100-200 against stoxtrader - Page 13

fnord_too · #**121** 03-22-2005, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
there are NO meta-thread considerations

[/ QUOTE ]

priceless!

astroglide · #**122** 03-22-2005, 03:45 PM

yes, i'm completely saying that. the hand is AA vs KQ. however they play it the money will end up in AA's hands.

a bet or two among people
- who know the other plays reasonable hands
- who are new to a game/limit
- who are concerned about the other playing tight opponent head games

doesn't mean anything unless "every hand counts" and it's a hit and run kind of high limit shot take

James282 · #**123** 03-22-2005, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
BUT IT WAS 100/200!

[/ 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. Sorry folks!
-James

ML4L · #**124** 03-22-2005, 04:09 PM

Hey James,

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Where was your mistake? I hope you don't think that it's calling the river...? Because even though are behind nearly 100% of the time here, I think that it's a must-call, unless you fold and then vow to completely change your dynamic with that particular opponent from that point onward...

If I were to lay down on the river here, I would never be able to feel good about folding to this player heads-up for one bet ever again, assuming that he is good enough to take advantage of the fact that you are willing to make these folds.

ML4L

DMBFan23 · #**125** 03-22-2005, 04:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that this thread would not have received such a response if it were simply titled, "hand against stoxtrader"? Seriously. The "stoxtrader" caught my attention more than the 100-200 in front of it, because I know he is well respected on this forum.

Edit: I should add that anything with, "hand against Astroglide" in the title would surely receive a tremendous response as well. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

most of the responses would probably be people asking for his party userid, sadly.

P.S. cool posts by you and gambler. eye opening from a theory perspective. wtf is a shania? is it my mojo? my metagame?

razor · #**126** 03-22-2005, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
wtf is a shania?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here you go... Shania

bobbyi · #**127** 03-22-2005, 05:56 PM

[ 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.

andyfox · #**128** 03-22-2005, 06:31 PM

No way A-K would raise a river bet here. And the guy with the big hand knew it.

casinogosain · #**129** 03-22-2005, 06:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no chance of Stox is paying off a river three bet with a king. Three betting the river would be pretty bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Steve, however, he might pay off with 99 or TT.

[/ QUOTE ]

99 wouldn't be paying off. And I doubt it.

-Ash

Nikla · #**130** 03-22-2005, 08:02 PM

I really don't mind how you played it. The call PF, or rather the lack of 3-bet, followed by the check-call on flop is scary from this particular player.

PS: Gutshots rule? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]