Re: more counter-examples
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I give up on this thread. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
-eric
[/ QUOTE ]
Haha, this seems to happen pretty often in threads about the FSD.
[/ QUOTE ]
no doubt! it's almost comical the way everyone chimes in with all of these ancillary arguments.
fwiw, with all due respect to eric and the rest of us, i think the problem lies less with the difference in strategy and more with the difference in terminology.
as a 2p2er, we've been taught certain mantras. now as a result of this there is certain language that means certain things. our definition of FSDR has the specific inclusion of the characteristic that calling a 3bet is a strong deterrent against evaluating a spot to use the play. this is why we repeatedly bring it up when determining the merits of the play. eric refers to the play in a more universal sense(which is fine if you understand what he is saying) and therefore can be referring to something specifically different in contrast to this particular point in terms of the typical "2p2 doctrine". that's fine, and i think it's great that he's thinking outside of certain paradigms. it has made me think about the play in broader application and that's a good thing. what it boils down to though, is that i generally dislike the play. but all i really wanted to do is explain to some of the newer posters what some of the "standard" requirements could be in terms of evaluating the situation for application of the free showdown(and this is obviously in accord with what i've always learned in the forums about what the FSDR involved). hope everyone understands.
|