timwakefield

"A complicated thing" in this passage refers to a living organism. "A complicated thing is one whose existence we do not feel inclined to take for granted, because it is too 'improbable.' It could not have come into existence in a single act of chance. We shall explain its coming into existence as a consequence of gradual, cumulative, step-by-step transformations from simpler things, from primordial objects sufficiently simple to have come into being by chance." - Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" Like I care what a marginal starter/long reliever has to say about religion. :-) Se

I had a dream that me and a few friends were hanging out on the moon. Somebody's cousin lent us a spaceship, and nobody needed a spacesuit. We were all just hanging out up there, drinking tons of wine and jumping around. There were also bulldozers, and we were drunkenly building some structure. It was ****ing awesome.

What a nice thing to say. If that is how you remember Richard Pryor then you are sick.

Double post

Ok, there's no absolutes, but I think your opponent folds to any bet unless he has a pair, and won't pay you off unless he has 66. Say he has TT. You want to let him see all the way to the river (so he can hit a ten). Likewise if he has KQ, you want him to make at least a mediocre hand. He could always backdoor a straight or flush (hopefully not a straight-flush...have you read Doyle Brunson's story about that?). I would check pretty much always on flopped quads, unless maybe I had seen my opponent consistently raise an underbet...

Never bet the flop if you have quads. Let your opponent catch up a little...if he has a monster of his own he'll bet it anyways.

"A complicated thing" in this passage refers to a living organism. "A complicated thing is one whose existence we do not feel inclined to take for granted, because it is too 'improbable.' It could not have come into existence in a single act of chance. We shall explain its coming into existence as a consequence of gradual, cumulative, step-by-step transformations from simpler things, from primordial objects sufficiently simple to have come into being by chance." - Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker"

I think you need to read this:http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archi...&m_id=65576 That's a very interesting article, but the question there is calling QQ vs AK. Here you are moving 77 vs XX. The problem with your play is that your opponent will probably only call you with a better pair, or (if you're lucky) AK or AQ. Probably he doesn't have a monster and will fold, but if he does call you are likely in trouble. It is a good play vs a short stack. If he has less than 3000 chips he will probably consider himself committed, and will probably call with any sort of mediocre or good h

I only play tournaments and SNG's, so you can see why one would have a preference in those. It is much more important to grow your stack as much as you can and as often as you can because the blinds are going up.Regarding cash games, I was hinting at the idea that inducing multiple opponents to draw against you all day can put you off your game, even if the pots you ARE winning are large®. Simply put, holding top pair I would rather isolate and play against only one player with, say, a flush draw...the alternative being inducing say 2nd pair, 3rd pair, and a gutshot to stay in for cheap.

"I found you yet again, so I'll flame you, yet again..." Take this rig posts for what they're worth man. I'll let you in on a little secret...I'm JOKING!!!My bad. I was yelling at a guy in another post who definitely thinks freerolls are rigged, and I believed you too. I WAS confused as to why such a donk would have as many posts as you do....

"I found you yet again, so I'll flame you, yet again..." Take this rig posts for what they're worth man. I'll let you in on a little secret...I'm JOKING!!!My bad. I was yelling at a guy in another post who definitely thinks freerolls are rigged, and I believed you too. I WAS confused as to why such a donk would have as many posts as you do....

Another interesting factoid from talking with the pros this week is their general agreement that the most valuable "tells" are betting patterns which can be picked up online even more easily than live, especially if you use a tracking database. Physical tells are too easily misinterpreted or faked. One physical tell they emphasized is pretty reliable is the lack of attention to the progress of preflop betting by players who have looked at their cards before their turn, especially by the big blind. For that and a couple of other reasons, all except Robert Williamson III agreed that you should

Let me be the first (and apparently only) to say, are you freaking serious? You are upset because you did not hit your 2nd nut flush? Why are you gambling with that hand??? And why are you mad when you DON'T hit the flush. You know it is far more likely that the flush will not come....As for your first post, I don't even understand what you are complaining about. Neither of those two hands are particularly interesting. You folded a winner...this means the website must be rigged.Not only is it rigged, but it is rigged against you! They have it set up so that you will always lose in the l

