SIT & GO HEADS-UP HYPER-TURBO
NL2

PokerStars Hand #241683977809: Tournament #3544416868, $1.92+$0.08 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2023/02/07 17:14:28 BRT [2023/02/07 15:14:28 ET]
Table '3544416868 1' 2-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: lroficial (622 in chips)
Seat 2: alllikkk (378 in chips)
alllikkk: posts small blind 10
lroficial: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to lroficial [8s 5d]
alllikkk: raises 20 to 40
lroficial: calls 20
*** FLOP *** [Ah 2d 7c]
lroficial: checks
alllikkk: bets 30
lroficial: calls 30
*** TURN *** [Ah 2d 7c] [Qs]
lroficial: checks
alllikkk: bets 52
lroficial: calls 52
*** RIVER *** [Ah 2d 7c Qs] [7h]
lroficial: checks
alllikkk: bets 91
lroficial: calls 91
*** SHOW DOWN ***
alllikkk: shows [4d 3d] (a pair of Sevens)
lroficial: shows [8s 5d] (a pair of Sevens - Ace+Queen+Eight kicker)
lroficial collected 426 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 426 | Rake 0
Board [Ah 2d 7c Qs 7h]
Seat 1: lroficial (big blind) showed [8s 5d] and won (426) with a pair of Sevens
Seat 2: alllikkk (button) (small blind) showed [4d 3d] and lost with a pair of Sevens

Not so sure I’d post this hand if you’re looking for compliments.

So showing a super user or an idiot.

Why not both? A super idiot.

Hi Mike Postle!

Going to need more proof tbh

How is the big blind in seat 1 and the small blind in seat 2? Is the button moving counterclockwise?

What shape are your clocks?

Sharkscope... 🔎

Preferred Seat config?!
Always Auto-Center me and on the Heads-Up table select at the bottom (or top).

Stu Ungar T high
Me 8 high

GOAT

Great call OP, how would you like to become a Lock Poker Pro? Please make a thread titled 'EAD: Attention Lock Poker Pros, I am Applying for the Become a Pro Contest' and tell us why you should be considered

I'm going to advance the idea that "the best call in online poker ever" did not occur during this $2 heads-up hyper-turbo.

I call on OP to prove there are no better calls ever.

About this hand, he is a frequent player at heads-up tables, I've played with him several times, but I play without software assistance.

The standard c-bet didn't quite convince me that he had a pair of aces (the pre-flop raise would hardly hold 27, and with K2 would he bet on the flop and turn?) and a bet on the turn takes the queen out of his range because there's an ace on the flop, so it's like if I scored an x ​​on the ace and queen and all that was left was his draw, at most. Then a second 7 appeared; and I thought he now had half the chances of having a 7, so if he was in a straight draw the 8 was good, I still had a 5, -1 out for him. And it was. The thought was more automatic but that's what I thought and it was very fast, it was all an insta call until the river, that day I was thinking sharply.

But after the showdown I realized that he bet the flop for the backdoor instead of bluffing, but he lost his mind and decided to bluff turn and river.

I'm going to avoid putting him on the extremes, AQ, or the intermediary hands, K7, K2, Q7, Q2. If I always think he has Ax or A2, A7, AQ, I would always fold to the c-bet. And it would be exploited. So I avoid imagining he has anything until he proves otherwise or opens up a corridor for me to bluff.

Yes very standard call against an opponent who has lost their mind. My belief is that the money got to their head, they couldn't handle the swings.

You can’t prove a negative

Okay now prove there's no proof for negatives

I agree. I stated, he doubted me and wanted to reverse the burden of proof to invalidate the best call ever. It turns out that what has been seen can be explained, what has not been seen is like life beyond Earth. I should ask him to prove that there is life beyond Earth or read a book by Carl Sagan or Ecclesiastes.

Because it violates the principle of verifiability. How do you check what doesn't exist? Proof can only be proof if it can be confirmed by senses.

Example:
Darkness (negative) does not exist, what exists is the absence of photons (positive), when the Sun (source of energy) goes down. The light (energy) and the Sun (source of energy) exist in fact, the opposite is the absence of it, the only organic thing is matter.

You fell into my trap and proved a negative, which was meant to be impossible! Muahahaha!

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Okay, so the negative exists, it's the liability, while the positive is the asset.
Recording is part of the scientific method. My 8-high is registered, for now it's the record. A possibility is just a possibility of an event, different from the event itself. I believe someone in the ancient Greek Olympics it was faster than the current 100 m winner, but nobody can prove that. It's the same logic here.

Saw NL2 and skipped to the replies, wasn't disappointed

I think this is also the case. Some players, pros even, won't play no limit. They can't handle the swings. But legends like Doyle Brunson believe that No limit...is the purest game left.