Bastian Landehagen
Marco Lucidi
Anton Smolyanskiy

Thats easy for you to say !

Come on, give me some credit, I didn't pick the top three ...

Bastian Landehagen
Marco Lucidi
Anton Smolyanskiy

Go for Mando Diao - "Ode to Ochrasy" (No idea if they're in the charts, but doubt it).

Failing that, get Nouvelle Vague - "Bande A Part" or the "1er Album".

Heh, don't get me wrong - I agree with you that is was a stupid call, don't really know why I made it to be honest. Was pretty much on tilt due to something that had happened on another table at that time, but I know that that's not much of an excuse. The reason why I asked, though:

After I made the call, there was quite a lot of discussion on the table about it, and two of the other players claimed it was a justified call, considering that both of the othe players were rather desperate for chips, therefore pushing with any two broadway, probably even overlapping to some extent giving me 6 outs and reducing their chance to improve. Didn't make too much sense to me, was just wondering if anyone here would come up with something similar.

*off to go install poker stove*

PokerStars Game #7847535181: Tournament #40109564, $10+$1 Hold'em No Limit - Level VI (100/200) - 2007/01/09 - 13:30:27 (ET)
Table '40109564 1' 9-max Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: modawg3434 (3595 in chips)
Seat 4: moritzey (2740 in chips)
Seat 7: Clinkz13 (1095 in chips)
Seat 8: Kenta (1780 in chips)
Seat 9: filicudi (610 in chips)
modawg3434: posts small blind 100
moritzey: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to moritzey [ ]
Clinkz13: raises 895 to 1095 and is all-in
Kenta: folds
filicudi: calls 610 and is all-in
modawg3434: folds
moritzey: calls 895
*** FLOP *** [ ]
*** TURN *** [ ] []
*** RIVER *** [ ] []
*** SHOW DOWN ***
moritzey: shows [ ] (a straight, Six to Ten)
Clinkz13: shows [ ] (a pair of Kings)
Clinkz13 said, "76?"
moritzey collected 970 from side pot
filicudi: shows [ ] (high card Ace)
moritzey collected 1930 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2900 Main pot 1930. Side pot 970. | Rake 0
Board [ ]
Seat 1: modawg3434 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: moritzey (big blind) showed [ ] and won (2900) with a straight, Six to Ten
Seat 7: Clinkz13 showed [ ] and lost with a pair of Kings
Seat 8: Kenta folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: filicudi (button) showed [ ] and lost with high card Ace

4 get paid, 11 left

Got to agree with Bongo here. I have a laptop, but that's only because I'm moving places every two months or so, and portability is important to me. If you'll only use your computer at home, then it's got to be a desktop. Much better value for money, bigger screen, better cooling, cheaper+faster CPU, more memory, easier to upgrade &c &c &c.

OK, cool, thanks for all your replies. What Andrew just said makes a lot of sense, I suppose, as in that two pair isn't necessarily a very strong hand as such, and also the thing about missed flush-draws / straight-draws that could appear as one or two pair in the statistic - it would be nice to be able to filter those hands out, or even better, filter out all hands that were checked-down from the blinds .. will have a closer look at the software later to see if I can find something like that.

I invested into pokertracker in November and my statistics are slowly beginning to reach a size that allows to draw conclusions about my play. In particular, I was looking at my 'Known Final Hand Summary' earlier on. My Won%at Showdown is below 50% for High Card, One Pair and Two Pair (44% for that), and those three totals are negative, too.

I was wondering, is that the same for everyone else, i.e. that you only have a positive net total from three of a kind onwards? I can understand the high card bit, but was thinking that for pairs and even more for two pair, I should have a positive expectation?

Second question, if anyone knows, as this statistic only shows the results when it went to showdown, is there a statistic that includes hands where my bet induced a fold?

Any comments would be appreciated.

So I just need to avoid another broadway card - (which is an easy fold)

Surely another broadway card is exactly what you want? Your full house over their trips or fh?

Wouldn't want to give a free card, though, as any ten or ace or nine would send you packing on the river. As boldie said, bet something around the $50 mark, and then reconsider on the river. Lowcard would be nice, broadway would be nice, 9,T,A wouldn't be, but there would still be a fair chance that you're ahead, after all, unless your opponent has AK, he would have had to call $50 on the turn with a gutshot and second-pair or worse - not too likely?

What would you do in this situation:

12 left, 4 get paid
I have 1,000 chips, Short-Stack has 600, SB has 4,500
Blinds are getting painful at 100-200

Mid-Pair in the BB (say 77-TT)

Short-stack in MP raises 400 and is all-in (600)
SB calls for 500
BB does what? Push, call or fold?