I think you need to read this:http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archi...&m_id=65576 That's a very interesting article, but the question there is calling QQ vs AK. Here you are moving 77 vs XX. The problem with your play is that your opponent will probably only call you with a better pair, or (if you're lucky) AK or AQ. Probably he doesn't have a monster and will fold, but if he does call you are likely in trouble. It is a good play vs a short stack. If he has less than 3000 chips he will probably consider himself committed, and will probably call with any sort of mediocre or good h

You must be pretty new to spelling. Hehehehe...sorry

Players often look at their hand before it is their turn to act. A lot of times you can tell when they are going to fold long before it's their turn to act.

I know that one usually doesn't get reads on a lot of players online, but did you have any reads on this guy? If he was sitting on his hands the whole game, or if I had seen him make a similar tricky play and show a monster, I might fold. Likewise if I thought that he loved bluffing or felt invincible, I would call. If I had no read on him I would probably call because of the pot size and the fact that you still have chips if you lose.

What about his play has you convinced that I'm going to win 5000+ chips if I hit a 7? Tell me what specifically limits his range of hands to where I'm going to trap him for enough to cover the 1 in 8 to hit a set. Did he chuckle silently as he clicked "raise"? There is no evidence to suggest that I have any significant implied odds here. I have to be quite certain that he's a weak player willing to fold to a probe bet way too often on the flop--another unfounded assumption I'm unwilling to make.I'm going to break the cardinal rule and give the results. He had TT. We have to stipulate tha

Pushing all in might be a good play if it was a tournament. Here it seems pretty risky. If you think he has A8 then he will probably call a fair-sized bet (since he called your last one), so I would probably just check.

I wouldn't ever want to "trick" extra players into a hand. It is much more important to win the pot than to build the pot, since you are sure the big blind will play. For example, I would rather have a 60% chance to win a $20 pot, than a 40% chance to win a $30 pot. If you let everybody draw against you all day, you'll just get frustrated from losing so many pots.

What about his play has you convinced that I'm going to win 5000+ chips if I hit a 7? Tell me what specifically limits his range of hands to where I'm going to trap him for enough to cover the 1 in 8 to hit a set. Did he chuckle silently as he clicked "raise"? There is no evidence to suggest that I have any significant implied odds here. I have to be quite certain that he's a weak player willing to fold to a probe bet way too often on the flop--another unfounded assumption I'm unwilling to make.I'm going to break the cardinal rule and give the results. He had TT. We have to stipulate tha

I've seen lots of people check out of turn (especially after the flop), and as a rule I think you have to bet there. They never call hahaha.Also you can use a 'reverse tell' by betting out of turn when you want to get information. Quickly throw out a good-sized bet out of turn, then apologize and take it back. If your opponent then bets you should probably at least call, and if he checks you can either try and steal the pot or slyly check and get a free card. It's cheating, so never do it twice haha.

Not that sad to me because I am often the same way. Maybe I have a gambling or drinking problem I guess but I still get excited everytime I sit down at a table and shake for a while until I get a couple in me. Instead of controlling this I just make sure I drink a couple beers before I play live for bigger stakes. Small stakes dont get me as excited so I dont care as much. I thinking getting a buzz while playing makes me a better player. If I get all out drunk I suck but in between is where I am the best. I am less afraid to go with my instincts, less excited about bigger hands and usually act

Perhaps you have seen this: http://www.venganza.org/The Flying Spaghetti Monster. The point is this: an atheist does not try to disprove God. An atheist sees as much proof of God's existence as he does of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence. You said a person cannot be an atheist because they cannot prove that there is no God (this is your point, right?). This is like saying that a person cannot believe that Venus is a lifeless planet because nobody has ever PROVED that Venus is a lifeless planet. But you could hardly argue with somebody who made that assertion.One does not have to