goldenteemaster

I agree, it is nice to hear an American say this. If it wasn't for the media we'd hear it a lot more.

I don't think he's a low-life for not giving anything to the staff, I think he's a cheap prick from leaving $100. Leaving $100 is worse than leaving nothing.

If he did assume the policy was the same he wouldn't have left $100...even that amount would've been against the law. If he actually left a $100, he should be expecting a few "accidentally" flipped cards next year. Pathetic tip :roll:

You find it odd that everyone would doubt you, a non poker pro, that a successful poker pro has a blatant tell? :roll: No one plays at the top levels with that blatant a tell...at least not for long. :wink:

IMO, he was a twit making a move like that on a draw. I suspect that he's working very hard this series with regards to not letting beats get to him. Wasn't really a tough beat anyway, he was never ahead. He'll be angry with himself on the play but that's not what usually sets him off. He needs a beat where he was massive favorite to win until the river hits and busts him....then the fireworks will start :wink:

:shock: Why on earth would you lay it down? Is that guy gonna push a large bet in with the house? No he wouldn't (or at the very least shouldn't). His play with the house would be to try to trap, especially with a flush draw out there. IMO, based on his bet, you've got to figure he can't be on 10/9 or 10/10. Immediate reraise all in on his bet would be my bet.

I'm fairly new to this board and see a lot of people asking Smash for advice. Is he some sort of poker master? Has he done something of note in the poker world?No offense intended to Smash but so far, 90% of the responses from him that I've read involve very little in the way of informative feedback, just name calling and insults to intelligence.

Stu Ungar is widely regarded as one of, if not the best player ever (his addictions not withstanding).You obviously don't know a good player from a bad one. :roll:

As gambling is defined thus far as risking money on a bet, but what if there's no risk? For example:You have AK of spades. Flop is AAQs. Any bet here is gambling, there are hands that can beat you.Turn brings a J of spades. Again any bet here must be considered gambling by the standard definition.River then brings you the 10 of spades...nice for you :wink: Is any bet here really gambling? You can't lose so if you're not risking money it can't be gambling right?

Did he say that exactly? Or did he say that poker was not a game of chance?There is a difference?IMO, Poker is NOT a game of chance (because you don't need the best hand to win - in fact, even in a tournament you only need the best hand ONCE to win a tournament). Unlike blackjack where you can't bluff the House.That, however, does not change the fact that playing poker for money is gambling.His statement was that he doesn't believe poker is gambling because you can affect the outcome.

For what it's worth, I saw an interview with Chris Ferguson and he doesn't believe that poker is gambling because you have some control of the outcome. To truly gamble you are placing a bet with no possibility of affecting the outcome.

Wilchambault for it? :wink:

Can't remember the tourney but it was on ESPN the other night (maybe a Euro event). Anyway chip leader has KK and raises it up from UTG+1. Everyone folded except the SB who had QQ. He reraises. Leader calls reraise and the flop comes Q,x,x. SB comes out betting half the pot, chip leader thinks and then throws away his kings :shock: Now that was a hell of a laydown

So where does this challenge stand? Anyone played yet?

Hmmm....maybe I should see about a 'scrip for that stuff. I have ADD and often find that...I....I....what was I talking about? :wink: