Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 







Local Walls


Everything posted by AJKHoosier1

  1. While I feel that your best of flop plays would be electing to raise your opponent's bet, I suppose I can see the merit in electing to call in its stead. By doing so, we can first glance upon a turn, which we hope to be a pleasant card for us. In addition, our hand, which is in fact quite strong, appears to our villain to be weak. Such deception! However, while you may convince me, perchance, that your best flop play is the calling option, there is little doubt in the expanses of my mind that your optimal play once we've reached the turn is to raise! Not only does this reap the obvious benefit of maximizing the absolute value of our hand, there is quite a good chance Mr. Mitchell will take an overly-aggressive, less-than-optimal line henceforth. I must say, gentlemen, we are, after all, discussing the dynamics that exist between two individuals for whom public perception would label them quite aggressive indeed! I am confident that the decisions you'd made on previous actions over the course of this hand will make it awfully unlikely that your opponent will be able to correctly determine your hole cards. Through his analysis of the hand, Mr. Mitchell will undoubtedly take note of the fact that we elected simply to call on a flop that all would agree is rather coordinated, and will view our raise on the latter street as simply unbelievable. Fortunately for our prospects of winning this hand, it is highly unlikely that Mr. Mitchell would choose to pass on his option to raise prior to the community cards being dealt, mostly because of your devil-may-care image in the community in regards to your pre-flop decision-making . If, by the grace of his Almighty, Mr. Mitchell happens to be holding a queen and a jack, or a three paired with another, yet still choose to bet out against his pre-flop aggressor, then he is truly a blessed creature. I should also note, before parting, that while the large nature of our opponent's bet on the ultimate street is certainly reason for fear, we must be true to our courageous nature and call. The course of the hand to this point would provide no other option.
  2. Just wanted to post here like I did on 2p2 that i am not exactly proud of this, and think i could've handled myself much better.
  3. Yesssssssss! Can finally stop clicking the refresh button on the updates. So excited, can't wait to watch the FT on Thursday. GLGLGLGL Steve n DFish! Such a sick final 6.
  4. I take it all back - I do kinda love these. Tournies are still prty soft (as long as you pick your spots and avoid a cpl of the most reg-heavy tournies) and although it doesnt do most people any favors equity-wise, it definitely makes things more interesting/fun, especially at the start of the day. it also makes some mid-stakes tournies about 100000x more playable. basically, if you're smart, and stay within your means, METs are dopeness. still think it sucks that theyre taking over the FTOPS with it, just because i'm kind of a purist, but that ftops ME is gonna be absurd.
  5. No one is debating that he was lucky, and if you'll read the other thread all about that 75s vs AK, I wasn't easy on him at all. I just try to be objective regardless of results, or how something looks at first. a) the 32o checked through on the turn. He just RRd pre, cbet the flop, checked the turn (to give up im sure) and bet the river when he got there b) the 82o... to be honest i'm guessing he was really surprised that sowers did anything besides fold or reshove pre there (i know i was), so I don't think his holdings were very relevant given the stacks. given that, you can assume it must not have been that bad of a spot to put on some pressure. c) if he hadn't had such a big stack at the start of the FT, I'm sure he would have played much differently... the whole point is that he came in with an uncommonly huge CL, and played accordingly. I do think it's a little surprising that all the 3-betting with total rags was as effective as it was at a table that clearly knew what he was up to, but million dollar FT's tend to affect people... I'd imagine. :(
  6. This is a really, really poorly applied analogy, but I guess I understand your point...
  7. Just like being lucky doesn't make you a good player, it also doesn't make you a bad one. He wasn't getting much slack if any for some plays people perceived as spewy, even those he got lucky on. Of course there are some hands from the FT you could nitpick at also (as someone else said I think maybe he benefitted more from a fuller table, which seems counter-intuitive for such a lag player), but I don't think anyone with a brain would say he played anything but very well for the most part throughout the whole FT.
  8. Congrats to both, and Sowers for a great run! I know Daize got a lot of heat in that other thread (myself included) but obviously he played a great FT. Ship 2milly! Also, coming from someone who never watches poker on TV, while I was at ESPNZone yesterday I was definitely cutting to ESPN2 more than a couple times during the Bulls/NFL games (even though the people I was with tended not to appreciate this). Thought the live coverage was really cool and extremely entertaining. Hope it did well enough to do it again.
  9. lol - I definitely think some people need to "p the b's" on their emotions in this thread. I'm not against this because I'm a "nicer" or "more benevolent" person than Gags (obviously that's true but totally unrelated). I'm against this because I think it hurts my bottom line - that's all I care about as far as the policies of any poker site, and I'm sure that's all 99.999% of you care about also. I just also happen to think that it hurts everyone else's bottom line too, which means I'm fighting the good fight, and that Gags/Dean are evil!
