ranges. Actually my opinions changed drastically of their playing ability as I stated in a post. Now that I see it was 6 handed Im pissed that I gave it any attention at all. Here I was thinking that they are both so scared shitless of each other that I couldn't figure why the hell there in a short game with Lakerman.
|
|
#143
03-23-2005, 04:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
[ QUOTE ]
Mike, man, this has been discussed. Read the thread! [/ QUOTE ] Why would I read the thread b4 posting my initial thoughts? My friend always looks to see who won the hand with what when we discuss hand histories, terrible way to learn. Same applys here! Mike
|
|
#144
03-23-2005, 05:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: mike
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Yeah the thread is bad. Sadly I don't get to choose how many people respond nor how they respond. I'll also stay away from posting hands where I know I made a mistake based on a read of a certain player because it makes the whole thread a mess anyway. [/ QUOTE ] James, honestly that is not why the thread turned into a mess. The reason it's a mess is because when you post a hand, there a dozen or more replies discussing the hand as it was posted, and then you come back and reply that a fundamental aspect of the hand as originally posted was incorrect and fix it, it tends to derail the discussion. (I'm referring obviously to originally saying this was a hand from a shorthanded game and then coming back and saying "oh wait, no, it was really six handed"). What happens is you have people replying to posts that were written on the assumption that this was short who are now viewing it as a six-handed hand, and you have people replying who don't who is assuming what and you basically have two different hands being discussed at once all interleaved and confused. I've seen that happen with other threads too, and it never ends well. I'm not trying to bust your balls here, and I find these hands interesting and think it is great that you are posting them; I'm just pointing out something that contributed to this discussion getting off track. In general, I think once there is enough discussion it is often better to not correct things that were wrong in the original post, especially something as fundamental as this, and just let it get discussed as it was posted, even if that's not how it actually happened. [/ QUOTE ] Yes I was shocked at this hand and thought it was a joke how they could put each other on such narrow ranges. Actually my opinions changed drastically of their playing ability as I stated in a post. Now that I see it was 6 handed Im pissed that I gave it any attention at all. Here I was thinking that they are both so scared shitless of each other that I couldn't figure why the hell there in a short game with Lakerman. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, you guys can throw a little fit if you want, but if you would have showed some reading comprehension to my original post, you would have been able to deduce that the game was at least 5 handed. Lakerman_ raises from the CO-1 This is the position in front of the cutoff, 2 off of the button. In order for this position to exist, the game needs to be at least 5 handed(and it was 6 handed as I later stated). I'm sorry I wasn't more clear - I should've been - but before you go pretending like I made this seem like we were playing 3 handed you should go back and read the original post. Not sure why I'm responding to the moron "hogger" with this post...I meant to respond to bobbyi cordially but never got around to it. hogger's idiotic and self-righteous response prompted me to respond, for whatever reason. -James
|
|
#145
03-23-2005, 09:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: mike
[ QUOTE ]
because there isn't as much ego involved [/ QUOTE ] As it should be. I'm surprised you feel ego has a place in poker and/or your strategy. Seems -EV to me James. I'm hoping that's why stox does not partake.
|
|
#147
03-23-2005, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: mike
This is the position in front of the cutoff, 2 off of the button. In order for this position to exist, the game needs to be at least 5 handed(and it was 6 handed as I later stated). I'm sorry I wasn't more clear - I should've been - but before you go pretending like I made this seem like we were playing 3 handed you should go back and read the original post. Not sure why I'm responding to the moron "hogger" with this post...I meant to respond to bobbyi cordially but never got around to it. hogger's idiotic and self-righteous response prompted me to respond, for whatever reason.
-James "MORON" - nice guy! I wasted time responding to your original post b/c I thought you are new to short 100-200 and needed help. Sorry I didn't pick up by the positions that it wasn't( you said it was short and I read on). Now that I read on and some old posts - I see you don't need help you are a superstar! AND BTW of coarse he won't pay off with less then a Queen, you can't even bet AA against him on the turn. So obviously the river was an easy fold based on your relationship. Based on how you think this player plays you b/c of your past relationship tells me you are playing other hands way to week against him (full or short). Can't believe I bothered to try to give you more advice. You are 100 times better player then most. You can just ignore it all! Mike
|
|
#148
03-23-2005, 07:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you are this worried that he has to have a queen or 99 in order to check/raise the turn, otherwise he'll fold, then you should be able to clean him out in a short-handed game." - Lestat If he check-raises the turn and I three bet, he is definitely not calling down with worse than a queen. What more do you need to know? If your default is to call down in those shoes, then your game needs some work. Occasionally I'll be making a move when I three-bet back at you, but not usually because I think a three-bet if i did have a queen would be bad because he can give up a worse hand. If I did have a queen, I'd call the turn cr and raise any river. God I hate when new posters get haughty when they are disagreed with. If your opponent is THAT predictible that he'd NEVER call you down w/o a queen in that situation, then I agree w/ Lestat that you ought to be able to clean him out pretty quickly shorthanded. Unless of course you mean that YOU are SO predictible that he knows that you would never three bet without at least AA in this situation, and so can safely fold any hand w/o a Q. I that case, you need to fix your shorthanded game. Lestat's advice (to three bet the turn) may be totally correct for him, if he has the right image. (I just hope he doesn't intend then to fold if four-bet or on the river, cause his opponent may have misread him and be reraising w/ KKs or some such. Once you've dumped that much into a hand, to fold for one additional bet is generally not a good idea. If you wanted to save that last bet, then it may've been more prudent to not have reraised in the first place.)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
