WTF?
[ QUOTE ]
So Jason had to twist some details to make this hand postable, but it hardly matters. I was the button and I played this hand poorly. I should have bet the flop and since I didn't I should have just not tried to make a play for such a small pot. But when the UTG player checkraised the turn I think I played the hand great. I did not bet the river because the river was a heart, I checked behind and he won with a flush. I told him I had Ace high. His turn checkraise is abysmal.
-DeathDonkey
[/ QUOTE ]
Wait a second, but Jason said:
[ QUOTE ]
The Button had 6 9 and UTG's Q-high took the pot.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the "twisting of details" when it comes to announcing the results. Typically, we don't post results, unless there is a very compelling reason after a full discussion has ensued (or there is some strong entertainment value).
I think this is a hand where results did seem appropriate to post, but I'm confused as to why we're hearing to different sets of results - one where hero calls with Q high on the river and wins and then the other were hero makes a flush and checks (or whiffs on a check raise attempt).
FWIW - I feel compelled to point out that I (as probably many here) greatly value Jason's posts, and I can understand changing the river card to spark more of a debate I suppose, but why falsify the results of a hand? Surely there is no need to "prove" anything to anyone here is there? The analysis of the play up until the river was pretty interesting on its own, no?
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|