copernicus

but probably very different in the heat of battle. With both the Button and the Cutoff pressing the action early, it would seem likely that at least one of them has a set and the hand should be let go on the turn.

Obviously I wasnt pushing very strongly, although with one of the 3 hands I was protecting against a possible flush draw and bet 60% or so of the pot, but that wasnt going to eliminate top pair.Other than those hands there is no evidence of the problem being that naked Qs are being played pre-flop with the frequency of As and Ks, so I would hate to eliminate playing two pair lower than the top card on the flop. Perhaps they just cant be pushed as hard on the river, andfolded to a strong reraise, instead of stubbornly thinking 2 pair has got to be a well hidden winnerin this situation.

Be careful not to take legal advice from an anonymous bulletin board! Whether the government controls the internet is irrelevant. They still maintain that the Wire Act prohibits online gambling, for both the operator and the user. While the debate between regulation vs outright banning of online gambling rages on there is little risk of prosecution for the player. I would not be so cavalier about the potential for tax evasion issues for winners that don't report their profits, which could then lead to a test case under the Wire Act for that player.Also about 44 of the States and DC have statut

You check the big blind or complete the small blind against 2 or 3 limpers and flop middle pair, with no A or K flopped, but your top card lower than the board. Eg your 97o sees a board of Q75 rainbow. Lead out with a probe bet most likely? Say thats what you do, and you get 1 caller and turn your other pocket. Aggressive time?These seem right to me, but Ive gone down for big numbers 3 hands in a row to two pair, including the top pair. Just unlucky or is it too risky to play without at least an overcard as your other pocket?

If you are always playing for first regardless of the prize structure you are probably making a lot of -EV plays. For example, in most of the medium sized (75-100 players) MTTs I play, there is a big jump from 5th to 4th, not much difference between 4th and 3rd, then a decent jump to 2d, and then not much difference between 2d and 1st. Shooting for 4th and then 2d if you make it to 4th may make more sense then shooting for the moon, depending on the stack sizes.

I think thats one line of reasoning that makes pushing debatable. There are a lot of situations where betting might isolate you against the second limper, because the first limper is sandwiched between you, and might even fold a small pair, leaving you against a hand you dominate.The counter to this line is, how much are you going to bet that doesnt give the limpers legitimate drawing odds (if you even have both of them beat right now) but still gets them to call? And then how do you play the hand if the flop misses you? Now youre pot committed but probably behind in the hand.All in all, I st

Maybe we are talking two different things. I am talking strictly in the sense of Harrington's red zone and orange zone strategy for pushing.... the key to his strategy is first in equity, which is gone with two limpers.A push in this situation has to be judged strictly as a value bet, and given the great odds, the size of his stack and recent table image it is still the right move...but its not a situation where you would go all in with less than an above average hand, and the low M pushing strategy applies to all but the weakest hands.I' m surprised no one jumped on the limper for slow pla

An all-in checkraise with a draw? I hate that. First, you lose the folding equity. Second, how are you going to take it down unimproved with a check raise? Anyone who bets has probably got you beat for now and if he bets any significant amount will have odds to call your raise, so your only shot at winning unimproved is against an absolute bluff.With two overcards and the flush draw I like his play..if you are going to play suited connectors early this is the ideal situation.

What is the relevance of the buy-in vs the bankroll? If any number vs his bankroll is relevant its the prizes, and whether sneaking in to the money is insignificant to his bankroll, but making a play for the chip lead is meaningful, or vice versa. The buy-in is a sunk cost and is irrelevant as far as I can see.

I think there is some room for debate, even though I would probably wind up pushing too in this particular situation.It is not, though, an "auto-pilot low M push" when there are already two limpers in the pot.

want to read 2 pages of flames.Join Doyles Room, its easy to accumulate the points needed to get the book, and you can use the points to enter free rolls, since you dont "pay" with points.

