Shaffer

Who else REALLY wants to see Daniel and Ivey heads-up? I don't even want to know how much $$ would be at stake.

Wow, maybe I need to go reread my HoH, but I just don't fold 55 in this situation. We are at M<5 and in true desperation territory. I will kick over old ladies to get a chance for a race to double-up here. I know we want to be the aggressor and all, but 55 holds up too well against a wide variety of villain's holdings not to be the hand we make our stand with here.Villain's failure to raise all-in despite M<10 could indicate a stronger-than-average holding (my experience is that it usually does; someone with AA here is wanting action), but I shove here, even in spite of that.And, you

1) Call2) Bemoan your bad luck if he has AA or KK2a) Pick the next tournament and try again.3) Enjoy your double stack if he was just farting around (as most of them are in this sort of situation)

Good freaking question. I honestly have no idea. I think I probably would have bet at it, just because I was very comfortable in my read that the river Ah was a card he absolutely hated. The tiny blocking bet made it easier, though, and there's no way to say for sure.I suppose I can give results - not too much more to talk about in this hand. I raised to 80, and after some contemplation, he eventually folded 5h 6h face up. I patted myself on the back for a successful bluff. I showed it, as well, which set the guy on tilt a bit. I try not to be malicious at the poker table but I figure,

I have decided that I hate the turn bet. Checking the turn and calling a bet on the river (or giving a value bet if checked to) gives much better results.If villian has a J, you lose no more than you do on this line. You show weakness on the turn and villian will likely give a small value bet on the river. Plus, not for nothing, if you catch the miracle K on the river, you've just stacked him.If villian has a smaller pocket pair, they are unlikely to call bets on both the turn and the river; your check on the turn will induce a bet on the river. At least breakeven.If villian has air (a kin

Gross. I probably fold here, unless villian has displayed serious maniac tendencies. You still have room left to play and I give props to anyone that min-raises there without a Jack, because it sure looks like one.

Dinky flop and turn bets don't seem overly representative of AA or KK, or even AQ, which would seem to bet more - particularly on the turn - to price out spades. This smells an awful lot like a busted As Ks. I kinda like this line, I think.

Hehe. True that. But my read was that he hated the river, which puts his river bet in the "block bet" camp as opposed to the "rinky-dink I-have-the-nuts-and-don't-think-you-have-anything-but-can't-fold-to-such-a-small-bet value bet" camp.

If this villian has any Q I'm 95%+ sure he doesn't c/c the flop. He either leads or CR's (probably leads). He had called raised pots from the blinds more than once, and leading out had meant top pair each time.I was pretty certain I was beat on the river, and felt strongly like he had made the flush on the turn. Any card but the Ah on the river and I fold to all but a very tiny bet. While I do agree with this most of the time, and that's how I view a generic 1/2 player, would you agree that there is a substantial percentage of players at 1/2 that don't follow this pattern? This guy seemed

This hand happened a while back and I was recently discussing it with some friends. They all seemed to think it was very reckless. I thought it was a pretty standard read-based scare-card bluff, so I thought I'd post it here.Live 1-2NL. Sitting $300. Villian is UTG, straightforward player, seems to be folding on the flop if he hits nothing, busted a donk with aces and is sitting ~$350. I feel my read on him is pretty strong. Does a bad job of hiding when he likes/dislikes cards. He's been at the table for 3 hours with me. My image had to have been fairly standard T-agg.Dealt Ad Qd. UT

I'll jump into this discussion because, in my (admittedly limited) experience, getting up and leaving a table for reasons of "It's just not my night" strikes me as indicative of a poor decision-making process. That's not to say that someone who gets up and leaves whose internal logic is that it's "just not their night" is necessarily making a bad decision, just that if you're making the decision to get up and leave, I think it helps a great deal to be a bit more specific as to why.I still remember my first time sitting down at a $1-2 casino table. I was a fairly experienced small-stakes Inte

This is a purely tactical decision and I wouldn't say that there's a "right" play here - certainly nothing is wrong with checking and seeing a flop (probably check-folding unless you hit something big), but every once in a while, my opinion is that nothing is wrong with shoving here, either. Mix it up; I think that a lot of people would agree that being capable of this move, even with rags, is good to have in your repertoire. When you should make use of it is read-dependant and situational.I also think it's pretty standard that if you're sitting on 11BB and facing 5 limpers, if you're going

Hee! I wonder how many of your fellow believers will join you in saying that intelligence is a hindrance to faith. I actually happen to agree with it, although I usually point it out in the converse, which is to say that a lack of intelligence is a hindrance to the abandonment of a superstition-based worldview.I actually love this post - every word of it. It's like Religion in a nutshell. "Abandon your silly concepts of intelligence and rationality and join our club instead! It's better over here, we promise! We have nothing testable, nothing solid, and any time anyone challenges us on t

I like the play in a general sense, though I agree that a shove is better. Depends on the table - if it's truly TAG, and particularly if you're approaching the bubble, this move pays off more often than it kills you, I think. Even getting action from Mr. JK, while obviously not what you were hoping for, isn't quite an unmitigated disaster; combine your fold equity with your good chance of live cards and I think you're all right here, so long as you don't make the move too often.Didn't Harrington make a move very similar to this at one of his Main Event FT's?

