Well Here's A Hand For You Superstars

[Danege 1]

dead to me...again

I please to aim! :)I'd probably acknowledge you if you were as cool as that babylondonks guy.But you're not.

[trystero 0]

Tim's a big boy and can take care of himself. The appeal to authority thing is annoying. Royal's also a successful winner, so it's not like he's got no credibility.fwiw I wish Tim would post more, and Snamuh would come back. they've gone to 4bb and it's got nothing to do with the fact that FCP's posters nitpick. I'm sure there's ego involved but from what I know 4bb originated because players wanted a more serious poker atmosphere where they could post privately.

[droberts 3]

i dont like arguing about who's dick is biggerso i am just gonna say mine is this big "(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)"

[Merby 3]

zach used to come in here and talk smack too, then he learned his lesson. lol

He still talks smack about beer pong... but he can back it up.

[tskillz187 0]

On the Royal not thinking the hands are similar point, I didn't feel like arguing because the thread had run it's course and I felt like he was just arguing to nitpick. Even if I pointed that out RT was not likely to change his point of view and I had written a bunch of stuff, but then deleted it just to say "K" because his counter arguments were not disproven and it would just go back to him pointing out those arguments and neither of us changing our stance. The hands are clearly similar and if you can't tell why they are similar you are missing a concept somewhere in there.Babylon is giving someone rope when he thinks his range is way too bluffy, I am doing the same. As for the specifics of squeeze v 3bet I think that's irrelevant as I don't think someone is more apt to squeeze than to 3bet on the button, they are extremely similar plays, except I think the range for villain in my hand is even weaker. I was very disappointed villain didn't shove river as I figured I was light years ahead of his range. I think my hand is a better example of using the concept that Babylon exhibited with the hand that started this thread (although I don't think he was actually wondering what play was right, so it was a brag post imo which I think he's fine to post but I think it should be more of a "I'm going to teach you why this play looks sick, but it's actually right" type thread. Then again I don't think most posters should do that because I don't think most are good enough to try and "teach" the Strat crowd. So it's a catch-22 type thing of trying to weigh whether or not people will appreciate your post or think you're an arrogant d-bag. I'm pretty sure he felt he was helping out the forum and if some people took something out of it then all the better, and in my QQ hand I was thinking about exactly this thread when I played it that way. The only real reason I don't think it should have been posted as a question of what to do, was if Babylon were going to flat the 3bet and let villain barrel off, Babylon has to let him barrel off and there isn't a real decision to be made and I think he knows that). My only reason for thinking my hand is a better example of his concept is because I think you can't play AQ profitably how Babylon is trying to play it. If you think his range is really bluffy then some leveling will take place and you can get AQ aipf for value because he'll 5bet shove you light enough often enough. I'm not advocating that play though, I think folding and moving on is the best option, sometimes your range is stronger than villain's and you still need to fold because you can't control the way the hand is played, which is (duh) why position is so important. The main reason I think Babylon's example is not sound is because you can't c/c your way down to river unless you hit, and you just don't hit often enough to counter how many times you have to fold vs how many times he actually has a better hand than you when you do hit. I think the difference between AK and AQ is pretty big here and imo it's the breaking point. My hand I can happily c/c and bluff catch w/o improvement.

[JaoTi 0]

I think your hand is better in a vacuum Tim as an example. But the fact is that people are going to reply saying "LOL YOU HAS AN OVERPAIR STACKOFFFFFF" without considering that as far as one-pair hands go, this is a bluffcatcher. So I think it runs the risk of reinforcing incorrect ideas (which I think it did as shown by RT's reply). Mine, while containing marginal/wtf decisions I think still displays more of a necessity for a range analysis. Though I could be wrong and it'll reinforce "LOL TOPPEST PAIR STACKOFFF" thoughts.You have a remarkable ability to impart a lot of information in parenthesis Tim

[Royal_Tour 0]

On the Royal not thinking the hands are similar point, I didn't feel like arguing because the thread had run it's course and I felt like he was just arguing to nitpick. Even if I pointed that out RT was not likely to change his point of view and I had written a bunch of stuff, but then deleted it just to say "K" because his counter arguments were not disproven and it would just go back to him pointing out those arguments and neither of us changing our stance. The hands are clearly similar and if you can't tell why they are similar you are missing a concept somewhere in there.