I agree, its one of the most frustrating things about vol 2. The key, I think, is to recognize those who have read and are applying what theyve read, and adjusting your reads on that basis. For example, significantly lowering your calling standards against "red zone" all-ins.

only operators injudicious enough to return to NY State from their island haven. Note the proliferation of non-gambling .net sites though....thats a clear indication of pressure by the feds to scale back blatant advertising of what they consider to be an illegal activity.

multi-tabling is -EV, unless you time it so that you are never playing the late stages of more than one tourney at a time. There is too much information to be processed as you try to step up the payoff ladder or vacuum up chips with a big stack.Also historical player information is much more valuable in tournaments ...the same players pop up over and over again (at least at Doyles Room) and will be at your table for a while in most cases. Referring back to my database for situational information can cause time limit problems on one table, much less trying to keep up with more than one.

Gotta disagree, Cujo is a great goalie. His post-season reputation would have been enhanced greatly were it not for an ill-timed Tie Domi suspension against the Devils...maybe the worst playoff series ever for me personally, lol. He posted a .927 SP that playoff year and, like most playoff series, outplayed Brodeur badly.The real question in Phoenix for him will be whether 99 plays a run and gun style, or allows the two-way players to play some defense. Put Peca on that team and Cujo would be one of my contenders for the Vezina.

on the goalie awards (though I will fight to the death that the Jennings is really a team award, not a goalie award).

in the rules change thread. DC's improvement goes beyond the equipment change though.

about those results is that they generally support that there is home ice advantage in the regular season and especially supports the hypothesis that the West has a more difficult time with travel than the East.The East had 10 teams with a positive home team point differential, and the average advantage for those teams was 9.4 points.The West had 12 teams with a positive home team point differential but their average advantage was 15.5 points.There is much less East/West disparity for the teams that had "Road advantages" (3.6 pts vs 2.5).

I'm from NJ via Montreal, and have no connection to Vancouver, other than through goalie coaching. Giving DC up was just one of the biggest of the many mistakes the Rangers front office has made in the last few years.I said he WILL be in the top 5 or 6 in SP, not has been. He has spent the last year and half training intensively and will be one of if not the best conditioned goalie in the league. His movement is much more precise, particularly his recovery movement. His coach's typical regimen doesn't allow him off the ice until he's performed a movement 800-1200 times. You'll be surprised how

He is just sick. I've watched Parise a lot more than Crosby, Parise will make the US team easily, and Parise says that Crosby is just sick, lol.

I would just add/change a few things:1. I love Cloutier. He gets the job done because his technically very sound, has great movement, and plays bigger than his real size. He will consistently be in the top 5 or 6 save percentages in the league if he gets the ice time to stay sharp.2. Don't discount Ray Emery as a very capable backup to Hasek. Ray spent years with the same coach as Cloutier (Ian Clark) and carries the work ethic he instills in his goalies. He will need some adjusting to the NHL game, but has the potential to be around for a long time.3. Belfour's style evolves from year to yea

Well I hope so. You a Flames fan? Those are going to be some very rough eight games.Not a Flames fan, though I love Iginla. When free agency came along I gave up being a fan of any team in particular because there isnt enough continuity to indentify with any group of players. As a result Ive become a goalie fan, and when I have the time, a loud anti-Devils (vs any team) voice at the Meadowlands.

I understood them fine, though perhaps you have to read some of my other posts to fill in the gaps in my response to yours.As evidenced by the disagreement of the pundits, and what putting that all together means is that the game isnt going to change very much if at all....thats what I meant buy "the new NHL or the old NHL". Handicapping the regualar season still comes down to knowing the talent and the defensive schemes. There isn't a rule change or promised enforcement of old rules that will impact who gets to play post-season. The stats arent going to be materially different overall than t

Look awfully good roster wise. Cloutier looked to be in game shape last week in Calgary, and he has the best coach in the business. Should be a fun season for you, rmunro