BuzzWorthy

Tough one there, with the flush draw on top of the made straight, he was freerolling against you...

You had the third nut low (explained in earlier posts), and 2 pair. The problem with these hands is that they appear stronger than they really are. Third nut low is usually no good unless heads up or short-handed, and in O8 you usually need a set or better to take the pot. The board also displays a straight possibilty.You didn't mention the river betting, but I would assume that the nut low bet and the set raised (or vice versa, can't remember their positions), so if this was the case, fold for sure. if it was checked onthe river, you played it just fine.BTW - the guy who criticized had no bus

Fold. I put villian on a flush draw OR a set, with an overpair possible, but not too likely. Set seemed more likely, given that after the flop the BB bet out $1,000, hero called, and then the chip leader moved all in. For those that say call, did it ever occur to you that the villian's push could be made to protect his set from possible flush draws? Hero's call would certainly look like a draw to me. I would expect a raise with TPTK in that spot.You have to look at how the hand developed from the Villian's perspective as well. Why would he be pushing here? Does it make sense for him to push a

That's beautiful... especially since he started the hand saying:"later fish"I just love it when cocky jerks get what they deserve!EDIT - I can't believe this thing censors the word c0cky (had to put a zero in there)

Great post.I think the most important lesson to take away is how much we all need to pay attention to our opponents. When we are being aggressive and they are merely calling, and then all of a sudden they bet - it's time to wake up and realize you either were being slowplayed, or he caught something.I think you may be on to something about just calling the river with an overpair to an opponent who was passive but is now aggressive.River bets in limit are rarely bluffs - as you already mentioned, too often it is appropriate to call for one bet, meaning that a large percentage of the time the bl

NO, not an easy fold at all. The hands I would be most concerned about are Q-10c, J-10c, and 9-10c. Anything lower probably should have folded to your pre-flop raise or at least the flop bet. Anything higher (K-10c, A-10c)would've probably raised with top pair good kicker, especially when the turn adds a flush draw.I guess the scariest thing to worry about is someone slowrolling something like a 5-6, especially in clubs. Not much you can do about that, though...I wouldn't fold this for two more bets. Too much money in the pot.

Man, I could NOT AGREE MORE about the monotone! The information is usually very good, but you need 10 cups of coffee and a box of No-Doz to stay awake enough to actually absorb what he is saying...

A-8 offsuit... need 4 to a flush or straight, even then only one is the nuts (A-High flush or straight, assuming the straight comes without 3 flush cards.) To play for the flush or straight it is very likely you are going to have to call all the way to the river without a made hand, as the big cards to the straight will probably pair the opponents, and there is the possibility someone makes a non-nut flush on the flop or turn.Even if you catch the A, you are likely beaten - your kicker sucks. The only hope you have is 2 pair or the miracle boat.I suppose you could call because of the 1ox odds,

You can find definitions for this in Alan Schoonmaker's Psychology of Poker. However, in this forum and others the terms are often misused. Many people refer to a LAG as a loose aggressive player (or guy, hence LAG), but Schoonmaker defines it as:LAP = Loose-Aggressive PlayerLAG = Loose-Aggressive GroupSame thing goes for Tight-Aggressive, etc...The loose aggressive group is defined as a table consisting of 3-4 loose aggressive players who make that action at the table loose aggressive, and he provides strategies for dealing with them.Hope that helps.

OK, I've re-read everything, and after all that I think we're on the same page.First - my bad about the quote - wasn't paying attention..Second... when I said push in the first place, I was referring to pushing in all his chips to call. This is certainly not a hand I would want to push pre-flop from middle position when you are 8 spots from the money. Fold. Period.I think our confusion stems from the fact that originally I said push in response to the original post, NOT pre-flop play. You were discussing pre-flop play. I agree with you 100% assuming we are now on the same page.We cool?

I don't understand the logic of this. Being closer to the money makes this MORE of a push b/c the table tightens up considerably. The fact that we are 8 spots from the money makes this a fold.An 8xbb push from middle position will get tons of respect at the bubble.Your comments above are correct if you are the one doing the pushing, pre-flop. Your choice is to CALL all in ot not. In your case, your choice is to evaluate the odds of outlasting 8 players vs. the odds of winning this hand, thereby doubling up and increasing your chances of finishing inthe money or winning.As far as the logic, you

I'd say fold if you were closer to the money, but you were heavily shortstacked, and still needed to leapfrog 8 people to make the money. Being in the hand at all was a mistake, but at that point, I'd push and take my chances.As a rule of thumb, I rarely if ever limp when shortstacked. I try to always raise so I can either collect the blinds or define the opponent's hand.

