blonde poker forum

I have just, I feel, misplayed a live hand badly

At some stage recently "running bad" has turned into "playing bad" and I feel the need to be suitably chastised

Its the Wednesday night £50 plus £50 at Luton

3 tables are left, top 5 are paid, average for the final is 24,000


I have 12,000 and blinds are 200-400. I'm on an aggressive table, having just been moved there but I know all bar one of the players well

An in form LAG (Nav) limps for 400 in MP with 25,000 or so

Complete unknown in SB completes, but chatter around the table is that he is "clueless" and has got a 20,000 plus stack just recently with a 30-70% coup going in his favour

I'm in the BB with   Ac Qs and where normally I would raise here I think I 'll get called by a LAGwith a wide range with position and then have to play the streets OOP, I elect to check and if hit, trap the LAG

Flop  5c Qc 6d

SB checks and I see known Lag look at his chips. Check raise time or weak lead? I lead for 800 into 1200 and sure enough LAG makes it 4000

SB flat calls immediately

Neither player can put me on TPTK here, LAG's range is wide and can include sets, 2 pairs, KQ, Qx, clubs or just second pair...I've seen him push people around with as little as that

He doesn't rate me, probably thinks I'll lay down most hands to a raise there

SB..no idea, but I'll take the risk he is behind me

I push in, with 10,000 in the middle up for grabs


Views please. Result irrelevant but please analyse my thinking

Ditto.

Not even Flushy, Mantis & Luckylloyd could analyse a hand that involves Nav. Raise pre-flop IMO, at least lose one of them. Fold if Nav re-raises or SB re-raises pre. Check raise all in on the flop or push the turn. Simple game this poker.

I dont mind the check pre, infact i know the situation that Tighty doesnt want to get himself into and have on numerous occasions played a hand like Tighty has got this way... As i said i dont think i do much - if anything - different here..

I raise pre flop would be a bad move but as played out I dont think you have done too much wrong.  My only concern would be that the lag has either come in with some nonsense and hit two pair or he had suited connectors and has hit an open ender which goes on to take your chippies!

As played though I dont see a great deal wrong with it the push is good if you think your picking up whats in the middle.

Check AQ in the BB? Is this common with LAG limper and SB making up. hate this play here.

I don't check pre, if i did i don't bet flop i go for a CR prob, or even check call.

"normally I would raise here I think I 'll get called by a LAGwith a wide range with position and then have to play the streets OOP, I elect to check and if hit, trap the LAG"


Vinny, he's calling me if I raise, whatever I sensibly raise

I'm then OOP all hand with no better idea what he might be about

Usually Raise obv, but against this type of foe its awkward I find

You should raise preflop. I don't mind checking AK - A10 or calling open raises as long as I am sure post flop will heads up. Three handed I think it is just much, much better to raise here. Yeah, we'll be out of position on this Nav fella - but we're losing value if we just check and opening up the possibility of the  exact scenario that happened, eh, happening. Plus, if these guys are playing any two cards this is a good spot to accumulate chips. In that if we raise to 1400 and lose one of them pre; a c - bet of 1800 on practically every flop with your image should have a decent success rate - enough to be profitable anyway. Also, you may be able to get it in pre if either of these guys are real looney tunes. And that would be sweet.

The flop really is quite player dependent. In a tournament situation where we are a fair whack from the money and only have 30BBs to start the hand against two players with wide ranges I don't have a problem getting it in on the flop with TPTK. This is also a really good board to do it on because there are two draws out there that either could reasonably have.

You know your player, so if you felt that this Nav fella is raising your bet 75% of the time+ then bet3betshove is fine. However, judging by your description of his physical reaction to the flop, he's betting anyway, so you can just check, shove. The real key is that It doesn't matter how the chips get in once you have decided to put them in. As such, in terms of your thought processes - I suggest that you need to know what you are doing when you lead for 800. The decision should be made at that point. Either you shove over a raise; or you fold to a raise depending on what you know of the player involved.

Irrespective of how well I knew my opponents in this hand I would always lead out on this board for 1000 with all of TPTK; TPGK; Two pair; Set; flushdraw; combo draw.

Once the sb flatcalls the spot is now legitamitely ugly. But meh, this Nav fella sounds like he can have one pair; a draw; air a lot. And if the sb really is that bad he can also have plenty that you beat. I think getting it in is ok. But if you're running bad at present you best get your coat I'm afraid.

the quote was related to Rookie's post where he said he didnt mind the check in the BB. I dont like it in ur position. 

Yes but tighty explained the reason why he/or me for that matter dont mind the check... The LAG is capable of betting with air into a pot of 1200 when you have hit OR if you have raised pre, he would happily bluff into a pot of 3600 when you havent hit.

the way i see it is you've decided to play small ball which is fine imo, but then I'm check calling flop and playing cautiously after that trying to keep the pot small as you have absolutely no idea what your opponents have. if you raise pre flop then you wanna be getting all in on this flop obv. it's about commitment, you're playing not to commit yourself pre then commiting post with TPTK, maybe that's correct against these opponents and you're not exactly deep I know but TPTK  = showdown value rather than All In value here cos of your decision pre. imo

LOL



(in before luckyloyd) :)

YOU HAVE 30BBs.

then raise pre hit TPTK get AI. simple innit

I think you played it fine. Pretty well actually and would sometimes do the same thing myself. I think youre push has fold equity and if youre called you could still have the best hand vx KQ, Ace high flush draw (so drawing solely to clubs as you have the aceeee).

Yes, playing a 30BB stack should be really simple.

I deffo raise preflop here. I want to test Nav's hand preflop and want to negate my positional disadvantage by taking the initiative with a premium hand. On flop i lead out. I just find it easier to bet (LL's gonna hate me for saying this) and gauge my opponents reactions rather than react to them. I guess for imformation.

Raise preflop for value, aq is strong enough for me to be happy playing a raised pot oop and to be happy increasing the pot size with the best hand. I cbet the majority of flops as well here.

As played i like the check raise given our read that someone is going to do the betting for us, with two draws out there i think shoving is fine.

I'm not going to hate you for giving bad strat advice. If you reread the op you will see that betting to "see where we stand" is even more irrelevant and incorrect in this hand than it usually would be.

I don't like this play at all really. It's  a raise pre-flop and try to get this thing HU against Laggie. The only problem in this hand is the "clueless" one in the SB..would he be calling any raise here as well if you raise pre-flop?

As played there's no point in betting into Laggie..he will do that for you and I would much prefer the check raise. Now you bet out..laggie raises you (as you expected) and "clueless" guy insta-calls (which is the only thing that can have thrown you about the flop action after you decided to lead out) ..against one oppo you can push here and get them off the hand..here, against 2, you have no choice but to "push and pray" or just fold..and since you actually have a very decent hand..it's a push now. and pray clueless guy doesn't have Q6 or something like that.

There are many different ways to play a hand out, we see that on the PHA Board all the time. If you have a tangible thought process that is at the heart of your strategy then this cannot be argued with. In this hand your pre-flop thoughts are workable.

The average stack is 24k and you have 12k...so you have to get busy. The important thing is that you have a plan to win a big pot. The merits of the plan can be debated...but I think it's ok.

When running bad players have a habit of 2nd guessing themselves, of loosing confidence in themselves and their plan, and they crumble. If you did anything other than get the chips in on this flop you could ask yourself questions about your play. But you do stick to your guns.

When you slow play the others aren't aware of your strength. Your plan was to hit and trap a LAG and a "clueless" player. Most of the time you wont hit and you will be check folding. On the rare occasion that you DO hit on a good flop then folding will not be an option. It's now about executing the plan and getting the chips in...and this is what you successfully do. Betting out got the LAG coming over the top...good, and the clueless player injecting more chips in....good. This is good play. If you start dishing out undue credit to these players now that you are successfully trapping them this would be a sign of no confidence.

You don't have enough chips to be overly cautious here, you wanted to trap and win a big pot....and you can't do that if lots of chips aren't going in. You cannot fear the eventuality that you manufactured by slow-playing. So while the plan's merits can be debated the execution of it can't, you executed it perfectly and this is good play.

Thank you for all the comments

I find it very tricky to raise in these spots OOP with hands you'd raise without a second though in late position versus LAGs you know can't pass and then having to fire out and I feel I can be bluffed off with air. This may well though be a function of lack of confidence

As it happens Nav had  6h 5h and stacked me, but at least I stuck to my plan  rotflmfao

I guess coz i know villain i overlooked this point.

You have A-Q, your oppo has 5-6 and the flop comes Q-5-6. This is how it goes when you run bad, but it is not necessarily a reflection of poor strategy...I think raising pre-flop gets us to the very same conclusion against our LAG opponent as it goes. He has more than twice your chips, is loose, and doesn't rate you. He's going nowhere with his premium hand.

Btw folks, there is a difference between "LAG" and "SPEWMONSTER" when describing someones play. If you make it 4x BB oop from a 30BB stack and he would limp / call 65s and stuff then he isn't a "LAG". He's the absolute value. Particularly when hero in this hand seems to have a traditionally tight range judging from what I have been reading.

Some of the posts in this thread seem to be arguing that we should check pre because he isn't going to fold any two cards he limped with. That should just make us more inclined to raise it up!! There is only 30 BBs to go in, and if we can get a pot of 10 pre while holding a hand that is beating his range we should be delighted. Even if we will be oop and even if we won't really know what type of flops hit him hard, it doesn't matter - in the longrun we will be winning more chips out of this spot than he will be.

By the description of this guy, I would want him at my table every single time I played. Guys who are loose, spewy and make fundamental mistakes preflop are where your edge comes from in tournaments.

Clown had 45k post this, and didn't cash

Sigh

And this is the difference between playing bad and running bad. Just because you got unlucky in this hand and you know oppo won't fold his hand doesn't mean you played the hand well. The above point is the main reason why you played tihs hand poorly, Tighty.

which is why I put the thread up

I had one thought.

Technically I had more than one, but the others seem to have been covered,


If he thinks you'll lay down most hands - would a check call slow him down on the turn, if he was just bluffing?

The fact that it is three way on a drawy flop makes check calling to induce bluffs or give him rope or whatever a non - runner. We are short enough that it only takes two pot sized bets for half our stack to be in the pot. And on this type of board, the more money that goes in on the turn or river with TPTK the less profitable it will be for us. Our equity is always going to be best on the flop because there is more gamble left in the hand so a wider range of draws and one pair hands will be willing to pay us off.

If we allow cards to peel three handed the more likely it is that we aren't best at showdown - and the less likely opponents (even spewy morons) are to be bluffing.


If we were headsup against this Nav fella, a check / call line may be very viable - even preferable. As is, I like playing for stacks now.

LL I've never seen anything written about SPR in tournaments. Do you think it applies the same as it does in cash? If so why is an SPR of 10 good to get AI here against 2 opponents with TPTK when it would not be in a cash game.

Has anything been posted about SPR on the tournament 2p2 forums? Got any links if so?

There is a big difference between making a single play that will meet value criteria and formulating a strategy that is right for your particular tournament situation.

In this hand you have half the tournament average and this is a situation that requires drastic improvement. How are you best going to get that result? While raising pre-flop is the value play that can be deemed correct in isolation, is it the answer here?

There can be no argument that raising with A-Q and getting a call from 5-6 is good for the stats. But how good is it for you here specifically? After you have raised pre-flop a c-bet of say 3k into a 4.4k pot on a likely missed flopped gets as many chips into the pot as you have left in your stack and so your are flirting with pot-commitment by leaving yourself around the miserable 7.5k. Given the read that your oppo is loose-aggressive and doesn't rate you, the c-bet will be a fundamental requirement of raising pre-flop because if you don't bet he will. So if the raise pre-flop is the first stage of a stop & go play, and your are committed to this, then ok. But to raise pre-flop because the value suggests you should and have no accompanying post-flop commitment strategy is flawed thinking with regard to your stack size and tournament position...and that's whether the very act of raising is the correct move or not.

With 12k you must have a strategy to use those chips to change your situation. The stop & go play is a fair strategy and raising pre-flop is the first stage of it. To just raise, might be statistically correct, but just being statistically correct doesn't change your tournament situation and so there must be a wider reaching strategy to do that.

The merits of checking pre-flop, not risking chips that you don't have to risk, and trying to win a big pot by trapping mean this strategy is open for some consideration. I have used both strategies to good effect and both have their advantages. To say that not raising is wrong can be statistically proven for sure but we are talking about a tournament rescue package. And it is this complete package that is the priority, not making one statistically correct play.

In tournaments you will have the need and opportunity to get creative at times. Creativity will be stifled if you use +EV plays in isolation of complete strategies, particularly when we're talking about rescue strategies.

Something I know Lloyd is going to love....

1. +EV concerns long-term profit

2. Tournament players cannot expect to make long-term profit

So if you want to dabble in the creative when you're getting a bit desperate then ok. Alternatively, if you want to play the hand aggressively then fine, but you must be committed to the aggression. Both plays are valid, but more importantly it is the whole strategy that has to be judged when your a shortstack...not just each contributing part.
 

Are you referring to the ideas in Flynn's recent professional no limit hold'em? If so, I can't comment because I haven't read all of it.

On a general level, I am always think that there should be no difference in your decisions on the basis that a situation is in a tournament or a ring game. If it's plus EV, it's plus EV as far as I'm concerned.

