Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyBuz
If you find 300 bigs going into the middle the relative hand strength of 99 and 44 are going to be nearly identical. If the implication of stacking off wasn’t in the prior post - here it is.
Maybe you defend QJs. Maybe you don’t. Maybe you 4bet it. It all depends on the action and the players in the hand. Given it’s one of the worst hands in the 10% opening range I provided then you can raise/fold if you like but without knowing open raise size, callers and 3bet size it’s way too blanket a statement to call it never a defend.
I think it is hilarious when people constantly amend their statements or add qualifiers
after they form a completely asinine sentence.
It’s like “44 or 99 is the same hand”,
IF you find yourself all in for 300BBs.
Lol sh.it Sherlock. Also the sky is blue. And candy is bad for your teeth.
These statements are ridiculous and obvious, also it is very clear your back tracking when you get called out because you constantly have to make a reply post to “make it clear” what you were talking about.
It’s like, no you just have no clue what’s going on we get it.
And then this statement. “We are 300BBs deep with 1k in front of us at a 1/3 game....but there is a 6 dollar straddle”
Then you proceed to say how it is “semantics” to say we are 167BBss deep and not 333BBs deep.
No there is a real world difference in strategy between these stack sizes and it matters a lot. Don’t try to hide behind silly excuses when you didn’t know a straddle is an effective big blind when discussing stack depth.
The irony of all this is that YOU are the one hiding behind semantics. You constantly edit or qualify your statements AFTER you’ve made some huge poker blunder then try to gloss over the fact that you just made a hugely unprofitable strategy post.
I look forward to more back tracking, qualifying and editing from you in the future. Carry on.