i got lucky and made a guy say xxxx you!!!

[deucedeuce 0]

Does this happen often? This is the first time anyone has ever cursed at me on a table. Here is the hand...#Game No : 2212510532 ***** Hand History for Game 2212510532 *****$25 PL Hold'em - Wednesday, June 15, 20:21:50 EDT 2005Table Table 37074 (Real Money)Seat 6 is the buttonTotal number of players : 9 Seat 1: Shannon4697 ( $63.75 )Seat 3: looser303 ( $73 )Seat 7: pipeline ( $26.75 )Seat 10: Pertintos ( $24.5 )Seat 9: BigEdViper ( $22.1 )Seat 2: flyman74 ( $17.06 )Seat 6: grbdz ( $21.55 )Seat 5: Jon080689 ( $26 )Seat 4: Monarch44 ( $24.15 )pipeline posts small blind [$0.1].BigEdViper posts big blind [$0.25].** Dealing down cards **Dealt to BigEdViper [ Kh Kd ]Pertintos calls [$0.25].Shannon4697 folds.flyman74 raises [$1].looser303 folds.Monarch44 folds.Jon080689 folds.grbdz folds.pipeline folds.BigEdViper raises [$3.1].Pertintos folds.flyman74 calls [$2.35].** Dealing Flop ** [ Ah, 2s, Qh ]BigEdViper bets [$4].flyman74 raises [$8].BigEdViper calls [$4].** Dealing Turn ** [ Jh ]BigEdViper is all-In [$10.75]flyman74 is all-In [$5.71]** Dealing River ** [ 5h ]BigEdViper shows [ Kh, Kd ] a flush, ace high.flyman74 doesn't show [ Qc, Qd ] three of a kind, queens.BigEdViper wins $5.04 from side pot #1 with a flush, ace high.BigEdViper wins $32.77 from the main pot with a flush, ace high.Game #2212517910 starts.BigEdViper: did you have an ace?flyman74: XXXX you

[21gambit 0]

Nice catch fish

[akishore 0]

are you kidding?you played it totally perfect.he's the one that got "lucky" to flop a set. the river did nothing but give you the best hand again as you did originally.if that's the first time you've been sworn at, you have a lot of hands to play yet (and a lot of tables to lag up and a lot fish to put on tilt :-) ).aseem

[21gambit 0]

played it perfect?!!! on the flop? get the **** out of here, you are off aki

[Actuary 3]

why do you call him a fish. I really want to know...and learn.

[SapphireTiger 0]

uhm...i don't really see how else you would play it.

[21gambit 0]

Hes got kings, he raised and gets called, makes a feeler bet into a flop he didnt want to see, one that contains an ace. He gets min raised, which is USUALLY a sign that youre being realed in, hes got to know hes dead and yet he calls the raise....Horrible horrible call that paid off with a runner runner flush.

[akishore 0]

pre-flop: villian raised to $1, he reraised to $3.xx, villian only called. good.flop: he has K K and flop is A Q 2 . pot is $6 or so, and he bets $4 out of position. is this wrong? villian min-raises to $8 and hero calls. if you advocate folding here, i hugely disagree. a min-raise is more often a sign of weakness (want to represent strength, but you've already put in a big bet and they don't want to put in too much money in case they dont have the best hand) than it is a monster hand.regardless, with such strong backdoor draws, it's okay to see the turn. this is the only questionable part of the hand. but if you fold to this min raise, you are playing too weak for an NL game at these limits. honestly.turn: of course this is correct. getting better than 4-to-1 with 14 outs.aseem

[21gambit 0]

Hes got kings, he raised and gets called, makes a feeler bet into a flop he didnt want to see, one that contains an ace. He gets min raised, which is USUALLY a sign that youre being realed in, hes got to know hes dead and yet he calls the raise....Horrible horrible call that paid off with a runner runner flush.

[akishore 0]

dont fold that flop, 21gambit.when the action gets back to you, you have to call $4 into an $18 pot.if you're calling on the premise of calling the turn UI, you're calling $9 into a $23 pot.this isn't bad.once you've invested that much money into the pot, you're committing yourself to going to showdown. if you fold to that min raise, that's really pretty weak, mostly because it's at these limits.if he went broke on this board, it's justified.maybe it's just a difference of opinion, maybe i just play a higher variance game than you prefer, i'm not sure.aseem

[21gambit 0]

Do you even play PL or NL aki? You have no clue, calling the min raise is ok because of backdoor draws on a check raise? Yeah, go ahead and play your kings like that on at flop everyhand and see how much you leave the game with, at those limits. 4 into an 18 dollar pot, with that flop and kings, plus that play, you cant even start to justify pot size, its ridiculous. If the player had a tendency of making this play often, I can see calling, but otherwise, no.