And, I think it is never going to be a huge mistake to stack off with TPTK on a drawy flop or go broke JJ+ aipf when playing 30 BBs or less. This assumes that we aren't on a pay or sat bubble of course (which isn't the case here).

And of course, against certain opponents, going broke here in a limped pot may be terribly incorrect. That doesn't seem to be the case though given the description of the villians involved.

You have to be levelling right? I mean you can't have that many posts on a strat forum and seriously write the above?

And you write ALL those words to essentially say:

- Have a plan for the hand;
- Stick to it;

The rest of your post seems to be indicating that you should pass up +EV or take -EV if it fits in with some magical "overall" strategy. Gibberish. Play every tournament hand in the best manner possible and you will be the best tournament player possible.

hellmouth must be heading for some serious downswong then :)

Mantis, OP refers to 24k being the average for the FINAL not with 3 tables left.

I think you played the oppo here Richard or actually played badly because you felt oppo believed he could outplay you.
End of the day you shouldn't ever get 'em allin with TPTK in an unraised pot especially as you are above average and have 30BB's. Unless you're in the rebuy stage :D
How many words was that?

Please elaborate on this one if you could...especially point 2 is baffling to me.

Why can't tourney players make long term profits?



And to say that in this situation the raise pre-flop is the wrong play to make against this oppo is beyond me..

We know several things;

1; You are ahead pre-flop against this oppo when you hold AQ more often than not.
2; He is likely to call when you bet.

I generally find that raising pre-flop when you're ahead/ a favourite is not a bad idea in tourneys..or in cash if you know that you will get called. In fact raising when ahead/ a favourite is a pretty good idea anytime if you know oppo is likely to call you, isn't it? (disclaimer..in a sat it's different)

I really think that not betting when you hold a premium hand like AQ against a serial limper/ calling station is the biggest mistake you can make in any poker game whether it'd be cash or tourney as you're not making the most of your opportunities. And to defend it is borderline disgraceful. OK so you're OOP here which might make it tricky but that is the ONLY argument for not raising here..and I think it's a pretty weak one.

Nope. That sweeping statement is wrong.

You have to be levelling right? I mean you can't have that many posts on a strat forum and seriously write the above?

This really is gibberish son. But it does show your lack of sensitivity for unique tournament situations and how best to cope with them. You will always be able to justify a single play by using the statistical argument but by placing so much emphasis on the simplicity of a one-size-fits-all strategy your mind will forever be closed to the creativity needed to formulate those mystical "magical" strategies that seem to be fantasy to you right now. Your reliance on maths as the ONLY answer is stifling your creativity LLoyd and this is a shame because I can sense your creativity bursting to come out.

The Americans steamed into Iraq because it was the right thing to do...and created a right social mess because they invested no thinking into their longer term strategy. This is like raising pre-flop without a specific plan of attack. Foresight is needed in tournaments...especially when you have few chips.

With regard to Helmuth, sponsored entry into every tournament allows profitibility much easier to achieve I would think.

Appologies i meant on the flop.
Care to elaborate if you still disagree?

ok hellmuth bad example. how about jason strasser and alec jacob then. nobody in their right mind could say they're -EV donkament players.

Flushy, Pab, Moorman, JP?

annette15 anyone?..I think she's done allright out of tourneys, no?

Don't refer to me as "son" thank you very much.

Tournament situations that are unique are pay bubble or sat bubble scenarios where +cEV may no longer equal +$EV. I already have said on this forum many times that stack preservation and the value of "tournament life" in those types of scenarios may force us to take decisions which would be suboptimal in a ring game.

However, the rest of the time (i.e. most tournament hands you play) there is NO difference. It's poker. You play hands to win chips. There is less chips of course, but the principles of what is good and bad play are the exact same as what would be good or bad play in cash games that were relatively shallow in terms of stack depth.

Now, saying that I can't "cope" with unique tournament situations is teh lol. And using the analogy of the Bush Administration's foreign policy in relation to a poker hand is  ;carlocitrone;

What is your full name btw?

Can he call you "Daddy"? ;)

Look, I think continuing with this particular point is ridiculous. Everyone has some expectation of return when they buy into tournaments. It's admittedly something that is difficult to quantify in the live tournament arena, but good players will expect to have a positive return and bad players a negative return over the longterm.

Quantifying your edge with some degree of accuracy is undoubtably possible in online tournaments with less than 500 runners because it is possible to put in such a high volume.

Lloyd will do. Though I'll accept sir (once it doesn't come before: "you're making a scene").  :)

lol.

Do we never see Q10; QJ; KQ; 87; XcXc if the money goes in here given the description of the villians?

Yes, on some dry flop textures getting it in here couldn't be good - but this is the perfect board to spunk it in with teh top top.

Mantis what are you on about, I really hope you are either joking or not making yourself clear.

 So in tournaments no-one will win in the long term, thats what your statement is saying. There are at least 100 clear examples of Online Mtt professionals to suggest you are wrong who have reached the long term in terms of sample size and even more in sng's (tournaments in affect).

Your ideas that Maths can be simply ignored in poker by simply being more creative, shows a real lack of understanding on the fundamentals of poker.

You make some interesting posts about psychology of poker and what others are thinking but make ridiculous statements like some of the ones in this thread, that make you look a little silly to be honest.


IFM, wow i can't believe this is true. There are tons of opponent who will felt 30bb's with alot worse hands than TPTK and these hand will make up more than 50% of their range making felting TPTK always correct.

I know, i know :D

How can you tell?
I think as a rule it is a good one, overall TPTK on the flop unraised is not gonna be a profitable long term place to be shoving.

Against certain players; on certain boards, yes. Against these players; on this board, no.

Hard and fast rules like this in poker are a pretty poor idea generally. Poker is about different players, different situations and therefore different ranges.

The telling part is what seperates bad players from mediocre player to good players. Your ranges are never going to be perfect but in most situations you should have an idea of what an opponent plays like and therefore estimate a range. In a good % of cases given board texture and opponent tendancy felting TPTK is going to be +ev this deep. Im not going to sit there and go "zomg what about my rule, I fold".

If i could be bothered i and many others could give examples of felting TPTK for 100bb's being +EV given our opponent and board texture.

Many players that are mentioned supplement their tourney play with cash game profits. If you only play tournaments and are not sponsored then the variance is so great that setting yourself up in business to make long-term pure tournament profit is a massive, if not unrealistic challenge. If there are 100 players successfully doing it on-line from the millions that play then this is a good statistic to represent the gravity of that challenge.

Back to the hand. When we are talking through tournament strategy on this forum, if we offer no consideration to alternative methods of play then that is "disgraceful". My thoughts on this hand are open. I made the point that a number of strategies will have their merits. This is not nailing my colours to any particular play...it is being open-minded to the possibilities. I have played this hand the way Tighty did on a number of occasions, particularly when short of chips, and it has delivered the desired result. So the strategy will work. I have also used the raising strategy to good effect. So the real debate is which method is most effective here and now. It shouldn't be a question of black and white as it often is on the forum. Why slow-play ANY hand if you consider it to be the best hand?

