[This story is based on the word of anonymous sources who did not provide us with ways to independently verify their claims. Though our principal source would certainly have intimate knowledge of such things, we are unable to guarantee that the information presented here is accurate. However, we believe this story is almost certainly true, and given its importance, we decided to publish it. Though we’ve known of this story for some time, we waited until we heard the information from another source before publishing.]

I'm copying and pasting the line in bold, seems like a good default to have on everything I write from now on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This story is based on the word of anonymous sources who did not provide us with ways to independently verify their claims. Though our principal source would certainly have intimate knowledge of such things, we are unable to guarantee that the information presented here is accurate. However, we believe this story is almost certainly true, and given its importance, we decided to publish it. Though we’ve known of this story for some time, we waited until we heard the information from another source before publishing.

Lol, it is the ultimate get-out!

Well not really - all they're really doing here is explicitly stating what most news sources assume to be taken for granted, which is that they can't be 100% sure that what their respectable sources tell them is in fact true.

...

I think it's good journalism for the reason that they have explicitly stated the disclaimer - I think it makes a change to the shoddy work most 'proper' journalists do when they state as fact things which are only probably true - and do the same with things which 'might' be true as well as stories which are just completely made up speculative.

Well yes, I think that's also a fair stance. Actually I wasn't criticising their use of it really, more just saying that they didn't really need it. Maybe they preferred to use the disclaimer on a story that stated the subject matter as fact and then attributed to sources, rather than simply printing, "UB only has $5m, according to senior sources", when you wouldn't need a disclaimer as you're only stating specifically what the source said, and you know 100% that it is true that they said that.

[This story is based on the word of anonymous sources who did not provide us with ways to independently verify their claims. Though our principal source would certainly have intimate knowledge of such things, we are unable to guarantee that the information presented here is accurate. However, we believe this story is almost certainly true, and given its importance, we decided to publish it. Though we’ve known of this story for some time, we waited until we heard the information from another source before publishing.]

I'm copying and pasting the line in bold, seems like a good default to have on everything I write from now on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This story is based on the word of anonymous sources who did not provide us with ways to independently verify their claims. Though our principal source would certainly have intimate knowledge of such things, we are unable to guarantee that the information presented here is accurate. However, we believe this story is almost certainly true, and given its importance, we decided to publish it. Though we’ve known of this story for some time, we waited until we heard the information from another source before publishing.

Lol, it is the ultimate get-out!

Well not really - all they're really doing here is explicitly stating what most news sources assume to be taken for granted, which is that they can't be 100% sure that what their respectable sources tell them is in fact true.

There's no real need to say this - they've got two separate sources telling them the same thing, so they can attribute the content to them and that's that. Obviously no, it's not certain that it's true - there could be some weird reason why they're both telling the same lies - but it's good enough. I don't know why they printed the disclaimer really - it just draws attention to and unnecessarily exaggerates the element of doubt.

If you don't allow this sort of reporting then you don't get very much actual news. Is it better to just see reports of official statements put out by Tilt/UB etc? I don't think so... The poker industry's obviously an extremely opaque one. There are plenty of reasons for that, but one is that basically all the poker media is built around poker advertising and affiliate schemes, which rather dissuades critical or investigative journalism into these multi-million/billion dollar companies. Meanwhile Reuters/Bloomberg et al have no interest as they're private companies. So good on these guys for at least trying to plug the gap.

Great effort, well played, unlucky.

im assuming you have a fairly tight image?

TBF, you couldnt ask for much more of a flop to c-bet (other than the 2 clubs being there)

bet 40% pot - then give up if called

Personally, now you are where you are, I'd bet more like a third pot. Then if called by UTG+1 just give up. If called by UTG only and checked to you I think you might have a decent chance of getting a turn shove through, depending on reads and given UTG's description.

Sounds pretty bad, though probably not surprisingly so.

Not sure I'd call it 'speculative' - looks like a pretty solidly produced piece of actual news, a rare commodity in the poker world. No real need for them to print the semi-disclaimer at the bottom.

Received on stars. Thanks.

Moskvich on Stars, cheers.

perhaps take a moment before calling to take a victory sip.

If only.
(This will lead to result orientated posts now but meh.)

Yeah...

Never ever not snapping here. I assume you lost, but this is just always always a call. He has worse boats here quite a lot. A7,78,79 all massively in his range here. No need for me to be working out the combos of these, but certainly more than AA/77 combos.

Would have thought that combos go out of the window here to a large extent, due to the big overbet, which is going to skew his range heavily towards AA/77, and within that actually towards 77.

