DTD 300- Tough spot or easiest fold ever

[Patonius2000]

Wtf Mantis? Sometimes I wonder if you're sane. Yeah Simon and I just think information isn't important in poker.

Post some quantitative analysis one day so we can pin you down. Post your name. Post which games you play in. Something so we can justify spending any amount of time reading or answering your posts. Until then, I'll make my posts as short as I like tyvm

Wtf James? You said "Knowing your opponent's cards in a certain spot 30 mins ago is borderline useless in a live game, that spot will never arise again". Yet this whole thread is driven by that info. This is a completely different spot with lots of dynamics having changed yet people are very very convinced of what they know about villain. Simon was saying it's all about the dynamics and the knee bobbing up and down and you were like that's the best post I've read in a long time. People having such conviction in this useless info supports my line in that live stream debate, which I think is a serious debate to have.

Anyway enough of that. I don't really post on PHA anymore but did have a look at this thread. I like George's threads. I did think your input was a bit lazy really and you could pass on more wisdom than that but w/e that's your choice. I also thought trivial fold needed to be challenged really. Best way to do this I figure is argue for calling. Then I can stimulate debate and get good responses from top players like James Sykes. If you look at this thread now you will see it's by far the most viewed and contributed to thread on PHA. Many more views and posts than the others. A very good debate. Some excellent posts. And in the end a much different conclusion to trivial fold. And there is my justification for posting buddy.

But you want to judge my inclusion in discussions on ability, from your position as a pro? lol. And who is this we I have to justify myself to buddy?

Anyway mate I play the £15 rebuy at Walsall

It's fun to have lots of replies isn't it? Your posts are less about "stimulating debate" than you stimulating yourself. As to your 'debate', your friend James Sykes, among many others, has been arguing with you that you can't infer from the previous hand very much about our opponent's range in this hand. Even if we could, which we can't, it would have no relevance to the live streaming holecards debate as the hand went to showdown. That "the whole thread is driven by this debate" is solely your doing, and if you look at what other people are posting once in a while, you'll see that very few mentioned the previous hand in their analysis until you came along, and even then they're telling you it's not relevant.

Why did you feel that "trivial fold" needed to be challenged when you yourself think it is a fold? How is the conclusion 'fold' "very much different" to 'trivial fold'? What's the point in arguing how close a decision is when both sides agree? It's like driving off a cliff and arguing about how fast you were going when you went over the edge. For the rest of us that post on PHA, debate is a means to explore different lines and maybe (although not necessarily) come to a conclusion, it is not an end in itself.

Finally, what is your hangup with my "position as a pro" meaning I can't tell you that you're wrong? Try going on a plumbing forum and telling people who ask for plumbing advice to use lead pipes, see how many nasty "professional" plumbers tell you to gtfo with your archaic plumbing techniques.

Damn I got in to this thread wayyyy too late.

[MANTIS01]

Wtf Mantis? Sometimes I wonder if you're sane. Yeah Simon and I just think information isn't important in poker.

Post some quantitative analysis one day so we can pin you down. Post your name. Post which games you play in. Something so we can justify spending any amount of time reading or answering your posts. Until then, I'll make my posts as short as I like tyvm

Wtf James? You said "Knowing your opponent's cards in a certain spot 30 mins ago is borderline useless in a live game, that spot will never arise again". Yet this whole thread is driven by that info. This is a completely different spot with lots of dynamics having changed yet people are very very convinced of what they know about villain. Simon was saying it's all about the dynamics and the knee bobbing up and down and you were like that's the best post I've read in a long time. People having such conviction in this useless info supports my line in that live stream debate, which I think is a serious debate to have.

Anyway enough of that. I don't really post on PHA anymore but did have a look at this thread. I like George's threads. I did think your input was a bit lazy really and you could pass on more wisdom than that but w/e that's your choice. I also thought trivial fold needed to be challenged really. Best way to do this I figure is argue for calling. Then I can stimulate debate and get good responses from top players like James Sykes. If you look at this thread now you will see it's by far the most viewed and contributed to thread on PHA. Many more views and posts than the others. A very good debate. Some excellent posts. And in the end a much different conclusion to trivial fold. And there is my justification for posting buddy.

But you want to judge my inclusion in discussions on ability, from your position as a pro? lol. And who is this we I have to justify myself to buddy?

Anyway mate I play the £15 rebuy at Walsall

It's fun to have lots of replies isn't it? Your posts are less about "stimulating debate" than you stimulating yourself. As to your 'debate', your friend James Sykes, among many others, has been arguing with you that you can't infer from the previous hand very much about our opponent's range in this hand. Even if we could, which we can't, it would have no relevance to the live streaming holecards debate as the hand went to showdown. That "the whole thread is driven by this debate" is solely your doing, and if you look at what other people are posting once in a while, you'll see that very few mentioned the previous hand in their analysis until you came along, and even then they're telling you it's not relevant.