The concrete point I stand by is that you shouldn't play the hand aggressively if you don't plan to continue with that aggression. You don't have enough chips to lack commitment to your plan. So I would prefer to use the trap strategy than the raise pre-flop and see what happens theory. Your dwindling chips mean that the maths of the whole play must be considered ahead of the maths of just the raise.

To try and add some clarity....

This is a statement that would make me look silly, agreed. I am looking a step further than just going over points that we know to be true. Maths is one of the fundamentals of the game...we know this, so why not stretch ourselves a bit and look at things from different angles.

In tournament play every action is connected to future events. So if you double up by taking on a gamble when you are a 45% underdog how does this connect to getting your chips in two hands later as an 80% favourite?? Well quite dramtically, because you have twice as many chips to put in as the 80% favourite. Is the 45% underdog gamble now -EV upon reflection. So when people look at one play in isolation solely because of the maths of that one isolated situation I am asking if you know the true relevance of the maths you are using with regard to each unique tournament situation you find yourself in.

In cash the benefit of the maths cannot be disputed. But tournaments are more elaborate. So while maths cannot be argued with it does prevent creativity because 2+2 always equals 4. What I'm talking about is the place for creativity in tournament poker and if you say only stick to the maths then you are saying there is no place for it. And I'm not sure I agree with that.

If they were to play like you then i would agree with this statement.

If they play good tournament poker then not so.


3 years and a few thousand mtt's into my unrealistic challenge and things are going pretty well....

NO!!!!!

IMO Nav is the type of player comfortable trying to bluff one player but not so keen when its 2. His re-raise on the flop indicates he has the best hand therefore i would give it up rather than playing 3 handed with TPTK. But as Richard says Nav probably wouldnt fold pre flop. He got lucky on the flop and this is just one of the hands that happen now & again that detrmines your tounament life.

The maths of tournament poker says that for most people success is unlikely. In a generous pay structure, 10% of the tournament field will make the money. That means that 90% of the players, no matter how well they played, are still losers.

So as such Flushy, you are challenging the maths of tournament poker....well done son sir!

Wow Mantis, you're really lost me here.

For most people any success in poker in unlikely..most people LOSE money when playing poker..it's what the cash game pro's count on. If you are a winning online player you are thought to be in the top 5% of players online..whether that be cash or tournament.

there is more variance in MTT's..no doubt..but money is there to be made and how you can think there isn't is simply beyond me.

from Booders book of  poker rules
 no 73......if you hold the  Ac   shovel them in preflop,you never lose.

There is money to be made boldie, but statistically you wont make it playing tournament poker. Thats the stats.

so you can't say....




And then say I loose you by saying most people don't make money. You support my statement and then say my statement is beyond you?? Now I'm lost.

The point I make is that everyone screams blue murder when I choose to ignore the maths on a particular hand...but by playing tournament poker at all we are all flying in the face of the maths. This is the irony for me.

wow...So you're saying that by playing cash poker we are also ignoring statistics and the maths?

of course, no doubt about that, all loads of people posting silly stuff on this forum just shows that, but usually there's a correct way to play a hand, like here for example, raise pf, bet the flop, and try and get all in agaisnt the moron.


uh, it can, if it's a flawed thought process, I'll see if i can drag up an example...oooh here's one!


lol

Well good players can, maninly due to generous folks like you contributing to the prizepool.

In cash the variables are much different so you can become a profitable player in spite of the odds that suggest otherwise. Factors like you can quit when ahead and recover from being busted make this a more achievable goal.

Impressive first post phatom_lord. Your raise pf, bet the flop, and move all-in theory is based on seeing the queen yes? Do you still bet the flop if you miss? Because statistically most of the time you will.

Lets all kill Mantis, KILL KILL KILL. LOL @ jumping on a guy. He made a stupid remark and we want to crucify him. Grow up please.

Well, NOW I'm going to go for the kill.

MANTIS:

What is your full name?
I assume MANTIS01 is your online screename on Pokerstars and Party Poker, yes?
Assuming I am correct in that assumption - then you don't seem to be very good at online tournaments.
Have you had many live cashes?
Are you a profitable live tournament player?

I'm sick of reading your lengthy, technically incorrect and horrendously flawed posts that are delivered with an air of confidence that is rather baffling. I'm a profitable tournament player. Flushy is a much more profitable tournament player than I am. The basic points I have been arguing on this forum the past while are fundamental tenants regarding optimal tournament strategy that have been conceived and fine tuned elsewhere by astoundingly profitable tournament players.

If you lose at tournament poker and play them recreationally then that is fine. But if that IS the case then maybe you should stop and think about whether this gibberish you keep spouting out really is as wise as you believe it to be. Saying that it is impossible to be a long - term winner in tournament poker is ridiculous. Saying that tournament poker is not essentially about maths and EV is ridiculous. Your advice could prove to be costly for anyone that would take it seriously.

You are arguing the losing side of debates that have been held years ago. And I'm tired of it. So I'm calling you out. What are your results? Because you sound like a losing tournament player. And if I'm wrong on that point and you are infact a huge winner at MTTs then I'll counter every single paragraph of every single one of your posts and I can win the very same arguments that have been held on other hand analysis boards long before.

But if you are breakeven; or losing; or a slight winner then that is it. It would be time for you really to just accept that you are WRONG. And this is a matter of right and wrong btw.

Your turn.

Luckylloyd is upset.

Good read.

By the way, my full name is Lloyd O' Farrell. In the interests of fairness.

Are you really lucky though?

Please everyone, no point anyone getting upset, swearing or anyone name calling anyone else

Lets keep it cool, and make this board attractive for everyone to visit please

Cheers Lloyd, 1st time someone said that to me.

Swearing removed.

cheers, I enjoy reading passionate posts but as a neutral in some of these "locking horns debates" I'd rather no one fell out"

He luckboxed his way to a GJP win a year ago from what Floppy has told me ;)

(This should make him angry if he isnt already! LOL)

I run so good it's frightening.

Internet - serious business.

all ur fault rich. u should have pushed all in pre flop, naz reluctantly folds and u dont post the hand.

 ;izimbra;

Bit harsh IMO, it's one thing to disagree with someone and to argue/point out the flaws in their thinking (and i believe this to be the right thing to do as some folks might actually take in some wrong advise that could potentially harm them) but it's another to belittle the person.

Not to mention it is not in the true "spirit" of this community.
Personal attacks are out of order.

Relax, lighten up and break bread, this ain't nice.

agree completely, well said.

