timwakefield

I had some from you at one time?? Sounds like you're the sucker!! Did you make that hand up??

InsanityCubed, a cop seriously gave you your pot back? That is ****ing awesome. He must've smoked in High School...

IMO there is at least a 5,083 to 1 chance that you hold 33, 67d, etc. hahahahahahahahahaha

Can you please list a link to this story? I have heard nothing of this. Here is an illustration of what I was talking about.From the Washington Post, Richard Cohen, November 22, 2005:"Later that month [Dick Cheney] described Hussein as a "sworn enemy of our country," adding that he constituted a "mortal threat" to the United States. "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," the vice president also said that month. "Among other sources, we've gotten this from firsthand testimony from defectors, including Saddam's own son-in-law."But as a Post story by Barto

I don't think Aaron Boone ever won the WS now did he? 2003...ancient history.

I was talking about the supposed uranium cake from Niger. The administration pretended that they had credible intelligence on this, when they knew all along that it was highly questionable. They scared the American public into believing Saddam had nuclear capabilities, which he did not. Those are the WMDs I was talking about him not having.ya they only found a few tons of the stuff there.Um, we haven't found any materials for building nuclear weapons there, and certainly no uranium. What exactly are you talking about?

$20 SNG on Pokerstars, 1500 starting chips, down to 6 players. Two guys with about 2500 chips each move all in, the loser is left with 4 chips. I watched him turn his 4 chips into 1800 (no joke). He then lost, but WOW.

To the contrary, if the short stacks are pushing nearly every hand to keep themselves alive, I would rather gamble against one of them than the one guy who can dead me. And yeah, AQ vs 99 don't sound bad, but the AQ can afford to lose and you can't.

Wow, you flame someone, yet make the same mistake they did.Go read TimWakefield's first post and then your response to it. Notice how you completely switched what he said? He said that Dannenmann placed second out of 5600, so he must know what he was doing. You said, in response, that players like DN, Doyle, etc, must also have not known what they were doing to have placed so high as Dannenmann did. Notice how these two statements are opposites of each other?Seriously, if you're going to flame someone, make sure you're not an idiot yourself. I realize your "it's a lottery" post was in sar

I was talking about the supposed uranium cake from Niger. The administration pretended that they had credible intelligence on this, when they knew all along that it was highly questionable. They scared the American public into believing Saddam had nuclear capabilities, which he did not. Those are the WMDs I was talking about him not having.

There's a new barbershop opening down the street. The sign on their awning says "Specialize in All Cuts." I think this is funny.Go ahead and flame, but I know it only took you five seconds to read this post.

In your position you need to win some chips to make the money. So play ak very aggressively. If a small stack is all in to you, I would want to isolate them if possible. If one or more big stacks called in front of you, probably just call. In your spot you need to build your stack. AK is a significant underdog only to AA and KK...you should try and get in a position where you can gamble with it.

Fold. You said he's pretty tight. So he almost certainly has 2 higher cards, paired or not. MAYBE he has 88 or 77, but that seems unlikely. You are either in a race or way behind. I think you give him credit for an overpair, but if you call and he flips AQ you're still not smiling...

You must know this player VERY well to have such a specific read on him. That, and he must me pretty goddam predictable. It does seem like a fine time for a bluff if you feel he will fold anything but a flush. But I would always be cautious making a specific read like that on somebody. There are so many possible card combinations, and players (if they're any good at all) are unpredictable.

I think America maybe is split. Most everybody I've discussed it with in the last couple years has a pretty strong opinion, one way or the other.

I think America maybe is split. Most everybody I've discussed it with in the last couple years has a pretty strong opinion, one way or the other.

Congratulations, you are officially retarted. You: "Hey Tim Wakefield, so your saying the countless professionals, and great poker players like Doyle, Ferguson, Negreanu, Harman, etc.. didn't know what they were doing, as opposed to Dannenman. Hey moron it's a lottery, anyone can get to the final table or win or come in second. If it came down to knowing what you were doing the entire time there wouldn't have been an amatuer at the table."Yes, obviously anybody who entered the tournament had a chance to win it. This is the nature of a tournament. Yes Danneman got lucky to get to the final

Yeah, you're right, there really isn't any skill involved. A monkey could probably get second place.

DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?????????? I'm surprised nobody has taken this point of view here.We were told that we were going to war because Saddam had WMDs. He did not, and the administration had NO RELIABLE INTELLIGENCE THAT HE DID.That we removed an evil man from power is besides the point. It shouldn't even enter the discussion of whether we should have gone to war or not, because it was not our stated reason for doing so. We supposedly went to war to stop Saddam from using his WMDs against us and our allies. He had none, therefore the war is a failure. If that was not our reason fo

I agree that this is a good hand to fold. Let him push you around a little bit more until you really have a good chance to beat him.My question with your response is where did you get the odds of 10 to 1 on his having a higher pocket pair? This number appears not to take into account your opponent's actions, which (although he may be full of crap) imply that he DOES have a PP.

The guy came in 2nd place out of 5600. I think he knows what he is doing.I did think it was funny seeing him on the phone with his friend (even with the context now) because I couldn't help but wonder how many time Howard had bluffed him out of baby pots...

Take this as an example: AA is about 80% or better to win against any hand before the flop. That gives it a 20% chance to lose. So let's say you see it lose. Then you see it lose again. Than you see it lose a third time. Now you get AA. You go all in and lose. Now you're certain it's rigged, cuz AA just lose four times in a row. But if you stuck around and saw AA all in 1000 more times, it would likely win a little more than 800 times.

Well there probably WAS somebody on the grassy knoll. Online poker, however, is not fixed. First of all, the games go fast enough already. Online poker rakes in millions and millions. Do you really think a website would risk its entire reputation (and ALL of its users) just to speed up certain games EVEN MORE????Second of all, next time you play, get a recap of the game after you finish. Count up all of the showdowns, calculate the percentage each hand has to win vs the percentage of times that hand actually won. Do this every time you play. When you have 10,000 observed hands, then you

I disagree with this statement.How can you disagree with that statement? Even online it's totally possible to set guys up for later (in SNGs) either by being overly passive or overly aggressive.It's sometimes worth checking a winner instead of value-betting on the end in order to appease your opponent (Doyle Brunson talks about this). It's also sometimes worth betting out a loser even when you figure to get called or raised, to raise your image as a bluffer.