|
|
#151
03-01-2007, 05:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: High Stakes Poker - 2/26
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I suppose on the e-dog laydown he knew that Sammy was steaming and he felt that he very well may have been forced to play for $100k with tptk and it wasn't quite the spot he was looking for. [/ QUOTE ] That's called playing scared . [/ QUOTE ] FYP [/ QUOTE ] I'll take this as a joke. A bad one at that. In E-dog's mind he knew he'd be racing. Not wanting to race for $100K is not playing scared. I think some of you are so used to seeing these large piles of cash after 3 seasons of this show that you just assume Lindgren can piss away 100 dimes anytime someone wants to race -- even a madman like Farha. With the crap that Farha plays he could easily have had two pair or the flush draw. [/ QUOTE ] No. He is not always "racing". Sammy is never there with QQ-AA, and he can easily play a worse J or have absolute air fairly often. Such a bad laydown. 
|
|
#153
03-01-2007, 09:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High Stakes Poker - 2/26
[ QUOTE ]
Sammy is never there with QQ-AA [/ QUOTE ] You can't say "never". Sure, his range is huge but AA-QQ are at least part of it, and you know he's going to want to try to play a big pot with those hands. Clearly, something about Sammy's demeanor spooked Eric. His comment "you're acting weird" seems like he might have thought Sammy was trying to pretend tilt. I agree the laydown looks bad, but it's hard to play for your stack with a one-pair hand OOP when half the deck is a scare card on the turn, even if you do think your opponent might be steaming.
|
|
#154
03-01-2007, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High Stakes Poker - 2/26
[ QUOTE ]
No. He is not always "racing". Sammy is never there with QQ-AA, and he can easily play a worse J or have absolute air fairly often. Such a bad laydown. [/ QUOTE ] Ask Barry about Sammy not being there with QQ-AA (specifically KK). Erick mentioned that it was a race and there were two diamonds on the board. EVERYTHING pointed to it being at best 60-40 for E-Dog. I see nothing wrong with him not wanting to put $100K more into THAT hand. He has shown gamble in the past and has definitely shown that he knows how to look someone up. Regardless of whether it is Sammy or not, it was not a bad decision on his part. Yes, worth questioning and disecting on this board, but not the god-awful decision some on this board are making it out to be.
|
|
#155
03-01-2007, 03:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High Stakes Poker - 2/26
[ QUOTE ]
Ask Barry about Sammy not being there with QQ-AA (specifically KK). Erick mentioned that it was a race and there were two diamonds on the board. EVERYTHING pointed to it being at best 60-40 for E-Dog. I see nothing wrong with him not wanting to put $100K more into THAT hand. He has shown gamble in the past and has definitely shown that he knows how to look someone up. Regardless of whether it is Sammy or not, it was not a bad decision on his part. Yes, worth questioning and disecting on this board, but not the god-awful decision some on this board are making it out to be. [/ QUOTE ] You do not know how to play poker.
|
|
#156
03-01-2007, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High Stakes Poker - 2/26
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I guess Barry thought Erick woulda just shut down if he called him while he was ahead ONLY. But Erick would only fire again after Barry's smooth call IF he improved his hand (i.e. making a set w/ an underpair). I think Barry wasn't deep enuff to just call there; in that spot if ur gonna go w/ that hand w/ those stacks the check/raise "AI" earned the max in that spot from that opponent. [/ QUOTE ] if that's the case then he can fold the turn. if he can't fold the turn, that's because erick is bluffing sometimes, which nets him money. he's putting in 50k with effectively no value whatsoever. it won't make better hands fold, and it almost certainly won't get called by worse. all it does is protect from 2-3 outers which is obviously not much of a concern. i can't think of a single reason why calling and playing poker on the turn isn't better. looks like if barry calls stacks will be 1.5x pot, and sticking that much in on a drawless board with a hand that won't fold out anything better and can't be called by worse is just absurd [/ QUOTE ] Totally agreee with this. There was also a similar hand between Wasicka and Farha where Sammy was on air (as usual) and Wasicka flopped top pair bad kicker with A9. Wasicka check/called the flop and then CRAI for $100K on the turn. Board was A-J-3-6 with only a BD flushdraw. Again I was thinking that the only way he's going to make money on the hand is to let a player like Sammy keep firing at the pot. I don't get making big raises in wa/wb situations where you're going to lose you're money if you're beat everytime anyway. At least give the guy a chance to bluff some money off unless the board is threatening and you think you're facing a semi-bluff.
|
|
#157
03-02-2007, 12:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High Stakes Poker - 2/26
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ask Barry about Sammy not being there with QQ-AA (specifically KK). Erick mentioned that it was a race and there were two diamonds on the board. EVERYTHING pointed to it being at best 60-40 for E-Dog. I see nothing wrong with him not wanting to put $100K more into THAT hand. He has shown gamble in the past and has definitely shown that he knows how to look someone up. Regardless of whether it is Sammy or not, it was not a bad decision on his part. Yes, worth questioning and disecting on this board, but not the god-awful decision some on this board are making it out to be. [/ QUOTE ] You do not know how to play poker. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. I'm sure your tunnel-vision keeps you a wealthy man/woman or whatever you are. Congrats!
|
|
#158
03-04-2007, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High Stakes Poker - 2/26
[ QUOTE ]
I used to think Phil Laak was just some combination of ADD and attention whore, but after seeing that preview, and his recent interview on Rounders, i've never been more sure he's on something. He just goes into long, roundabout ramblings. [/ QUOTE ] The thing that frightens me is that i'm pretty sure i understood him perfectly without needing to rewind. I think he's saying he'll post a straddle as long as at least five others are willing to do it. What makes this even worse is that i'm perfectly sober.
|
|
#160
03-04-2007, 08:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High Stakes Poker - 2/26
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I used to think Phil Laak was just some combination of ADD and attention whore, but after seeing that preview, and his recent interview on Rounders, i've never been more sure he's on something. He just goes into long, roundabout ramblings. [/ QUOTE ] The thing that frightens me is that i'm pretty sure i understood him perfectly without needing to rewind. I think he's saying he'll post a straddle as long as at least five others are willing to do it. What makes this even worse is that i'm perfectly sober. [/ QUOTE ] He smokes a lot of pot, that might be why he always sounds like that. I kinda like him though.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
