Thanks - that's interesting and informative.

I may be wrong but in a lot of the British televised 6-seater tournaments they seem to play a rule whereby the raise must be equal to the total size of the previous bet (not the incremental raise). Is this common practice?

To clarify, BB = 2K, UTG raises to 6K then a re-raise must be at least 12K (not 10K).

It seems odd to me - and Mad Marty seems to be tournament director for a lot of these games so perhaps that explains it?

How do you actually fight fire with fire? People use that expression a lot and I don't know where it comes from. I prefer to fight fire with water. Professional firemen choose to fight fire with water as well, and those guys know what they're doing.

I think I can be really helpful here. 

Does it come from the tactic that forest fire fighters use where they create a smaller, controlled, fire ahead of the main inferno to burn up the fuel (i.e. trees etc) before the inferno reaches that point? Therefore, the fire burns out for lack of fuel.

I don't think that this necessarily helps in the hand analysis, though, as I can't think of any analogous tactic in HE.

If i knew he was going to turn top pair then i would have checked the flop as well.

However when i have a loose passive player i am just firing 3 streets here, you win a shit load more in the long term.

Its taken me a long time to understand "poker talk"...what does firing 3 streets mean?

Betting out on the flop, the turn and the river.
Some Americans (and perhaps others) refer to the flop, turn and river as 3rd, 4th and 5th street, I believe. Hence, betting out (or firing) on all 3 streets.

I believe that the term streets is more often used in stud poker but it seems fairly common parlance in HE nowadays.

I've got a stove that needs mending - when are you free?

Congratulations.

What's it like to get a telegram from the Queen?

No one consider a fold here?

 

You folded didn't you? Go on admit it. You folded.......

Yes, I did.

The SB showed KK.  Like I said, the SB was very tight, and with the straddlers still to act he had to know he was going to get at least one customer (which he did).  Any other player at the table, and I think I would have re-popped him - although I do like Alex's line with the call as well now.

Ooh ooh, please sir, I said it first. Or did I give the wrong reasoning? 

I didn't even get a sodding email!!

The top 0.1% get a different e-mail. It's getting sent out tomorrow.

Got the same e-mail - nice to know that I'm a part of the vast majority.

I think this is a fold.

Surely guaranteed a seat when 2nd out of 6 with 5 seats, and the guy that raises is the only guy that can bust you.

id tend to agree

I'm permanently out of position against the chip leader so I won't be able to put pressure on the small stacks later without considering that he might push against me.
Also, although I didn't think of this at the time (and it may just be paranoia kicking in), perhaps he's got it in for me and is going to raise my BB every time because he knows that I'm the one least likely to challenge him?
Does this alter things?

Would shove...there is already £100 in pot and danger is if you flat call then it might cause domino

effect with the limpers. You could min raise to isolate sb but then if he shoves it gives you the headache....

would rather let the sb have the problem unless he has AA of course !!

With the knowledge that he's a tight player, and he is aware that there are still 3 very loose players still to act as well as me - what range do you put him on?

Firstly, I'd get myself a different seat.

With my limited experience, I'll venture an opinion.
I'd be very worried that my QQ might be behind to a tight player who knows there is a good chance that he is going to get action and will be out of position. Is it soooooo bad to call with position on the SB and see what happens? If the loose player(s) to your left go wild and take him off his hand, you can call. If they go wild and he calls, you can fold. If they just call him, you can make a move on a favourable flop if the SB doesn't do it first.
Any logic in that at all?

Results orientated much?

You're still too cryptic for me, mate.
I'm not worried that the JJ outdrew the AA so the result of the hand is immaterial.
The question is whether it is right to take on the chip leader when there is a reasonable chance that he might call you.

Can you elaborate?

[G]

I couldn't find a picture of Che Guevara but this is nearly as good

I loved this sit com. Power to the people and all that. Robert Lyndsey is a star. Does anyone remember GBH? Moddled on Derek Hatton I think.

GBH was required watching at the time, excellent series

I believe that the in joke was that GBH stood for GoodBye Hatton.

If my memory is correct, I didn't have much information on the UTG.
Therefore, I made the assumption that he would play like me (ok, that may be a bad starting point) and lay down anything but AA because he didn't need to risk a position in which he was sailing into the seats. However, there's always the chance that he is a macho kind of guy who can't fold, so perhaps I should have considered that.
Also, the initial minimum raise indicated to me that he wasn't an experienced player since, surely, he wants to be taking the blinds pre-flop, not playing flops. If he's going to call an all-in from the 2nd highest stack then he should be going all-in initially, in which case, I might well have passed the AA.