[21gambit 0]

if he went broke on this board, it's justified.

Cant lay down those big pairs eh aki? Sounds like a leak

[akishore 0]

Do you even play PL or NL aki?

never in my life.

You have no clue, calling the min raise is ok because of backdoor draws on a check raise?

except it wasn't a checkraise.

Yeah, go ahead and play your kings like that on at flop everyhand and see how much you leave the game with, at those limits.

okay.

4 into an 18 dollar pot, with that flop and kings, plus that play, you cant even start to justify pot size, its ridiculous.

i didn't know there was ever a time when you couldn't justify pot size. interesting, i'll tell ed miller to recall all copies of his two books which emphasize the importance of pot size as a factor in every decision you make as well as to delete all his 2+2 posts that argue the same thing. i guess he didn't know what he was talking about.

If the player had a tendency of making this play often, I can see calling, but otherwise, no.

maybe you have a different set of experiences than me. in my playing, a min raise on the flop at these limits is almost always weakness. i do not fold there. my read was wrong here, great. i'm not using results-based thinking. in my experience, villian has plenty of worse hands that min raise here.aseem

[akishore 0]

if he went broke on this board, it's justified.

Cant lay down those big pairs eh aki? Sounds like a leak

with that action? no, i can't lay it down. too many fish try to represent the ace there, hoping for fold equity. leak? maybe.aseem

[21gambit 0]

yes, with kings and that flop how do you even begin to start thinking about the size of the pot when its that small? the pots not even laying you 5 to 1 and you need a 2 outer to win, unless its a bluff, which I HIGHLY doubt. This is why you spouting something about pot size is so utterly ridiculous. 23 to 1 my friend, thats how you justify that call. Implied odds you mutter? yeah, its still not right.Do you play NL? you respond never, nice sarcasum, sounds like you need to make it a reality.Your skewed view of calling based on the post size is probably what has turned you into a skalansky justifying calling station like a few friends of mine.Too many fish trying to represent the ace? lol, more like too many fish playing any ace to a raise. I generally dont associate agression, even min raising agression on a bluff with fish. Its not a hard and fast rule however. still, come on man, come on.going broke with kings on that board is justified, wow

[Canada 0]

yes, with kings and that flop how do you even begin to start thinking about the size of the pot when its that small? the pots not even laying you 5 to 1 and you need a 2 outer to win, unless its a bluff, which I HIGHLY doubt. This is why you spouting something about pot size is so utterly ridiculous. 23 to 1 my friend, thats how you justify that call.Do you play NL? you respond never, nice sarcasum, sounds like you need to make it a reality.Your skewed view of calling based on the post size is probably what has turned you into a skalansky justifying calling station like a few friends of mine.

Your advice is disgustingly weak-tight there 21g.Given that in the villians seat I make the raise on the flop there with any pocket pair, KQ, QJ, JT, KJ, any 2 hearts as well as the big scary Ace 4-1 is fine to call when there is a good chance your hand is still good.You better start wearing nappies to your games if you're going to wet yourself everytime an Ace hits the board... :oops:

[akishore 0]

21gambit, you misunderstand me a little. it was my fault for not explaining it clearly.i did not mean that it's justified to go broke on that board (ace-high) with kings in every situation.i meant that it's justified to go broke on that board given that action and the odds you are getting.you realize you have to be correct less than 20% of the time to make calling profitable?we have different experience. in my experience, many fish bluff on that flop since an ace came, especially at those limits. also, in my experience, a min raise is weakness rather than strength.if you raise kings pre-flop and put out a decent bet on the flop only to immediately run away from the hand against any aggression on an A-Q-x flop, you aren't maximizing your profits. you probably have lower variance, but your'e simply playing too weak/tight.before you go attacking me rather than the contents of my post, know what you're talking about. i was trying my hardest to avoid this, but if you really want to know, i play $1/2 NL regularly, and cardplayer.com tells me i'm beating the game for $27/hr.how about you?aseem

[kouta43 0]

sorry i have to say min raise is a sing of strength- i would probably put him on a set or maybe AQ from that min raise.