Obviously there's very little that hero can call with here when villain does have 77 and shoves, as hero very rarely has AA/88/99, but I suspect all that proves given current reads is that villain isn't really bothering to hand-read. If that's true and he isn't considering hero's range, then he doesn't shove here with A7 or 78, as he doesn't have the nuts so is concerned he only gets called when beat.

Usual disclaimer though, I don't play much cash.

[every time China Mug updates his, err, Diary, I send Mere a link to it]

As to MereNovice, he was without internet for nearly a month (gotta love AOL) but he's back on now, so I hope he'll be back here soon, he is much missed, certainly by me.

We exchange lengthy e-Mails several times per week (I'm bad at the brevity thing) & because he's old & grumpy, & such a pedant, every time China Mug updates his, err, Diary, I send Mere a link to it. It drives him apoplectic with pedant-rage, as you can imagine.

It's what friends are for, surely?

I had assumed that you did it so that I would become inured to creative grammar and, hence, would ignore your frequent howlers.

If anyone else wants me to add smart-arse attacks on their diary please just sign-up below.

"Sign-up" or "sign up"? 

Yeah he has a 9 here always

Does he? I mean, it feels like he does, but am a bit confused by the 'overbet' thing, isn't he effectively betting 6.8k into 6.9k, given hero starts the hand with 9k? And once UTG and hero have both checked, neither of them ever have a 9, and button has to have either an ace or a 9, so he should shove regardless, no..?

Pretty sure you can never call here anyway, but if you were considering it you'd be better shoving yourself, wouldn't you? Though I think it's still extremely hard here to find a scenario where shoving is profitable.

On a similar tack though, if you were considering calling a bet of 2-3k on river then aren't you better off bet-folding (to the button) 1.5k (or even slightly less)? Since that includes the 9 in your range, so he can't raise with the ace.

[1]

Thought I had come up with a twist to save RSQ

Sharplea immediately abandons it and sets tough questions that will disenfranchise half the potential runners!

Sigh!


1,2,6,9 I think are too specialist for a blonde audience

Will enter anyway

Misclick..?

Well assuming that he is a massive nit, which he probably is, then if you raise he's only ever going to continue with AQs (if he even plays this UTG), TT, QQ+. Against this range you're about 43%, so you don't really want to be getting it in here and I imagine he 3-bets this flop against you a lot. He folds AK, JJ and 99 if he opens that sometimes, which range only has about 13% equity, so if you raise flop I reckon he almost never makes a mistake. So I kind of prefer the call as well, would probably call or check back turn and fold river if we haven't improved and he 3-barrels. Wonder if you can occasionally consider turning your hand into a bluff against villains like this if the board gets messy enough, eg here if the turn comes another T, but seems a bit of a ridiculous spot to be in where you have to consider turning this hand into a bluff - suspect the moral of the story is fold KQ pre when UTG is only opening top 3%.

Anyone else get lag problems with the download? I don't have a problem with any other sites these days, but more than 3 tables on Sky starts getting a bit sticky, and more than 4 can become pretty much unplayable.

Tighty, just fyi, have been playing a few SNGs here and there the last couple of weeks.

you should devote twice as much practice to your short game than your long game. Standing by a green chipping ball after ball in different ways will do you wonders.

agree with this 1000% hitting the ball is fun duffing chips and 4 putting will put you on tilt like nothing else though and as the old saying goes a good putter is a match for anyone and a bad putter is a match for no-one.

Personally disagree with this, if you're a beginner or getting back into it. Hitting the ball well is by far the most satisfying bit of the game, and the most difficult if you're getting going. Also if you can hit the ball ok most of the time it saves you a bit of embarrassment in front of others and means that you don't get in others' way, as well as avoiding you appearing to be another guy with all the gear and no idea. No point having a shiny new full set of Pings if you're too inconsistent for there to be a reliable difference between a 6 and 7 iron for example. I'd rather be hitting greens in two and then three putting than taking three or four to get on the green in the first place, even if I did still make a five. Obviously if you get to the stage where you want to find shots to get into single figures or break 90 or whatever, then yes, the short game becomes crucial.

Also just imo, try not to get caught up in the whole equipment fetish thing... So many people seem to think the latest shiniest clubs will help them when of course really they're just not very good or have huge technical flaws, and the hype behind the new stuff is almost all bullshit anyway. And people telling you about the selection of drivers they have in their garage is so boring (even by the standards of golfers' conversations).

Edit: just seen you said that you used to play quite a lot so probably don't need my shit advice. Good luck with it anyway.

Don't spose anyone here plays in south London/Surrey area..?

Well played Matt.

Plenty of chips. Good luck us for tomorrow.

You have the game

Regards

M

Don't really know about the last bit, but I'm sure he's right, so ditto to all the above. And especially to the regards, obviously. GL!