MrConceit

If that is what Smash is saying, then I fully agree with him. There is completely a best given move in every situation if you knew all factors (even without talking about knowing hole cards). But nobody ever knows ALL factors. You can get closer online if you're using tracking stats so you know 10 different lifetime stats on a person, plus notes you've taken, but live? No way. You can come close, and some of the best pros do.You really can never know the absolute correct play, you can just make a guess. In low limit it's easier to come up with the correct play, but you still can't always

There's a minor problem with that. The min xfer on PP is 50 bucks I was pretty sure, and seems to be as I glance at it now to try to xfer. Not that you CAN'T get around it by having them xfer 70 and you xfer 50, but you can't leave yourself less than 50 in your account after a transfer on party.But anyway, it's a close call (on the question on the thread), but I'd have to say asking for money. :)The best is when people randomly come to your tables and ask for money. I mean people who aren't even playing at the table. I play on 15/30 and assume people do this a lot on 15/30 and 30/60 on pa

here goes blaze with his georgiev comments again!give it a rest.Laugh, dude. It was the "other" blaze unless he changed his name that was having the Georgiev discussion with you. The other blaze has lots of experience and knows a lot about poker. No clue on this one.

Yeah that makes a lot of sense. I think O8 will get boring for me sooner than later because the correct play is, well, so clear typically. It should be a great moneymaker as long as fish are available. But I'm new enough to O8 that it's still fun for me.

He gave you the link for playerview, which is what I use also.I found the link for GT+ at pokertracker forum. It's at:http://www.pokerdominion.com/And like go to the announcements under GT+ and it gives a link to download version 1.3 it looks like. I think GT+ works with more sites than playerview.Also I think the web page I gave is also for the thing that lets you get UB hands in realtime for tracker, but I'm not 100 percent on that.

I mostly agree with you and Smash. As for what Smash said: I haven't watched it since the first episode, it was that bad to me. I don't post about hating and and then watch it every week.As for Erik, I agree with you, and I don't start I-HATE-TILT threads. It's just sometimes it's so easy to diss on the show when people start glowing threads about loving it.As an aside, I dont' watch hardly any TV these days, and I didn't realize how utterly bad most drama tv shows are. The poor acting and overdramatization got to me in Tilt.

What WRTO meant wasn't your comment about tourney vs ring, that's correct. He was pointing out your incorrect thinking of changing your style once you're up 10-15 bucks as compared to your 25 buyin at the table. You should be playing your A game regardless. Getting more aggressive because the table is starting to fear you is one thing, loosening up your requirements because you've won some is another.That's the same type of wrong thinking that people use when they say "It's the casino's money I'm gambling with now, not mine!". The money is yours after you won it. Play the same best strate

Ok this will be my last post on this, but as usual you're being intolerant and condescending. You have a great grasp on poker, and you have your groupies who will now flame me, but this is ridiculous.It's great we should never discuss something "allready decided", heaven forbid we try to think it through ourselves so we understand it. And I'm glad that so many answers are not open to debate because gee, it's already been figured out. And for sure, I will carry on being wrong in an effort to think sh1t through and decide what I personally think.Sorry you never do once you've read the "correc

Yeah, actually I was kind of a whiny b1tch in my second post, sorry about that one. Your wording was not that insulting and it was my bad to make that second post. I understand your points of why you said it like you did. I fully agree with you and SabaAba on this. Both in that if you had limped it's a definite call vs BB, and that you almost always should have raised it in the first place. As for a), to me it's close between 1 and 2 limpers as worst case senario. Sure pot odds increase for 2, but even more hands you have to beat (let's talk about a non-suited crap-holding). How about y

You realize Smash, you don't have to read this thread anymore. If we want to discuss it, we don't have to move on, sorry dude. And now I'll respond to DaToads long and well thought out post.I'm glad you have made your decision on this and don't want to think anymore about it because it's been "figured out 10000 times by people who've played millions of hands."

I'm exactly the same way typically Smash. I have to motivate myself to play limit hold'em so I can make my money (damned jobs), but I'll always play O, O8b, Stud, or really anything else by choice.Your norm can become such a grind. Don't get me wrong, once I start playing it, I like it fine, but thinking about putting in my X hours can sometimes be irritating to contemplate.

Tracker is great. First for your own stats... As long as you always input all your hands, it keeps track of nearly everything for you. True win rate, BB/100, what you win with each hand type (but you need a lot of samples for this to mean a lot), the average percent of the pot taken out by rake per limit (I have .5/1 through 15/30 and it's kinda interesting), std deviation per hour or per 100 hands, the stats it can give you is endless.Like I found out I was overplaying suited connecters regardless of if the table was loose enough, or maybe out of position on a table that wasn't passive eno

Yeah, I'm with Smash on this one. But there are times when you know (or should know) you're beat. That'll be my next attempt at improving my game. I basically almost always pay off with TPTK unless it's really obvious I'm beat in a certain way.Especially say on a turn checkraise is where I'm imagining I have leaks. Example: I have AKo, raise from early, say 1 late coldcaller and both blinds call. Flop is A82 rainbow. Turn is a 9. I had bet out flop, and all but sb folds. On the turn he checkraises me. Now if you don't know your opponent, this does tend to mean your tptk isn't good.

