Scott31

Of course Annie has 9 bracelets. What are YOU smoking? I'll list them:1. Omaha Hi/Lo 20052-3. 2 of those 'Livestrong' rubber yellow bracelets...one for each arm4-8. Cubic Zirconia bracelets she bought off QVC (buy 4, get the 5th free!)9. A bracelet one of her kids made for her out of some string and popcorn (isn't that sweet?)How dare you doubt her ability :twisted:

I disagree. In every hand I've played in Hold 'em (and I've logged around a half million on PT) my opponents have never folded their hands or raised, or bet. They just always check to me and I go from there. Sheesh, what the hell are you talking about Smash? I mean, this is Limit Hold em we're talking about. Doesn't everyone in your games get dealt their hole cards face up and then go to the river with the bettting? That's exactly why raising QQ in the blinds is a bad bad play.

You've kind of changed your argument here Blaze. First you started off that AJs raising in the blinds was -EV. I disagree, but ok. Now you're saying that raising ATs is ok, but only if you're good enough to know what do with it on the flop. With that logic, DN should raise every hand he gets (you know, those REALLY high variance hands) because he knows what to do with it better than his opponents on the flop. An extreme example, yes, but I hope it gets across the point. Yes, Daniel has nutbarred before and won(quite a feat at his levels), but I bet there were many, many hands that had li

Well, the poster you're referring to is named JustBlaze, so it's entirely possible. Once you go crack, you never go back. :-) Ok, go for it. This I'd like to see. Construct a realistic situation where there are 7 limpers in a pot with hands that they wouldn't normally raise with and show me how it's -EV to play my QQ in the blinds for a raise. Give me all of the other 7 hands and the suits of QQ. Good luck.

Ummm, pretty near impossible. Considering you're 1-7.5 to hit your set of Queens and the fact that you only need to win 1-8 for it to be profitable in your situation, I'd say your statement is off....sorry. Just by the odds of you hitting your set alone, you are +EV on this hand let alone the times that your big pair holds up. You might want to rethink that one. Striving for impeccable play is why we post on a forum and read books in the first place. So shouldn't we try for solid play overall? You don't get any better by just ignoring the techniques of the pros in any game or sport. I

I specifically remember a hand quiz where there are a few limpers in and you pick up :spadesa: :spades10: in the bb....and Sklansky says to raise! So I'm quite certain he'd raise AQo and a lot of the other hands mentioned. Sklansky says that not raising with ATs is probably a bigger mistake than limping in with 2-7o. Just spewing out what I read.Check out page 259 of SSHE hand quiz 5. He says to Raise ATs in the bb with 6 limpers. If Sklansky thinks not raising ATs is a terrible play, I'm quite certain he believes raising AJs from the blinds is +EV especially in a multiway pot, which s

I'd take the TOC over that any day. Although I wish they would actually put the best players in the world at that table rather than a few of the goofball hacks they had on last time (Annie....cough). How they reasoned away that Juanda shouldn't be on there was beyond me. In fact, about the only guy at that table that isn't crazy famous was Chip Reese. Yes, I know he's in the poker hall of fame, but the average joe doesn't really know him. At least they got him right...It should be about the best current players, not the pretty faces. I definitely prefer the one table SNG format with all

I really don't think this is a toughy. Call and be willing to call mid-level or small bets on the turn and fold to a big turn bet. At this point, the girl is basically dead money in there as she's probably weak with that call and considering your reads. Push all in? Those guys who said this are nuts. Do you really like getting your money in on the worst hand? I sure as heck don't. Even if every gutshot card is good, you're still a little behind to ANY pair. Realistically, your Queen outs are probably not all there and your Ace sure as s hit aren't clean. I'd almost play this one lik

No need to apologize, we were all new once on here. Run, don't walk away from absolute. Their software is horrible compared to other sites and like you said, the available ring games are slim. I've played many sites for bonuses and freebies and I really like Ultimatebet as my favorite. They have good withdrawal and deposit policies and the software is the best. I also love their tourney and sng structure. I must warn you though, their micro limit games are not as soft as you'd probably like. Believe it or not, players at those levels kinda know what they're doing on UB. If you just want

250K...just one problem. How could Moneymaker afford it?

JR, I didn't hear any real rebuttal. Why is it scary? I know the government of the U.S. backwards and forwards, although this government tends to be backwards most of the time. :-) I'll tell you what....I'll cite the number and level of my government classes and my political background, along with my papers published (ok, just one paper) and you cite yours. I'm more than qualified to talk about this subject intelligently, unlike 99% of this country who babbles on about their 'political beliefs' when they really have no idea what they're talking about.

I said it was biased... 1st sentence actually. Gotta disagree there. I forgot who he was talking to. I think it was Bush's campaign manager, but Stewart was pleading for Bush to be on the Daily Show and Jon said, "If he comes on here, I'll be such a pu s sy." Stewart respects power like most people. Well, at least to their faces anyway. I never implied otherwise. But, it's very smart and effective in exploiting the ridiculousness of the system and the current administration. That's why I like it.

