Tiffany Michelle = douchebag
XaQ Morphy
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
John_Brian_K
But I am getting short on chips, the clock is running and you have been
taking along time to make a call.
What a bitch! 50BB short.
TIGERS World Series- 35, 45, 68, 84
RED WINGS Stanley Cups- 36, 37, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 97, 98, 02, 08
PISTONS Championships- 44, 45, 89, 90, 05
LIONS Superbowls- lol
BOOM byae
John
------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
gtech1
On Oct 28 2008 10:28 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> That is all.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> "SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
______________________________________________________________________
DonkeyBanAA
> > That is all.
>
> But I am getting short on chips, the clock is running and you have been
> taking along time to make a call.
>
> What a bitch! 50BB short.
>
> TIGERS World Series- 35, 45, 68, 84
> RED WINGS Stanley Cups- 36, 37, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 97, 98, 02, 08
> PISTONS Championships- 44, 45, 89, 90, 05
> LIONS Superbowls- lol
>
> BOOM byae
> John
--------
Beldin the Sorcerer
"gtech1" <duanepr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:q11lt5x...@recgroups.com...
> You are correct sir. And let me repeat, not very good looking.
I'd rather spend time in bed with Annie Duke, but Tiff is cute.
James L. Hankins
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:cbukt5x...@recgroups.com...
> That is all.
Personally, I've never really understood why players flip out when someone
calls a clock. They take it like a personal insult every time I've seen it
done, *especially* when the player calling for the clock is not in the hand.
I've never had anyone call for a clock on me, but if someone did I don't
think it would bother me. TM had a good point. She's playing for a large
amount of money and under pressure also. Why should she give a shit if she
hurts some player's feelings because he has to make a decision sooner than
he would like?
Irish Mike
"James L. Hankins" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:IuRNk.5559$yx1....@newsfe14.iad...
Well bucko, some of the players at the table obviously thought she was being
rude. Of course these are the same guys who got their knickers in a twist
because she ate her french fries with out using a fork. Go figure.
Irish Mike
Clave
news:hsTNk.4211$D32....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
Yeah, I suppose you like your cards all greased up.
Not only that, eating with your fingers while you're handling chips that
have been circulated among over 6500 people is just fucking disgusting.
As if you have a chance anyway.
Jim
John_Brian_K
> have been circulated among over 6500 people is just fucking disgusting.
I call that 'the dirty slut' maneuver.
TIGERS World Series- 35, 45, 68, 84
RED WINGS Stanley Cups- 36, 37, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 97, 98, 02, 08
PISTONS Championships- 44, 45, 89, 90, 05
LIONS Superbowls- lol
BOOM byae
John
------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
John_Brian_K
TIGERS World Series- 35, 45, 68, 84
RED WINGS Stanley Cups- 36, 37, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 97, 98, 02, 08
PISTONS Championships- 44, 45, 89, 90, 05
LIONS Superbowls- lol
BOOM byae
John
----
Will in New Haven
> That is all.
She was a real pain. There were several incidents over the course of
the tournament that made me think she's a jerk. AND she's giving some
RGP guys a chance to comment on her looks, like anyone actually good-
looking would give them the time of day.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
> You are correct sir. And let me repeat, not very good looking.
Right on schedule.
Wayne Vinson
> That is all.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> "SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
The time call was definitely a douchebag play.
I noticed she also wasn't particularly good. She had a bad habit of
betting in situations where she's unlikely to get a better hand to fold or
a worse hand to call. Eventually it caught up with her.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
John_Brian_K
> betting in situations where she's unlikely to get a better hand to fold or
> a worse hand to call. Eventually it caught up with her.
I forget the kids name, but the smooth call of Dennis Phillips (Who I will
be RESOUNDLY rooting for to win it all) bet screamed he KNEW the bitch was
going to re raise.
VERY good play by him IMO in that spot. You could almost see him thinking
'holy shit she has A-K or A-Q and is going to push.
TIGERS World Series- 35, 45, 68, 84
RED WINGS Stanley Cups- 36, 37, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 97, 98, 02, 08
PISTONS Championships- 44, 45, 89, 90, 05
LIONS Superbowls- lol
BOOM byae
John
_______________________________________________________________________
johnny_t
> I noticed she also wasn't particularly good. She had a bad habit of
> betting in situations where she's unlikely to get a better hand to fold or
> a worse hand to call. Eventually it caught up with her.
She was just betting a lot. That was the big lesson that she learned
last year, which was bet, and bet once more, then fold, regardless of
holdings.
I don't know if it "caught" up with her or not. It is really difficult
to call her tournament anything but a success.
Wayne Vinson
She gave up at least a million in tournament equity on the major plays I
saw last night. Personally, if it were my million of equity, and I played
like that, I'd want to throw up. But maybe she's of the "as long as you
tried hard" school or something. Or just doesn't know how bad she
misplayed some of those hands.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Wayne Vinson
> be RESOUNDLY rooting for to win it all) bet screamed he KNEW the bitch was
> going to re raise.