I always mention when I think your advice is Top Notch, and I usually do this because my advice would be similar, sometimes not nearly as good as what you've already stated.For me to mention the two hands, and comment on your idea of them being similar was not to nitpick, but was because I see more discrepancies than i do similarities.Infact, I'll agree to the similarities you stated. But the dynamics of each hand as a whole in comparison to each other are very skewed.I see your hand and line as exactly how i'd play it. I even commented on it. saying. "This is how this hand plays." after debating how they arent similar.You mention "if you cant see the similarities you are missing a concept" But common, If you cant see how they differ more so, you're missing fundamentals. I'm not going to go over my points again, but its clear as day how these two hands are fundamentally different.P.S. Its strategy, nothing is personal, I dont know why everyone here seems to make it personal. Telling people they need to shut up and listen, without knowing why they are saying this.

I think your hand is better in a vacuum Tim as an example. But the fact is that people are going to reply saying "LOL YOU HAS AN OVERPAIR STACKOFFFFFF" without considering that as far as one-pair hands go, this is a bluffcatcher. So I think it runs the risk of reinforcing incorrect ideas (which I think it did as shown by RT's reply). Mine, while containing marginal/wtf decisions I think still displays more of a necessity for a range analysis. Though I could be wrong and it'll reinforce "LOL TOPPEST PAIR STACKOFFF" thoughts.You have a remarkable ability to impart a lot of information in parenthesis Tim

lol, getting tired of this thread, but one last time to wrap it up.The hand Tskillz' posted plays out that way IMO. I wrote that at the bottom of my reply on his hand. If you read it properly, you would see. Reinforcing the idea that I understand a lot more than you. So no idea who the "LOL YOU HAS AN OVERPAIR STACKOFFFFF" comment was for.Your hand however was played poorly. simple.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Babylon is giving someone rope when he thinks his range is way too bluffy, I am doing the same. As for the specifics of squeeze v 3bet I think that's irrelevant as I don't think someone is more apt to squeeze than to 3bet on the button, they are extremely similar plays, except I think the range for villain in my hand is even weaker. I was very disappointed villain didn't shove river as I figured I was light years ahead of his range. I think my hand is a better example of using the concept that Babylon exhibited with the hand that started this thread (although I don't think he was actually wondering what play was right, so it was a brag post imo which I think he's fine to post but I think it should be more of a "I'm going to teach you why this play looks sick, but it's actually right" type thread. Then again I don't think most posters should do that because I don't think most are good enough to try and "teach" the Strat crowd. So it's a catch-22 type thing of trying to weigh whether or not people will appreciate your post or think you're an arrogant d-bag. I'm pretty sure he felt he was helping out the forum and if some people took something out of it then all the better, and in my QQ hand I was thinking about exactly this thread when I played it that way. The only real reason I don't think it should have been posted as a question of what to do, was if Babylon were going to flat the 3bet and let villain barrel off, Babylon has to let him barrel off and there isn't a real decision to be made and I think he knows that). My only reason for thinking my hand is a better example of his concept is because I think you can't play AQ profitably how Babylon is trying to play it. If you think his range is really bluffy then some leveling will take place and you can get AQ aipf for value because he'll 5bet shove you light enough often enough. I'm not advocating that play though, I think folding and moving on is the best option, sometimes your range is stronger than villain's and you still need to fold because you can't control the way the hand is played, which is (duh) why position is so important. The main reason I think Babylon's example is not sound is because you can't c/c your way down to river unless you hit, and you just don't hit often enough to counter how many times you have to fold vs how many times he actually has a better hand than you when you do hit. I think the difference between AK and AQ is pretty big here and imo it's the breaking point. My hand I can happily c/c and bluff catch w/o improvement.

