GrouchySmurf1002
11-18-2005, 02:12 PM
On Oct 5 2005 2:36 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> LOL...same question; why do you want everyone to agree?
I don't think everyone has to agree. But it's one thing if the sides are
equally distributed, as has been the case in most poker related threads
here. It's a whole other thing when you have 500 against 1, as is often
the case when you start defending yourself. This should tell you
something, no?
> I have no problem in you, and the masses, thinking that it was flawed, and
it is you, and
> maybe the masses, that are having problems with my think that it was OK.
> The read I had at flop was that I had the correct expressed plus implied
odds to
> call. When I said pot odds, that was what i intended to mean. When it was
> pointed out that I was using the wrong term, I accepted that, and use the a
term
> which cannot be misunderstood; expressed plus implied odds. Furthermore, I
> explained that I had a chance to break two players with half my stack,
> treble-up, and thus putting myself in a very strong position. I find the
risk
> to reward ratio here acceptable to me, it might not be to you. I do not have
> any problems about your views, why do you have problems about my? Or are you
> saying that there is only the one right way, and that is yours?
No, there is not one way to play, EXCEPT when the answer is completely
math related, as is the case in this spot. With no fold equity, whether
or not to call is strictly math. I'll go through it myself at some point
just because I'd like to be sure myself, but I'm fairly certain Ace
already proved it perfectly, the call isn't correct.
See the "fold AA thread" that's simultaneously going right now. You'll
note that many are saying it's an auto-fold, and you won't be surprised to
find they're the same people telling you that you're wrong. When it
comes to the math, it is black and white.
> I am finding this more and more interesting. Those who are think they are
right
> must always get the other person to agree? Its not as though i said 'I am
> right, full stop!'. I gave reasons behind my play, some had questions as to
the
> reasons, I answered them best as I can. if you don't think my reasons are
> correct, fine, we can discuss them, or you can let me stew in my ignorance.
Why
> the attack which is now verging on the personal?
Again. Reasons and opinions are fine with theory. This thread is
almost entirely an exercise in math.
> Finally, If you patience doesn't stretch to a polite discussion, why are you
> here?
I'm here because it's entertainment. Realistically, there's about 10
posters I care to read and the rest of it is filler. And incidentally,
while I'm attacking you, I've been very polite. I've refrained from the
fuck shit asshole motherlicking cuntbag gutterslut brigade, because it
wouldn't have any impact on you anyway.
______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
> LOL...same question; why do you want everyone to agree?
I don't think everyone has to agree. But it's one thing if the sides are
equally distributed, as has been the case in most poker related threads
here. It's a whole other thing when you have 500 against 1, as is often
the case when you start defending yourself. This should tell you
something, no?
> I have no problem in you, and the masses, thinking that it was flawed, and
it is you, and
> maybe the masses, that are having problems with my think that it was OK.
> The read I had at flop was that I had the correct expressed plus implied
odds to
> call. When I said pot odds, that was what i intended to mean. When it was
> pointed out that I was using the wrong term, I accepted that, and use the a
term
> which cannot be misunderstood; expressed plus implied odds. Furthermore, I
> explained that I had a chance to break two players with half my stack,
> treble-up, and thus putting myself in a very strong position. I find the
risk
> to reward ratio here acceptable to me, it might not be to you. I do not have
> any problems about your views, why do you have problems about my? Or are you
> saying that there is only the one right way, and that is yours?
No, there is not one way to play, EXCEPT when the answer is completely
math related, as is the case in this spot. With no fold equity, whether
or not to call is strictly math. I'll go through it myself at some point
just because I'd like to be sure myself, but I'm fairly certain Ace
already proved it perfectly, the call isn't correct.
See the "fold AA thread" that's simultaneously going right now. You'll
note that many are saying it's an auto-fold, and you won't be surprised to
find they're the same people telling you that you're wrong. When it
comes to the math, it is black and white.
> I am finding this more and more interesting. Those who are think they are
right
> must always get the other person to agree? Its not as though i said 'I am
> right, full stop!'. I gave reasons behind my play, some had questions as to
the
> reasons, I answered them best as I can. if you don't think my reasons are
> correct, fine, we can discuss them, or you can let me stew in my ignorance.
Why
> the attack which is now verging on the personal?
Again. Reasons and opinions are fine with theory. This thread is
almost entirely an exercise in math.
> Finally, If you patience doesn't stretch to a polite discussion, why are you
> here?
I'm here because it's entertainment. Realistically, there's about 10
posters I care to read and the rest of it is filler. And incidentally,
while I'm attacking you, I've been very polite. I've refrained from the
fuck shit asshole motherlicking cuntbag gutterslut brigade, because it
wouldn't have any impact on you anyway.
______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com