[WutRUTryin2Hit]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Michael Craig seems results orientated and pretty clueless about poker theory in his blog. He thinks one of the reasons it's good to check the nuts is because it keeps the pot small when your opponent, who is drawing live, hits. Obviously pot control is a good thing when you have the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are talking about the Howard/Allen hand, I think you miss his point. Howard intended to check-raise the turn because it was clear Allen had a set (Howard held the nut straight) and planned on a huge check-raise. Instead, according to Howard, Allen checked behind FOR VALUE because he can't call if Howard check-raises because Allen's hand is pretty much defined because he flat-called a RERAISE as the third player in. By checking, he both keeps the pot small with a vulnerable hand and gets value if the board pairs on the river because Howard will likely call a small bet.

Andy Bloch breaks it down a little bit in his audio interview.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, yes, we all understand how the hand went down and why, but Craig definitely wrote it up very result-oriented, I noticed the same thing, he said that Howard played it the best he could because if he had bet on the turn and gotten called, he would have had to pay off a 40k river bet instead of a 10k one. That's results-oriented.

Also seriously, why is every hand about "balls" and "dick-out"?? The latest post is about a monster pot where Ivey had JJ on an AAJ board and Antonius OBVIOUSLY had a big hand cause he called a huge river bet...how is that "about balls"?? Does Craig think that Antonius called him with king high or something? It's obvious Antonius had a good hand.

In some other post he went on about how there were a couple of re-raising wars that apparently were also just about balls. Why does he think they weren't 2 guys with good hands reraising each other, why is it always balls? What is all this dick-out stuff earlier? I think Michael Craig is preoccupied with balls. All this "it's all about balls!" stuff, it's kind of hack writing, the kind of thing that sells mass-market paperbacks about poker, but I would really defy anyone to explain how the AAJ hand involves balls.

Michael Craig, why is it always balls with you? (and occasionally dicks)