Hopefully we can all move on

ifm, this is a hand analysis board. People come in here (presumably) to learn about the game and improve. Poker is a game in which people open them selves up to winning and losing money. I assume that if you want to learn and improve it means that you wish to not lose money. As such, it's not right to allow advice that could potentially lose people money go unchallenged. Yes, this debate is a heated one. However, I'm not making any personal insults at Mantis. I'm questioning the credibillity of his poker experience. I think this is fair given how out of line with current thinking his strat is.

If this is a community, then I assume that the community wants to see its players developing and winning.

I agree with that but i feel calling on someone to post results and indeed looking up someones results with the aim to show them up is wrong.
Don't look mine up BTW.........

Obviously not lol

I can but try

Would pay good money to see LL and his adversaries in a debating chamber

Oh come on IFM, the information on the MTT results of online screenames is freely available via www.officialpokerrankings.com or the pokerdb.com.

Tighty wants the board to move on. How can it move on as a useful and functional Hand analysis board if we are debating stuff that was worked out on twoplustwo and elsewhere back in 2005?

If you want a hand analysis board where people can stop in to get a pat on the back for folding KK preflop for 115BBs; or where everyone is allowed their little speak without challenge then fair enough. But ye will all be kidding yourselves I'm afraid.

I want the board to develop and this to move on too..two seperate things!

now......where were we?

I don't think thats quite true.

ok, life's too short to debate semantics. for me anyway....


continue........... :)up :)

Is that not simantics?

nope

http://m-w.com/dictionary/semantics

I missed most of that comp being ill in my hotel room, although I do remember a comedy moment on Day 1 where Lloyd and another fella both got it all-in with Aces against Aces, the amusing reason being the little bit of acting that always happens in these situations. That table felt tough that day and I played badly including a suckout with 7-7 on a 6-4-3 board vs A-A where I should've just folded preflop. I was happy to get moved to an easier table then I busted out in record time with red Kings on an 9h 5h 4h board vs 5-5 after I CRAI when he overbet the flop.

Sick recall king. :)

Play seven card stud and razz obv.

whoosh?

damn he got me again

.

 ;sleep;

lot of similarities between mantis and LL, perhaps one person with a jekyll and hyde character?

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=21393.0 (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=21393.0)

lower variance would have been top of my list of why it's easier to be a profitable cash player than a tournament player, despite the fact that tournament's fields are generally so soft.


Ty.

no not all of it. my raise pf advice is because it's the best play, do i need to explain why?  post flop is because we hit the queen.



well it depends obv, we can C-bet other flops besides Q and A high ones, and other flops we'll have to give up on, but even so the whole play in general is +Ev.

lol

I think this might become the most popular pha thread ever..!!!

While I understand the mods points about civility on the forum and I agree there is a certain level of decency that should be kept but Mantis posts or so incredibly wrong and fundamentally flawed in every way that it is in interest of everyone who reads this for it to be noted. For the good of the forum this has to be pointed out and has it to happen over and over again when he posts.
If people take him seriously then there money will be gone in a mr flash

As long as it doesn't get overly personal and counter arguments are made sensibly are fine

Mob mentality, and ganging up on someone for "sport" aren't

Yeah but at least they are amusing, they remind the rest of us that we have a sizeable edge

phantom and cooker are friends of LL? this is like bullying the fat kid at school, it's boring now.

This ain't 2p2.

Ever since Mantis' first post people have been telling him he's wrong. This leads to discussion which may actually help people learn.

He might be wrong but he's still a blonde.

Your right, it certainly isn't. This board has a long way to go in that sense although there is a batter standard of decency if you will which is to be encouraged.

lolaments

LOL@ the 2 new ppl that have never posted b4 coming on here to have a pop@ Mantis. LL get ur grandma to sign up too. ;)
This thread is LOL egoaments.

When I first started playing, I used to post on a hand analysis board at a different site and I said something fundamentally moronic about a hand. (Basically I was a results orientated kipper) A player on the site ripped into my post and cut my argument to shreds in an unforgiving , vitriolic way. At first I was slightly offended, but I knew the guy was a very good player and gradually the points he made sunk in and impacted on me.

It left me a better player and I'm really glad to the guy for this (hectorjelly, or daragh thomas if any of you guys know him).

At the tables you'll get bullied and pushed about a LOT more than over an internet forum board. Most of what lloyd says is very reasoned argument and although you can practically see the steam coming out of his ears on some of his posts, if you look past the odd abusive comment you can see lots of very useful analysis that if you take it on board will make lots of players better.

---

To me Mantis is different. I respect his writing style, I think he writes in an educated, interesting way that many people enjoy reading and that is his gift. Unfortunately his poker analysis is a bit lacking and he is stubborn about conceding ground which causes these conflicts with the better players. I'm not the world's best mtt player (although I've managed to stay ahead of variance for the last 4 years, defying the maths lol) but some of the points you make Mantis get the steam coming out of my ears too!
 
Having said that, many people have pointed out that his comments stimulate interesting debate which is true and I'd be keen for Mantis to continue to contribute to the board, although if you write in a less authoritarian, definitive manner and take on board some of the points made by the winning mtt players, they'll be fewer off topic arguments and more stimulating debate, which is the way it should be...

PL and Cooker are posters on the boards.ie poker forum. I didn't specifically ask anyone to come over here to defend me - I just posted a link to this thread IN THE BAD BEAT SECTION.

Darragh has torn me a new one on boards many a time and it has been one of the key factors in the improvement of my game.

Wrong, I have posted before and have been a member here for a month.

a lesson in manners hector forgot

Bugger me!


How many stalkers do you need to be officially classed as famous?


A variety of strategies on display to try and make me feel bad. I've gotta say my personal favourite is "Attack of the Hateful Newbies"...lol. Some of you guys need to just relax a bit. Please realise that time spent on Mantis flaming is time wasted...nobody can make me feel bad.

So let's kick off with a quote from Phil Helmuth after he made a -EV play....

"Your criticism of me represents the way the world thinks. I represent the way I think."

Really love that.

There is a lot of irony in 10 people sitting around a poker table and the 9 like-minded players all agreeing that they have the edge over the 1 person that thinks differently. Not as much irony though as hearing LuckyLloyd chastise players on the forum for being results orientated only for him to demand to see results....that has to be a lol moment for sure.

Even if I was the worst player in the world I could still justify my confidence on the subject of poker by asking how many major golf championships David Leadbetter has won??...........So why is his opinion valued and respected??

When I talk about poker I only offer comment on tournaments. Cash games don't interest me for lots of reasons...I don't have any experience to offer a useful opinion...so I don't offer one. Tournaments are a different matter though...I have played thousands of them over the last four years so my opinions are based on a lot of experience. Forgive me for not wilting to the opinions of those with far less tournament experience than me...but I do take valid comment on board.



