|
|
#63
01-10-2007, 01:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 50/100 party hand
[ QUOTE ]
Folding is such a no-brainer that if you call, you certifiably have no (poker) brain. Short of flopping a boat, what can you even be hoping for? Bottom set? So a couple hearts come on the flop and you pay a couple bets to see the turn. Now you hit the flush (forget the straight flush-that's pixie dust poker!). Now what? With all the preflop action strong likelihood that there are a couple (at least) A's out there-and that includes the nut heart. So you pay a couple more big bets to see the turn praying for a non-diamond. And if you dodge that bullet, you could still be beat by a bigger flush or possibly a boat. Recently I have seen more and more of this kind of tautological rationalizaton ("getting 9.5/1") for expensive, super-loose preflop calls of hands that are designed for playing cheaply. Duh...Course the odds are high-that's because there's a lot of opposition! Ironically, it seems that these kind of mistakes may be more frquent at high- rather than low-limit poker. The only possible explanation is that the rich fish are less concerned about their money than the stiffs grinding out a few bucks at 5/10 or whatever. [/ QUOTE ] Folding preflop is absolutely horrible. James 
|
|
#64
01-10-2007, 02:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 party hand
So is your reply! We're supposed to take this random comment from you on faith? I guess that's because you have no supporting argument/counter-argument to those presented here.
|
|
#65
01-10-2007, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 party hand
[ QUOTE ]
So is your reply! We're supposed to take this random comment from you on faith? I guess that's because you have no supporting argument/counter-argument to those presented here. [/ QUOTE ] i will take James282's argument on faith. he is a well respected poster and knows his [censored]. i, on the other hand, am not. but even i know that folding preflop here is a crime.
|
|
#66
01-10-2007, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 party hand
Sorry, but I never heard of (King?) James; and if he's such a genius (at least YOU say so-but maybe you;re just a shill for another donk?), how come you guys can't articlulate an explanation on this? Is it possible that you guys are all hat and no horse?
|
|
#67
01-10-2007, 04:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 party hand
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but I never heard of (King?) James; and if he's such a genius (at least YOU say so-but maybe you;re just a shill for another donk?), how come you guys can't articlulate an explanation on this? Is it possible that you guys are all hat and no horse? [/ QUOTE ] ok, i'll be the [censored] who says it. this preflop call is fundamental. it is something that is discussed in the micro-limits, not in high stakes. i think this is because most people who are learning the game start at very low stakes, and get the fundamentals there. this forum is is not for discussing obvious plays.
|
|
#70
01-10-2007, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 party hand
Ouch! That hurts to the quick. I am humiliated, chagrined and mortified! Poker cop has spoken! Guess I never saw those "rules". (Prob since I haven't spent as much time trolling the micros as pokercop apparently has.) But last time I looked in this thread WAS actually commenting on this play, so I guess pokercop may have missed something. (Something about none are so blind as those who will not see). Notice also that his answer is still another non-answer. If he really had something intellignet to say wouldn't he have said it, instead of a fruitless continuation of the dissing my comment seems to have occasioned. Could it be that the (poker) emperors really have no clothes...? (Not a pretty picture, I konow, but, hey, I can't protect him forever)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
