Re: 50/100 hand against mahatma at UB
 

[ QUOTE ]
Call Chris Ferguson and have him bitch slap him again. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah... just open up the fridge and ask him to "hold 'em or fold 'em." So far he's always been correct! Amazing!

KoW cracks open a brewsky

Re: 50/100 hand against mahatma at UB
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying this is an easy fold, I'm saying this a fold.

Sure, mahatma is a lag, and he could be bluffing. But that misses the point. Mahatma is intelligent, has to put hero on a big hand, and pushes on the one card that almost certainly IMPROVED hero's hand on a safe looking board. WTF does that? If this is a bluff, it's an incredibly stupid one, and the only possible rational is an image play(?). I've rarely seen good lags make stupid bluffs like this. I asked for hand histories because in the games 50/100 games I've watched, I've never seen a good lag make a river move like this without a huge hand or scare cards on the board. Have you?
I'm from small stakes and don't have a clue about most hands, but on the above I can't see anything else making sense to a good player, lag or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you understand that if Mahatma is indeed intelligent, as you say, and "has to put hero on a big hand" (BTW, you know nothing about hero here, you have very little information to say whether Mahatma has any real reason to put hero on any kind of a big hand, not to mention you know nothing about Hero's ability to make big calls/big folds, etc, etc, etc), can't you see that your reasoning above is very simple, way too simple? Can't you understand that if a bluff here is "incredibly stupid", it might actually be a great spot for a bluff, especially if Hero can rather easily (yes, easily, if you're hero at least), lay down AK here? This is not a 1-2 game.

Please read this whole thread and your own posts again. Do you think Mahatma is not clever enough to be aware of this kind of rather simple 2nd level thinking? Don't you think that he should actually be bluffing here quite often and will be VERY correct to do so?

Re: 50/100 hand against mahatma at UB
 

[ QUOTE ]
So now that we have established that lots of people here can put dead reads on Mahatma, the next is figuring out how to get you guys backers so you can break him....

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that for the riverdecision for hero, it doesnt matter much that villain is Mahatma (except for the fact he is facing a very good high stakes NL player). It even worked against hero, because he put the fact that Mahatma bluffoverbets river often above what Mahatma was likely to hold on this board with this action. I think for how Mahatma played his hand, and how you'd think he would have played other rivers, it shows how much I would not like to play him.

Also note that a deduction like i made in my post, I don't see myself making it in 30 seconds, yet.

Marnix

Re: 50/100 hand against mahatma at UB
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can't you understanding that if a bluff here is "incredible stupid", it might actually be a great spot for a bluff, especially if Hero can rather easily (yes, easily, if you're hero at least), lay down AK here?

[/ QUOTE ]
From this thread, even the 2+2 lay downers are a minority. Your average short handed player is not laying down AK or a set here. Your average fish is definitely not. The very good players (Kane, Fim, others) are the only ones doing this. Good lags make their money by doing exactly this in exactly this situation and showing down the best hand. The rest is BS and deception, not profit.

Also bear in mind that this analysis is afterwards, in the heat of the moment with 30 sec to make a decision most players aren't laying down top two or a set to a lag overbet, ESPECIALLY at this level and in this game. He knows this.

I think you're not thinking deeply enough...my 5th level thinking (which, ironically, comes to the same conclusion as 2nd level thinking) kicks ass on your 3rd level thinking.

Re: 50/100 hand against mahatma at UB
 

[ QUOTE ]
my 5th level thinking (which, ironically, comes to the same conclusion as 2nd level thinking) kicks ass on your 3rd level thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole problem with your thinking is exactly this: you're still thinking in "levels". Be it 2nd, 5th, or 4243209th, it doesn't matter. This hand (and the only interesting parts of this thread) is not about this, so your 5th level thinking is not kicking ass against my 3rd level, because I'm not thinking on a 3th level or any nth level (at least I'm trying not to, with regard to this hand). That's the whole point: Mahatma is succesful because he's NOT playing this little "levels" game with you (or his opponents for this matter). You're only playing it with yourself.

