An absolutly WORLD CLASS play in my opinion......your thoughts please

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
hey guys, if you want i can start a new thread titled "qpw, gonso and el hombre grande talkin crap all day" you guys could just go in there and have it out! there would be like 4000 post in 3 days, and we could sit back and watch the bloody mess unfold. sound good? let me know.
for the rest of us who would like to figure out the situation at hand, thanks guys, for you positive and thoughtful input!

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be too cocky if I were you.

Remember that the opinion of most people here is that your so called strong player was in fact a weak player who made an idiot call and your analysis of that idiot call as 'world class play' was so far off the mark as to be laughable.

I agree that is the most likely explanation.

However, I did try and be a little more positive and suggest other, less likely explanations.

One of these explanations so enraged ELH and Gonso that they have gone on tilt and continued attacking a proposition that they simply do not have the wit to understand.

Now, we can either go with their analysis: "Your SP was an idiot and you're an idiot for seeing his goofball play as world class."

Or we can consider the other unlikely, but not impossible options: Tell, hunch, cheating, ESP.

One thing everyone is agreed upon: There is no mathematical explanation for the play and whatever the actual reason, it was most certainly not 'World Class'.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So now he's saying that he can recognize this set-specific tell, which he may have discovered under strange circumstances (but doesn't really remember those circumstances). And he won't tell anyone what it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is it that you and ELH are so keen to display your lack of analytical capability at every opportunity?

It's so easy even a dog should be able to understand it.

There is one tell that gives you one clue. It's very basic, certainly not exhibited by the majority of players, and blindingly obvious once you notice it. I became aware of it a long time ago - not in a blinding flash, but just by noticing it was something some players did - or didn't do under some circumstances (much like any other tell).

And just like a lot of other tells, when you add it to the cardfall of the game, and further observations of the players behaviour, it gives you a good idea that they have some particular hand, or type of hand.

This is all such basic stuff that the fact you and ELH are having such problems with it tells us a great deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

the fact that you equate this laydown w/him having a tell says a great deal about you.

edit: people make reads each time they choose to call, raise, or fold. the bottom line is that saying that he made a great down is a results oriented statement.

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
the fact that you equate this laydown w/him having a tell says a great deal about you.

edit: people make reads each time they choose to call, raise, or fold. the bottom line is that saying that he made a great down is a results oriented statement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you actually read this thread?

I think not.

If you had you would have noticed that I only include a tell as one somewhat unlikely possibility.

The only reason it's been dragged out for page after page is that certain people seem to have become so enraged at the idea of a tell of which they can't even conceive that they have gone on tilt and formed themselves into a little attack team.

Or, since this is a poker site, maybe they're just bluffing and pretending to be that stupid hoping I'll give in and inform them of the tell!

I rear that you failure to comprehend what I've actually said in this thread tells us a great deal about you.

And since you seem to have missed it the first twenty or so times:

I don't think a tell is a likely explanation - I think the most likely explanation is bad play.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
If he made it on the basis of a tell (or even by cheating), it was a good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

i've read most of it, tyvm. i played live b/f i played on the internet so don't waste your time patronizing me as though i know nothing about live poker.

i know you what you have said. my disagreement w/you more or less amounts to this:

[ QUOTE ]
If he made it on the basis of a tell (or even by cheating), it was a good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

i do not agree with this b/c it is only true b/c of the result. i see little difference b/t this and some who chases a draw once and hits it b/c he felt his card coming.

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he made it on the basis of a tell (or even by cheating), it was a good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

i've read most of it, tyvm. i played live b/f i played on the internet so don't waste your time patronizing me as though i know nothing about live poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
How you can make an accusation of patronising from the above entirely escapes me. The post in question was not even addressed to you.

[ QUOTE ]
i know you what you have said. my disagreement w/you more or less amounts to this:

[ QUOTE ]
If he made it on the basis of a tell (or even by cheating), it was a good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

i do not agree with this b/c it is only true b/c of the result. i see little difference b/t this and some who chases a draw once and hits it b/c he felt his card coming.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see.

Permit me to explain why I believe you are wrong in one instance and potentially wrong in the other.

Firstly, when I say 'good play', I'm talking about good in the sense of +VE, I'm certainly not advocating cheating.

