Reputation
378
Top tag
Next privilege 500 Rep.
Cast close & reopen votes
Badges
2 10
Newest
 Custodian
Impact
~919 people reached

Apr
8
comment Rules when dealer flips river early
By this same logic, you could say that the winner at showdown is the person who talks loudest, due to depending on house rules. Sure, normally accepted rules would state that it's the cards that speak and thus determine the winner at showdown but this is a house rule. (But when not depending on the house to make things up on the fly, there are standards one typically depends on.)
Mar
29
comment Realistic Community Cards
Beyond the odds of things, you should also perform some research on the sites you play at. There is at least one (I'm not naming names as I have not done independent verification, but the site is not too obscure) that has been reported to intentionally sprinkle in non-random hands designed to cause action.
Mar
29
comment Mathematically speaking, is open-limping that bad?
From a non-mathematical viewpoint, if you open-limp some hands but you open-raise others, you allow yourself to become more readable. If you're going to open limp ever, you need to do it in a manner that balances your open action without regard for what the cards are.
Mar
17
comment Texas hold em raising
if someone went all in and did cover the min raise then you cannot re-raise - I think you meant to say that if the all-in did not cover the min raise then you cannot re-raise (since their all-in raise was not a proper raise so not re-raisable).
Jan
27
comment Does the order of posting the missed blinds in texas holdem matter?
@Frisbee if you're talking about the specific players (e.g., you've got reads/history on them) then I understand your point. I have to agree with Drunix's expectation that it's a rare case though. But assuming you're sitting down to play a session and not just one hand, I still don't see it mattering.
Jan
25
comment Ask for the size of the pot
@LeeDanielCrocker and I told you that your "personal experience" is not a credible reference; that's pretty easy to understand isn't it? If I told you that is from my personal experience and should be well documented in commonly accepted rules and something which you did not believe, would you believe me if I just thumped my chest a little more? It's not my job to "put up or shut up" for your total lack of credible evidence. In fact quite the contrary, prove your position; I've read the rules and there's no mention of your assertion so there's my proof.
Jan
25
comment Ask for the size of the pot
@LeeDanielCrocker It's not my idea of an appropriate authority, but I've already told you what is and you haven't shown a willingness to find a rule permitting this action that you state is absolutely permitted. Is "absolute" not something one would find in the rules? All I've been asking of you is credible reference, and all you've provided is chest thumping.
Jan
25
comment Playing 99 in early position
@Frisbee You've come full circle. No kidding you don't enter the pot, you've said so from the very beginning; it's ridiculous for you to think that isn't clear. I gravely apologize for trying to alter your line of thinking. I wrongly believed that you wanted to grow as a poker player, but it's pretty clear that you are quite happy where you are, and with all sincerity, there's nothing wrong with that. It's only a small leak, and certainly one that cannot get you stacked. It merely gives up potential profits.
Jan
25
comment Playing 99 in early position
@Frisbee Inept? You are the one isolating with 99 until I plugged that leak. Now you're just being obtuse. You didn't plug anything, you rightly called me out on a statement I did not intend to make and I did not agree with in the first place. No wonder you can't seem to get anything from communication, you never question your own ability to be wrong so you assume it isn't possible.
Jan
25
comment Playing 99 in early position
@Frisbee you continue to restate the obvious even after I've told you its clear. Why don't you try a more productive approach such as indicate why you think that matters? Yes, (I think) we both agree that it's better if more people call you and we also both agree that since we're UTG, we cannot control (or predict) if that will happen. Rather than complain that communication doesn't work, and fulfill your end of it: read what I said (three comments up) about the situation. If you disagree, state why. If you don't understand, say so. But so far you only leave zero indication of reading it.
Jan
25
comment Playing 99 in early position
...tight which leads to you getting less action than you should. Remember my comment earlier about folding my KK to a (hyperbolically) tight player? He's not going to get action when he only plays super premium hands. I'm sure you aren't that tight, and I wouldn't even state that folding 99 UTG is exceedingly tight, only that it's a small leak. You posted two external links... partypoker which is basic beginner strategy and cardschat which is for more advanced players. Everyone starts as a beginner but do you really want to stay there forever? Or advocate that others should?