Re: 50/100 hand against mahatma at UB
 

oops, i just realized your post was in the wrong thread

Re: 50/100 hand against mahatma at UB
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're not thinking deeply enough...my 5th level thinking (which, ironically, comes to the same conclusion as 2nd level thinking) kicks ass on your 3rd level thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole problem with your thinking is exactly this: you're still thinking in "levels". Be it 2nd, 5th, or 4243209th, it doesn't matter. This hand (and the only interesting parts of this thread) is not about this, so your 5th level thinking is not kicking ass against my 3rd level, because I'm not thinking on a 3th level or any nth level (at least I'm trying not to, with regard to this hand). That's the whole point: Mahatma is succesful because he's NOT playing this little "levels" game with you (or his opponents for this matter). You're only playing it with yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was making fun of you for this comment:

[ QUOTE ]
Please read this whole thread and your own posts again. Do you think Mahatma is not clever enough to be aware of this kind of rather simple 2nd level thinking? Don't you think that he should actually be bluffing here quite often and will be VERY correct to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

What needs to be said in this thread has been said. I'm yet to see hands posted where mahatma has done this as a bluff. TWP has posted two examples from VERY similar situations where Mahatma held the mortal nuts (or as good as)...that's three now...I await contrary examples.

Re: 50/100 hand against mahatma at UB
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're not thinking deeply enough...my 5th level thinking (which, ironically, comes to the same conclusion as 2nd level thinking) kicks ass on your 3rd level thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole problem with your thinking is exactly this: you're still thinking in "levels". Be it 2nd, 5th, or 4243209th, it doesn't matter. This hand (and the only interesting parts of this thread) is not about this, so your 5th level thinking is not kicking ass against my 3rd level, because I'm not thinking on a 3th level or any nth level (at least I'm trying not to, with regard to this hand). That's the whole point: Mahatma is succesful because he's NOT playing this little "levels" game with you (or his opponents for this matter). You're only playing it with yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was making fun of you for this comment:

[ QUOTE ]
Please read this whole thread and your own posts again. Do you think Mahatma is not clever enough to be aware of this kind of rather simple 2nd level thinking? Don't you think that he should actually be bluffing here quite often and will be VERY correct to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

What needs to be said in this thread has been said. I'm yet to see hands posted where mahatma has done this as a bluff. TWP has posted two examples from VERY similar situations where Mahatma held the mortal nuts (or as good as)...that's three now...I await contrary examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

last paragraph is amusing. do u realize the implications of what u are saying about his river overbets. lmao.

Re: 50/100 hand against mahatma at UB
 

?

Of course I was aware of that comment when I made my last post, so I don't see how exactly you were making fun of that comment. In the post I was refering to you were on the 2nd level and I was pointing that out. It doesn't mean that being on the 243th level is any better.

My point with regard to levels still stands.

The other two hands posted here shade very little light on such general spots against Mahatma of course. They prove absolutely nothing, and if you think otherswise there's really very little I can do. Please wait to your "contrary examples". this little discussion isn't going anywhere, since I don't think we're even talking the same language here.

Re: 50/100 hand against mahatma at UB
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're not thinking deeply enough...my 5th level thinking (which, ironically, comes to the same conclusion as 2nd level thinking) kicks ass on your 3rd level thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole problem with your thinking is exactly this: you're still thinking in "levels". Be it 2nd, 5th, or 4243209th, it doesn't matter. This hand (and the only interesting parts of this thread) is not about this, so your 5th level thinking is not kicking ass against my 3rd level, because I'm not thinking on a 3th level or any nth level (at least I'm trying not to, with regard to this hand). That's the whole point: Mahatma is succesful because he's NOT playing this little "levels" game with you (or his opponents for this matter). You're only playing it with yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was making fun of you for this comment:

[ QUOTE ]
Please read this whole thread and your own posts again. Do you think Mahatma is not clever enough to be aware of this kind of rather simple 2nd level thinking? Don't you think that he should actually be bluffing here quite often and will be VERY correct to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

What needs to be said in this thread has been said. I'm yet to see hands posted where mahatma has done this as a bluff. TWP has posted two examples from VERY similar situations where Mahatma held the mortal nuts (or as good as)...that's three now...I await contrary examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hands that look like this where Mahatma has been bluffing on the river have been posted many times.