|
|
#23
10-23-2007, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: hit two pair turn check raise super DEEP
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah turn looks like a play that a donk would make (omg 2 pair + flush draw = ez ARR INN), but anytime the money goes in, you are way behind. I think turn is def. a c/c. [/ QUOTE ] 
|
|
#24
10-23-2007, 06:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: hit two pair turn check raise super DEEP
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] against a player described as tough/tight i dont like the pf call. i think pf calls like this OOP are one of the biggest leaks of the current crop of players. calls like this OOP are reserved for players who will go broke w/ tptk and overpairs not the player described [/ QUOTE ] nitacular. [/ QUOTE ] if mr. gambool is in L.A. (as the name implies) ive been playing in said game (and its earlier equivalents) for the past 20 years and have had time to see thousands of players come and go. many of whom like to call my pfr's w/ crap hands oop for the "implied odds" only to find its not so fun to play tough solid properly bankrolled players oop. some learn some dont...you obviously havent. [/ QUOTE ] wow, so your argument is that you've been playing 20 years therefore I should take your word as god. the funny thing is that unless you play online i've probably played way more hands than you also. [/ QUOTE ] It is not strictly a question of how many hands you have played. Thinking about playing, which Limon has done plenty of, also counts. This exchange is a perfect example of why this forum sucks now. Two years ago, most of the regulars (AZK, FSU, etc.) begged Limon to post more. His posts probably were more informative on a per post basis than almost any other poster. Now we get this [censored].
|
|
#27
10-24-2007, 01:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: hit two pair turn check raise super DEEP
"Two years ago, most of the regulars (AZK, FSU, etc.) begged Limon to post more. His posts probably were more informative on a per post basis than almost any other poster. Now we get this [censored]."
I completely agree. Limon is one of the top posters on these forums, hands down. As for whoever claimed to have played more hands and blahblah....you are not as good as limon. Sorry. And not to mention this hand is live and limon has played in this game for many years so he has an idea of the dynamics. He may have even played with said villain. And his word should be taken as the word of god except when he is tearing you up. Then he is just funny.
|
|
#28
10-24-2007, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: hit two pair turn check raise super DEEP
[ QUOTE ]
"Two years ago, most of the regulars (AZK, FSU, etc.) begged Limon to post more. His posts probably were more informative on a per post basis than almost any other poster. Now we get this [censored]." I completely agree. Limon is one of the top posters on these forums, hands down. As for whoever claimed to have played more hands and blahblah....you are not as good as limon. Sorry. And not to mention this hand is live and limon has played in this game for many years so he has an idea of the dynamics. He may have even played with said villain. And his word should be taken as the word of god except when he is tearing you up. Then he is just funny. [/ QUOTE ] His word: don't call 98s OOP in what will be a multiway pot. This is amazingly tight. His reasoning when told this was tight was lolz I've played for 20 years. Not exactly the best argument.
|
|
#29
10-24-2007, 01:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: hit two pair turn check raise super DEEP
Kind surprised Limon would take this position as we've exchanged in the past some PMs regarding preflop play. his position then (a year ago?) was that limped > raised > reraised (ie 3betting is bad) but it's a shame to not play a pot given normal stacks w/ said SC.
It's funny because the PMs came regarding when I was trying to defend raising limpers > over limping with SCs, and I was referencing a mix of limon, S/S, and my own thoughts, and in the end as it turned out both limon and S/S pointed towards overlimping. (So I was left with my own analysis, which I still fall back on and think is more correct) Anyway, pf is fine here, although Limon has a good point, which is don't play hands out of position against really good people, especially deep, because that is not where you stand to make a lot of money. Again, "that said," 98s should show some profit and you should decide to play this hand, as folding shows 0 profit. *BTW, mike, I'll have to harass you online, or anyone else in this thread: (LETS BE GROWN UP AND TRY TO SALVAGE THIS AMIRITE?) What is the best turn play? if you check, you're calling this, right? Should we lead here? If I'm shallow im pretty happy about checkshoving. (Or betting and shoving river unimproved) Are we supposed to lead to get value from draw/1pair, and if raised, call and decide on river? (Ie possibly fold unimproved, possibly pay off, etc) Are we supposed to B3B? I think that is suicidal.
|
|
#30
10-24-2007, 01:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: hit two pair turn check raise super DEEP
His argument: Playing raised pots OOP with weak ass SC's that often times make the second best hand is a big leak. And his 20 years comment seems very appropriate for his argument since he has probably seen many go by the wayside in an attempt to 'loosen or mix it up'. There is a time and a place to widen your range. He is advocating this not be one of them. Don't kid yourself if you don't think he is capable of playing ATC when the moment calls for it. His post was pertaining to this spot though. In todays game though, I am sure many disagree with him. That is not to say he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Whatever though. I don't know him from anything but his posts. But if you go back and read some of his posts, you will gain those 'ah ha' moments that we all strive for. They are that enlightening....
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
