lol.......

I guess the question should be are we
check/calling?
check/folding?
Bet/ folding?

And how much......

I would bet/fold $100. At this point Villain should have $300 left on river, so if we get raised, we can fold.

probably something. see: blind squirrels, nuts, broken clocks, etc.

to briefly address your original statement: choosing the seat which is the highest ev is a decision that should incorporate on a number of factors. often the most important is your position relative to the weaker players at the table, although this is not always the case as you have a positional relationship with each other player at the table. these relationships can affect the strategy which the players choose to play against you and vice versa, and then subsequently the ev of the seat in question. simply saying that a "LAG" (which is far too broad of a term to be useful in this context to begin with) is universally better on your left is an ignorant statement that displays a lack of understanding about the issue in discussion, and, at some level, poker more generally.

I don't troll - just that my approach to the game is well above you.

Obviously.

Not necessarily, but again, it's another statement that depends.

In case of a maniac, position relative to him would be the most important, and he may not be the weakest player.

Not disagreeing.

It's in response to an equally ignorant comment:

Why don't you preach to him instead?

based on the things i have seen you post, it is literally impossible for both of these to be true.

this is not either necessarily or even likely to be consistent with the post that i took issue with

reading comp, yo. if i meant necessarily, i would have said so. rather, i indicated that it was a statement that was sometimes, but not always, true.

in some cases relative position may be most important, but that is completely consistent with what i wrote - the positional relationship you have with the players behind the maniac in those cases is implicated too.


ok, good.


you understand that you're saying that your comment was as ignorant as his, right? i guess you just got lucky

What if it is a LAG who respects hero's bets so will be less aggressive if hero shows strength but will pounce if hero shows weakness or there is an obvious scare card?

This sort of player might bet with most of his calling range if you check the turn, so may be susceptible to a check-raise.

Hey, you can't only judge based on what you know. Do feel free to participate in my posts though.

Then perhaps you should be more precise.


Writing comp, yo. So you wrote a statement that is essentially...pointless?

I guess you do write pretty consistent...

Again, nothing to be taken from what you wrote that isn't obvious.

I am pretty precise in my responses in these forums.

I try to remain pretty consistent with posts that I quote.

the order you wrote these words in implies that you should judge based on things that you don't know at the time of judgment. even with a little word scrambling it doesnt fix the issue that you are either trolling or just often far off base.


no, i was precise. the statement you agreed was obvious was not necessarily consistent with your prior statement that i had expressed disagreement with. further, it is not likely that your prior statement was consistent even putting aside the fact that logic did necessitate its consistency. then the final implication here is that it makes little sense for you to agree something i said is obvious when it is probably inconsistent with what you said.


no, i wrote a statement that did not necessarily imply a conclusion - these are quite common in the world and have plenty of value. statements of probability fall into this category and i think even you would not assert that they are worthless. as you so aptly put, sometimes, "it depends."



fyp, although you meant that the statements i write are pretty consistent.
see, you say this, but it was in response to your disagreement with an expression of nearly the same point.

hard to tell which of these statements i disagree with more. i guess you are very consistent at responding to things that i precisely did not say, so there's that.

Seems like the only one trolling in this thread is you.


Pretty sure there isn't one statement in your posts that offered anything that isn't "it depends," except you coat them in longwinded fillers.

Case in point.

In other words, you meant to say "it depends"?

Yep.


LOL, we gonna go there?

And you like to write incomplete and run-on sentences...so that's that.

FWIW...don't try to correct others when these words came out of you...

words are important, especially when you are trying to be precise!


i sometimes offer reasons why it depends and sometimes offer general or specific examples of factors that it depends on. i dont always though - it depends. i did originally offer a brief explanation of why it depends and some things it might depend on, although i'm not surprised you didn't notice.



in the post you so cleverly quote i was walking you through something i said earlier after you badly misinterpreted it, when i wasn't quite as verbose. point taken though, i will try to use some bullet points.


i actually did say that in the first post which you misinterpreted somehow to mean it doesnt depend.


+1


•words r important


feel free to offer corrections, i would love to see them



im actually curious what, specifically, you think is wrong with this

You know what you guys should do?

Thread has been thoroughly derailed. I'm going to lock up.