irishguy

Agreed I just find it fascinating that someone would persistently defend a play ignoring both logic and math but I was probably just as stubborn before I really wanted to actually win at poker

If we are not trying to price out draws we should burn our computer and stop playing poker because this is pretty basic-if he's going to call a draw regardless of price we want him to make the mistake of paying more then he should. A 6k bet could be a scared bet/value bet/inducing a bluff bet/ if he bets 6k on the turn for whatever reason he makes the mistake of giving us the right price to draw. You say:1: you say he calls no matter our raise with draws2: he calls with better aces,3: he shoves sets, two pairs, combo draws, some regular draws4: he probably doesn't fold better aces but will che

Raising more as a c r for one would price out draws-instead of min raising and giving the correct odds for villain to call..and by your logic would increase fold equity-if this line increases our win % and showdown % then we should want to get more money in the middle. Stating you feel like 'the person with the best hand may bet a river' so what cards do you bet on the river? What do you do when the river pairs the board with a d? And your raised? Your taking the results and including them when in matters and leaving them out when it suits you.. Bet sizing means a lot- for one if villain bet

How is min raising an extra 4k to see what happens-different/more valueable then our c c 4k 'see what happens'. You assume that villain in our scenario will double barrel anything he bets the flop with yet you assume the same villain wouldn't put anymore money in the pot after flatting a c r...even if he were to check behind on the turn do you not think when we check the river he bets like 99.9999% of the time? You say c r increases our chance of winning the hand and gets us to showdown for only 4k more so then why aren't you advocating c r for more? Its not about calling the flop and folding

You are jumping to assumptions that just don't make sense. You assume if we c c then check villain is double barreling everything-but that same villain would call a c r then upon our showing weakness would just check it down that's just so illogical its baffling. Everyone else's assumption is that villains not double barreling half a stack and committing to the pot at this stage of the tournament with air or a draw...By your logic we min c r the flop and we learn villain likes his hand enough to continue but not enough to put his stack in-costing us an additional 4k to come to this.Everyone e

I can't think of a single person that would call a cr on the flop and not put more money in the pot when we've shown weakness on the turn. Draws that call the flop if unimproved are going to semi bluff that turn. Which again really means we've gained no further information then cc flop c turn we've just put more money in the pot. I don't see many people fearing the old double check raise on the turn-if we cr flop check turn I think it does much more to polarize our hand then to give us information on their hand. The only merit like ever in cr this flop is leading the turn especially when a p

It's such a random assumption to think if he calls a min cr he's not putting another dollar in the pot. When we min raise the flop and check the turn we scream weakness and if he were to check back and we check again on the river you don't think we're getting value/or miss draws are betting the river like 100 percent of the time. Bet folding the flop/check calling the flop are really the only two options that should logically be discussed here.

I really fail to see how check raising gives us any more info then check calling and him firing again on the turn...he calls cr = he likes his hand..he double barrels = he likes his hand. If he double barrel bluffs here good on him we still have plenty of chips and we move on. If we cr and don't call a shove knowing that he could be shoving a draw we are burning money long term being afraid to coin flip with dead money in the middle. Check folding is likely the only possible worse line to take then check raising..:

So let me get this straight: you're saying we min check raise the flop and if he calls we're beat but he doesn't love his hand and if he was really strong he'd shove over our check raise? So we fold out hands that we beat-and I'm not really sure how you figure we gain any information here-if he's got combo draw type hands he's def either shoving on us or calling a min raise. We essentially turn our hand into a bluff but then when a good card comes on the turn to continue our bluff/semi bluff you're saying check fold??

No we should be raising for value or to bluff.."finding out where our opponent stands" can be a product of us raising but shouldn't be our primary motivation. It took me much longer than it should have to understand this but is pretty key.

when the river is the A -thats a tie they both have AAA22. . .

hmm tough to see how I got the impression that thats what you were saying...

Well I still think you're an idiot-maybe just an arrogant prick because clearly you missed the point in the bolded in your well thought out intelligent and insightful reply.

Theres no way to know..if the gun was visible and the tone Zimmerman was using it's plausible to think Martin was afraid for his life..It all totally depends on how you view aggressor. The line is blurry here..depending on how you define being aggressive if he grabbed Martin by the arm etc..the whole situation was stupid and shouldn't have happened

Agreed Very intelligent insight.

I think the "if's" are pretty reasonable especially on a forum where the "slippery slope" argument is thrown around daily. I'm not even talking about how the media has spun the story, the only facts that seem to be known are that Zimmerman after being told not to followed and approached Martin-its very reasonable to suggest from his tone in the recorded calls that it was in a hostile or aggresive manner and boggles me that people think theres nothing criminally wrong with that nor should there be. With the little we actually know I don't think he should be facing the charges he is but to say t

So where does the line stop? Theres no proof that this kid was up to no good so Zimmerman stays in his vehicle and life goes on for all..now if this is the stance of you and the law whats to stop some lunatic from listening on a police scanner and showing up at a robbery/domestic dispute etc with gun in hand and confronting the "perp" only to shoot them when confronted?

I know the law doesn't require it but, doesn't the fact that he didn't listen and at least in some way instigated the altercation warrent some sort of jail time?

I think the analogy of a brother and sister getting married loses some steam when so many republican's have said they'd be okay with/accept civil unions for gays but they don't want the gays to be able to use "their" word marriage.The argument of ruining the sanctity of marriage just doesn't make sense to me with a rising divorce rate and how easy it is to get married and divorced. Remove the government from the business of marriage and i think the argument either goes away is much more debateable.

Not to old at all! I'd say go for it just be sure it's a field thats going to hold your interest and that when you're done jobs are still going to be in demand. Best of luck.

As someone that shaves his head daily this doesn't seem like a huge cut...heads bleed a lot.

The things BG listed make total sense and if the discussion was if your military is stronger and better equiped then I'd gladly cede the point. However, your comments were that Canadian troops are less skilled, less trained which is a completely different discussion. While I respect your experience and would think there are areas of the Military where you are likely correct on whole I don't agree at all. My brother just returned from the States and he described the difference as the U.S training/troops/jobs at least for those he's worked with that being more "single focused" trained where as

What would make you think this? No argument that the U.S military is bigger but to think they're higher trained/more skilled is ****ing absurd, and I have family in the U.S military that would say the same thing. In fact because our military is smaller our troops are often trained in a much broader fashion.

Pretty much what Bob said. I was in no way trying to marginalize the U.S military I was just relating the facts as it relates to my brothers experience in Afghanistan and doing so to make clear how ridiculous the argument is that our military is weak and unskilled but yet our troops train and fight side by side and at times are trusted and respected to command.

I love the bashing of our military-we don't set out to be a powerhouse, but to label our military as weak or unskilled is laughable. Currently at atleast three locations in Canada there are American military being trained by our military on top of that there are other troups both here and in the u.s.a that are involved in long termed joint training programs. While my brother was in Afghanistan searching for I.E.D's there were countless operations run jointly between our countries (more often then not our guys were in command). So while yes you're Army may be tougher then ours (my dad can beat