Reading through this statement several times, I am unable to decide whether you are truly that ignorant of what it means to be an atheist, or if you are playing dumb in an effort to hide your strawman. Regardless, for the record, neither I nor any atheist that I am aware of professes to be able to "prove" (in the rigid mathematical sense) the non-existence of a creator. This is a moot point.Of course I am unable to prove a negative. I cannot disprove the existence of invisible flying pink elephants, yet adamantly remain an invisible-pink-elephant-atheist (as is, I would wager, most of the r

Although I am not a regular of this forum (just an occasional lurker), I am an atheist that often gets involved in religious discussions on other forums, and this question pops up from time to time. Here's the best answer I have:Although I am not religious, religion affects my day-to-day life in ways that many people probably take for granted. It directly affects the lives of people around me, it affects the laws I am forced to abide in my society, it affects the common perception of morality that most people judge me by, it affects the music that I listen to, the books that I read, the poli

Well, the gut said instacall, but the brain said "is he really coming over the top with AJ here? Does he flat-call pre-flop with QQ or KK?"

Okay. Fair enough. Point was not to complain about a bad beat, just seems like I don't win enough in crying-call situations to justify making some of my calls, and was wonering about a potential leak. This was a recent stomach-drops-like-a-rock-on-the-river-raise situation that seemed indicative of the trend, but perhaps was a bad example.

Okay, I agree that it's a fairly easy call and that I'm pot committed (although, even getting better than 3:1, I'm not convinced it's an instacall). I'm a bit more interested in my turn bet size? Too much? Not enough? Check back?

Hero is Button, been at table for ~4hrs, tight-agg table image, sitting $450.Villain is BB, been at table for as long as hero, played literally 3-4 hands during that time. Sitting $115 or so, seems competent for 1/2.Folded to Hero, who raises to $10 with Ac As.BB Calls.Flop: Jc 5s 5h ($21)BB checks, Hero bets $15, BB calls.Turn: 9d. ($51)BB checks, hero bets $40, BB raises to $90 and is all-in. Hero ???If anyone tries a different line, feel free to pipe up, but I'm more interested in fine-tuning my bet sizes and making a correct river decision.

Seconded. I see this rationale all the time here. "The player called with crap, therefore he is capable of raising with crap." Does not compute! That's not how they think. When they have crap and are calling down with 10 high, they're thinking, "Hmm, I bet if I caught a 9 or a 10, I might be ahead", and therefore call down.It's noteworthy that the donkey did not call a river bet in the first hand - it went check-check, and I don't doubt that if there had been a river bet, he would have finally folded his 10 high. It's also noteworthy that he actually probably did have a very good chance

Wow, I'm pretty staggered by the statements that folding is out of the question. I fold this hand pretty quick. First hand suggests he's a brain-dead donkey calling station. Second hand? In my experience brain-dead donkey calling stations are unlikely to raise with anything but very strong hands. If he had air but wanted to play, he'd call down just as he did the previous hand. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he has A6 or 66. Many of his other holdings, we're hoping for a chop or a 3-outer. Donkey calling stations get dealt good hands at the same frequency that everyone else does, so

Dammit! The excel mojo is weak in this one. I can very quickly organize it into big bets, though

Yeah, I'd guess what ESPN is really banking on is the increased sophistication of the poker viewing audience, as a result of being inundated with poker programming. Having to explain low draws, wrap draws, etc., is a hurdle, but then, so too was explaining straight draws, flush draws, races, and the like, back in 2003. The key is the right announcers, who can convey the appropriate amount of information without getting bogged down in "insider" terminology, with slick and informative graphics at their disposal giving percentage chances for the high and low, etc.Maybe I should brush up on my H

I'm not so sure it's a bad decision. It seems to be at first glance, the obvious rationale being that the average John Q ESPNViewer isn't going to know the rules of 3 of the 5 games, and will be even more confused since 3 of the games look exactly the same, but I think they're on to something. In 2003, people watched Moneymaker win (and the "poker boom" officially started) because it was a thrill to see an average Joe bust up a table full of pros for $2.5M hard cash. But that's starting to get a little stale. These days the money is in showing off poker celebrity, which is a concept that d