[Ajahn]

[ QUOTE ]
Can't be bothered to read the rest of the thread, got to the middle of the second page, but I just wanted to comment on the doyle vs gold hand. Some guy said 'if you're going to stack off with the 3rd nuts 400BB deep, you're probably a losing player', and I seriously LOL in your weak-tight face if you're so nitty that people always have a better hand when you get action that deep. In live games people regularly stack off with 1000BBs with one pair. I've won a 1200BB pot in live PLO for god's sake with one pair at showdown, all-in on the turn.

Secondly, regarding the specifics of the hand. It's pretty easy to discount any flush draw that includes the J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] in jamies' hand, given there's no way on earth he check-calls with a pair and a flush draw on the flop in late position. Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T x constitutes some small range of jamies hands as well - why should jamie put doyle on a flush draw if he's bet the flop? It would be a c/r for value against two pair/set etc and semibluffing should doyle have a flush. So Doyle should really be thinking that Jamie can only have one hand that beats his, the nuts, and against a spewtard like Gold (anyone who gives him one iota of poker competence, given what we've all seen, must be a losing player IMO), just shouldn't fold. The idea that he could fold any flush is absolutely laughable. Whether the best play on the turn is all-in or just call, I don't know, but I do know that I died a little inside when I saw brunson fold.

[/ QUOTE ]


DING DING DING