Why did you feel that "trivial fold" needed to be challenged when you yourself think it is a fold? How is the conclusion 'fold' "very much different" to 'trivial fold'? What's the point in arguing how close a decision is when both sides agree? It's like driving off a cliff and arguing about how fast you were going when you went over the edge. For the rest of us that post on PHA, debate is a means to explore different lines and maybe (although not necessarily) come to a conclusion, it is not an end in itself.

Finally, what is your hangup with my "position as a pro" meaning I can't tell you that you're wrong? Try going on a plumbing forum and telling people who ask for plumbing advice to use lead pipes, see how many nasty "professional" plumbers tell you to gtfo with your archaic plumbing techniques.

When villain over-called A-10 oop it provided a lot of information about how he plays. If you read the thread you will see that many people mention that fact when formulating their opinions. I could quote almost everyone but AlexMartin said "we know this guy is bad given prior hands" and NitTendancies said "it shows he's more stationary than spewy aggro". So your point that very few people mention it is fantasy. I don't know why the hand going to showdown is relevant. If the hand didn't go to showdown and these players saw villain over-called oop with A-10 they can infer the very same things about how villain plays, which is seriously unfair. The fact Sykes makes the point that fish don't adapt to dynamics well and are predictable makes access to this info even more unfair. Sorry you can't see that.

The neccessity to challenge was to expand the discussion and get more info and to learn about thought process which is what the board is for. You may think it's a trivial fold and understand why but many others would like a bit more than those two words to understand the thought process of good players. Achieving that wasn't a bad thing.

Finally, you didn't tell me I was wrong you asked me to prove myself. I don't know why you think people have got to be of a certain standard to enter a discussion about a poker hand on the learning part of the forum. I think you use your status to suggest you have more right than lesser players to post, unless they can prove what games they play first. I used to be an assistant golf pro when I was younger. On the course and on the driving range almost everyone was worse than me. I freely offered advice and encouraged them. I didn't fire questions at them asking them to prove themselves to me, or judge what courses they played, or tell them to fuck off the range. I think that would have been a dickhead attitude to people trying to improve in a game I was good at.

[outragous76]

Pretty trivial fold against a bad player

This fella hit the nail on the head! - he was succinct too.  Consider this the executive summary!

[Nit Tendencies]

As to your 'debate', your friend James Sykes, among many others, has been arguing with you that you can't infer from the previous hand very much about our opponent's range in this hand.

I did actually use the AT hand to highlight the difference between different types of bad players, and the importance of not applying knowledge of an aggressive action from one situation (ie the guys c/r on Txx in the cold 3bet peel pot) to different situations (ie 3betting pre flop when they've clearly been peeling most of the time) and treating them as if they come from the same mindset.

I do also think that because so many people have "standard lines" in loads of generic spots that seeing peoples cards at showdown (or from a feed but that's clearly an issue between you and Mantis and I can't be bothered getting into it) is really very important and should be used alongside reads of gameflow to make decisions.

Also, is the "your friend James Sykes" thing a rub!?

[SuuPRlim]

good responses from top players like James Sykes

lol

I thought this was hilarious. sigh at how it failed.

[skolsuper]

Also, is the "your friend James Sykes" thing a rub!?

Apologies, I meant "your friend and top player James Sykes".

[Nit Tendencies]

Rofl James Keys-a-ments.

[SuuPRlim]

James did you like the bit where I quoted Jamie being called a top player and lol'd?

[Nico29]

Wtf Mantis? Sometimes I wonder if you're sane. Yeah Simon and I just think information isn't important in poker.

Post some quantitative analysis one day so we can pin you down. Post your name. Post which games you play in. Something so we can justify spending any amount of time reading or answering your posts. Until then, I'll make my posts as short as I like tyvm

Wtf James? You said "Knowing your opponent's cards in a certain spot 30 mins ago is borderline useless in a live game, that spot will never arise again". Yet this whole thread is driven by that info. This is a completely different spot with lots of dynamics having changed yet people are very very convinced of what they know about villain. Simon was saying it's all about the dynamics and the knee bobbing up and down and you were like that's the best post I've read in a long time. People having such conviction in this useless info supports my line in that live stream debate, which I think is a serious debate to have.

