[FeltBelt]

[ QUOTE ]
The only person I felt did not contribute at all is "FeltBelt", who also happens to be the sole reason I'm even writing all of this.

A guy coming in with 50 posts feeling like he knows all there is to know about poker after reading about potodds, feeling that everyone else is just stupid and doesn't understand [censored] and definately makes this known to all of "lost souls" who needs enlightenment is just sad. There is a reason most people who starts to post have been lurking for a while. They simply KNOW that a lot of guys knows more than they do, and accordingly, they read up before the go about acting like Mr KnowItAll and just makes fools out of themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get this straight. You have to write this novel to refute my position, and it's clear from what you've said that it is STILL a close argument with valid points to be made on both sides.

Your position is essentially that metagame reasons impel one to make the all in here because of the magnification of the mistakes (of both kinds, calling and folding) that the larger bet will engender and because of future hand considerations against not just this player but others.

My position has been that in this hand against this player there is an optimal play. I believe his range for calling the all in and folding is so similar to his range for calling and folding to a $150 bet that the extra risk of the all in (about $150 more) doesn't make the play +EV, even when metagame considerations are factored in (primarily because of the transiency of most opponents at this limit, and their lack of response at a metagame level to such plays).

Once I said this, you decided to write some short, unhelpful posts deriding me and essentially telling me I know nothing about poker. You continued to do it in this little mini essay, because I guess you just can't help yourself. But the one thing that is crystal clear from this thread is that there are good arguments to be made on both sides, and that the decision is, in fact, likely a close one. So instead of telling me I'm garbage and assuming because I have 50 posts that I just picked up poker a few days ago, you could have taken the time to explain your position clearly and in detail. Instead, you decided that telling me I was crap was the way to go, and assumed I was some arrogant prick who wouldn't (or couldn't) see the logic in your ideas. I can and do see it, even if I disagree with its application at these stakes.

If you'd given me something to work with from the beginning, we could have had a productive exchange. As it is, I think you've got some anger issues you need to work out, I think you need to write clearer and more detailed posts when you're trying to get across a complex idea, and I think the practice of telling other posters they don't know anything about the game is totally counterproductive. Notice that at no point did I ever assert that you were an idiot or that you knew nothing about poker--I told you I thought your posts were rubbish, and until this one, they were. And you, in turn, think I am an arrogant newbie know-it-all who doesn't understand NL poker and makes a point of being an ass about it on message boards. Unfortunately for me, that couldn't be farther from the truth, but this thread has, I think, brought out the worst in both of us.

I look forward to reading your posts in the future, as you've obviously got something to contribute to my growth as a player. I just hope they're focused on bringing out your knowledge instead of belittling that of those reading and responding to you.