  10. Since I'm not an expert on all the technical stuff, and you're probably getting a ton of good advice on all that anyways, I just wanted to say that a lot of financial professionals, be they accountants, investment brokers, even bankers, just flat out do not want to work with online poker players. Whoever you work with, you need to be COMPLETELY up front with them about exactly what you do, and if they aren't happy to be working with you, then find someone else.
  11. First off, no, you should not base your opinions on a player on their results. Second off, the whole point of this thread is that one hand. And you just said yourself it probably wasn't good. So YES that means he SHOULD probably change something. The thread is about one hand, and no it's not an "omg at least he has the balls to pull the trigger here!" spot. 99.9% of the time you'll be better off not having the "balls" to shove 7-high in this spot. For all this "haters gonna hate" talk I think people don't realize there are a lot of very, very good players in this thread who are saying the same thing about this play (and apparently a couple others) just being flat out bad. Other than a few people being over-dramatic idiots (this is P5s after all, who cares about the trolls?), it doesn't mean charder, gboro, etc have anything against daize, are rooting against daize, or think daize is "bad at poker." Are we all that sensitive? I'd always root for any online reg or guy I've played with over some rando to win a tourney like this, and even if I don't know Daize well, I'd root for him too. That doesn't mean this hand didn't suck. I'm sure most of you who are going out of your way to defend this play are really just going out of your way to defend Daize himself, who shouldn't be "on trial" here in the first place. GL daize and the rest of p5s still in!
  12. Maybe WSOP? Idk how old Chris is. Also, you said anyone who posted in this thread. Can I take doubledave??
  13. Probably have to take you up on this. For the record I wasn't "hating" on anyone - if I thought I was 'hating' every time I look at someone play a hand and think it's either bizarre or terrible, then I've probably 'hated on' myself like 5 times in the last week. We all get carried away sometimes... But yeah I'd definitely be down to try to work out a crossbook, though it'll be hard to coordinate. I'll hit you up later this week.
  14. The percentage of "fish" in any given FTP tourney that are rich whales who have a ton of money to spend has to be increddddibly small. The VASTTT majority of truly bad players in these tournies are either satelliters or rando's taking a shot above their roll for fun. The economy has nothing to do with it - this isn't the main event at the WSOP or something, where a bunch of rich guys with no clue just flock to it regardless. It's a small-mid stakes online tournament series. The fish ain't rich. If you're right and it is just this one week and this one FTOPS, then I suppose it's something we'll have to deal with. But man, wouldn't you much rather just have a normal FTOPS, and normal 2x guaranteed week?? And what if, because we don't do anything about it, FTP decides to just run it like this from now on? I just can't think of a single segment of the community that this is good for, other than FTP itself. (if we just roll over and accept it). If they just wanted to give us more chances to win, they'd add more tournies. SEPARATE. tournies. Also, let's for a second at least pretend like the integrity of the game matters a LITTLE bit. I mean, wtf is this merging stuff ? What's with all the gimmicks in general?? It's one thing to be innovative, and roll out a new idea every now and then to give people some options. But to just throw a completely new idea that changes everything entirely into the mix like they have... disaster. I feel like you might just be playing devil's advocate, gags. You do know where all the money comes from, right?
  15. This kind of short-sightedness is why I know it's impossible. Don't get me wrong, I understand what a "must play" tournament is, but "liking money" is exactly why you should be against this new policy long-term.
  16. You had me until the brag at the end, Andres. = ) This is absolutely HORRIBLE whether you have the roll or not. What a complete nightmare of an idea. This is the same kind of stupid gimmick as the "cashout" format, and like that, should be good ONLY for a couple random tournies a day, and 1-2 FTOPS per series. Instead, they've literally ruined an entire FTOPS. Miserable. Would love it if we could actually get people together to boycott this FTOPS, but I'm sure it's impossible. Some of us just want to play poker, for fuck's sake.
  17. considering how most of you guys would be acting if this was in person and not an internet forum, i'd be willing to bet that this actually is the rudest thing she's ever seen
  18. To me this is the MUCH bigger sin - I think complaining about the $129 KO instead of a $256 KO or w/e is reallllly nitpicky, but running a heads up on a Sunday with two other FTOPS is awful . All major heads-up tournies should be run at lower-volume times (i.e. m-w afternoon, or th-sat night). The difficulty of playing heads-up while on 9+ other tables is why I always skip these tournies on Sundays, but obviously the FTOPS is a can't-miss tourney.
  19. Yes, but how do we KNOW it's a hypothetical question? I'm sure he'd make the same post if it was a rhetorical question, or even a trivia question. The point is in online poker forums, you never KNOW, you just do the best with the information you're given.

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.