Matt Over Aces

I was recently playing in an online multi-table tournament with 750 players as we approached the bubble. My stack at the time was roughly 16,000 chips when the tournament average was 8,500. The blinds were at 300/600 with about 80 players remaining. I feel I had been playing very well and considering the buy-in wasn't too large, I was playing to win since only the money for the top 5 seemed significant to me.I posted the BB and was dealt two red kings. While considering how to play them, MP1 (11,000 chip stack) raised to 1500. Then, the only person at the table who had me covered,

I was angrily yelling this at my TV as this episode airs.Then the A flopped and I thought, there it is:Blind F-ing luck

There should be more fun posts like this.Sadly, I voted for DN hoping it wasn't true, but he's still in the running. Let's see what happens.

***** Hand History for Game 2942043226 *****$2000 NL Texas Hold'em - Friday, October 28, 00:04:07 EDT 2005Table Table 68514 (No DP) (Real Money)Seat 4 is the buttonTotal number of players : 10 Seat 1: Tommyfingers ( $2388.75 )Seat 2: caspis ( $2160.50 )Seat 3: beerboy9292 ( $1970 )Seat 5: DrakeTheDogg ( $1980 )Seat 6: xLIMBAUGHx ( $1154 )Seat 7: byepoo ( $1038 )Seat 8: FlyingSuns04 ( $3564 )Seat 9: JediTrick ( $2994 )Seat 10: mendontcry ( $2005 )Seat 4: Acid_Knight ( $2037 )DrakeTheDogg posts small blind [$10].xLIMBAUGHx posts big blind [$20].** Dealing down cards **Dealt to Acid_Knight [ Kd

This is a retarded post.If you're willing to cheat becuase you're "ok" with it at some level, then say so.Luck is an inherent part of the game and the people took your money fairly (even though it may have been only through their own stupidity and good luck). Saying that you want to cheat to steal their money is as wrong for you as it would be for Daniel Negreanu to do it.

I said I wouldn't do it.Just becuase you're beating the game fairly, doesn't mean that you can't be SLAUGHTERING IT (at a higher level) for 100 times that amount by cheating.Most of the people who said "yes" said it was more because they probably couldn't say no to the opportunity. Your last line is really unnecessary and really dumb.

God, that would make for some interesting poker, wouldn't it?Good point about people's inability to actualize the FTOP without seeing the hole cards.

I think that you have to ask the question with the lottery...WHO IS BEING HURT?I think that is one of people's biggest objections to cheating or stealing anything, is how it unfairly and negatively impacts another individual or individuals.If I knew the numbers to the lottery, YES I would play them. Why? I guess the main thing is that people who play the lottery plunk down 1 or 5 or 10 dollars and are hoping against hope (and overwhelming odds) to get lucky and strike it rich. If they don't win, then they have the expected result and they move on with their lives, and play again next week.

I was waiting for someone to bring this up. Very good post. .I have to dissagree with post these posts.Mathematics and text book play becomes obscolete when you can see opponents cards.You wil not win everyhand, but you will fold pocket kings, to aces.Or your middle set to his top set.I'm sorry but like card counting in black jack, these are mathematical systems set up to give and edge. If you knew the dealer had 18 and you had 14, well you need to hit.u might bust, but you know you are already beat, even if you counted the cards and have figured out there is +3 more high cards in the remain

I really don't think he was crying for show or to be Matusow.That really didn't look like an act. The second the cards were turned over, he just dropped.The guy with the feet was just there to be on TV. This guy was there to win. I would be really surprised if after taking that beat he thought "ya know, if I act really sad and start to cry, I might get on TV."

