KidSquamish

Fair enough. And in your defense, you did say "mildly." And in the salsa world, mild salsa has zero kick to it, so I guess the story was mildy amusing.

That's not even mildly amusing. It's a par-for-the-course comment. Haven't you ever lied about a hand you mucked?If anything, it's upsetting if Player A made the comment with players yet to act behind him.

If memory serves, Phil Gordon plays exclusively tournaments. I follow cardplayer.com's coverage of all the major tournaments, so why do I never see his name?

I'm curious, how are you planning on making a buy-in of $50+$4 with an account balance of $45?

The 100% truth: You don't play cards as your "business or trade," therefore you absolutely can not deduct rake from your gross income. But you can try.

A person that doesn't play cards as a livelihood (that is, as a trade or business) can generally NOT deduct buy-ins. See the above rule about deducting wagering losses.If you play cards as part of a trade or business you MAY be able to deduct many, many more costs associated with playing both live and internet.

Don't quote me or rely on this, but here goes:The govt starts with the presumption that all money you take in is taxable, and the burden is on you to find a section within the tax code that gives you a right to exclude it from your gross income.There is no section that will allow you to exclude your poker winnings. As soon as you have a right to your winnigs (ie, when the poker site is obligated to pay you), you have made reportable winnings.But if you have poker losses, you might be able to offset your reported income with them. Section 165 of the US Internal Revenue Code: "Losses from wageri

Remember this: the fundamental theorem of poker is that if the play your opponent makes is different than the play he would make if he could see your cards, you win. And if the play he makes is the same play he would make if he could see your cards, you lose.Therefore, regardless of whether it's limit or NL, if you give your opponent the wrong price to chase his draw, you win if he chases. He might draw out on you from time to time, but in the long run you will profit from his improper chases.It's all about the long run, baby. Variance is too much of a skanky, moody biznitch for the short run

First of all, I wasn't bashing you. I said you did well by placing 3rd.Second, in your post you did say that your aces and kings were getting "drawn out on majorly." It couldn't have been that majorly; you placed 3rd.Don't take every post that isn't 100% in agreement with yours as a full-on attack.

Cmon, you made a brand new post complaining about how limit sucks, but you finished third out of 20? I mean, if you had finished 17th, with virtually every hand being a bad beat courteousy of donkey calling stations, then I could empathize. But third place is entirely respectable. I'd be thankful, not upset, that they must have missed their draws more often than they sucked out on you.

My record is zero. What can I say, I'm terrible.

9. Debbie is an anal whore.

Regarding the Rounders question I posed, I have no clue what his hand was. I just presented it as a trivia question that more posters would know they have seen but can't precisely recall, as opposed to the Titanic hand.But a slowplayed, heads-up J-high nut straight would work pretty well.

Every poster here has seen Rounders. Not all have seen Titanic.But it's all moot anyway, b/c you were right all along. I don't really care, so I'll leave y'all to it.

Thanks for the honesty, big dog. And I LOVE trivia. For example: What hand did Michael McDermott have to beat KGB at the end of Rounders?