I notice that some of my best poker is played when it is instinctive. T.J. Cloutier said that your gut feeling is often correct and I tend to agree with this. I want to explore the instinctive aspects of poker theory and this is both difficult to quantify and often conflicts with the maths. When you are faced with a difficult decision you are often pulled between your instincts and your rational thought, heart or mind stuff, and I want to understand the instinctive side of the game.

Players who are left-brain orientated gravitate towards perfecting the science route...and usually have most success in the cash format where these skills are a fundamental requirement. This is a perfectly valid way to play the game. It doesn't much appeal to me though...I mean you can give a robot that acquired skill and it will be a fair cash game player. While maths is an aspect of poker, for me it is fundamentally a game about people, how they think, how they act and why they do the things they do. Developing a deep understanding of an individual person and appreciating the way they think is a skill a robot cannot learn...and once you develop this skill it is a very powerful weapon in tournament poker. Again, some of my best poker is played when I forget what cards I have. I am just focussed on the person and what they are thinking....I mean, one of the first things we learn is to play the person not the cards.

My skill-set is such that I prefer the live game where real people and all their individual habits are on display. So while it may be true that if you bet x% of the pot you will make y profit in the long run...I tune into what the right bet is for THAT individual on that particular day based on everything I have seen and how that person feels. Of course, if you play a lot of on-line cash you loose the whole human element of the game and so it is little wonder you place a lot of focus on the numbers. I play people and I play tournaments and I have won lots of tournaments...so I am justifiably comfortable with my ability in this format.

So I come to Blonde to see if I can bounce a few instinctive thoughts off passionate poker players and develop a deeper understanding of different types of players and the way they think. But often the responses I get will be about the amount of words I use or that my writing style is offensive. Who cares about that stuff and why?? This is poker hand analysis not a sewing circle for middle-aged women. Please don't allow me to offend you. I am here to talk poker not score Brownie points by saying the "right" thing.

One thing I notice a lot with poker players and people in general is this craving of status. How much does being the "best" in the eyes of somebody else win you?? So why care?? Let's all join hands and skip around the playground chanting Lloyd is best or Flushy is best....what fun.

These players say "How could you call with that?" and make it a statement not a question because they only know that the "fish" doesn't think like them and is therefore "wrong". That question is actually a very important one...and the answer even more so. People with closed minds do not develop an understanding of individuality and so find it difficult to cope with. Knowing what makes people tick is a very powerful weapon in poker. In this thread I specifically used the word "son" to see if I could trigger a reaction from LuckyLloyd....and in his very next post....bingo.


Knowing how to push people's buttons and knowing what will get them to react is what poker is all about for me. I play people more than I play the cards. Meanwhile, Lloyd goes to a lot more effort to flame me and I really couldn't care less....so a far less effective strategy. You cannot develop an understanding of people if you have a closed mind. So the people who have said in this thread that checking with the A-Q is "wrong" are being so narrow-minded. There are lots of positives in doing this. I have experimented with this loads of times and got the tournament changing result I was looking for. Mixing up your play, changing things around and doing things a bit different are all essential for tournament success...but some just say it's "wrong". How on earth do you combat an opponent playing this way if you don't even entertain the notion of it?? Wake up guys...loads of people will check here...just like Tightend did. It may not be your preferred play but if you are not even prepared to discuss the different options you will never progress. But that's your business.

New members are prevented from commenting because of this childish behaviour and that is a real shame...because they may have something interesting to say. Even better, they may have something different to say, and if they do I want to hear it. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant...I want to understand it anyway. This understanding allows me to make the "magical" plays that will forever be just gibberish to some.

My thoughts do indeed spark debate and this is, errr, a debating board....so this is a good thing yes? And the best way to show others that a point in not valid is to debate it, not squeal that it's wrong.

So let's talk poker in the New Year because I share your passion for the game if nothing else.

Happy X-mas

So in short, you are a losing tournament player, but you have experience.

The only thing you take away from the post Flushy is something that isn't written. Well done.

The thing I love most about this thread is the ironic title.

we;; the first few pages went fine :)

- You can continue to blah, blah that maths = cashgames and tournaments = people game all you like. And you can continue to say that they are like chalk and cheese all you like. But I say you are wrong and that good fundamental poker is the base for playing both; i.e. play each hand to maximise EV;
- You can say that this is a debating forum so you should have the right to turn up here and make whatever arguments you wish like this is a game for your amusement and entertainment. That hand analysis threads are little fun fests where the objective is to win an argument. But I say you are wrong and this is about money; therefore meaning that the real objective of these threads is simply to figure the most correct play that will yield the greatest long - term profit and help people to improve;
- You can say that you have "experience"of tournaments and that whether someone is a better player or holds a superior track record is irrelevant - therefore meaning that if you express an opinion it should be valid. Sounds good, but doesn't hold when your advice and opinions are flawed at the foundations and technically incorrect. I say poker is maths. I am telling you that maths is an area where this is right and wrong. If you want to argue with the maths then your results do become relevant again. Because if you are a losing player it would simply make sense and fit in with how awful your strat is;

YES, I do say that tournaments are about the long run. That variance is huge in tournament poker and therefore short - term results don't matter. So yeah, if you are a loser in tournaments it could be just that you run bad despite playing perfectly. But the probability would be that you have massive leaks as per your posts. I certainly think that would be the +EV assumption in any case.


SO:

Your name is?
Are you a profitable tournament player?


It may suit yourself to take pride in the fact that you think differently to everyone about poker tournaments. I take pride in the fact that I win money from playing poker tournaments. You may believe that as long as you can write a paragraph on a point it makes it a valid one. Well lol. But I guess poker is a game filled with people who practice self delusion at the end of every session; every week; every month; every year. I've met plenty of players in live cardrooms who will feel good about the fact that they won six nights last week despite the fact that they spunked back all the profit plus a heap of cash on the seventh night. They won't say they lost money if you ask them though - they'll say that they won six nights out of seven. Sounds good, eh? Also, they're usually the guys who talk about "feel"; and "reads"; and "knowing what he had"; and that "everyone plays their own way"; and that "it's all luck really".

Daniel Negreanu article form eons ago:

"There is feeling poker, then there is winning poker"

Lloyd

Your attitude is bad and you seem to be lacking in some quite basic life skills.  Mantis is entitled to put his opinions forward and you are entitled to yours.  What ppl take from his and your posts is up to them.  To take a bullying attitude and attempt to embarrass someone over their results is childish and in any case it is unlikely that you can be sure that most players are in fact losers or winners.  My results show a healthy profit, but take away 2 big final tables and I'm 5k down.  I've got a 5% ROI in sitngoes but I'm $6k down as a result of a drink fuelled escapade involving a $5k turbo sitngo and a couple of other high buyins. 

