Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[bobby1]

Tony, please add more naked pics.

The trains and Cats are lovely but you have hit on a something here and I'm not just talking about Nursey.

[Chompy]

Top Orpage imo, I'm off to google(whack)...

[Royal Flush]

Tony, call me when you are done doing things in Brighton

[kinboshi]

We had a discussion about Chambers on here a while back.

For those interested, he's not wanted by Castleford as he 'struggled to cope with the stamina required.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/castleford/7385928.stm

Now go and get a job and 'earn' a living.  Saying that, he'll probably become a Gladiator on the TV show or something similar...

[jizzemm]

Top Orpage imo, I'm off to google(whack)...

Try this one a good start..... http://michelleorpe.com/pictures/pictures01.html

[Simon Galloway]

One teaser before I go.

In the often fractious DC game at DTD last night, it all went off a couple of times, & here's one example.

Two Asian Gentlemen - & nobody else - were in a big Super-Stud hand.

Mr Low-Stack rams the Pot, & Mr Deep Stack calls. The Pot is, let's say for ease of explanation, about £500. Due to being Pot-Limit. Mr Low-Stack has about £25 "left behind".

After 4th Street, it's clear Mr Deep-Stack has the hand all wrapped up. But he never bets the "last" £25, & it's checked down. This is a sort of "custom" among the more chivalrous players these days - always leave the guy his Fare home.

As a result, they were openly, loudly, & repeatedly accused of soft play, & collusion, by two other players.

Harsh, I thought. OK, we play Cash to take other folks money, that's OK, but nobody else was in the hand, & I think in these circumstances, it was perfectly acceptable.

Interesting topic Tony.  As told, I see no wrong.  When I play, I wouldn't put anyone in for their singles, but would put them in (friend or not) for their last 25.  I do admit that when I see 2 players check it down with decent stacks, I do feel wronged -- I don't get to see another street for free, so I resent it when someone else does, even though I might not be involved in the pot.

Not betting the strength of the hand according to the pure poker situation (i.e. not allowing who the opponent is to influence) is a very slippery slope and it quickly becomes a game in which people don't want to play.

[77dave]

One teaser before I go.

In the often fractious DC game at DTD last night, it all went off a couple of times, & here's one example.

Two Asian Gentlemen - & nobody else - were in a big Super-Stud hand.

Mr Low-Stack rams the Pot, & Mr Deep Stack calls. The Pot is, let's say for ease of explanation, about £500. Due to being Pot-Limit. Mr Low-Stack has about £25 "left behind".

After 4th Street, it's clear Mr Deep-Stack has the hand all wrapped up. But he never bets the "last" £25, & it's checked down. This is a sort of "custom" among the more chivalrous players these days - always leave the guy his Fare home.

As a result, they were openly, loudly, & repeatedly accused of soft play, & collusion, by two other players.

Harsh, I thought. OK, we play Cash to take other folks money, that's OK, but nobody else was in the hand, & I think in these circumstances, it was perfectly acceptable.

Interesting topic Tony.  As told, I see no wrong.  When I play, I wouldn't put anyone in for their singles, but would put them in (friend or not) for their last 25.  I do admit that when I see 2 players check it down with decent stacks, I do feel wronged -- I don't get to see another street for free, so I resent it when someone else does, even though I might not be involved in the pot.

Not betting the strength of the hand according to the pure poker situation (i.e. not allowing who the opponent is to influence) is a very slippery slope and it quickly becomes a game in which people don't want to play.

I have no problem with the checking it down when 2 players are in a pot and one of them has less than a bowl or rice remaining.

It does cause a problem on the next hand though. If the player with the bowl remaining say 11 left loses the pot but was never all in he can continue the next hand with just 11 and doesnt have to pull up. So on the next hand he just throws in his 11 looking for value and it ends up being 6 way action and the guy with the best hand cant reraise.

So imo if its checked down as only a bowl remaining it should count as an allin and the losing player should have to pull up as he was allin on the last hand.

[tikay]

One teaser before I go.

In the often fractious DC game at DTD last night, it all went off a couple of times, & here's one example.

Two Asian Gentlemen - & nobody else - were in a big Super-Stud hand.

Mr Low-Stack rams the Pot, & Mr Deep Stack calls. The Pot is, let's say for ease of explanation, about £500. Due to being Pot-Limit. Mr Low-Stack has about £25 "left behind".

After 4th Street, it's clear Mr Deep-Stack has the hand all wrapped up. But he never bets the "last" £25, & it's checked down. This is a sort of "custom" among the more chivalrous players these days - always leave the guy his Fare home.

As a result, they were openly, loudly, & repeatedly accused of soft play, & collusion, by two other players.

Harsh, I thought. OK, we play Cash to take other folks money, that's OK, but nobody else was in the hand, & I think in these circumstances, it was perfectly acceptable.