I didn't see that the short stack was still in the hand, which changes things some. I still like leading, although I'd lead much much weaker than I originally said. You want every chip of the BB and you want the UTG guy to come along for the ride too. Leading out for 300 would be an option and you can see how the BB reacts. Unfortunately, if he pushes all in, it's unlikely that the UTG player would call a bet and a raise unless he has something very, very big. Although the BB did actually push in, the weak lead is such a great and underused play and the better choice here (but just barely

I admittedly wasted hours of my life and read Hellmuth's book. I found his animal examples useful for beginners, but absolutely silly for anyone who has played more than 6 months. The animals are completely over-simplified, much like his entire book. Now that I got that off my chest, I think he talked about the ultra-skilled players being eagles or something, so I'm gonna call myself one of those. :-) I'm not THAT good, but if you can't dream it, you'll never conceive it. Uh oh, I sound like an NBC 'The More You Know' commercial. Hahaha.

To quote a very famous Republican:"Taxes are the price you pay for a civilized society." Oliver Wendell HolmesStop whining about how it's 'your money' people. Last time I checked, it doesn't have your name on it, but it does have the United States of America on it. My point is that you wouldn't have any money if it weren't for the government and poker wouldn't be around, because people would get into endless arguments as to why their tractor is worth more than his car. The government of the United STates makes it possible for you to earn money in a safe (fairly safe anyway) environment. A

Just be careful about overinflating them to meet what you want to do. For example, you really want to play a draw, so you puff up the implied odds just so you can be an action junky and draw. In NL, implied odds only really work if your draw is fairly covert. Like in this hand, his club draw isn't very covert, so if he just had a naked flush draw, he should be thinking in terms of pot odds and not really implied odds. If he had Q6c, for example, I'd say fold on the flop. Sure, he might get an extra 1/4 sized or 1/3 sized pot bet when the club hits, but nothing big and certainly nothing r

This may seem weird guys, but pot odds here are completely out the window on this hand. The only thing that matters with this draw is IMPLIED ODDS. 1.5-1 pot odds? OK, but that's not the right thinking in this situation, IMO. With this deceptive draw, I'm thinking of it as 400 to win 4000. How do you like those odds? I love 'em. So, with implied odds, I'll throw in a little math. It's 400 to call and 620 is already in the pot, so in this situation it's 400 to win 4,620+ (more if the rock calls, which is unlikely). This makes this call 1-11.5, which is awesome. The odds of you hitti

I posted this reply on the other one, but it's helpful enough to throw it on here too. Yes, a pretty easy call I think on the flop. Not because of your flush draw (which I would in no way rely on), but because of your straight draw and the deceptiveness of it. If a 6 or a J hits on the turn, there's no way your opponent would be able to put you on T8 unless you stand up and chant, "2-4-10-8, who do we appreciate?.. the nuts...the nuts...the nuts." SmileThis is one of those situations where pot odds are out the window and implied odds are all that matter. With a draw like that, I only fold if

Yes, a pretty easy call I think on the flop. Not because of your flush draw (which I would in no way rely on), but because of your straight draw and the deceptiveness of it. If a 6 or a J hits on the turn, there's no way your opponent would be able to put you on T8 unless you stand up and chant, "2-4-10-8, who do we appreciate?.. the nuts...the nuts...the nuts." :-) This is one of those situations where pot odds are out the window and implied odds are all that matter. With a draw like that, I only fold if I see the raiser has a small stack and it's not worth it to chase. Because I plan o

Sure, it's bias. But the Daily Show is masterful at poking holes in the Bush administration's policies and they make them look like fools, which admittedly, is not hard to do.He was on crossfire saying that the show Crossfire was 'hurting America.' He didn't say anything about liberal, conservative, Democrat, or Republican. He just basically told the world that he hates that show. He argued with Tucker Carlson because 1. Tucker's a bit of an idiot 2. He was the only one arguing. Did you honestly think Stewart would ask the possible future president crazy, hard-hitting questions on a comed

Smash, I generally think that you're rough around the edges and a bit hard on people at times. But, with your above statement, you've become my hero of the moment. :-) I must quote Bruno Gianelli from the West Wing now. One of my favorite quotes of all time.We all need some therapy people because at some time, somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on defense and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic

Excellent post. And as a guy who reads polling data like Trump reads the Wall Street Journal, I thank you for all of your polls. Liberals(well, those that call themselves that) are outnumbered because Republicans have worked very hard in the past 10 years to make 'liberal' a dirty word. It's just one school of thought, while the term 'conservative' has gotten off as being the clean, sensible smart school of thought. This country is a bit cooky, in my opinion. "They misunderestimated me." Best Bush quote of all time....well, close."Fool me once....shame...shame on you...(5 second pause of

OK, I can see a lot of opinions on religion and politics about to come out. Let's all 'play nice' and keep the name calling to a minimum in this thread. It'll be tough, but you can do it.

I worked in politics as well and I really like Michael Moore. Most Rs just call him a liberal and think that this is enough to discredit him. Huh? There are 2 extremes of political thought....liberal and conservative. Neither are right on every issue. In fact, both are just plain wrong on many many issues. You can say what you want about Michael Moore, but he is very genuine about his message and cause. 'Bowling for Columbine' was excellent and did a good job about getting his message out.

That's the absolute worst situation (which you shouldn't fear) and even then, you're only 2.3-1 to lose that hand with 2.1-1 on your call. See why this was easy? Because the amount of times he doesn't have the worst possible hand for your TPTK and nut flush draw make this an easily profitable call.