Yup. That was very well done. And I was impressed with Phillips too.
> VERY good play by him IMO in that spot. You could almost see him thinking
> 'holy shit she has A-K or A-Q and is going to push.
And the funny thing is, it was merely AJ. A good player might actually
have their tournament life saved by the combination of 3 way action and
that bad kicker (if they entered the pot at all). But her propensity to
bet when nothing good can come of it got the better of her.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
------
thepixelfreak
<beld...@verizon.net> said:
Yea, in a skanky 'ridden hard, put away wet' kinda way.
I'll pass, thankyouverymuch.
--
thepixelfreak
Irish Mike
"thepixelfreak" <n...@dot.com> wrote in message
news:2008102909210416807-not@dotcom...
Well in all fairness to the lass, maybe she was cute and sweet before she
became a professional poker player. Trying to earn a living playing poker
has a tendency to make people a little skanky. OTOH, there is nothing like
a high stakes poker game to reveal a person's true character.
Irish Mike
John_Brian_K
> saw last night. Personally, if it were my million of equity, and I played
> like that, I'd want to throw up. But maybe she's of the "as long as you
> tried hard" school or something. Or just doesn't know how bad she
> misplayed some of those hands.
I do not know how much equity I gave up, but this past weekend I played a
tourney and I was a top 5 stack for the last 2 hours or so and busted in
16th after a series of 2 pretty bad plays that knocked my stack down to
earth. CALLING a raise with KQo and moving all in first to act when the Q
was top card on the flop. Opponent AA. I felt like throwing up.
I was sick over that and it was only about 7 hours and top only paid like
3k. I would have puked if I were her. Literally!
TIGERS World Series- 35, 45, 68, 84
RED WINGS Stanley Cups- 36, 37, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 97, 98, 02, 08
PISTONS Championships- 44, 45, 89, 90, 05
LIONS Superbowls- lol
BOOM byae
John
____________________________________________________________________
Will in New Haven
> On Oct 29 2008 10:02 AM, johnny_t wrote:
>
> > Wayne Vinson wrote:
>
> > > I noticed she also wasn't particularly good. She had a bad habit of
> > > betting in situations where she's unlikely to get a better hand to fold or
> > > a worse hand to call. Eventually it caught up with her.
>
> > She was just betting a lot. That was the big lesson that she learned
> > last year, which was bet, and bet once more, then fold, regardless of
> > holdings.
>
> > I don't know if it "caught" up with her or not. It is really difficult
> > to call her tournament anything but a success.
>
> She gave up at least a million in tournament equity on the major plays I
> saw last night. Personally, if it were my million of equity, and I played
> like that, I'd want to throw up. But maybe she's of the "as long as you
> tried hard" school or something. Or just doesn't know how bad she
> misplayed some of those hands.
Or the pressure got to her. She may have played fairly well getting to
that point. I haven't played in tournaments at that level but I
noticed a lot of sweaty palms and bad play late in the tournaments I
did play in. It's funny because I always found final tables non-
stressful. When you know you are going to make decent money and you
also know, due to the blinds and antes being so big, that luck is
going to have a lot to do with it, it is easy enough for me to just
relax and play my best. The stress is earlier. But there was only a
few thousand dollars involved in those tournaments.
XaQ Morphy
> Personally, I've never really understood why players flip out when someone
> calls a clock. They take it like a personal insult every time I've seen it
> done, *especially* when the player calling for the clock is not in the hand.
>
> I've never had anyone call for a clock on me, but if someone did I don't
> think it would bother me. TM had a good point. She's playing for a large
> amount of money and under pressure also. Why should she give a shit if she
> hurts some player's feelings because he has to make a decision sooner than
> he would like?
There were more incidents than that one. But yes, that's what topped it
off. Why does she care? Does the extra minute he's going to take on his
own affect her bottom line? She has 50BB and says she's short?
If she were a short stack and the blinds were going up it's one thing, but
she did it just to try and piss the guy off and make him make a bad
decision. I don't care to argue if that's within the rules because
clearly it is, but it doesn't make her any less of a douchebag.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
____________________________________________________________________
XaQ Morphy
> She was a real pain. There were several incidents over the course of
> the tournament that made me think she's a jerk. AND she's giving some
> RGP guys a chance to comment on her looks, like anyone actually good-
> looking would give them the time of day.
Yeah you got that right...in fact, just this morning:
me: Hey honey, what time is it?
Mrs. Morphy: wtf are you blind? there's a clock right there ffs
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
________________________________________________________________________
BeaForoni
wrote:
> "gtech1" <duanepritch...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:q11lt5x...@recgroups.com...> You are correct sir. And let me repeat, not very good looking.
