Re: I thought we were being friendly
 

[ QUOTE ]
p.s. this can be KK so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I call here and bitch/moan accordingly when he has AQ.

Re: I thought we were being friendly
 

It's much more likely to be 33 than KK.

Re: I thought we were being friendly
 

Yea wouldn't that be a really weird way to play KK on the flop and turn? Are you saying he could play it this way because they're deep?

Re: I thought we were being friendly
 

Also, seen as nobody has said it yet, you shouldn't be calling in whatever position you called in with Q9s.

Re: I thought we were being friendly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yea wouldn't that be a really weird way to play KK on the flop and turn? Are you saying he could play it this way because they're deep?

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost as weird as his river play?

He's obv retarded, who knows what he was thinking.

Re: I thought we were being friendly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, seen as nobody has said it yet, you shouldn't be calling in whatever position you called in with Q9s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? To a min-raise, in position, 250BB deep.

Re: I thought we were being friendly
 

It's a suited 2 gapper against a nit open. Where do you draw the line? Any suited cards? Any semi connected cards? Any 2 cards?

Re: I thought we were being friendly
 

I doubt he's retarded, he's a tight regular (from OP descrip and I think I've seen him at the tables myself) who at least has to be given credit for having some clue.

Edit: just noticed pf min raise, that is a bit weird

Re: I thought we were being friendly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, seen as nobody has said it yet, you shouldn't be calling in whatever position you called in with Q9s.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post12815647


[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: I thought we were being friendly
 

I said raise or fold there too, which is what i'd advocate here.