There is more to poker than maths, if there wasn't bots would already rule and they don't.  I play so much online that I lose touch with the non-maths aspects of live poker and if someone takes an (admittedly extreme) non-maths view it adds to the discussion even if it leads to dismissing the view.  When you have KK and that fcking Ace pops up on the flop is a hugely different situation live than online, so dicussion about "feel" when correctly explored is going to be helpful to me at least.

lol quality, got the HH by any chance? did you play like a loon?

long deleted.....

ps i was ahead on the flop.

did you "feel" you played well though?

yikes..that must have been some hangover

I felt invincible.  

 ;applause;

Sensible stuff when you make the point that it is near impossible to quantify your true winrate in live tournaments because it is impossible to play enough to properly outrun variance - and by the time you do the games and players will have changed. But the point is that we need to try and do the best we can to be winners. Thats what my posts are about.

Mantis' post has sapped my will to argue.

phew!  debate, not argue!!

Posted by: doubleup

That is an excellent post doubleup.

Everytime I read a Mantis post. It takes me back to my school days and reading Hamlet when Polonius had 1 of his speeches. A just never ending barrage of words but when you look at the substance, not much there.

That took a hell of a lot of reading. Funny though. All i will say which kind of defends MANTIS is I have donked from a hell of a lot of tournaments becasue teh BB checked/flat called oop a big ace and I just couldn't put him on it later on and decided to stack with my rags. However this may be because I'm a fish :).

Posted by: cooker3

A never ending barrage of words that lacks any real substance is an interesting way to describe Hamlet.

lol

That round goes to MANTIS tbh :P.

The speeches by Polonius.

"Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't."

Yes its the battle of the egos, fun to watch while its an even match but not so good when it turns into a 'lets get mantis' thread. Good on you mantis for continuing to come out fighting while the school bullies have their digs. This is the very reason a lot people dont have the confidence to post stuff about their own hands on here. We dont all know how to play perfect poker and if I grew an ego as big as some on here, I really dont think I'd ever want to.

 Blonde, if you are serious about getting more people involved in the PHA thread it might be an idea to have some regular posters who are open enough to debate and not ridicule.  I hope that comes over as constructive criticism and not downright rude :)

some might argue with this........  a quote from http://nd.essortment.com/whoispolonius_rgjo.htm  when i googled it. I might not agree with some of M's poker moves but c'mon, the bell is ringing so you better get back to school :)


'Many literature buffs believe that the character of Polonius in Shakespeare's Hamlet is nothing but a rambler, spouting insights that sound wise on the surface but are shallow upon further exploration. I do not agree. The aforementioned line occurs during the famous speech that near its conclusion, professes the words, "To thine own self be true". The actual truth is that Polonius has great depth and insight into himself and the minds and souls of the other characters. How else could one explain the stark wisdom that is emitted toward the close of Polonius' long-winded observation? This was Shakespeare's way of telling us that Polonius was not just a simple advisor with a propensity for egotism, but an oddly complex, well-rounded man.'

*sigh*

A poker hand analysis board is just that, a board where we analyse hands we all play and see can we play better and improve from our mistakes. Nobody plays perfect, we all have hands where we are nearly embarrased by thinking of it. If you post a hand and people criticise how you play a hand then that is a good thing. It will make you think about a hand and hopefully improve and ensure you don't make the same mistake in future.
You have to be able take criticism. If people are scared about posting here then seriously don't be. Nobody is perfect, we've all done it and you will learn so so much. Is a small bit of embarrasment really worth losing knowledge or information which potentially can be worth huge amounts of money?

As for accusals of "schoolyard bullies" which I guess is at me amongst others. It is not like that. I have not personally attacked Mantis in anyway, I don't know the guy, sure he is sound in real life and I have no issue with him as an person but when someone posts something on a poker theory board which I feel to be incorrect then I and others should be applauded for it as long as it doesn't get personal. He will learn(hopefully) as will others reading it. If I am wrong then I expect even hope that someone corrects me and tells me I am wrong. I learn and are a better player for it.

Now as for all opinions are valid. There are a lot of styles in poker, there are lots of ways to be play hands, absolutely but there are somethings which are just downright wrong and incorrect and when someone says otherwise saying it's their opinion so it can't be wrong it simply false and not beneficial for anyone reading this board and sooner people learn that the better.

yes I agree and you make sense but to openly criticise without it being constructive is not good at all. Its not very educational at all, just looks like a bunch of people who want to be right. Here's a quote from tikay from a while back...


I dont think I need to add more to that:)

As for calling you a school bully- not at all, you are simply joining in with the bullies (maybe its peer pressure....lol) but fuelling the fire and keeping it going. Everyone to their own but maybe you should look at your own post about Blonde being more decent than 2+2 and try to go along with that culture and ethos? Each to their own though:)

Mad
PS, dont 'sigh' me because its rather irritating when i'm trying to make a point but then again hardly surprising given your posts to date :) Some people thought the world was flat once apon a time and that you could have fallen off the edge. Without differing opinions we would be stale and boring and wouldn't learn much at all. Look at what doubleup said and take heed. Dont you want folk to think outside your box, even when you think they are completely wrong? Some of 'feel' discussion will aid some people

Agree with that totally.  Which is why ad hominem attacks are unnecessary.  Criticise the advice, condemn the way a hand is played, even mock it if you must - but there's no need to criticise or mock the actual person.

Your quite right, blonde poker just isn't ready for a PHA board, that i think is the problem, the majority of members would rather talk about things not related to poker rather than improving their games.

I will continue to post in PHA but its impossible to pussy foot around when people have mangled hands, a spade after all is a spade.

Part of learning is the revelation that you are uneducated in certain things, if that causes embarrassment to some people then they can carry on as they are steadily losing, but hopefully not more than they can afford.

As for the whole Mantis debate, the guy is clearly intelligent and writes better than most, i personally feel his poker strat is very lacking, as long as he continues to debate here then i will continue to point out what i believe to be flaws in his strat, i am sure he expects nothing less than that, it is the nature of PHA.

This is what I was getting at except this is written better :)
1 thing I will say about Mantis, he would likely kick my ass at an writing contest

If people want to attack you personally that really is there problem. It's the internet so you should care even less. Post your thoughts, criticism when you feel you have something to add, read critical advice impassively when your play is getting criticized. The point of this board is self improvement as a poker player and helping out other people when you see their mistakes; that can also help you however when your own advice gets criticized :).

I think BLonde is ready for PHA but what is required is some strategy around how to engage with more members if that is a priority for Blonde. People partake in non poker related discussion because its a community forum. From the business end there is no sense of how to get people involved in analysis. Its the same people all the time and as Tikay says, the sarcasm flies out and on this occassion it got very personal around one member. I'd be interested in why you  think Blonde is not ready? Maybe people dont want your style of debate but it has all the fondations to be a really good learning environment and indeed it can be. Ive learned loads here, I learn from a lot of the PHA threads and I guess loads of other folk do to. Saying its not ready is in my opinion is not true. It just lacks direction and focus.