Basically what everybody else said overall, but I did want to make one key point about your number 2.When there are 4-6 people in the hand, many of them staying to the river, tells and lots of other things become not nearly AS important. Basically at that point it's almost pure pot odds. Out of the 4-6 ONE of them isn't bluffing if there are bets and/or raises on all the streets with tons of people calling.You need to have tptk in the very least to win, quite often more (yeah I'm overgeneralizing but oh well). So basically tells go out the window, you either have the goods, or are drawing

Did you read the article on Gus in the last cardplayer? It talks about this hand, kinda interesting.[edit]Ok I lied, technically it's not the current, but it's the most current I have gotten in the mail. The article is at:http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/a...4525&m_id=65555He basically said he put him on a small PP, like 33-77, and if he did indeed have that read it is totally the correct call off pot odds (along with his usual wanting to keep up his image and whatever else you want to say). Correct pot odds because of what was already in with his raise I mean.Anyway, the articl

PS. Why are you insulting to insult? How childish can you be? No, you don't have explain to me why in this example it is shorthanded, but thanks for the offer of a lesson.You weren't the only one discussing this earlier. Other examples were talked about such as with 1-2 limpers which makes it not the same as shorthanded, especially depending on where they limped from.If UTG+1 limps, you complete, and BB raises is this the same as a typical shorthanded example?But again, thanks for the free lesson offer.

No you haven't read it properly.My original statement was that if you have limped you never fold to a single raise.wrto came back with a pathetic example of where you actually had to make a mistake to create a situation that he thought justified his argument. Teh fact that he is still wrong is irrelevantHere is the post that put into the blind battle*snip*Go back and read it again.Ok, I did. And I indeed wasn't quite fair to you, as the starter of this discussion WAS likely asking about blind-battles where he'd completed in SB after all folded to him (I assume he now knows he should typicall

Jesus, I did finish reading, and of course the Toad is right with his argument, he changed what the original argument was. He changed it utterly to a blind battle. Duh you call one more HU vs BB. And if you have suited cards and BB raises in a family pot obviously you're taking one more off.

No you don't. You fold J6 and 83s for the same reasons you fold T5s after you limp form the SB and the BB raises.Thank you, come again.You really don't get it do you.JH says you do call J6 in the blind if you are raised heads upIs The Almighty going to have to come down and shake you before you learn to listen?(The bold text refers to her talking about SHORTHANDED play, not if somebody in early or mid raises your BB on a full table and it's folded to you.)I wanted to read all this before posting, but jesus, I can't wait. You are continually harping and sometimes taking stuff out of context.

Ya mean 4th street right?

God. God told me that 2+2 is favored. That and the grapevine, but mostly god.

Hah, most of the posters there (if you read the whole thread) did say they believed it quite unlikely, and didn't buy it, blah blah. I just read the whole thing. And Barry appears to have said he didn't mean those nasty implications after Jen did her post. But that didn't stop Daniel from destroying him in his post. It was a fun read. I kinda feel sorry for Barry, he got "outplayed" in posts, heh. No match for DN.

The point that the original poster missed, and perhaps you did a bit too, is that while it's true that these games are all drawing games, you need to be playing that game TOO. You should be drawing a hell of a lot, though not with WEAK draws. That's why suited connectors and Ax suited (and sometimes Kx suited) should be seeing the flop nearly every time, if the table is passive. And not only should you be trying to flop draws, when you do, depending on how good the draw is, you should be jamming it.You'll have better luck jamming your nut flush draw vs 7 people than you will with AA on the

Hah, didn't think anybody would be interested. This is from my now-defunct database, because as of a few days ago I grabbed all the 15/30 hands and made a new database to be faster, but from my original database of 55k-ish hands:AA: 230KK: 276QQ: 243JJ: 261TT: 24999: 25988: 23477: 25466: 22955: 26344: 23533: 24422: 221Sums to 3198, divided by 13 is 246Expected 249.4So yeah, it's not too far off.

Another thread reminded me of something I checked (because I'm a geek) a couple days ago. Have any of you ever looked at how often you should (statistically) have gotten a specific pocket vs how often you did?When I was reading up on Tracker a few days ago, (because I realized there were a lot of things I didn't know about it), I did wonder.So based on 20,949 hands of 15/30 I should have gotten a specific PP roughly .45 percent of the time. Though when calculating exact stuff I didn't use that, I used 1/13*3/51 to keep the various sig figs and be more accurate.So I should be getting a specif