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

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
I`m just getting lil tired of robot-like online players that jump to conclusions too fast every time a poker move does not compute with the math they learned from some book somewhere that someone wrote.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you're having trouble with the beginner-level hand analysis in this thread, and haven't really read anything. You feel that anyone with any math faculty is a robot-like math geek who can't play, etc., I know.

There really isn't much in the way of math in this thread anyway, so I'm not sure what your issue is. It IS a poker theory thread in any case, and ESP and all this other nonsense is outside of my scope in any case. Maybe we can open a Dungeons N Dragons thread or something.

(yawn)

[ginko]

With a solid read it is easy to fold a set. Without a solid read you cannot fold.

[wilneedheart]

I watched Joeseph Hachem call an allin with 3c 7c. He was up against Ac 10c. By the turn he had a full house.

Those who believe only "ESP" will win them tournaments are foolish.

Those who dismiss it entirely are just ignorant.

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
My position was known with my first post in this thread.
I don`t call it a world class nor do I call it an idiot move.
It`s a very situational move and only one that can explain it is the dude that made it.
I`m just getting lil tired of robot-like online players that jump to conclusions too fast every time a poker move does not compute with the math they learned from some book somewhere that someone wrote.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that the more dogmatic posters (whichever side they take) can become annoying.

I think the main point is that the play is stupid if the player made it on the basis of his interpretation of maths and logic.

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

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
If he had a "set-specific tell", why did he call the T600 flop bet?

[/ QUOTE ]Because the tell wasn't complete until the turn?

I'm not saying that he did have a SS tell, or even that it's very likely, it's just a vague possibility and I don't like being dogmatic about something if there's a possibility that it's wrong.

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I have never even claimed to be a good poker player. But I wouldn't need to be to see a problem with set mining, flopping a set, and then folding that set in this situation to aggression in a $60 Donkament

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, actually, you would.

The more bizzare a play, the more subtle your understanding of the game needs to be to see the possibility of a viable motive.

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Where did any of this come from? A "set specific tell?" As likely as the Easter Bunny. B.S. Peddle it elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here again, the fact that you know of no tell that would assist you in this situation is really your problem. The fact that you dismiss the possibility out of hand (you don't know what you don't know) doesn't auger well for your long term development in the game.

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't the slightest idea how you could possibly claim that this whole situation is actually a winner because the guy is giving false advertising as someone who is weak tight

[/ QUOTE ]
Evidently.

But you would probably be better advised to spend your time trying to get an idea rather than telling us you haven't got one.

[ QUOTE ]
If this is really for meta-game purposes, I can think of better uses for all those chips than convincing players at the table to take shots at you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh dear. "convincing players at the table to take shots at you" is a very worthwhile exercise if you can ensure you have an overall +EV as a result of those shots. You have heard of bluffing, I suppose?



[ QUOTE ]
If a "set specific tell" and ESP are the best you guys have got, I'm going to consider this matter concluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

A set specific tell is not that likely, especially as he called the flop, but a good player will not dismiss it out of hand.

[skin city]

wow! what have i started here? this thread is rollin....
anyway , you guys each make valid points (well most of you anyway) and i must admit im now kind of leaning more towards the "it was a donkey move" than i was before. when i first saw this go down i was absolutly speechless, and had my self questioning my own game simply because i knew this guy just made this play i knew i could never make,because the play turned out to be the right one THIS TIME! im still not convinced how i feel about SP, as a player, it could have been a genius play, it could have been a donkey play! im just not sure yet....ill just have to figure that out if i ever sit with the guy again! but ill tell you one thing, i wont take my god dammed eyes off the guy when we do play again!!!!!

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he had a "set-specific tell", why did he call the T600 flop bet?

[/ QUOTE ]Because the tell wasn't complete until the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was set over set on the flop. So, now you're going to have to change this theory to say that this was a "set specific tell that only works on the turn". How far are you going to try to stretch this?

Also, the condescening remarks in your responses aren't going to impress anyone without some legit substance to your position. Maybe on Pocket 5's that kind of thing will hold up, but here there are a lot of people here with a much firmer grasp of both PT and poker in general then you seem to.

Just because something is possible doesn't make it viable or practically realistic. You see a guy make this fold, and you mark him for a tight-weak player and move on him as best you can. You don't give him credit for a genius laydown.

[ QUOTE ]
I watched Joeseph Hachem call an allin with 3c 7c. He was up against Ac 10c. By the turn he had a full house.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have words for this. You go over there with qpw and those guys

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he had a "set-specific tell", why did he call the T600 flop bet?

[/ QUOTE ]Because the tell wasn't complete until the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was set over set on the flop. So, now you're going to have to change this theory to say that this was a "set specific tell that only works on the turn". How far are you going to try to stretch this?

[/ QUOTE ]
No further. I said it was pretty unlikely.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the condescending remarks in your responses aren't going to impress anyone

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not in the least concerned with impressing anyone.

People who say make condescending posts themselves, especially those who include sentiments such as "I can't see how that could work, therefore it won't work and you're full of BS", ask for a condescending reply.

It's interesting that you pick up on my condescension but ignore the condescension that engendered it.

[ QUOTE ]
but here there are a lot of people here with a much firmer grasp of both PT and poker in general then you seem to

[/ QUOTE ]
Translation: "I can't understand the point you're making so it must be wrong".

I like to play against people with that mentality.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because something is possible doesn't make it viable or practically realistic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed, it remains an unlikely possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
You see a guy make this fold, and you mark him for a tight-weak player and move on him as best you can. You don't give him credit for a genius laydown.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ideally, whenever a player who otherwise appears fairly strong makes a seemingly bizarre play, and if your workload permits, you spend a little time trying to work out if anything was given away enabled him to make the play.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have words for this. You go over there with qpw and those guys

[/ QUOTE ]
ROFLMAO. Any you complain about me being condescending. Mr. Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
Translation: "I can't understand the point you're making so it must be wrong".

I like to play against people with that mentality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, you tear them up and you're a shark, a real beast I'm sure. Imagine how much better you'll be when you've been playing 6 whole months. I'm sure you're going to tell me how awesome you are... whatever.

I'm pretty much done here, since any hope of legit poker theory being discussed is obviously out the window.