Interesting topic Tony.  As told, I see no wrong.  When I play, I wouldn't put anyone in for their singles, but would put them in (friend or not) for their last 25.  I do admit that when I see 2 players check it down with decent stacks, I do feel wronged -- I don't get to see another street for free, so I resent it when someone else does, even though I might not be involved in the pot.

Not betting the strength of the hand according to the pure poker situation (i.e. not allowing who the opponent is to influence) is a very slippery slope and it quickly becomes a game in which people don't want to play.

I think that's fair comment Simon. But I feel it's a long way from "collusion". It's just one of those nice touches that still exist - sometimes - in cash poker. We cannot put them in "for singles" in that game, it's £5 minimum, so in a way, £25 is "singles".

[tikay]

One teaser before I go.

In the often fractious DC game at DTD last night, it all went off a couple of times, & here's one example.

Two Asian Gentlemen - & nobody else - were in a big Super-Stud hand.

Mr Low-Stack rams the Pot, & Mr Deep Stack calls. The Pot is, let's say for ease of explanation, about £500. Due to being Pot-Limit. Mr Low-Stack has about £25 "left behind".

After 4th Street, it's clear Mr Deep-Stack has the hand all wrapped up. But he never bets the "last" £25, & it's checked down. This is a sort of "custom" among the more chivalrous players these days - always leave the guy his Fare home.

As a result, they were openly, loudly, & repeatedly accused of soft play, & collusion, by two other players.

Harsh, I thought. OK, we play Cash to take other folks money, that's OK, but nobody else was in the hand, & I think in these circumstances, it was perfectly acceptable.

Interesting topic Tony.  As told, I see no wrong.  When I play, I wouldn't put anyone in for their singles, but would put them in (friend or not) for their last 25.  I do admit that when I see 2 players check it down with decent stacks, I do feel wronged -- I don't get to see another street for free, so I resent it when someone else does, even though I might not be involved in the pot.

Not betting the strength of the hand according to the pure poker situation (i.e. not allowing who the opponent is to influence) is a very slippery slope and it quickly becomes a game in which people don't want to play.

I have no problem with the checking it down when 2 players are in a pot and one of them has less than a bowl or rice remaining.

It does cause a problem on the next hand though. If the player with the bowl remaining say 11 left loses the pot but was never all in he can continue the next hand with just 11 and doesnt have to pull up. So on the next hand he just throws in his 11 looking for value and it ends up being 6 way action and the guy with the best hand cant reraise.

So imo if its checked down as only a bowl remaining it should count as an allin and the losing player should have to pull up as he was allin on the last hand.

Also fair comment, thanks Jim, I do miss your Cash-Game counsel. I'm very much learning the Cash-Game ropes.

See you at you-know-where, you-know-when......

[tikay]

Top Orpage imo, I'm off to google(whack)...

Try this one a good start..... http://michelleorpe.com/pictures/pictures01.html

Blimey. I write about feast & famine, poker & pork chops, trains & trees, but I mention bloody Michelle Orpe & everyone is suddenly Posting on the thread..... what has she got that I have not? You seen my moobs?

Sorry, I don't have any more Michelle pics, though I took the 1st on on Page Two of that Gallery on the Link myself.

I spoke to Herself today, to try & twist her arm to come to bB6, but she's going to Loose Cannon with Kara Scott.  Pfft.

[tikay]

Tony, call me when you are done doing things in Brighton

Yes Boss. Our "meet" is at 1pm.

[gatso]

taken in isolation leaving the player with his £25 doesn't look too bad but where do we draw the line? would £30, £50, £100, £260 be ok?

and if he needs his fare home he should pull up less.

now, as you refer to it as 'fare home' this would indicate it's his last hand. so by leaving him with the last of his money that would ordinarily go into the pot are we not taking money off of the table? are the players not implicit in a type of ratholing?

[tikay]

I cannot release my nude pics of Michelle right now - give me money - but here's Lord Wernick. Will that do?

The Lady behind, well you all know her. Where was the pic taken, when, & in what Comp? Who busted Jen, in what position, & what were their respective hands? No research, I can recall it as if it were yesterday.

[tikay]

taken in isolation leaving the player with his £25 doesn't look too bad but where do we draw the line? would £30, £50, £100, £260 be ok?

and if he needs his fare home he should pull up less.

now, as you refer to it as 'fare home' this would indicate it's his last hand. so by leaving him with the last of his money that would ordinarily go into the pot are we not taking money off of the table? are the players not implicit in a type of ratholing?

I don't think it's deemed literally his "fare home", but I take your point as to £25 becomes £50 becomes £250, or whatever.

But really, we are just being a bit greedy here, imo. It does no harm.

[Laxie]

London, GUKPT...no date...as it's not listed on the bottom of the photo like the rest of the information.