bcook823

A read on the BB would help, but without one here is what I would do/thinkOn the flop he makes a 1/3 pot bet, and I'd be asking myself is this guy the type that would just bet right out with a made hand? No matter what my "answer" to that question may be, I'd consider mucking right here. On the turn, if I had called the small flop bet, I'd check as you did. Then you get a bet and a raise. I just couldn't call. You may be getting out played, I'd be willing to take that risk. Could've been drawing stone dead.On the river, which I would have never seen, I can't understand why you would lead out.

got a nice article up on my blog on Limit SNG'shttp://thekillpot.blogspot.com/

I won't get all the details correct here, but I should get it closeThe game is 10/20 NLHE, unrestricted buy inThere are 6 limpers in the pot. barry has Q4o Mike has 34oFlop comes Ad 4d 4sAlan has the Qd 5d and leads out with a pot sized bet, over to mike who raises to $500, Barry reraises to $2000Alan studies for a moment and mucksMike has about 3k left, barry has him coveredMike goes all in, barry insta callsTurn is a J, River is a J....to counterfiet Barry

Don't worry about the name, I knew anyone that spends anytime over there would recognize it.Overseas they play a Pot Limit preflop, and No limit post flop...I ve never played it though

Fair enoughI agree the guy is scumI still think there is something to learn from this writing (and others, especially on split pot games)

According to the guy from Bluff Magazine, everything has gotten hush hush. He says the corp is down 1.3 for 3 days though

I really wanted people to read it without "knowing" who wrote it, thanks though.

Last time they played Ivey was the one most affected by the large stakes.I am not sure where you got that, because it doesn't say that in the copy of the book that I bought (assuming your getting information about the last time they played from the book)I'm not sure you can say difinitively that he was "affected by the large stakes" but it is in the book that he refused to play when the stakes went up to either $50K-$100K or $100K-$200K whichever they were at at the time.Check page 231.Not playing and being affected by playing are two different things.Well he couldn't be "affected by playing"

I'll post who wrote this later, he is widely considered and idiot on internet forums, but he knows his stuff.When speaking of holdem, the best way to play this game is pot limit. Obviously limit is an acceptable way to play any game, though far from the most skillful. Playing holdem for maximum results with the best player having the best chance of winning, should only be done in one manner, and that is pot limit. Of course you will get the clowns or the incompetents stating that No Limit is the best way to play this game, but this has been a fallacy perpetrated on the public since they brough

I'll post who wrote this later, he is widely considered and idiot on internet forums, but he knows his stuff.When speaking of holdem, the best way to play this game is pot limit. Obviously limit is an acceptable way to play any game, though far from the most skillful. Playing holdem for maximum results with the best player having the best chance of winning, should only be done in one manner, and that is pot limit. Of course you will get the clowns or the incompetents stating that No Limit is the best way to play this game, but this has been a fallacy perpetrated on the public since they brough

You cant bet too much more. At 3.5:1 he's already overpaying for the draw, and we dont want to price him out totally...we want him to call. If you go to, say 1500 ("pot size raise"), 1200 to go for him, he's in for half of his stack if he calls, and will probably fold. If youre happy with the pot where it is then push.Fair enough. If you "knew" he had Ac 8c what would you raise?

I think the over/under on a gigabet post is 18 pagesHe did prove to be subject to getting cards like the rest of us in a Stars $150 the other day. He tried to make a few moves that made no sense to me...reputation raises imo, didnt get lucky and bye bye early.He seems to categorize his opponents very well, however playing with someone for an hour may not be enough information. He thinks that players don't really change for the most part, "a slowplayer will always slowplay." I don't agree with this line of thinking. Another thing, I think some of the plays he talks about would work with WCP's b

Read the book. Ivey was asked to play $50K-$100K he said no (for whatever reason). Jennifer had to get up early and play him.They played $50K-$100K and $100K-$200K before, those have been the highest stakes they've played.Daniel just made it clear that it wasn't the money that made him not want to play. But really how would Daniel know? Oh, maybe because he acutally knows the people involved, maybe thats how. Just maybe Michael Criag didn't clear it up.

The blocker bet on the river is a nice play in this spot. If the UTG player is the type that would be leading out with just two clubs, then I would have raised more on the turn. Your giving him 3.5-1 and most will call because of the implied odds.

Phil Gordon's real deal is a newbie book to be sure.Little Green Book is just great, the DVD is too.

Nice link Hoosier thanks

This is who I'm hoping to consistently take advantage of. Do you think the rake makes it not worth it, even online? I know I'm starting at low limits with it, but it only takes 20 mins to get $30-40 of these guys.Yes it makes the rake not worth it.

I agree with everything alpha said.Remember this, it is a losing play to limp, and then call a raise like that. If your going to play the hand for a raise, then raise it yourself.

Last time they played Ivey was the one most affected by the large stakes.I am not sure where you got that, because it doesn't say that in the copy of the book that I bought (assuming your getting information about the last time they played from the book)I'm not sure you can say difinitively that he was "affected by the large stakes" but it is in the book that he refused to play when the stakes went up to either $50K-$100K or $100K-$200K whichever they were at at the time.Check page 231.Not playing and being affected by playing are two different things.

Phil has a great personality, when he is playing cards, when he feels comfortable. Phil is a top notch needler, showing he has a sense of humor. Barry Greenstein once said "these tournament players do commercials, appearances, ect. They make between 100k and 300k to do so. It takes days sometimes to get these things done. If they were truely the best players in the world, why not sit in the big game, and make that much or more, everyday?"I think Phil would agree with Barry, its not worth it to him....yetIf Phil could make millions though with some sort of endorsement deal, he would.I think Da

The topic is brought up all the time about buying high or low. I realize that you have them covered not the other way around. However, if the roles were reversed, then having a short buy in is perfect here. Your probably ahead, maybe way ahead, but if not it sure is nice that the action is over.

Last time they played Ivey was the one most affected by the large stakes.I am not sure where you got that, because it doesn't say that in the copy of the book that I bought (assuming your getting information about the last time they played from the book)

In a live cash game, you can ask to see the cards and the dealer will turn them up, if they haven't hit the muck yet. You shouldn't do this though, its in bad taste, plus players will start asking to see your losing hands in showdowns. In tournaments its different, you turn them up if a player is all in, to prevent collusion.

I swear to you it has to be one of the worst poker books ever.

Its great, im no spokesman, but he touches on many topics that you can't find in other players books. Its "An Advanced Poker Guide", it could be over ones skill level.