In the case of cheating, in as muich as having seen his opponent's cards, obviously his play is +EV if he has seen a pair of 8's in his opponent's hand and another 8 on the table. There is simply no question of that.

In the case of a possible tell, then it does, of course depend entirely on the accuracy of the tell. If the perceive tell can be interpreted in such a way that it gives a certain probability that the opponent has a certain range of hands, and that probability modifies what is otherwise known, how can ity be anything other than a good play to make use of the tell?

Certainly if he misreads his opponent he will not improve his position, but that is really another matter.

In the case of a tell, whether the play was good or not depends on the accuracy of the tell and the effect it will have on the outcome. The result in any particular case is, of course, irrelevant to making a determination of either of those points.

Just to be clear since people seem to keep missing this rather important fact:

I do not think it very likely that in this instance the player made his play as the result of a tell.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
To me it seems quite bizarre that this tell isn't known to everybody but, as Dr Watson said: "with explanation, everything becomes commonplace" and the circumstances which caused me to initially spot it may have been unusual (I can't actually remember) .

If it makes it any easier to swallow, the tell is not, in itself, set specific, but becomes so depending on subsequent events and behaviour.

With that, I'm sure somebody will work it out!

In fact I have a suspicion that there are people watching this thread, smiling to themselves knowingly and thinking "I hope the ****** doesn't give the game away".

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't think you'll ever top this post. It's become totally unnecessary to reply to (or even read) your wordy, runaround posts when I can just re-post this gem. Let whoever finds you credible agree with you. Based on my live playing and dealing experience, I don't.

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To me it seems quite bizarre that this tell isn't known to everybody but, as Dr Watson said: "with explanation, everything becomes commonplace" and the circumstances which caused me to initially spot it may have been unusual (I can't actually remember) .

If it makes it any easier to swallow, the tell is not, in itself, set specific, but becomes so depending on subsequent events and behaviour.

With that, I'm sure somebody will work it out!

In fact I have a suspicion that there are people watching this thread, smiling to themselves knowingly and thinking "I hope the ****** doesn't give the game away".

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't think you'll ever top this post. No need to reply to your wordy, runaround posts when I can just re-post this gem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just why are you so keen to show your complete lack of imagination and comprehension of anything but the most unsubtle of situations?

The vast majority of people here have no problem at all understanding that they can put a player on a hand because of a tell they spotted, linked with cardfall/betting, perhaps linked with another tell. I'm sure that most of us cannot remember the first time we spotted every particular tell of which we are aware.

Why is it that you seem not only incapable of understanding this extremely basic truth, but also, with your sidekick ELH, keep posting over and over again to reinforce this fact in everyone's mind?

It's rather as if you are wearing a big, flashing, sign saying: "I don't understand how to use tells, please come and take my chips".

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
To me it seems quite bizarre that this tell isn't known to everybody but, as Dr Watson said: "with explanation, everything becomes commonplace" and the circumstances which caused me to initially spot it may have been unusual (I can't actually remember) .

If it makes it any easier to swallow, the tell is not, in itself, set specific, but becomes so depending on subsequent events and behaviour.

With that, I'm sure somebody will work it out!

In fact I have a suspicion that there are people watching this thread, smiling to themselves knowingly and thinking "I hope the ****** doesn't give the game away".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you don't mind if I re-post your claims here again

[skin city]

look guys, heres the deal. i fully respect qpw, gonso and el hombre grande as being great poker minds! no question about that. now i feel if we can just get together, hash this out we can ALL be better poker players! just from learning from one another. your thoughts on this subject have ALL been extremely enlightning!
again....THANK YOU for your input and interest in this topic

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
i fully respect qpw, gonso and el hombre grande as being great poker minds!

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, there is no evidence of the operation of a great poker mind at work anywhere on this thread.

All I have been espousing is the idea that there is a very slight possibility that a series of events formed a set specific tell. This is not any indication of 'a great poker mind'. It's very, very, basic stuff

The other two, who seem to have no concept of the interplay of tells, betting and cardfall have got themselves worked up into an overexcited tizz-wazz and seem to want to advertise their lack of understanding to the world at large. I don't doubt they will fell rather foolish when they eventually calm down.