Hand from Borgata WPT - Page 20

AAAAx · #**191** 10-03-2007, 12:15 AM

Wouldn't QQ be about right for him (he wasn't tricky, and was straightforward, so a check and a call on the turn). Push...

Kuztah · #**192** 10-03-2007, 12:38 AM

do you really think he continues with the hand with jj-qq with 2 other players in the hand on what may be the worse flop for those type of hands?

fees · #**193** 10-03-2007, 12:42 AM

Seems like angleshoot to me, he checked the flop b/c its tough for someone to have a hand, board doesnt really have any draws out there, and probably would scare away anything u guys have if he bets.

His whole put in 6k and mean call was 100% scammmmmmmmm wanted to scam u and the armienen. Fold yo

g-p · #**194** 10-03-2007, 12:50 AM

actionjeff,

wtf man???? i agree with you

g-p · #**195** 10-03-2007, 12:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Jeff, you completely missed the point. As I said in the OP, I didn't figure the answer out myself. This entire thread is about a mistake I made, and the key piece if information that I did not notice.

[/ QUOTE ]
you must have forgotten every other post in the thread u made

nazahl · #**196** 10-03-2007, 12:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
straightforward, and not tricky at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

seems out of character for him to angle shoot then

#**197** 10-03-2007, 12:52 AM

Justin,

I kinda missed the boat with this thread as I'm only seeing it for the first time now, but I read through all the reponses, etc, but this particularly stands out:

"It's not about what is in his range. It's about what isn't."

Can you explain what this even means? Doesn't a range in turn imply a converse range? When people respond to my posts and say "No no, he can't have JJ here because his range is QQ+", would it make any sense for me to retort with "It's not about what's NOT in his range. It's about what's IN his range."

NoahSD · #**198** 10-03-2007, 12:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Jeff, you completely missed the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it is you who has missed the point and can't find the key, grasshopper.

ZeeJustin · #**199** 10-03-2007, 12:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jeff, you completely missed the point. As I said in the OP, I didn't figure the answer out myself. This entire thread is about a mistake I made, and the key piece if information that I did not notice.

[/ QUOTE ]
you must have forgotten every other post in the thread u made

[/ QUOTE ]

When was I condescending in this thread?

ZeeJustin · #**200** 10-03-2007, 12:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Justin,

I kinda missed the boat with this thread as I'm only seeing it for the first time now, but I read through all the reponses, etc, but this particularly stands out:

"It's not about what is in his range. It's about what isn't."

Can you explain what this even means? Doesn't a range in turn imply a converse range? When people respond to my posts and say "No no, he can't have JJ here because his range is QQ+", would it make any sense for me to retort with "It's not about what's NOT in his range. It's about what's IN his range."

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically people were discussing what he could have if he did intend to raise, but people weren't discussing what he could have if he actually intended to call like he said.