Budweiser, the Czech pilsner, brewed since the 1500's, the 'Beer of Kings'.Anheuser-Busch stole the name (Budweiser - the King of Beers :evil: ), and blocked distributors from importing it into America. Eventually, a legal agreement was reached where it could be imported into the US under the name 'CzechVar' (it was known as Budweiser or BudVar in Europe)This IS without a doubt the best beer in the world.

You know, this sounds a LOT like the 'Gus Hansen is lucky' posts found on RGP about 2-3 years ago, when the first season of WPT came out. No one gave him credit until he won 3-4 events, because his ultra-agressive style makes him look reckless. That style is CLEARLY not for everyone, but it apparently works for Tuan Le...

I have no affiliation with this oddsmaker and I am not trying to spam... just found some of these odds funny:http://www.pokertropolis.com/wsop/WSOPFinalOdds.htmFor example, Chan(50-1), Lederer(66-1) and Hellmuth(70-1) seem awfully low. The size of the field alone should cause that to be higher.Or, Paul Phillips (275-1) with a better chance than Chris Ferguson and Layne Flack (both 280-1)? Layne might make sense because of his agression, but seriously - Paul Phillips has a better chance than Jesus?Or Esfandiari so far down this list at 380-1, or Kathy Liebert(365-1) and Jennifer Harman (390-1)

Funny stuff... what level are you playing at?

I disagree with this. In my opinion, having flawless fundamentals means knowing what the correct mathematical play is based on the given information (odds and position). That pattern is predictable. Taking your game to the next level involves determining when it is appropriate to deviate from those fundamentals. This is where the people skills come in. Using game theory would also be deviating from the fundamentals if you follow this way of thinking. I totally agree with the concept that even though you could be much stronger in one or the other, the best players are good at both.

So far - play: standardcommentary: priceless!For the record, I expect some BRILLIANT commentary when you receive your first bad suckout! (strictly poker suckouts, please... )

If he would've raised the river, I'd give him credit for a nice slowplay, even though he's lucky no K or A came on the board, and you didn't hit your set. Since he didn't raise on the river (assuming I didn't miss that), you just have to assume he called down with the Q's because he's a weak player - because that is a HORRIBLE play. Unfortunately, that gives ammo to the play money critics on this post, but in my opinion, that's why he's there - to learn... wouldn't want to play that bad for real money!

I was reading Daniel's blog when I came across this: My how times change... if Doyle had written this 20 years ago, the assumption would be that he was talking about an ACTUAL golf course!

Push it all in - it's the difference between climbing the money ladder and going for the whole thing. You've already won anyway... go for it!On a more analytical note - looks like the big stack is trying to bully you, yet another reason to push. And, the earlier poster is right - you should've raised more to begin with.

I expected this kind of reaction as some become so jealous when others design a great system. I don't quite understand your attack as I am quite willing to share methods with you. To say that I have no investment is where you make your first mistake. I have invested $0.00. Are you arguing that $0.00 is a figure that doesn't exist? If your Daddy gives you $20.00 and you decide to buy a box of condoms for $5.00 and give the other $15.00 to your sister for beeeeeerains, what does that leave you with? Let me save you the solar cells in you TI. It leaves you with $0.00 ; and perhaps a raging

I also heard MIT wants you to give a seminar on your 'new math'...

Ummmmm, if you punch in 10 on your Texas Instrument and then divide that by 0....you get ?Answer: errorThat's right...some calculators can't even grasp this ROI of infinity so I would expect a lot of you will be unable to grasp it also. That is why I am here to assist.Seriously, you need to take a finance class or something...First of all, you have NO ROI because you have no initial investment. That's right - you youself in your OP said: If you have no investment, then you can have no return. You just got free money.Second, the reason your TI says 'error' is because it is mathematically imp

Ummmm... hate to rain on your parade, but...ROI is calculated as:return/investmentGiven that - you can't divide by zero. You don't have an infinity return.On the bright side, 10 free dollars is always good!