Jan
25
comment Playing 99 in early position
@Frisbee what makes you think anything about the bets in the pot already is not clear? Yes, 7 is a big if (and it's abnormal at that) but that doesn't mean you cannot play against 4. You can even play HU though it's not ideal here because as you know, it's harder to get your set payout. That is balanced though by having momentum to be able to win with a c-bet/ Remember you saying you won't get callers on a dry board? Now that situation is favorable. Since you can't always control the situation, adapting to it is required. I don't think your post play is inept, but I suspect your pre is too..
Jan
25
comment Ask for the size of the pot
@LeeDanielCrocker A video is not necessary (and that would indeed be unreasonable, but still just allegory). The best reasonable proof would be some statement of the rules of poker on a website that is generally accepted. Perhaps easier would be posting on the 2+2 forums to have other dealers and floors as well as players chime in; surely if what you say is valid you can garnish healthy support at that forum which is highly populated by industry veterans. I don't expect you to do that but it could support you. I'd happily admit I'm wrong and apologize if you did and it worked out that way.
Jan
25
comment Playing 99 in early position
@Frisbee I've identified other flaws in your statements, most of which are in my answer, but the most glaring one is when you think you can't get your 8:1 payoff if you have 7 people in the hand. Quite glaring because you already have 7:1 of your payoff in the pot! If you can't get a single caller for even a c-bet under normal circumstances, that's tragic (but I don't believe it). The exposure you discuss is both valid and insignificant. Sure, you'll lose with a set in those situations, but how often? 32%. So 8:1 payoff isn't enough, you need 12:1. I normally get paid more that, why can't you?
Jan
25
comment Playing 99 in early position
@Frisbee I see; with you, if one makes an error, even after admitting it they can not gain credibility with you. "Only when I challenged you did acknowledge..." um.. perhaps it's because I did not realize my error until you pointed it out to me. Are you truly incapable of understanding that without it being spelled out to you? Why haven't you admitted your own mistakes (even after you've been challenged on them)? Easier to deflect I suppose - just like you're doing with "you made a mistake so I am unwilling to consider anything else you have to say". Am I the only human in this conversation?
Jan
25
comment Playing 99 in early position
@Frisbee we've both been discussing 99 out of position only (though perhaps you're unclear on that because you don't like the phrase "from the blinds"?) so what is it I keep "coming back to"? We cannot have an objective discussion because you prefer to call me rude, attack my English skills, and beat a dead horse well after I admitted to misspeaking, rather than address points I've made about why 99 is profitable. You don't stay on topic and most of what you address has little to nothing to do with poker strategy and you even attacked me for trying to clean up this stream of comments.
Jan
25
comment Ask for the size of the pot
@LeeDanielCrocker how is asking for proof of something I don't believe is valid being childish? How do you justify your own action of making a claim that you cannot back other than through stories nobody can verify as being anything more than saying "it is too! IT IS TOO!"? Incidentally, you wanted me to prove my position and I thought I cannot because it's a non-existence, but I can partially prove it at least, for tournament game, if the TDA rules referred to in the OP are valid. Are they wrong? Asking for credible evidence to your claim is not unreasonable, it's the foundation of truth.
Jan
25
comment Playing 99 in early position
@Frisbee if it's inconsistent with your statements, why did you not simply ignore it and respond to the rest of the statement? Or even point it out and address the rest of the point? Your statements, UTG, were still there. Convenient of you to ignore that in your attack on my English skills. Considering a future in politics perhaps -- ignore anything that actually refutes what you say and instead focus solely on the tiniest of tidbits that are not germane to anything of substance? That's certainly how your game of deflection and absence of actual debate of the relevant points makes you look.
Jan
25
comment Playing 99 in early position
@Frisbee again with the deflection. English is my first language, but selective reading seems to be yours. My statement was, and I copy-paste, "if you cannot be profitable with 99 from UTG or even the blinds, it's your own fault". My mention of blinds was an additional data point, not a replacement one but you seem so hung up on the fact that the word "blind" was there that you are incapable of comprehending anything else. Your attempt at deflection here has failed miserably and sadly I believe you to be too self-consumed to even realize that.
Jan
25
comment Playing 99 in early position
@Frisbee as to this "convenient delete" you accuse me of, you can find the full transcript of what I deleted in chat: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/34807/…. You are quite free with the negative accusations and incapable of actually addressing the facts of the problem. You might wish to research why people deflect as you do, rather than addressing the details of the topic of discussion. You won't like what you learn but that's the first step towards recovery.