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

[Gonso]

If you're responding to me, don't bother, you're on ignore.

The "obviously you just don't understand", "oh, you're on tilt", "oh, you can't comprehend", bits are tired and ineffective. It's been done.

[wilneedheart]

You've been playing for 2 hours and the blinds are 75-150? Are you serious?

[ QUOTE ]
another thing that makes that play so amazing was the fact that andy's bet on the turn wasnt like it was putting SP all-in and his tourney was in jeopardy!

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you serious? SP has 5000. 150 for the blind. 400 for the raise. After the flop 600 for the cbet. That is 1,150: more than 20% of his stack. If he calls the 1600 turn bet he will have put in over half his stack.

[ QUOTE ]
Now ive been playing poker now for about 6-7 weeks in vegas and i watch it all the time on t.v. and i dont think ive ever seen a laydown like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Makes sense. on t.v.

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're responding to me

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't. You are just responding blind.

[ QUOTE ]
, don't bother, you're on ignore.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would have been your best bet from the outset.

Much less embarassing for you than demonstrating your lack of understanding of basic poker skills over and over again.

[ QUOTE ]
The "obviously you just don't understand", "oh, you're on tilt", "oh, you can't comprehend", bits are tired. It's been done.

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed, but it was your choice to go on and on and on demonstrating that what I was saying was self evidently true.

You are now at the stage of taking a potshot, putting your fingers and going 'la la la la'.

I've seen that done before.

Where you have put yourself in a class entirely of your own is making yourself look a compete muppet by responding to a post that was addressing someone else because you couldn't see what it said.

You really are a priceless act!

[wilneedheart]

The only thing interesting about this thread is the prop bets as to who will have the last word.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLOL. I go out to throw a few back and I've got a dimwitted literary buff insulting me post after post.

I've re-read this thread. The disagreement between dimwit and I began when I referred to his claim that this laydown could be the result of a "set specific tell" as "likely as the Easter Bunny." And I stand by that.

In subsequent posts he admits that this alleged set specific tell is, as he says, "not itself set specific."

While doing so, he's continued to claim that I'm an idiot for not recognizing something that he has now admitted doesn't exist-- ie a tell that is set specific.

Thus he actually has acknowledged that a set specific tell is as likely as the Easter Bunny. He's just hurt that I pointed it out, because he likes to ramble on about set specific tells, because passingby 12 year olds (ie flip flop) might think he's smart.

Bottom line: some of us are on the look out for the Easter Bunny, some aren't.

But I certainly don't want to prevent any futute posts quoting Sherlock or Dr Watson. It breaks up the monotony. Your typical pretend professor around here is far less likely to push his fraud as long or as comically as this one, (supported by quotes from Doc Watson, even) or to attempt to cloud it so richly with claims of "subtlety," and "complexity." Stats: 7/1/0.00 Notes: "weak-tight. Just bet. Showed laydown of a set of 4s to your AJ, but be careful not to give off any set specific tells" -5PTBB/100 at best.

And just to show there are no hard feelings, from now on when I play live, I'm going to wear the Sherlock Holmes hat and pipe, and search endlessly for that set specific tell that has so far eluded me.

[qpw]

Your own level of literacy is clearly indicated by your continually obsessing about a single, off the cuff, quote from a detective novel.

You must have mentioned it about a dozen times.

Like your buddy Gonso you seem to have no concept of the interplay between tells, cardfall and betting and are happy to broadcast this fact over and over again.

Like him, you have worked yourself up into a right state about sweet FA.

Like him you are a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage.

Like him it can be said of your post that it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Your own level of literacy is clearly indicated by your continually obsessing about a single, off the cuff, quote from a detective novel.

You must have mentioned it about a dozen times.

Like your buddy Gonso you seem to have no concept of the interplay between tells, cardfall and betting and are happy to broadcast this fact over and over again.

Like him, you have worked yourself up into a right state about sweet FA.

Like him you are a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage.

Like him it can be said of your post that it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, yeah. We get it. I'm dumb. When do we get to the point where you explain WTF a set specific tell that is "in itself", not set specific," is?

Feel free to use literary quotes, big words (I've got my dictionary ready) or petty insults as necessary.

PS. Its harder to find a sherlock holmes hat that you might think.

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, yeah. We get it. I'm dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]
Self knowledge is a wonderful gift.

[ QUOTE ]
When do we get to the point where you explain WTF a set specific tell that is "in itself", not set specific," is?

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFLMAO.

A couple of pages back, I should imagine [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[The point, as you so obdurately refuse to see, is that I was clarifying that (if a tell had indeed been involved) there would have been no single incident that created a set specific tell, rather some act of commission or omission on the part of Andy followed by some cardfall followed by some further act. These things together would have made a set specific tell. That should not be a hard concept to grasp but you and Gonso have been pretending (at least, I hope you're pretending) not to understand it for some time now.]

[ QUOTE ]
PS. Its harder to find a Sherlock Holmes hat that you might think.

[/ QUOTE ]
They are called 'deerstalkers' if that is any assistance.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, yeah. We get it. I'm dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]
Self knowledge is a wonderful gift.

[ QUOTE ]
When do we get to the point where you explain WTF a set specific tell that is "in itself", not set specific," is?

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFLMAO.

A couple of pages back, I should imagine [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[The point, as you so obdurately refuse to see, is that I was clarifying that (if a tell had indeed been involved) there would have been no single incident that created a set specific tell, rather some act of commission or omission on the part of Andy followed by some cardfall followed by some further act. These things together would have made a set specific tell. That should not be a hard concept to grasp but you and Gonso have been pretending (at least, I hope you're pretending) not to understand it for some time now.]

[ QUOTE ]
PS. Its harder to find a Sherlock Holmes hat that you might think.

[/ QUOTE ]
They are called 'deerstalkers' if that is any assistance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Whatever. How is that set-specific?

[Flip-Flop]

Deep down I still hope that our folder hero has an 2+2 account and will enlighten us all with a deep analysis of his questionable move but I might have to face the fact that I wont learn anything from this thread after all.

There is always an outside chance that someone who ever made a similar play would "come out of the closet" and teach us all the secret of life.. who knows.

And to finish my contribution in this "started promising but crashed badly" thread, (unless Gonso and El_Hombre get nasty so I have to post an insult or two ) I really wish both of them ignored this thread because I will never get back those minutes I spent reading their bullshiat. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]