LOOOOLLLLL

Also if you have a weak paired hand here you will be able to check it, control the pot size and bet out on 5th when the bets are bigger and pot is smaller given your villain worse odds on calling to suck out.

You cannot do this if you do not do it with strong hands as well

Oh no you didn't! This is one of the best threads we've had in this forum in a longgg time imo. We've got 78 posts (and counting), lots of good poker thinking, a little mudslinging, kind of lame on the photoshopping, but you can't have everything. I welcome a great debate like this, whether it be about my play or someone else's, and if people think I'm serving up kool aid, they shouldn't be sorry to say it -- they should try to disprove it. It's happened before, well one time IIRC. BTW, simply saying "+1" to oscillator isn't going to cut it, since I've talked a lot of razz with him and the guy is like a lowball savant or something.

As jbrennen alluded to (with a quote that I have no idea what the context was), I don't think 4th is an automatic bet when you're first to act but I'm on the record many times over as saying semibluffing here should be your standard play. In fact, I have listed that play as one of the 10 most fundamental in the game. If someone had posted a 2/4 hand and gave no reads on the villain, then checked 4th, I too would give a frowny face and say the play was bad. In that case, level 2 play will be much more effective in keeping your range balanced and building FE in the pot. The difference here is level 3 thinking is required, which often looks like level 1 or ABC thinking, not because of the limits but because of the spot and the opponent.

best line of the thread imo.. SG is there are you two friends and is this just a ruse to get every reg all fired up? I mean I don't know who Joe Tall is but he must never play poker and if he does he must be bad. Or he must just be a professional forum bully with a chip on his shoulder

dude.....SIWAS!!! what more really is there!?!?!?

I thought the point of the SIWAS was to get villain to fold a better hand.

wtf is siwas? go ahead torch me for not knowing (seems to be the std to flame me lately) anyway but i looked it up and cant find what your refering to. or is the a A to B conversation.

"siwas" = anagram of "sometimes it's worth a shot" ... the subject (and thread title) of a long running thread in this Stud forum where people post their outrageous (and successful) bluffs.

Hmmm... try again: you will be luckier next time...

SUPER CERTIFIED BADASS

ty bren

Actually, I really don't think that Joe Tall needs a sort of defence from me but, just to let you understand whom are you writing about, one day he posted a hand with JDags and it was HORSE 500/1000.

PS: I forgot to mention that 500/1000 were dollars, not peanuts...

Point being? jump off his tip honey

First of all, learn how to be polite in a forum.

In second place, I am sorry but there is no tip, just respect (quite a lot!) and a bit of intelligence: in this case maybe not a lot, but enough to know that it is better to not judge/speak if someone doesn't know... but maybe you missed that lesson at school.

[That's the end of the controversy from my point of view]

Actually it was 1k/2k razz, http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/20...s-dags-301403/

And its called an open forum for a reason... People are going to have heated discussions/arguments and there is nothing wrong with that. Me and Razz1 were having a bit of fun and your point about Joe Tall not needing you to come to his defense is on point...

I mean come on talking about respect... which is fine if you respect him but how is someone like me supposed to respect someone like that comes in here guns blazing beating down the forum regs. I mean that's ok? And fwiw I am always very polite in the forums as this is the first time I have ever seen something like this to piss me off and it is not even about me. Some people come here to learn like myself. I get a lot of advice from the people in here and when I can I like to give advice. I guess my main point is instead of saying "o thats a long explanation for a misclick" then go on to be little other posters in so many words why don't u post on what he saw wrong first instead of all the negative comments.. I mean obv this is a ego battle for whatever reason. Cant we all just get along?

im out peace

About the joke and so on I think you missed completely the point of my posts.
I love every kind of joke and sarchasm as well.
I didn't criticise the joke you did (which can be more or less funny - I don't care), I stigmatized the strong judgment.
What I wrote was just an answer to someone that expressed a strong opinion on Joe Tall, knowing nothing on him. I think it is better to wait a bit before speaking if you are talking about someone else and you don't know anything on him.
That's it: that's what I don't like, in real life and net-forums as well, and I suppose that this is impoliteness always and everywhere.
So, please, don't confuse the reaction of someone who has some problems with some modified pics with someone else who is thinking about different (and more important - I guess) stuff...

About the fact that it is an open-forum: indeed it is! That's why if I give you a reason for my point there should be no probelms...


