uahphysics

"You cannot love life until you live the life you love" -fortune cookie

If you can't make this call, how in the hell did you make it to the final table in the first place?

In a recent cardplayer article(the one that's not out yet, but on the cardplayer website...with scotty nguyen on the cover) Scotty said that he would challenge anyone at anystakes at O8B. Now, in Hold 'em, the best in the world are usually known for their creativity and ability to mix it up and make the most money, but in a game like O8B where its a little more straightfoward, what makes Scotty, or anyone for that matter, considered the best in the world? With less room to get *cute*, is there a certain trait or ability that makes these pros the best at O8B?

yes, poker is gambling. case closed

So, I was playing at a friend of mine's house. It's dealer choice and this hand came up during a hand of Pot Limit Omaha.$0.05-0.10 blindsI'm in the cutoff and have 10 10 3 5 I limp in and we see a 5-way flop. the flop is: 4 5 5 First position bets the pot, $0.50, one guy folds, the guy to my right calls, I call, and the button raises pot, a raise of $2.50, the other two guys fold and I call with trips and plan to reevaluate the turn since I didn't give him credit for the full house.the turn is: A I check, and the button bets $3.00. Eventually I called as I still red him

Hi. I was using the search function and was having a hard time coming up with the thread about Smash's low limit NL theory. Could someone please show me the thread, or perhaps just repeat the theory/strategy? Sorry for starting a dumb thread and clogging up the forums.

I was just wondering if the bankroll requirements for playing Omaha Hi-Lo was any different than the standard 300 Big Bets suggested for playing Limit Hold 'Em. Also, what's a good amount of Big Bets to sit down with for any particular session? For the buy-in question, we'll discuss live play, since the amount may be a little different for online than live.

Hi. My friend and I are planning on taking a trip sometime in the near future(march) to Turning Stone, and had just a few questions. First off, Turning STone is an 18+ casino, correct? Secondly, I was just like to hear some peoples opinions of the Turning Stone poker room. Is it worth the trip? Just so you know, I'm not taking the trip specifically for Turning Stone. My brother and sister and going to be in the St. Patricks Day parade in New York with their High School Band, so we're going to see that. But while we're up there, I figured we could go to Turning Stone and play some cards.

For some reason this thread reminds me of:"WACKY WAVING INFLATABLE ARM FLAILING TUBE MAN!!"

If this has to come to a vote, then I doubt it will ever pass. People down here in Alabama keep shutting down the potential for a lottery that would generate a good bit of revenue for the state. Alabama is very conservative, but if this happens, it would be absolutely awesome.

Lots of The Faint, Sigur Ros, Radiohead, Cursive and Panic! at the disco

John Hennigan Eliminated Log: Tim Strayer raises preflop, and is called by John Hennigan. The flop comes 2-4-5. Hennigan bets, Strayer calls. The turn is a 5. Both players check. The river is another 4. Hennigan pushes all-in. Strayer calls. Hennigan shows 7-4 while Strayer shows A-4, outkicking Hennigan and knocking him out of the tournament. With a board of 2-4-5-5-4 Wouldn't both of them have 4's full of 5's?

I was just wondering what specifically is the beef with Phil Hellmuth and his book? I've heard his book trashed several times, and I'm not saying his book isn't deserving of it, I would just like a few people to give specific examples(and no, I don't mean exact quotes) of what is so bad about his book.

I don't understand the theory that there must be a creator because life on Earth could have not happened by chance, that's it too complex to have happened by chance. Yes, life exists on Earth, but think about how many billions and billions and billions of plants in the universe cannot support life. Logically looking at it(I'm an Astrophysics major undergrad, about to start second year, so I've studied this a little, but not as intensively as I would like) Earth got very lucky to sustain life. It was created with just the right atmosphere and created just far enough away from the Sun in orde

Doesn't the last part of this in fact hurt your arguement for the existence(I think that might be spelled wrong) of a God? If God exists, then God himself would have to have been created and whatever created him would have to have been created and so on and so on farther back in time as an infinite loop of creation that still yields no answer.

My favorite office space quote: "You know the Nazi's had pieces of flare too..... They made the jews wear it"I nearly died laughing so hard at this the first time I ever heard it, I thought I was gonna choke on the food I was eating.

I once toyed around with the idea(this wasn't actually based on a lot of research or study, more or less just a thought experiment, so I'm expecting I'll get flamed for it), but has anyone ever considered that the abstract term God, or any deity of sort was really created by humans as a way for humans to explain the physics that govern Earth and the Universe. Obviously, in modern day, we understand a lot about the physics that controls whatever happens in our universe, but at least to me, it doesn't seem completely unreasonable that this abstract term of a God or deity is rather just referrin

Ya, playing magic really does help analytical analysis. A lot of magic players are starting to turn to poker because of the competition and the money(obviously). I'm glad to see these magic pros also making it in the world of poker, congrats Efro!

I know, I know, this question has been thrown around about 8 billion times a month, and I'm not going to ask the question, that's not the purpose of this thread. I just thought I'd like an article written by mike caro(I believe) on doylesroom.com A majority of people already know this type of info, but for those who don't, and would like to know, check out http://www.doylesroom.com/education_article4.html for an interesting article. P.S. This article doesn't address the first hand of a big MTT that a lot of people like to ask about, but it does focus on the importance of the ability to l

In a tournament Heads-Up situation, I've heard it said quite often that if you don't think you can beat your opponent, or you know for a fact that you are far outclassed and that you are going to get run over, then its probably best to just go all-in preflop or fold. That's the best chance an amateur has against a seasoned pro(not all amateurs mind you, but you get the jist) Instead of making complicated post-flop decisions where a professional player could just take the pot off you, your best bet is to just go all in and let the cards decide who wins. However, that's not to say this is a g

I think D'agistino(sp?) handled himself pretty well after Hoyt's horrendous suckout. Having to pick up and restack the chips you just stole from another player is very minimal, I'm sure some players would have done a lot worse than just push over his chips. god, Hoyt Corkins makes me wanna puke........ "All in! All in! All in! All in! All in! All in! All in! All in! All in! All in!"

"But it was suited!" The thing about this line is that I've only ever heard it when a good player was being sarcastic and making fun of fish, I never actually heard it said by someone when they truly meant it.....until about two weeks ago. I was playing a live home game, and this one woman used this line about 6 or 7 times after showing down a hand, and she really really meant it. It went so far as that she played any two suited cards.

I'm very much looking foward to the answer to this problem. I too am stumped about the answer as all I can come up with is 50/50 odds. If one door is always shown to be a door without a prize, then you're left with only 2 doors, one of which is hiding the prizes. I wish I could figure out this problem, I'm a math major in college(albeit I just finished my freshman year, so no stat classes yet) and am generally regarded in my poker circle as "the math guy".

It's been debated time and time again about which form of poker is better, or more skillful, or more prestigious or whatever. Tournaments or Cash Games? Well, this thread isn't really meant to find an answer to that question, but rather, I thought it would spark an interesting discussion/debate. I just want to know how everyone on this board feels about the two forms, likes/dislikes, which one do you prefer and why? Personally, I prefer tournaments. I've never really figured out why exactly I am drawn more towards tournament poker, but I think it has a lot to do with my competitive nat

Thanks for the post. I'm definately going to look into this book, I had not actually heard of it previously, but I'll definately look into it, thanks for the recommendation.