[LuckyLloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it wasn't a reverse tell. he checked his cards to make sure he really had what he thought so he didn't do something moronic. i do this every single hand. seriously that's what i'm talking about. making a dumb turn c/r that doesn't make any sense for any reason involving a live tell is moronic. that is it. c/c turn and prob c/f riv unimproved, depending on the size of the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we've gone from "pure spew", because this would not be a live tell against you and therefore should not be used against anybody, to "moronic", because I did something relying on a live tell. I'm guessing "live tells are not important" is a corollary to the Third Fundamental Theorem of Poker, "internet players are the best tournament players in the world".

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, lets not go down this road please. I am a live player and I have learned through bitter experience that live "tells" are highly unreliable. Knowing that someone has done something out of the ordinary is easy. Knowing what it means is a complex guessing game and the times your assessment of what it indicates is right are vastly outnumbered by the times you get it wrong. And you tend to remember the times you were correct much more than the times you end up looking like a tit.

Why post a hand if it comes down to a specific live read? If you follow that read to the end and are happy that it was the correct thing to do - fine. But people are going to go to the fundamentals of hand reading, ranges, betting etc in order to analyse a hand posted on a message board.

That analysis says that checkraising a thinking player on this type of board is a spew. And live, online, whatever - that type of analysis will ALWAYS be more useful and beneficial than inconclusive, "had to be there" stuff like reads.