New Thread For Yes Or No Questions - Page 6

stinkypete · #51 01-09-2007, 03:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In limit holdem with a 2-3 blind structure, when in the small blind, is it ever correct to muck in lieu of completing?

leaponthis

[/ QUOTE ]

Mathematically yes. Image wise no.

[/ QUOTE ]

so there exists no situation in limit hold'em where someone who plays correctly would benefit from the nitty image?

Shandrax · #52 01-09-2007, 04:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever come to a logical conclusion that you feel unable to share with anybody, because of the certainty that you would aquire a severely damaging negative label (e.g. racist, sicko, psychopath, fascist, pervert etc) as a result? (Obviously if you answer yes, I don't expect you to say what it is).

[/ QUOTE ]

Is facism bad by definition?
Is communism bad by definition?
Is democracy good by definition?

Brocktoon · #53 01-09-2007, 07:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is ridiculous. You're basically BS-ing the "you don't have ESP" part of my post. There couldn't POSSIBLY be someone that you peg with such certainty as flopping a full house with such accuracy that you'd fold a flush draw. The more likely case is that your "reading" ability loses you a lot of money in the longrun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've definitely played with people live who would never raise preflop and then on a flop of AKK with less than a fullhouse. There are people so tight that they only raise QQ+/AK and will never raise the flop with an underpair. Plus, I specifically said that my example was a hypothetical. You don't need ESP, just a long history with a player and an extremely reliable read.

If you don't like my initial example how about we put you at a full table of weak-tight nits, the flop comes AAK and its capped before it gets to you. Lets further assume that the guy directly to your right put in the cap and he's the weakest-tightest of the bunch and he never raises draws.

I said in my initial response that it was a hypothetical situation and that I can't even remember ever folding a flushdraw on the flop in limit. That said there are obviously situations where it would be correct and I stand by my initial example since the player I described has Kings full of Aces at minimum 100% of the time. Furthermore, I've actually played low limit poker in casinos with players who play that way.

Piemaster · #54 01-09-2007, 08:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Is facism bad by definition?
Is communism bad by definition?
Is democracy good by definition?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no and no. But society as a whole thinks all the above are true and so labelling anybody a fascist is an entirely negative label.

Besides, that wasnt the point of the question at all.

Magic_Man · #55 01-09-2007, 08:46 AM

David, do you think it's cheating if you see someone's cards reflected through their glasses?

leaponthis · #56 01-09-2007, 10:05 AM

If you play or observe a limit, 15-30 or 30-60, holdem game at the Bellagio and see a player muck his small blind when it is one chip to him you can be almost assured that, that player is playing or at least trying to play for a living. It is one of the most sure way of spotting a pro or wannabe pro that there is. I asked my question of David the way I did because I ASS_U_MEd that David would say that one should always call one chip in the small blind. I was wrong, he fooled me. I was going to ask him if he agreed with me about my opinion of the image projectd by a player mucking the small blind but he double crossed me.

leaponthis

Knockwurst · #57 01-09-2007, 10:39 AM

1) Without naming names do you know of or have reasonable cause to suspect any well-known players currently cheating at poker?

By cheating I mean having some sort of system in place--more than occassionally stealing a glance at someone exposing their cards.

2) If you knew of a well-known player currently cheating, would you expose their cheating to others?

3) Are there card mechanics so good that you would be unable to detect them even if they were dealing at your table for any reasonable amount of time?

4) Did you delete the other yes or no thread because of your answer relating to the topic of cheating?

BTW and FWIW, I think your answer in the previous thread was highly commendable and is something few poker professionals would do.

ALawPoker · #58 01-09-2007, 11:04 AM

Do you think faith in an organized religion improves the quality of life for certain people?

If yes, do you think most of said lives would be better still if organized religion did not exist, and the terms of a person's faith were not legislated in stone?

Do you think the world would be better off with an international ban of organized religion, or do you think the inherent harm in the restriction of human nature outweighs the good that would be done?

leaponthis · #59 01-09-2007, 03:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
2. You meet a room full of strangers named after poker games. Through magic you know each is the world's best at his or her namesake. Who do you respect the most?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this one fo sure. "Indian Joe"

leaponthis

David Sklansky · #60 01-09-2007, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In limit holdem with a 2-3 blind structure, when in the small blind, is it ever correct to muck in lieu of completing?

leaponthis

[/ QUOTE ]

Mathematically yes. Image wise no.

[/ QUOTE ]

so there exists no situation in limit hold'em where someone who plays correctly would benefit from the nitty image?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree there could be exceptions if you play it right.