Wrong, and your evidence is below. You are, long term, a favourite based on the math. Even if they were to make those bets, and show you their cards, you would be making a huge mistake if you folded. The fact that, on these three occasions, you were outdrawn does not change anything. If you stick around the Forum long enough, you will discover that Wetts just a little bit decent at this game, as are a few of the others who have commented. The fact that everyone is trying to tell you that your actions were correct, and you keep on insisting otherwise, makes me wonder what it would take to convince you . . . and, if you cannot be swayed, why bother to ask in the first place?
Who keeps on insisting otherwise? Did you not read that I would continue to make the same play (getting the chips in the pot) unless there came along documented evidence that it was not good in the long run.This was after Wett's first opinion even.Even before the enhanced version. THe purpose of the post was to evaluate a hand that has lost often. Debate the best possible play. If you read back it is more than 3 times but those examples were the ones I had a solid memory about.
I did not realize that by evaluating this hand and going on to discuss reasons why I wanted input would result in repeated unbecoming remarks and twisted words. I thought that it may be something interesting to discuss. I thought people would be able to discuss a hand objectively without resorting to insults and twisted words but realize this is not the case. It is very unfortunate. Wetts gave an opinion and then another opinion in response to my reply. That seemed enough although could have done with out the belittling remarks.
I am trying to delete my membership but don't see where to do this so I will have to wait until I get a reply back from Jesse.
Truthfully Wetts, I am surely not the only person to think that opportunity to belittle is why you post, and in a tag team fashion. You may feel that you are on top of the world but I bet there are many who have little respect for you as a person. Illusions of grandeur perhaps.
I have met the man, played with him and he has my respect. I however might ask without having read through the rest of the thread untill the point that i saw a remark that was absolutely wrong. Has the thought of your opponent just trying to throw you off the hand been talked about.
Who keeps on insisting otherwise? Did you not read that I would continue to make the same play (getting the chips in the pot) unless there came along documented evidence that it was not good in the long run.This was after Wett's first opinion even.Even before the enhanced version. THe purpose of the post was to evaluate a hand that has lost often. Debate the best possible play. If you read back it is more than 3 times but those examples were the ones I had a solid memory about.
I did not realize that by evaluating this hand and going on to discuss reasons why I wanted input would result in repeated unbecoming remarks and twisted words. I thought that it may be something interesting to discuss. I thought people would be able to discuss a hand objectively without resorting to insults and twisted words but realize this is not the case. It is very unfortunate. Wetts gave an opinion and then another opinion in response to my reply. That seemed enough although could have done with out the belittling remarks.
I am trying to delete my membership but don't see where to do this so I will have to wait until I get a reply back from Jesse.
Actually it does not seem that anyone can discuss the hand without some demeaning remark. It was not meant to start a war and I was not asking for a kick in the teeth but that is what has happened by trying to discuss something that I thought may be interesting to consider
This is definately the place for hand discussion. And if you stick around long enough you'll see some good ones.
We have good theory posters here, new (Richard, Darb) and old (Reef, Act).
However, your OP is so blatantly black and white that there is really not that much interesting to say, or discuss, or debate. There is no other side of the fence.
So again I ask, what was the question, or, what kind of discussion were you intending to lead?
This is definately the place for hand discussion. And if you stick around long enough you'll see some good ones.
We have good theory posters here, new (Richard, Darb) and old (Reef, Act).
However, your OP is so blatantly black and white that there is really not that much interesting to say, or discuss, or debate. There is no other side of the fence.
So again I ask, what was the question, or, what kind of discussion were you intending to lead?
If you did not understand the post then how were you able to answer it? You gave percentages and reasons for me to continue to play it the way I had. The problem with the enhanced opinion you gave was the belittling way you began, which only got worse when I addressed the attitude. Please just let's put this topic to rest. I keep getting emails that people are posting when all I want to do is delte my membership.
It's always best to get it in with the nut straight. In nearly all situations in NL holdem it's best to get allin with the best hand on the flop. There are a couple rare case where you're not a favorite where your opponent has two overs plus a flush draw plus backdoor out or where they have an open ended straight draw and a flush draw or similar. However even then the chips already in the pot normally make getting allin +EV regardless of being slightly behind.
Comments
Who keeps on insisting otherwise? Did you not read that I would continue to make the same play (getting the chips in the pot) unless there came along documented evidence that it was not good in the long run.This was after Wett's first opinion even.Even before the enhanced version. THe purpose of the post was to evaluate a hand that has lost often. Debate the best possible play. If you read back it is more than 3 times but those examples were the ones I had a solid memory about.
I did not realize that by evaluating this hand and going on to discuss reasons why I wanted input would result in repeated unbecoming remarks and twisted words. I thought that it may be something interesting to discuss. I thought people would be able to discuss a hand objectively without resorting to insults and twisted words but realize this is not the case. It is very unfortunate. Wetts gave an opinion and then another opinion in response to my reply. That seemed enough although could have done with out the belittling remarks.
I am trying to delete my membership but don't see where to do this so I will have to wait until I get a reply back from Jesse.
I have met the man, played with him and he has my respect. I however might ask without having read through the rest of the thread untill the point that i saw a remark that was absolutely wrong. Has the thought of your opponent just trying to throw you off the hand been talked about.
waiting for a response from Kristy.
We have good theory posters here, new (Richard, Darb) and old (Reef, Act).
However, your OP is so blatantly black and white that there is really not that much interesting to say, or discuss, or debate. There is no other side of the fence.
So again I ask, what was the question, or, what kind of discussion were you intending to lead?
If you did not understand the post then how were you able to answer it? You gave percentages and reasons for me to continue to play it the way I had. The problem with the enhanced opinion you gave was the belittling way you began, which only got worse when I addressed the attitude. Please just let's put this topic to rest. I keep getting emails that people are posting when all I want to do is delte my membership.
Stated multiple times, the best possible play is to shove your chips in the middle . . . EVERY TIME.
I'll be first to say it . . . Wanita1 is fed's sister.
Is that demeaning enough for you sweetie?
+1
(boy lots of +1's tonight):D
Another post of the week contention:)
belittling!
You're doing it wrong!