[harvey 0]

$27/hr.

did you type that right?? is there supposed to be a decimal place in there?And, if the answer to both of these questions is no: are you using the Ed Miller short stack method? I was thinking of giving that a shot one day (and i saw you mentioned it in another post). If you are sucking down 27 dollars an hour over a significant amount of hands that day might just be today.

[HoosierAlum 0]

Akishore is 100% correct in his analysis. I don't need to restate his reasons, but folding to the min raise in this case is much too weak/tight.

[21gambit 0]

fun stuff.Ive actually started playing 1-2 a few weeks ago and have been pulling down a buyin a day, sometimes quickly, sometimes in the span of over 8 hours, sometimes I lose, sometimes I win more than a buyin or two.Weak tight, Im offended.I think perhaps my game is a bit more tight than yours.(the game itself, and apparently, my style as well)

[akishore 0]

$27/hr.

did you type that right?? is there supposed to be a decimal place in there?And, if the answer to both of these questions is no: are you using the Ed Miller short stack method? I was thinking of giving that a shot one day (and i saw you mentioned it in another post). If you are sucking down 27 dollars an hour over a significant amount of hands that day might just be today.

the amount is right. it's a high number, but it's not extraordinarily high. winrates live in NL tend to be significantly higher than online (much weaker opposition), but at the same time, you see half the hands per hour. my winrate is around 13 bb/hr or close to 7 BB/hr (poker tracker thinks of a NL big bet as two big blinds), which is about 39 bb/100 or close to 20 BB/100 if you assume 35 hands per hour or so.the standard online numbers are... 5-10 BB/100 is strong online, 10-15 BB/100 is "crushing" the game online. factor in the weaker opposition in live play, and i think it's fair to say that 20 BB/100 is somewhere between strong and crushing live casino play.i don't think the winrate is completely accurate yet, but i am very confident that it will settle to some point at or above $20/hr (15 BB/100).and yes, mostly i apply miller's shorstack strategy. however, i tend to buy in for a little more than he recommends as a shortstack, and i feel that i have a decent post-flop edge, so i tend to play somewhat looser than he recommends. i also have some other modifications so that i don't sacrifice my post-flop edge for a marginal pre-flop equity edge (i never raise A-J or K-Q, nor do i ever raise 9-9 down... i prefer not to overvalue them pre-flop even when they might be small favorites; i'd rather play them safely post-flop).i'm probably on a slight upswing, but again, the winrate isn't out of this world.other than that, i'm just fortunate enough to be in a very soft game. a typical day has the table consisting of about two calling stations, two loose-aggressive frequent bluffers, four weak/passive players who overvalue 6-6 and undervalue A-K, and maybe one player who's actually decent. oh, and almost everyone displays symptoms of opposite man when it comes to post-flop play.since the key to NL HE is strong players isolating weak players, my job is a lot easier when almost the entire table is weak, at least post-flop.anyway, i've been meaning to make a post about that shortstack strategy as well as miller's book. i'll get around to it... it's just a lot to write, and people are probably much better off buying the book, anyway.aseem

[akishore 0]

fun stuff.Ive actually started playing 1-2 a few weeks ago and have been pulling down a buyin a day, sometimes quickly, sometimes in the span of over 8 hours, sometimes I lose, sometimes I win more than a buyin or two.Weak tight, Im offended.I think perhaps my game is a bit more tight than yours.(the game itself, and apparently, my style as well)

a pissing contest? sorry if that's what it appeared to be. i have been trying to relay my point across politely; you are the one who attacked me multiple times. not to be an ass, but things like "get the censored out of her, you are off aki", "do you even play PL or NL aki? you have no clue", "you respond never... sounds like you need to make it a reality" add up.i've been saying this whole time that our experiences are different, that you have a lower-variance style than me, and that i don't feel that you are maximizing your profit (since you are playing tighter). if that's true, and you're okay with it, so be it.aseem

[closetwin 0]

If that rattled you, I'd avoid playing Hellmuth in triple draw.CT

[jamesfinch 0]

Hey akishore, I'd be very interested in your upcoming post about Miller's shortstack theory. We've all been sitting on the edge of our seats for it. (semi-sw)