I used to push in this situation, but now I'm thinking that it might be better to flat-call and then push/call all-in on any flop. My reasoning behind this is that if the SB has me beat on the flop, I would loose regardless of how I play preflop. The only two situations where call-pushing would be different to pushing immediately are (a) when I'm ahead on the flop, he folds and I would still be ahead by the river (in which case I make 1,800 instead of 2,600) and (b) when I'm ahead on the flop, he folds and I would have gotten outdrawn by the river (in which case I make 1,800 instead of being all-out).

If I push preflop, the SB simply cannot fold (400 for seeing 2,200) - however if I push on a flop that he missed, he might be more likely to fold, correct?

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

I would have folded on the flop.
Had I taken over on the turn, I would have folded there.
On the river, once again, I'd fold.

As you must have seen a showdown to be able to comment on this hand, I take it I am wrong?

It would be interesting to hear someone who supported the way the hand was played explain the reasoning behind playing it like that, and the range of hands you would have put the opponent on..

I detect a worrying tendency to turn serious and possibly even interesting topics into random chatter.

Scared of controversy?

Anyway, couple of replies to previous posts:

Tank: Both OT and NT matter, however OT requires more interpretation and is not to be taken literally in every aspect, some books within are prose, poems, songs &c. and should be considered as such. If you want to read something really worrying, just look at Judges - if you don't put a lot of thought into it and read it in context, I think the message could be quite disturbing.

Anyone who supports death penalty: Was just wondering, based on what you decide who deserves to be executed?

(A) Some higher, universal set of moral standards?
(B) Your own definition of morality?
(C) Whatever your Government, say the UK's decided to be the law?
(D) The UN's definition? The UNDHR? Amnesty's?
(E) Religion?

If so, concerning case (A), what would that morale be, and how could anyone decide on it?

(B) Who gives you the right to decide on morality of everyone? (Well, actually that's what I do, but I find it difficult to be so convinced of my own view on morality and justice that I could use these standards to kill anyone)

(C) So much for Sovereignty, then? In that case, surely you would also argue that we should intervene everywhere, where common UK law is contradicted? Where do you draw the line?

(D) None of these support the death penalty for similar reasons as given under (B)

(E) This is probably the hardest part to argue against, if someone claims their god forces them to commit any given action, including performing capital punishment. But then again, all states involved in this particular case are secular ones. That aside, being Christian myself, I cannot accept any other religion as a justification for anything whatsoever, and Christianity does not condone murder. And the difference between murder and capital punishment is a fine line ..


Hope I make some sort of sense, would be interesting to hear opinions on this morality issue. Oh, I'm probably going to be writing my dissertation on something related to this, so I might quote you all

[within]

By employing capital punishment one simply lowers oneself to the level of those punished. I don't see how executing someone (anyone) could in any way be a good starting point for a new nation. It utterly contradicts concept of human liberty, rights and dignity.

That said, yes, Saddam probably was an evil dictator, but for that matter there are a couple more of those around, and no, killing him did not make Iraq any more secure, safe or democratic than it is now. Prison would have been a far more suitable alternative, and even that is very disputable.

I for one, agree that it is good we got rid of Saddam, but as far as everything is concerned that happened within Iraq, under his rule, it is very difficult to hold him for those things accountable on a legal basis, using a Western legal system. After all, he was the ruler of that place, so if he decided to kill some people in their, how exactly can you disallow him to do so. Westphalia 1648, anyone? Technically, all he did was put himself into the same category as any US governour signing a death sentence in their respective court?! ... OK, that paragraph was a little blasphemous. 

Anyway, a couple of points, probably some already mentioned before:

- Civilised countries should not (and usually do not) extradite people to places where they are threatened with the death penalty. Shame the US seemed to apply different rules in this case

- Ten commandments, anyone? Thought the US called themselves a Christian nation of some sort?

- Lowering oneself to someone elses standards is just plain stupid. The best way to demonstrate the superiority over 'new Iraq' over 'old Iraq' would have been to not execute Saddam, but instead afford him what everyone deserves. A fair trial (it's not exactly fair when your lawyers keep getting shot, is it? and there's a fair few other reasons, too, but no need to go into detail, I think), a just sentence and hopefully a lifetime to sit in prison and not be able to sleep at night because of your bad conscience. Death just seems like the easy way out for everyone involved ..

- As far as Ian Huntley and co. are concerned, the same applies. Furthermore, I'd rather have 20 brutal rapists, murderers &c pp. in prison and costing the state money than one innocent person executed, just because of some missing piece of evidence that only turned up a couple of years later (If anyone's interested, google for exonerees or innocently executed in the US, it's long, long lists. One link: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110 ...)

'nuff said

See this thread

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=18480.new;boardseen#new

vaguely funny, but death penalty still sucks. not exactly my idea of a civilised nation.