[Jibbs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Uh, no, you didn't lose that money. If the DC abuser had called, then his disconnect saved you from losing more. The only thing the DC abuser cost you was the pot you would have won if the abuser had folded. I understand people don't like disconnections. I don't like them either, but at the level I play the disconnectors don't understand what the advantageous situations are for disconnection.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

example: I have a set, my opponent has 2 pair, I put him all in on the river, he has $500 behind, and I cover.

He disconnects and finds out his 2 pair are no good at a $500 discount. That's the $500 I have been cheated.

If my hand was a loser, I am glad he disconnected. obv.

Why did you assume I lost the hand, have you been watching me play? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Regards,
Woodguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Woodguy,

My reading of your original post on this led me to believe it was the following type situation:

You have trips and your opponent has something like a 8 high flush on a paired board. You push all in on the river leaving your opponent needing to call another $500. He sees that he may be up against a higher flush or a full house and decides to disconnect to get to the showdown with no more risk.

In this situation he may very well have folded the river bet instead of calling but since he could get to showdown for no more risk by simply disconnecting he did. He may have cost himself some additional money but it was a hand he would not have won otherwise.

Anyway. Good stuff so far, keep up the good work

Jibbs