Anyway enough of that. I don't really post on PHA anymore but did have a look at this thread. I like George's threads. I did think your input was a bit lazy really and you could pass on more wisdom than that but w/e that's your choice. I also thought trivial fold needed to be challenged really. Best way to do this I figure is argue for calling. Then I can stimulate debate and get good responses from top players like James Sykes. If you look at this thread now you will see it's by far the most viewed and contributed to thread on PHA. Many more views and posts than the others. A very good debate. Some excellent posts. And in the end a much different conclusion to trivial fold. And there is my justification for posting buddy.

But you want to judge my inclusion in discussions on ability, from your position as a pro? lol. And who is this we I have to justify myself to buddy?

Anyway mate I play the £15 rebuy at Walsall

It's fun to have lots of replies isn't it? Your posts are less about "stimulating debate" than you stimulating yourself. As to your 'debate', your friend James Sykes, among many others, has been arguing with you that you can't infer from the previous hand very much about our opponent's range in this hand. Even if we could, which we can't, it would have no relevance to the live streaming holecards debate as the hand went to showdown. That "the whole thread is driven by this debate" is solely your doing, and if you look at what other people are posting once in a while, you'll see that very few mentioned the previous hand in their analysis until you came along, and even then they're telling you it's not relevant.

Why did you feel that "trivial fold" needed to be challenged when you yourself think it is a fold? How is the conclusion 'fold' "very much different" to 'trivial fold'? What's the point in arguing how close a decision is when both sides agree? It's like driving off a cliff and arguing about how fast you were going when you went over the edge. For the rest of us that post on PHA, debate is a means to explore different lines and maybe (although not necessarily) come to a conclusion, it is not an end in itself.

Finally, what is your hangup with my "position as a pro" meaning I can't tell you that you're wrong? Try going on a plumbing forum and telling people who ask for plumbing advice to use lead pipes, see how many nasty "professional" plumbers tell you to gtfo with your archaic plumbing techniques.

When villain over-called A-10 oop it provided a lot of information about how he plays. If you read the thread you will see that many people mention that fact when formulating their opinions. I could quote almost everyone but AlexMartin said "we know this guy is bad given prior hands" and NitTendancies said "it shows he's more stationary than spewy aggro". So your point that very few people mention it is fantasy. I don't know why the hand going to showdown is relevant. If the hand didn't go to showdown and these players saw villain over-called oop with A-10 they can infer the very same things about how villain plays, which is seriously unfair. The fact Sykes makes the point that fish don't adapt to dynamics well and are predictable makes access to this info even more unfair. Sorry you can't see that.

The neccessity to challenge was to expand the discussion and get more info and to learn about thought process which is what the board is for. You may think it's a trivial fold and understand why but many others would like a bit more than those two words to understand the thought process of good players. Achieving that wasn't a bad thing.

Finally, you didn't tell me I was wrong you asked me to prove myself. I don't know why you think people have got to be of a certain standard to enter a discussion about a poker hand on the learning part of the forum. I think you use your status to suggest you have more right than lesser players to post, unless they can prove what games they play first. I used to be an assistant golf pro when I was younger. On the course and on the driving range almost everyone was worse than me. I freely offered advice and encouraged them. I didn't fire questions at them asking them to prove themselves to me, or judge what courses they played, or tell them to fuck off the range. I think that would have been a dickhead attitude to people trying to improve in a game I was good at.

Jees seriously mate, how can you try 2 argue with keys? Even i don't do that.

Reading your replies i often switch off half way through.

Look at what keys says and just realise-he's lucid and talks great sense, you ramble and bla bla bla.

[MANTIS01]

Wtf Mantis? Sometimes I wonder if you're sane. Yeah Simon and I just think information isn't important in poker.

Post some quantitative analysis one day so we can pin you down. Post your name. Post which games you play in. Something so we can justify spending any amount of time reading or answering your posts. Until then, I'll make my posts as short as I like tyvm

Wtf James? You said "Knowing your opponent's cards in a certain spot 30 mins ago is borderline useless in a live game, that spot will never arise again". Yet this whole thread is driven by that info. This is a completely different spot with lots of dynamics having changed yet people are very very convinced of what they know about villain. Simon was saying it's all about the dynamics and the knee bobbing up and down and you were like that's the best post I've read in a long time. People having such conviction in this useless info supports my line in that live stream debate, which I think is a serious debate to have.

Anyway enough of that. I don't really post on PHA anymore but did have a look at this thread. I like George's threads. I did think your input was a bit lazy really and you could pass on more wisdom than that but w/e that's your choice. I also thought trivial fold needed to be challenged really. Best way to do this I figure is argue for calling. Then I can stimulate debate and get good responses from top players like James Sykes. If you look at this thread now you will see it's by far the most viewed and contributed to thread on PHA. Many more views and posts than the others. A very good debate. Some excellent posts. And in the end a much different conclusion to trivial fold. And there is my justification for posting buddy.

