Anyone who has not seen these videos on Cruz yet, they are well worth a watch. Mainly about his footwork:

PART ONE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmktgcAaTVM

PART TWO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNp3NmM9180

PART THREE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFIvCBuwsPc

All the fights were really, really good. And I had worked myself into a frenzy for the main event. Then that happened

I feel like I've had amazing sex but a really crap orgasm.

I mean, delighted McGregor won... but I wanted to see a fight. Wtf was Aldo doing?

Yeah I agree. Rose looked amazing, but I fear for her if she fights Joanna, or Gadhela for that matter. Ofc things might be different in 18 months time; she's young and is gonna keep developing. But they'll most likely rush her into fighting the winner of JJ and Gadhela before she is ready.

I was never really a massive fan of Paige before this fight. But I love her now... what a badass she is to take that mauling for five rounds, especially as she had so many chances to tap out without losing any face. She's got me as a fan for life after last night.

Anyone see the Holly Holm Q&A earlier? Was hilarious - the Irish just took it over and it got very loud lol.

McGregor looked terrible at the weigh-in just now

Got fightpass working finally. Apparently I just missed a cracking fight/performance though?

I'm out and about so trying to watch it on my iPhone via fightpass, but doesn't seem to work for some reason.

Has anyone been able to get tonight's prelims up on fightpass? Doesn't seem to work on mine...

My picks for UFC 194 main card: Holloway, Nelson, Romero, Rockhold... and who the fuck knows! I want McGregor to win, but no idea what's going to happen. Just that it's gonna be a spectacle.

Mendes will beat Edgar on Friday IMO, although I will be rooting for Frankie.

Rose will submit Paige tonight I predict.

lets have a DC game on the live stream during wpt, put me down

me too.

3rd.

4th

During one of Dave's poker trips to LA, I received a text from him whilst I was mid-session in the private game mentioned in his post above:

"Stu! I've been losing in the games here and my wire transfer from the UK has not arrived yet. So I only have $200 to my name till my money comes through, not even enough to cover my hotel. If Skalie is playing in the game with you then please ask him what he advises me to do"

I read the text out to the table, and without pausing for thought Skalie advised, "Only one way out of that predicament. Tell him to spin it up on the craps table".

And just as Skalie was saying this, I received a second text from Lil'Dave:

"Then, when Skalie gives his advice ... tell him I am already doing it!"

I think this was an excellent PHA post, far more interesting than generic spots from online games etc.

Reason you didn't get many responses is probably because it is really tough to give an answer to these sort of questions without being present in the game.

As played I'd be all-in vs his £100 blind raise. He wants to gamble, let's gamble. It's not like you have waited for till you have him by the goolies to gamble with him... you're giving him a good chance to break you without him having to get ridiculously lucky to do so. You'll have the best of it, but not too much the best of it, which is the right way to approach these sort of spots. Gamble with the gamblers etc.

I had this idea about rakeback/player rewards. I am sure there is a reason why it would not work, but I just cannot think of a problem with it.

Imagine if rakeback/rewards worked like this:

1. Rake is reduced a bit. So everyone pays a bit less up front.

2. The total amount of rakeback/rewards the site pays out is also reduced (so the site still makes about the same amount overall).

3. Instead of allocating this rakeback based on volume, it is allocated based on how much a player has lost at the tables over that week.

High volume winning regs would lose out a little bit under this system - they would pay less upfront rake but would not get any rakeback if they have a winning week. But weaker players would benefit - they would also pay less upfront rake, but would get a much higher amount of the rakeback since they would have more losing weeks than the winning regs.

So every player who has a losing week will get at least some money back (from the 'rakeback kitty') at the end of the week, and this amount will be in direct proportion to the amount they have lost. The way RB is distributed is changed to reward the losing players rather than the winning high volume players.

Since every player who has a losing week would get a chunk of money put into their account at the start of the next week, this would keep players in the games (e.g. every player who busts their roll gets a small reload the following week for free) and keep the liquidity high.

I cannot think of a reason why this system could not work, and also cannot think why this would not be good for the long-term health of the games. Am I missing something?

Someone on the radio a bit back said that a sport should be defined as something you have to change your shoes to do.  Not entirely sure Sport England would agree 100% but it did make me smile.

That's an odd definition. That would mean gardening is a sport but snooker isn't.

According to the rules Player B has the right to call the clock. But that doesn't make it right.

I've never called the clock on anyone, ever. I can see how it could be justified in a tournament, especially if someone is constantly stalling. But in a cash game I don't think I will ever do it. Maybe I'll prove myself wrong at some point though.

Btw, Player A should learn to plan his hands better. When he bets over 2/5 of the effective stack on the turn he should already know what he is doing vs a jam. 250bbs is a lot of money to bet without a plan.

I think check/fold is the worst of your options.

IMO this is a better hand to put in a bet/folding range than a check/calling (or check/folding or check/deciding) range. Granted, it is not really for value in the usual sense since you will likely lose the pot more than 50% of the time once opponent does anything other than fold to your bet (he will either raise you off the hand, call and outdraw you, or call and bluff you on turn/river). And neither is it a bluff obviously. It is mainly just an equity realisation bet, i.e. protection. It is a gain for hero when opponent folds a hand like QJ. Plus, there is some value component to a bet, since a decent chunk of villain's calling range will be one pair hands. These will often just check it down unimproved and so we often get to realise our equity against that part of his range. Sure, it sucks to bet knowing that we cannot continue betting most runouts without being a spazztard, and will have to check/fold the turn or river a good chunk of the time. But it's okay to have some hands that we bet with on the flop and then give up with on the turn. And when our bet-once-then-give-up hands have good showdown value vs the section of villain's range that he will also seek to showdown cheaply it is ideal.