I don't think it got personal, i think it stayed on topic.



Mainly because people want to be treated with kid gloves, they don't like being told they have done something wrong.

This is evident by the apparent hundreds who don't feel they can post on PHA, i think it tallys to more than the total number of regular posters on the forum, that's quite an amount who are not ready.

they want people to explain why... look at the typical 2p2 attitude, someone posts a hand, and the response is something like:

"wow this hand makes my eyes bleed and you are a losing player, give up the game before you lose your net worth, Id love to play you HU4ROLLZ, you are an idiot"

and then their analysis when pressed is:

"bet flop, cr turn"

neither of these posts are a shred of use to anyone at all, and this is whats starting to happen on here. The whole point of HA is where people analyse hands, not just to be told what other people would do, and have those other people tell them in a non-descriptive authoritarian tone.  People dont want kid gloves, they just want people to treat them as humans rather then lesser beings.

Almost every winning player at poker has benefited from reading archives from places like 2p2, and almost all the posters there in the old days spoke/typed/explained in a very respectful manner, so gaining from that experience, and extending that same privelage to the current crop of new players shouldn't be too difficult.

POTW 

no, mocking is unacceptable. It really is not rocket science. If you want to help others get better, and as i said before, almost every winning player has had others helping them, either via archives or the fortune of getting someone to help them with their game, without a fee,   they should be very willing to help others, and they should do it in a more respectful manner. Criticism is obligatory, but do it in a manner where you explain why something is wrong, dont do it in a manner where you come across like your shit dont stink and the other person is an amoeba for *gasp* not being as good at poker as you.

One of the biggest trueisms in poker is that almost no-one is anywhere near as good as they think they are, and that inherent arrogance busts bankrolls much more efficiently then it builds them, so just show more respect, think of posters as people, and explain WHY you think actions are wrong, instead of just telling people they are wrong.

He would kick most peoples arses when it comes to writing:)

The comments that lament the fact that posters don't explain why they would play a hand differently confuse me. I always give reasons for why I would do things differently (as does Flushy and Cooker) and yet we are still the "bad guys". Even when you give a detailed reasoning and analysis the counter is: "well I have my style that works for me and I'm choosing to stick to it". For me, it is those types of posts that are the real problem.

When people post on a PHA board they do it in the hope to improve their game (or they should). One thing that pisses good posters on various boards off quicker than anything else is when people who you have seen around in certain threads post up hands or give replies with incorrect reasoning that has been debated a number of times in the past couple of weeks. If you get the sense that the debate is not moving forward or that people are not really assimilating the advice they receive and insist on making the same mistakes repeatadly or bang on with the same incorrect nonensene constantly then the motivation to contribute evaporates. This also follows when you see many threads where the motivation of the original poster is just to receive reassurance that they played ok - not that they want to undertake a rigurous assessment of the decisions they made.

In essence, that is what this thread is about from my perspective. I firmly believe that this thread was not pushed off topic by me. It was about drawing a line on a particular strategic and mathamatical fundamental so that the debate - and by extension the hand analysis board - can move forward.

That is how you see things in your head Lloyd.

Now read how Cooker involves himself in the discussion of TightEnd's hand.


That is how it is in reality.

Confusion over.

There are many many other eg's of similar and in reality it is those types of posts which are the real problem.

turned in to a good post eh

That's the kind of question I might ask of Hand Analysis, and that's the type of answer I would expect to receive.

There might sometimes be the odd bit of mocking and slightly unnecessary personal criticism, but in general I think the PHA Board is working fairly well - maybe slightly more discipline might be required to stop what should be a 2 or 3 page analysis escalating into a 100+ post monster - but it's really not that bad. (Is it?)

Not the world mad, i said PHA.

My market research was your quote from Tikay and i prefaced it with the word apparent because i don't believe tikay.

*sigh*    :D ;)

While I concede I may have been overly harsh in the above post my point still stands in general and does generally go along with what Lloyd was saying.
If someone whether you, me or whoever posts something which is fundamentally incorrect and has been shown in many previous posts then it is only right that this be argued. If this continues over numerous threads and the same "mistakes" are been made over and over again then should be pinpointed and pointed out everytime. It's for good of everyone.

Also for whoever said they rather the good posters explain their reasoning. Yes that would be good but people only have enough time in the day. I would much rather a quality poster reply to any HH I post saying something like raise pf, b/f the flop etc then not post at all. That way I can think why they like that line and what the advantages are and do some thinking for myself.
Something is better then nothing

 ;ashamed;

But there will always be winning players that fundamentally disagree with anothers view, even after it has been debated and tossed around from Monday to Friday. I think this board should really just be about stimulating the way people think rather than getting into the facade of finding the "right" play.

I think only winning players who provide proof of this over at least 5 years should be allowed to respond to any HH/PHA request.
The posting rules on this board should be ammended thus forthwith and the fool who omitted it to begin with needs to be publicly flogged.
Those that are permitted to respond (possibly one though i doubt that) are therefore entitled to abuse at will any moron stupid enough to post in this board.

Terms like "retard", "retarded", "moronic", "are you really that fkin thick", "let me know when you are playing next cuz i wanna be in that game you freakin muppet", "you are so crap LOLOLOLOLOLOL", "i nailed your momma last night" etc. should be standard, in fact we need smilies that help to convey this basic advice.

Anyone with an opposing view should be killed, no, worse, publicly humiliated by a gang comprising of all (both) of the one (or more) (or less) true HA god.

I'll mod the board, piece of piss!!

I second this. I want to design the "ur a piece of crap, my dead auntie could have played that hand better than you" smilie.

(http://cellar.org/images/smilies2/mock.gif)

hahhahhahahaa

I don't see the difference

maybe you need you thoughts stimulated:)

Just out of interest did you get to see the SB cards..what did he have?

Good point suz :)

Crikey, a question on the hand itself?!??!

I pushed,  6h 5h called obviously, and so did KQ off in the SB......(horrible, but I can't really comment after I mangled it!)

 

what hand?

12 pages ago, click on page 1!!

Posted by: TightEnd

A raise would have been better then....lol. But in a parallel universe the flop comes Q high, 2 hearts, and you've got a major coup on your hands.

I think Mad's post about Polonius was excellent and pretty relative to poker. Shakespeare loaded everything with hidden meaning and it is all there to be unearthed if you look for it. How you interpret his words, the hidden message, and whether you even acknowledge it's existence, is all down to individual interpretation. Did Polonius have no depth? Did that nervous smile at the poker table mean nothing? It is there to be interpreted.

Are you comparing your on PHA to Shakespeare?

LOL

No Cooker did. lol.