Jump to content

TS Clark

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About TS Clark

  • Rank
    Poker Forum Groupie
  1. It completely depends (like most things in poker) what your position is and the other upcards and their actions. If you are last to act and only a couple of people have limped the pot, then you could play. With any significant aggression before you, or with scary cards behind you, this is an easy fold.
  2. The old advice is still the best advice -- Do NOT go broke in an unraised pot. Just don't.You were going to lose money with this hand with the way you played it, but the second time he popped you, it's time to think about whether you should just take your beating and wait for a better spot.Don't limp with aces unless you know some maniac is bound to raise. And especially don't do it if you know you're one of those people (and there are many, many) who can't lay down a hand with two aces post-flop.GL.
  3. Rake's capped in short-handed and heads-up games.
  4. For tourneys in your price range, you can't beat Caesar's Palace. As far as low buy-in tourneys go, it's really, really good and very professionally run.Caesar's has a very nice cash game section as well, where you can go to play all the NLHE your heart desires. If there is enough room traffic, you might get them to start a mixed game for you as well (though good luck on the PLO game). The Venetian also has a terrific room for cash games.Have a great time.
  5. To quote South Park..."I'm sorry. I'm sorry. What I meant to say was: HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUCK MY BALLS, MR. GARRISON?"
  6. Pete Rose + sportbook = crazy delicious
  7. Why do I feel like some American guy has been watching Guy Ritchie movies and then drinking a lot before he posts here?Hmmm.
  8. I'm assuming that looseslots VPIP percentage is a reflection of the fact that these games are very often shorthanded (if not heads up). Because, if not, I'm playing WAAAYYY too tight when I play PLO.
  9. Against this guy and his possible range, all my money is going in on that flop. That is all.
  10. I read to the end and wasn't too shocked he had quads (though that's certainly not the hand I would have put him on during play).With that said, I'd pay off here 95/100 times. I'm just not good enough to lay that down at the limits you were playing. Too many hands that you could beat could still be in there -- at the .50-1 level, lots of fascinating stuff goes on. He could have a worse ace, the nut flush, etc.. The only way I might lay this down is if both of us were really deep-stacked and the guy I was playing was a reasonable player.
  11. $1-$5 stud is generally a horror, unless you have some live ones in the game. Normally, though, you'll be 20+ years younger than anyone else at the table and the play is generally rock-like. Plus, at this level, the rake is just murder compared to the stakes and average pot size.I wouldn't advise playing stud at this level again (unless you're just doing it for pure fun -- in which case, play like a maniac and drive the old people crazy). But, if you do, just play tight and then be very aggressive when you do make a hand. And prepare yourself for some extra variance -- that extra street makes
  12. I played this a few weeks ago while I was in Vegas. Very well-run and good structure.That said, I decided I dislike playing in live tourneys. I play lots of live cash games in Vegas, but that was my first time in a live tournament. I can tolerate the slow pace of live play (versus online) much better in a cash game, since I can get up and take a little break whenever I want. In a tourney, you really can't do that (or you will miss hands in an elevating blind structure), which really drives home the monotony of live play.But, bottom line, if tourneys are something you like a lot and you don't m
  13. Now this one I doubt. No one who bets six figure sums on a game (golf) that he's not even good at is what you'd call a highly disciplined financial manager. Let's face it -- all these top guys are pretty much degenerate gamblers. They're just good enough at poker to support their "condition."I don't think any of the top pros are that great at bankroll management (or at least very few). But the smarter, more successful ones (like Daniel, for instance) at least know when to say when and don't totally lose their minds. Daniel seems to be a smart guy and I think he's saying "when" for a bit. Or, l
  14. I keep score with the money I make. If I'm consistently making it while playing, I figure I'm playing well (or well enough, anyway). If I'm consistently losing, I try and figure out why.If you have a reasonable sample size of hands/tourneys, then you should have a reasonable database from which to judge the effectiveness of your own game at the stakes you currently play. The bottom line in poker -- money talks, given time enough to do it.
  • Create New...