But you want to judge my inclusion in discussions on ability, from your position as a pro? lol. And who is this we I have to justify myself to buddy?

Anyway mate I play the £15 rebuy at Walsall

It's fun to have lots of replies isn't it? Your posts are less about "stimulating debate" than you stimulating yourself. As to your 'debate', your friend James Sykes, among many others, has been arguing with you that you can't infer from the previous hand very much about our opponent's range in this hand. Even if we could, which we can't, it would have no relevance to the live streaming holecards debate as the hand went to showdown. That "the whole thread is driven by this debate" is solely your doing, and if you look at what other people are posting once in a while, you'll see that very few mentioned the previous hand in their analysis until you came along, and even then they're telling you it's not relevant.

Why did you feel that "trivial fold" needed to be challenged when you yourself think it is a fold? How is the conclusion 'fold' "very much different" to 'trivial fold'? What's the point in arguing how close a decision is when both sides agree? It's like driving off a cliff and arguing about how fast you were going when you went over the edge. For the rest of us that post on PHA, debate is a means to explore different lines and maybe (although not necessarily) come to a conclusion, it is not an end in itself.

Finally, what is your hangup with my "position as a pro" meaning I can't tell you that you're wrong? Try going on a plumbing forum and telling people who ask for plumbing advice to use lead pipes, see how many nasty "professional" plumbers tell you to gtfo with your archaic plumbing techniques.

When villain over-called A-10 oop it provided a lot of information about how he plays. If you read the thread you will see that many people mention that fact when formulating their opinions. I could quote almost everyone but AlexMartin said "we know this guy is bad given prior hands" and NitTendancies said "it shows he's more stationary than spewy aggro". So your point that very few people mention it is fantasy. I don't know why the hand going to showdown is relevant. If the hand didn't go to showdown and these players saw villain over-called oop with A-10 they can infer the very same things about how villain plays, which is seriously unfair. The fact Sykes makes the point that fish don't adapt to dynamics well and are predictable makes access to this info even more unfair. Sorry you can't see that.

The neccessity to challenge was to expand the discussion and get more info and to learn about thought process which is what the board is for. You may think it's a trivial fold and understand why but many others would like a bit more than those two words to understand the thought process of good players. Achieving that wasn't a bad thing.

Finally, you didn't tell me I was wrong you asked me to prove myself. I don't know why you think people have got to be of a certain standard to enter a discussion about a poker hand on the learning part of the forum. I think you use your status to suggest you have more right than lesser players to post, unless they can prove what games they play first. I used to be an assistant golf pro when I was younger. On the course and on the driving range almost everyone was worse than me. I freely offered advice and encouraged them. I didn't fire questions at them asking them to prove themselves to me, or judge what courses they played, or tell them to fuck off the range. I think that would have been a dickhead attitude to people trying to improve in a game I was good at.

Jees seriously mate, how can you try 2 argue with keys? Even i don't do that.

Reading your replies i often switch off half way through.

Look at what keys says and just realise-he's lucid and talks great sense, you ramble and bla bla bla.

Lol didn't you take the opposite line to him in this thread and argue it wasn't a trivial fold?

Anyway, short question. If George2Loose says in his op he found out that twice in the last hour villain has 3bet his bb with small suited connectors is this still a trivial fold? Or would that info change this hand entirely? If you could answer without feeling the need to brown nose anyone that would be helpful. Also I've seen James Sykes play once on the telly so not really in a position to judge. I remember thinking he was a decent player but his dress sense needed some consideration.

[Nico29]

Yeah took opposite line and believe it or not see some merits in your arguments over the hand.

Thought i'd seen a hella of alot of ass licking from u itt towards sykes and lil dave tbh-being sarky ftw??

Keys just often ends threads with his views, its hard to argue with his logic. Talking just about poker btw!

As for the rest of yr post, again bla bla bla matey!

[SuuPRlim]

Also I've seen James Sykes play one hand on the telly so not really in a position to judge.

fyp

[SuuPRlim]

r.e the question if we'd seen him 3bet suited connectors from the BB before.

Yeah would make a difference because we could give his preflop range a wider selection of hands so we cant pretty much rule out flush draws like i reckon we can as played in this hand

I think it's still gonna be a fold because I personally believe he is very very unlikely to play a flush draw this way and we're still getting a terrible price.

[Cf]

Jamies tv appearance was lol

[George2Loose]

Good point actually. Same scenario but I have Q7 and he has Kings. Fold?