You are not right. There were 3 hearts and 2 diamonds on the board.that should have said "the A and any other HEARTI'll edit it

Just read the entire thread start to finish.I voted maybe.I really don't think that I could/would do it, but I also know that it is a very very tempting proposition that would be hard to say no to. I am not rich, but I am also not strapped for cash. I really believe that only in some dire situation (loan shark coming after my knees and such) would I cheat to make money that I couldn't get over time anyway.As for the other posts comparing finding money on the ground and drunks in the game, those are TOTALLY different.If I find money on the ground, I keep it. It doesn't belong to anyone anymo

yeah, I just checked that.43rd place$235,390

I know that has to be tough and we didn't see any of the hand played out and whether he might have known he was in a lot of trouble there or not.But really, you called holding 2 hearts and the 2nd nuts. The guy needs one card (A ) any other heart to beat you. Odds are he won't have it most of the time.Don't cry, just be a man, take your chips and rebuild. It's not the end of the world.

that kind of defeats the whole purpose of the game though...If the prize pools are made up totally of sponsorship money, I think it would be very difficult do decide who qualifies (and how) for what tournmanets? Would certain players have exemptions to tournies like Tiger Woods does in golf?I think that if sponsorship adds to the prizepool (which I think it should), then it should only enhance the size of the prize pool. The players should still buy in direct for 10k or win a satellite, but instead of 100 players going for a pool of 1 million, sponsorships might make it 1.5 million or more.

The title of the OP's post sounds like he is a pedophile and Layne is a little boy.Maybe the OP is a Catholic Priest.

Its a bad beat in the sense that a hand that will win 99% of the time lost the 1%. Obviously when I had the straight flush to K after the turn the guy had the straight flush to the A. The point is the straight flush is suppose to be an unbeatable hand (only beatable by higher straight flush). I thought a bad beat could also refer to hand where one would normally win but the other has better cards (Full house going against a 4 of a kind). Or is that a rule that you must be winning then lose?Cold-decked is when your awesome hand loses to a slightly more awesome hand (a boat losing to quads f

Best way to deal with tilt is to drop to 1/10th of the level you're playing at, and do whatever the hell you feel like doing, since the money shouldn't hurt when you finally lose it.Drop down to 25 max NL and after you runner runner enough people, you'll feel as though you just infected them with your tilt.

2-1??? Are you serious??? We're talking about SIX THOUSAND people.How do you really lose in this situation?You never go all in preflop. You never go all in if your opponent has a big draw that he might go all in with. You always know if people are bluffing, and how strong they are. Your steals always work becuase you're raising people with 24o.There's always a chance that you could get freakishly unlucky, but his odds have to be better than 50/50 (assuming a deep starting stack) against 6000 people.I can't believe I posted a response. My job sucks.

Playing some 5/5 NL at Turning Stone on Saturday, I won a couple of pots that were in excess of 1000 dollars, and I tipped 10$ on both.One player at the table (who's a big money online guy) told each dealer that if he dealt him a pot over 1000$, he'd tip 75$.He wasn't lying and he did it twice while I was there. That's a bit much if you ask me, but the dealers liked us.On a side note, it was really important that the dealers didn't act any more appreciative of his $75 than they did of a 1$ or 2$ tip. I'm sure on the inside they're jumping up and down, but it was good etiquette to not make ot

Indeed I was forgetting about those people.I guess that 30% are winners and the sites turn 20% into losers.Good point.

I wans't saying that it was totally wrong, since I have no basis other than my own opinion. I personally agree with the poster who said that about 20% would be the maximum who are winners. I know that there are TONS of awful players out there, but that doesn't take away from the fact that someone has to be winning.I really have no basis for anything I'm saying except for what my common sense tells me. If you've read it somewhere, then I guess I'm just really surprised that the percentage is so low.Just glad that I'm in that small percent 8)

I'd like to know exactly where that comes from. It seems ridiculous to me that 90% of online players are break even or losing. That means that the few who are winning are winning ALL of the money and I just don't think that's so. Also, how can that really be estimated?In terms of event sizes and buy-ins:The casino should want to have bigger buy-ins with fewer people because that means that they can make the same amount of money with half of the people, but their personnel expenses would also be roughly half since they would emply half as many dealers, half as many floorment, etc.That would

That's true, but there are plenty of those as well.

There are thousands of 18 and 19 year old kids running around with 6 figure bankrolls from online poker.With the insane amount of money that is floating around poker these days, isn't it time to change some of the buy-ins (the Main Event for example) at the WSOP?The WPT championship has a 25k buy-in. Since a majority of the WSOP main event entrants win their way in through satellites anyway, it would probably only mean one more round of qualifying.It wouldn't be a 5600 person lottery anymore if the buy-in were upped. The prizepool would probably be bigger since you'd only need 2240 people to