Plus, If I Ignored You Before, then 2 Inches Aint Going to Change That (NC Thread)

[beeker]

Originally Posted by DougL

People don't believe you online, ime.

This is something I'm trying hard to overcome in myself. For example, the tendency to respond to a 3! with "oh, he's just ****ing with me". Sometimes they are; mostly they're not, and I think I lose a bunch of value that way.

I'm learning to play more situations as if they are WA/WB and go into call-down mode when I'm in doubt.

Of course, sometimes I'm just WB/WB and I haven't learned to recognize it yet. That's a problem too.

[DougL]

I wouldn't just adopt WA/WB as a new generic strategy. The reason that it is correct to call down online so often is that you're playing against people who are aggressive. These aggro players respond to someone who checks by betting. You are exploiting them. While you may miss a value raise against his stronger hands, you may be more than compensated by the air that he 3 barrels. As you recognize opponents to correctly take this strategy against, their play forces you to c/c against them. Understanding the situations and correctly adjusting is key.

[Inxu]

Originally Posted by Bona

This line of thought is a fallacy imo. Soldiers in WWII did not "volunteer" in any sense of the word that would make considering their lives of lesser priority in that context than a civilian life.

Actually that thinking, again imo, is not correct even in the context of todays volunteer military. Soldiers are as trapped by the political decisions of others as civilians are, for the most part.

Im a bit naive and I like to belive that world peace is possible (as a kid I belived that I could save every homeless pet). I like to belive best in people (I also like to belive that people arent superficial and greedy). I like to belive that guns dont kill people and I like to belive that 200 people cant kill 2 million. So for me the world peace is pretty simple - if you refuse to kill them and they refuse to kill you then nobody is killed - back of my mind knows that this is not that simple, but I need time to kill my belief in humanity and world peace etc. I also belive that this topic should be dropped now and I need to visit politics and history forums more.

[Xylocain]

What if you refuse to kill the russians, and the russians don't refuse to kill your family?

Re: the bomb. An interesting essay would discuss the difference in motivation (and morality) between dropping the first bomb on Hiroshima, and dropping the second on Nagasaki. It can be argued with some merit that the second drop had nothing to do with Japan . . .

[Inxu]

Originally Posted by Xylocain

What if you refuse to kill the russians, and the russians don't refuse to kill your family?

Thats what I mean by its not that simple, but it leads to "why we have wars?", "why we have countries?" and they all lead to "what is in human nature and what is not?".

[MidyMat]

Originally Posted by Xylocain

Re: the bomb. An interesting essay would discuss the difference in motivation (and morality) between dropping the first bomb on Hiroshima, and dropping the second on Nagasaki. It can be argued with some merit that the second drop had nothing to do with Japan . . .

Hiroshima was bombed because the 2nd Army and Chugoku Regional Army were both headquartered there, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at the port. The city also had large depots of military supplies.

Nagasaki was bombed similarly because of it's port, shipyards, and factories.

"I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb... It is an awful responsibility which has come to us... We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes."Harry S. Truman August 9, 1945

[bellatrix]

Originally Posted by DougL

In summary, the donker always has it. People never fold to it anyway. Thus, it is a horrible bluff.

Disagree with the first sentence. I've seen so many hopeless bluff river donks even without scare cards, which is why I never fold to it.
But river donks are great for thinnish value. That is why WA/WB line is often c/c c/c b/f.

[DougL]

I'll amend my statement to refer to good players. If a good player donks, he has it. He's expecting to get called.

[beeker]

Originally Posted by Inxu

Thats what I mean by its not that simple, but it leads to "why we have wars?", "why we have countries?" and they all lead to "what is in human nature and what is not?".

I think the trick is to distinguish the typical case from the range.

If we propose that any observed human action must lie as a possibility within human nature, then the range is obviously huge - from the most depraved to the most inspiring.

But, news exposure aside, most of us don't encounter the extremes of the range in our day-to-day lives. We encounter the typical or average. Like you, Inxu, I choose to look through rose-coloured glasses and try to have faith in the people around me. I believe that most of the people who live in my world are as decent as they are able to be, though we all face different circumstances.

This doesn't preclude that people might exhibit cruelty, unwarranted selfishness, etc. Nor does it preclude my taking action against such things.

The hard part is that the properties of individuals don't always project well to masses of people and mass action. Don't know what to do about that save to keep working on keeping things sane in my own little world and hope that if enough others do the same thing, the larger picture will take care of itself. (Inspirational leaders - political or otherwise - are good, too, but that's not my gift.)

[bozlax]

Originally Posted by DougL

I'll amend my statement to refer to good players. If a good player donks, he has it. He's expecting to get called.

Meh, doesn't change the endgame. If he's good and knows you're good there's enough chance that he's 2nd-levelling you that you can't fold, or he's just plain Clarkmeistering you.

[antneye]

Originally Posted by bellatrix

Disagree with the first sentence. I've seen so many hopeless bluff river donks even without scare cards, which is why I never fold to it.
But river donks are great for thinnish value. That is why WA/WB line is often c/c c/c b/f.

Bella,

Have you ever raised river with something that you were planning on checking behind or betting thin on the river with the assumption that villain was donking as part of a WA/WB line?

I've often wondered if donking the river is exploitable if a competent villain puts you on the exact line it looks like.

[bellatrix]

Originally Posted by antneye

Bella,

Have you ever raised river with something that you were planning on checking behind or betting thin on the river with the assumption that villain was donking as part of a WA/WB line?

I've often wondered if donking the river is exploitable if a competent villain puts you on the exact line it looks like.

yep, I have, especially if a blank river card came. I have not had good results, tbh,, lol. But then again, it doesn't have to work that often to be profitable.

[DougL]

I moved the beeker specific hand to its own thread. I left the Phil Newall discussion here. Let me know if you have a post you want moved to the strat thread.

[A_Schupick]

I'm disappointed CO.

[Grromit]

Originally Posted by bellatrix

Disagree with the first sentence. I've seen so many hopeless bluff river donks even without scare cards, which is why I never fold to it.

This. Mostly just this.

But you need info on both players to properly evaluate the situation. If BB is a reg you also need to know how he views Hero and the other guy. Because really, what would he not lead or c/r the flop with but suddenly donk the river if he has to worry about CO's turn call as well. Also, if he views hero as a solid reg (nevermind preflop) then hero should have plenty of FDs on the flop and he would never expect hero to fold a flush on the river. An ontop of that, this is a limped pot so BB's turn call on the third would be a bit stronger if he's reasonable and capable of reading hands. He would usually have a hand like bottom pair with a .


FWIW even if all of the above applied I would have never been in this situation. More likely, the pot would have been raised and maybe even 3bet, so that the pot would be big enough on the river to call regardless. Not that this is a good argument for raising (raise to bloat so you can't fold, eh).

ninja edit: DougL feel free to move this