Ok, i'll comment a bit now on the hand and this post you made..You holding stats on villain vs babylon not holding any info is a big issue. (so the idea that babylon can assign a "way to bluffy" range is silly)ignoring the squeeze vs 3bet idea, Like you touched on.. we see how your flop is a pretty standard call.even if villain's range isnt as wide as you say, c/c line here is usually going to be the best line.You also mention letting villain hang himself like in babylon's case. However, we dont know that the villain in babylon's hand is "hanging himself"until the river King.Your check/call turn is also the correct play IMO. and same with the river, You really cant lead out anywhere, we're catching bluffs vs his wide range that you can assign.In Babylon's case, He's blindly calling. Like i said before, "What does babylon do if the river bricks, (the 2 of clubs) and villain shoves" No one has touched on this, and i've said it 3 times now.His main reason for calling the shove was because the river K took away a lot of combinations,and reinforced his idea that this was a squeeze.(which i liked, i said i liked that part of his reasoning)but that was really it.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Here's a little blurb. Maybe it will help some.. who knows. In poker, strategy is comprehensive planning and conduct for the long-term. Strategy gives us the course of action we take as we attempt to achieve our goals. Tactics are maneuvers we do to carry out strategy.Tactics then only make consistent sense when they are seen as an aspect of strategy, and not an end in themselves -- and this explains why the way a lot of players approach the game makes little sense. They make decisions in a vacuum. Many otherwise thoughtful players, when they decide to think and talk about poker strategy, end up focusing and thrashing around various tactical ideas. They end up missing the forest for the trees.Poker isn't brain surgery. It's not all that complicated, and since many situations come down to marginal decisions, a lot of what we do just doesn't matter over the long-run. However, lots of players make the game far more complex than it needs to be because they lack an overall strategy - while focusing inordinately on tactical issues. The truth of the matter is: good, sound strategy simplifies decision-making.

[Danege 1]

Royal_Tour, I retract most of my previous statements.

[babylondonks 5]

Bink I fixed my account

[Acid_Knight 2]

and you shouldnt. I didnt always agree with Acid_Knight but i did learn a lot from him.

LOLI never come here anymore but I saw a thread with a ton of replies and figured I'd see what's up.Too bad I suck at 6m. I'm just going to assume that whatever Tim said here is correct because he's much better than I am at 6m online, especially deep.

[tskillz187 0]

LOLI never come here anymore but I saw a thread with a ton of replies and figured I'd see what's up.Too bad I suck at 6m. I'm just going to assume that whatever Tim said here is correct because he's much better than I am at 6m online, especially deep.

Bored?Comment on my AA hand at 4bb imo.

[babylondonks 5]

I think I'm gonna post another hand, but only if you superstars promise it will reach at least 6 pages. Thoughts?

[tskillz187 0]

I'll post as soon as Matt does.

[babylondonks 5]

**** you guys I'm converting to LHE

[tskillz187 0]

**** you guys I'm converting to LHE

GL bluffing.

[Merby 3]

**** you guys I'm converting to LHE

Every time I try this, I get a converter error and get nothing but a bunch of shit spewing back at me. Thoughts? I don't know whether or not I should be asking the feral poker guys about the converter error, or accusing the LHE guys for flinging poo at me...

[Royal_Tour 0]

LOLI never come here anymore but I saw a thread with a ton of replies and figured I'd see what's up.

yea right, dont lie... you were "searching your name"

[babylondonks 5]

GL bluffing.

My spectacular career in LHE, after a brief resurgence, is at its end.

[babylondonks 5]

Every time I try this, I get a converter error and get nothing but a bunch of shit spewing back at me. Thoughts? I don't know whether or not I should be asking the feral poker guys about the converter error, or accusing the LHE guys for flinging poo at me...

I have nothing to add to this, it's just perfect, wp sir