Jump to content

Steppin Razor

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Steppin Razor

  1. No specifics for SH, but I think Theory of Poker is good for it.4 to 500BB. Low limits have more variance than higher limits.
  2. I too will chide you for limping UTG.After that, I think I check the river. I don't see a lot of worse hands paying you off, but it's a good chance for someone to bluff at you.
  3. Don't mind the PF limp, but have to agree with check/fold the flop. A less coordinated flop and your c/r may be a good semi bluff.
  4. random villain doesn't do anything for me. How about a clue?I'd probably call if the J came and fold any other non spade. A set of Ts, or 9s is going to beat your two pair, and any K has you dead to the spade. About the only hand I see possible that you beat with two pair is JT.
  5. it looks to me like he has two pair, obviously lower than AA or KK. Can't be sure though without any reads. I'd check call the turn unless the guy is a bluffer, in which case I check raise it.
  6. Answering people is -EV too. More -EV because one should know better.
  7. I like check raising the turn. A TAG would fold anything but an Ace w/a good kicker to that.As for the starting hand, you're bluffing a TAG. What's wrong with that? You just have to be a little more sophisticated than against a shmuck.
  8. I believe he means you wussed out too quickly. Your opponent knows you have AK because you raised PF. Everyone knows a pre flop raise is AK. He could be bluff raising any two. You have to convince him you have a pocket pair.If he's not bluffing, he probably has a pair. You still have two live cards.If you are getting raised a lot on the turn, you should stop auto betting. Sometimes check raise, and sometimes call the flop and raise the turn.
  9. Have you seen him call down much? If he's a LAG, a call down is a little suspicious. But, you bluffed, so what if he happens to have a hand? Personally, I like to use either the stop and go, or call/check raise turn bluffs against these guys. I use the flop c/r against the timid guys.
  10. and it clears points decently fast. Also it's profitability is inversely proportional to it's lameness until people start realizing AT sucks.I too didn't notice the first time I sat. I sat with $50, won $40 real quick, lost $85 even quicker, and got back to $50 when I figured it out. In less than an hour, I cleared 75pts at $1/2 limit (I had started the table too).
  11. Think so? Gus couldn't go all-in with a straight? Or even A5? As for 'give Gus respect', it seems considering Gus could make that move with less than the nuts gives him a lot of credit. I'd have a really hard time folding a full house against a player who plays like Gus Hansen does. Unless we were playing Omaha. Of course, I wouldn't last 5 minutes at a table with Gus Hansen (having taken the first four minutes to decide what to do PF first hand). Someday, but not now.But, I think it's kind of silly to analyze a hand between two great players who play against each other a lot, and me no
  12. I thought the much more informative part of the blog was the part about playing blind. Bad beats don't need too much discussion, they're bad beats.It occurred to me when reading that playing blind part. That guy playing online tournaments with his hole cards taped over? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even know everything I'd supposed to be learning if I did that. I get the 'play-the-player' aspects of playing blind (tourney or the way DN was playing), but I know I don't have a full understanding what was going on. I'm gonna be wondering about what I'm missing for a while....feels weird not po
  13. People really shouldn't do that. I'm long out of college and old enough to realize that are few answers and that those who have answers should be questioned. I suggest writing your PBS station asking them to carry the BBC News. Compared to the propaganda we call a free press, that is enlightenment.As for "God help us all," yeah that's not reactionary. I don't know why I brought up McCarthyism Iran's nuclear program was started in 1976 by Gerald Ford. Iran is in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and US, British, and others have affirmed that Iran has no weapons progra
  14. I'm sure that like me, you aren't surprised a contest like this pulled out lots of middle limit pros, semi pros, etc. to compete. And FCP was promoting the poker room, et al. more than the forums.
  15. First of all, the Iranians having an oil exchange just means there will be one more place to buy barrels of oil. First we fear Communists, then we wonder if they love their children, now it's terrorist-phobia and a budding fear of Iran. It would be funny if it weren't sad how much Americans are like kids with a shiny new toy given by their parents.Out of all the peoples of the world, Americans know the least about what and why America does what it does.
  16. You mean not let the market determine price? What was I thinking? Oh yeah, capitalism. Oops, my bad.Nice to see McCarthyism never died.
  17. I forget, is it Iran's nuclear threat we are afraid of, or the fact that they plan to start an exchange for oil in euros to compete with the two American owned oil exchanges?Americans have the less of an f'ing clue about what America is doing than people in rural India do.
  18. They should change the name of this forum to Daniel's Politics Forum.Our government was never intended to be chosen by the people. The electoral college exists to mitigate the input of the people. Our founding fathers didn't limit the vote to landowning white men by accident.Anybody know the name of an electoral college delegate from their state?We have the illusion of democracy. The people are the cows to the system's cowboys. On occasion the cows stampede and the cowboys have to get out of the way, but for the most part, the cows do what the cowboys make them do.
  19. I disagree. No one is more of a dumbass than Bush (seriously, "Bring them on."? What is he, twelve? Turn off Smackdown, Mr. President). Kerry is a putz, not a dumbass. There's a difference.
  20. In actuality, Bush was the first to go to court over recounts. The initial recount was triggered automatically.Here's a chronologyhttp://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884144.htmlSkip down to Dec. 9 and 11. I didn't say anything about 'stealing' an election. What essentially happened was, the Supreme Court said, 'No, no, no, you can't do recounts like that. What you have to do is <<<buzzer>>> - Time's up, we'll just go with what we have so far.'Anyway, it's done, and we'll be rid of these guys eventually. Not their mess though. It might be possible to reverse some of the dama
  21. No worries, I don't offend easily. And if I am offended, I don't mind.I see the War on Terror more like the War on Drugs than WWII.The FL voting thing has not good answer, but I don't like the Supreme Court deciding a Presidency. That's not their job, and it blurs the line of checks and balances.
  22. Don't like it, don't read it.BTW, 1. is not so easy as Ralph Nader proved. There are too many laws designed to stop anyone not a Dem or Rep from even getting on the ballot2. We're just talking here. If FCP pulls the thread because it's not poker related, no skin off my hide. But it's here, and I'll chat if I want to, or until the site asks me not to.3. Bite me. Wait, that should be 1. And 2.
  23. Working backwards, Halliburton is not the only company that can do the various jobs they have contracts for, but that's not my point in any case. There's such a blend between the Pentagon and it's various contractors that all of those companies have connections.Regarding being part of some sort of plan, I don't see how it could be any other way, unless you are suggesting that the administration started a war with no plans. Make up your mind, either they knew what they were doing or they didn't.So what if the war is subcontracted? That opens a Pandora's Box. You increase the likelihood and
  24. Are you kidding me? The government can't accomplish anything in weeks. Manipulating an entire government (and it's people mind you) only takes weeks? Where did you learn how to do that? And the other half of Congress is currently in negotiations. What's your point? The fact that this war is the most subcontracted in history is a fact that doesn't change because Congressmen take bribes.Are you suggesting that because companies make money by handshakes across political aisles that they are happy with that and won't try to make deals with the President? What the heck are you talking about?
  25. I think he's clearly a fool. There was an article in GQ a while back about Alan Greenspan that was pretty enlightening. Greenspan, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Paul O'neil were all in the Nixon White House. After Watergate, and then Ford losing to Carter, they devised a plan to get a less than intelligent President who could be manipulated (the goal being scaling back government regulations on businesses). At the 1980 Republican convention, they proposed an idea to Reagan. Select Ford as his running mate and establish basically a Co-Presidency. They were talking late into the night until Reagan
  • Create New...