PS: Hmmm... It was very important to underline the different stake... I checked as well but I thought it was completely unuseful to underline this element. However it is good that you add the link for some people that could have lost that nice thread!

Right man, I am with you.

I can partially understand your reasons but, considering the average answer (quite aggro) that you can receive on this forum, I think that Joe Tall's anwers were just straight to the point. That's it.

PS: I consider as I completely missed that "slurp slurp".

I think he was pointing this out for me because now i have a new found respect because he plays EVEN higher then u said I guess I will back off im obv out of my league here around all the nosebleed players. I mean back to the mid stake tables for me with my tail between my legs. cause obv high stakes players can have attitudes and huge egos and be rude and that is completely acceptable. OK i got to close this post.... thx for the contribution though chip

im definitely not advocating doing it im just quoting it b/c i <3 it

SIWAS is always the right answer...hoya knows

I saw the play as an alternate way of playing this hand vs this villain. There are certainly other ways to play the hand, as Joe and others have pointed out. I remember betgo was once a poster here who had alternate ideas that were also considered bad. He seemed to have that effect wherever he posted. It seems to me that there's only one "accepted" way to play every hand in every situation around here.

SG has lit up some interesting debate around here before. I recall one from February '07 that had TT up in arms. It seems we have another one brewing.

Sorry for the late reply guys, I'm a very busy guy.

You should bet 4th:

1. You have the stronger board and have an easy opportunity to represent a credible hand. When you catch well on 5th the pot is yours. (just as oscillator alluded to.) Once you check, the jig is up, and when you catch the 2 on 5th, anyone can see that there is a very very high% that you have a pair, and even against Paul's T9632, he has ~40% equity and can play perfectly in position. Save your "check raising *poofy*"/betting/check-calling lines for when you and your opponent catch good.

2. By checking, you are punishing yourself when you catch well and your opponent catches well on 5th. Most of the time you have to continue and the extra SB makes it more correct to continue.

3. For all the times (which is such a HIGH%) that you have a real hand and know such a player will call.

And another note, on 6th Paul knows you have an 8, and you should know he has a draw to a 6 (or 76) and he has a ~25% chance to beat it, he's likely not to bluff and you can probably check fold. However, this spot is very exploitable as there is, obv, a non-0 time that he will bluff, but you are good enough to find balance to it.

thx super joe for the response Ive been dieing to read it very insightful i can go to bed now...

Thanks for the response Joe. All your reasons (for the most part) represent good, solid level 2 thinking. This is the idea that even when you have the worst hand but can represent the best one, you should semibluff to maintain your fold equity on later streets even if you're pretty much guaranteed a call on the current one. The parts in bold however, are all assumptions. Playing good poker is the ability to determine the best line after making accurate assumptions. So if your assumptions are all true, then leading out is hands down the best play -- which is the advice I constantly give others.

What if they aren't true? #3 certainly isn't, because I completed initially from an automatic steal position and then flat called his raise. I'm not going to do this with KK in the hole (+1 to electrical), but others in this game might. Even if I have reasonable standards to call the raise, I will often have an 8 in the hole or a 2-card hand, which would put villain ahead on 4th. Most mid-high stakes players know this, and many are willing to bet or raise in spots like this, or call in spots like 5th st regardless of whether hero leads 4th. These look like "maniacs" to most players, but a lot of them are making these plays specifically to combat the pervasive level 2 thinking of semibluffing with strong boards. If you stubbornly stick with your level 2 plays vs. such opponents, you give back a lot of the edge you have on them (which can get quite expensive at 1k/2k).

In point #1, you assume that if 5th st breaks good the pot is automatically mine as long as I rep strength on 4th. This is the same advice given in the 4th st. chapter of SOP, but in reality is also opponent dependent (as oscillator also aluded to). Interestingly enough, in the same chapter Sklansky talks about concepts like check/calling with the best hand to trap players who tend to put a lot of stock in your weak play, and check/calling with a marginal hand which would prefer to see a free card and which might get one since you do play tricky in this situation. Maybe we've had too much Sklansky kool aid too?

Suddenly, you need more than that to play this hand against Paul Wolfe? Here is a hint: You do not.

My assumptions are heavily weighted in one direction to come out with the proper outcome. And they were pretty good, imo.

Yes, o/c, need I remind you that Paul doesn't play 1k/2k?

And this is where you lost the pot vs Paul Wolfe.

And when does he talk about this? When....