>
> She's cute.
>
> I'd rather spend time in bed with Annie Duke, but Tiff is cute.
Alot of the insults comes from the fact that she is a woman. Think
anyone would care what she was eating if she was a man? Calling the
clock on someone put them on tilt; a good move in my book, but she is
suppose to be demure and so is now a bitch.
Whether or not she is a skank seems to be a topic of debate, but I
don't seem to be hearing to much about the fat ass men that are still
at the table. Want to discuss players personal lives? I'd like to know
how some of those fat fucks wipe their asses. Statistics tell me that
at least one or two of the players I saw last night are homos. Top or
bottom? Talk amongst yourselves.
How about Tiff's fuckability? I'd like to see discussion about the
men's fuckability amongst the women here, but there ain't none (unless
you count Susan who I think is someone's sock puppet). You homos have
driven them all off.
I don't know who made the final table, as I kind of like watching what
will happen next, but there should be kudos to the woman who outlasted
nearly 7,000 players to make it to the last two tables. Instead it
sounds like jealousy.
GG Tiffany
Wayne Vinson
> anyone would care what she was eating if she was a man? Calling the
> clock on someone put them on tilt; a good move in my book, but she is
> suppose to be demure and so is now a bitch.
>
> Whether or not she is a skank seems to be a topic of debate, but I
> don't seem to be hearing to much about the fat ass men that are still
> at the table. Want to discuss players personal lives? I'd like to know
> how some of those fat fucks wipe their asses. Statistics tell me that
> at least one or two of the players I saw last night are homos. Top or
> bottom? Talk amongst yourselves.
>
> How about Tiff's fuckability? I'd like to see discussion about the
> men's fuckability amongst the women here, but there ain't none (unless
> you count Susan who I think is someone's sock puppet). You homos have
> driven them all off.
>
> I don't know who made the final table, as I kind of like watching what
> will happen next, but there should be kudos to the woman who outlasted
> nearly 7,000 players to make it to the last two tables. Instead it
> sounds like jealousy.
>
> GG Tiffany
This isn't a gender thing, at least for me. I don't care if she's
"fuckable" and I don't have anything against women players. But she was
rude and played badly. Frankly I fail to see how she could be a poker
'pro' at anything above the lower midstakes unless her day to day game is
better than we got to see.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
----
BeaForoni
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> ----
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rude? Didn't I see one case of a player slow roll another? Didn't I
see one player talk about his hand while there were others yet to act?
Tiffany is under a microscope, yet there were other players who got
no camera time, the only time I saw them was maybe when they were
standing up to exit. Climb out of your own head and at least consider
that it could be a sex thing.
James L. Hankins
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> If she were a short stack and the blinds were going up it's one thing, but
> she did it just to try and piss the guy off and make him make a bad
> decision.
All the more reason to do it, no?
>I don't care to argue if that's within the rules because
> clearly it is, but it doesn't make her any less of a douchebag.
lol...grow a pair, man.
Wayne Vinson
> see one player talk about his hand while there were others yet to act?
> Tiffany is under a microscope, yet there were other players who got
> no camera time, the only time I saw them was maybe when they were
> standing up to exit. Climb out of your own head and at least consider
> that it could be a sex thing.
I didn't say anything else about anyone else NOT being rude. I'm quite
certain that lots of people out of a 7k field did objectionable things. I
just pointed out that she WAS rude. Separate issues.
As far as her being under a microscope, that's probably true. But my
guess is that she probably did a lot to encourage that. If her website
and other assorted info is to be believed, she's an LA aspiring actor (and
apparently "singer/songwriter") turned poker 'pro'.
So now I will make some stereotypical and gender-based comments. There
appears to be a very particular breed of female poker 'pro'. Most of them
tend to be younger (or pretend to be young, like Jennifer Tilly) and they
see poker as a way to jumpstart their movie/TV career. They tend to be
horrible players and tend to be very obnoxious and manipulative bordering
on and sometimes crossing over into "bitchy". Tiffany seems to be one of
them. She certainly fits the profile.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
____________________________________________________________________
BeaForoni
.
>
I would expect nothing more.
I have been quit for 6 Months, 2 Weeks, 4 Days, 6 hours, 6 minutes and
1 second (201 days). I have saved $709.66 by not smoking 4,025
cigarettes. I have saved 1 Week, 6 Days, 23 hours and 25 minutes of my
life. My Quit Date: 4/11/2008 7:32 AM
James L. Hankins
"Wayne Vinson" <a7a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:1mtmt5x...@recgroups.com...
> I didn't say anything else about anyone else NOT being rude. I'm quite
> certain that lots of people out of a 7k field did objectionable things. I
> just pointed out that she WAS rude. Separate issues.
Not really. You chose to comment on her rudeness, but didn't on the
rudeness of others that was worse. It's unclear why you chose to do that
and he was pointing that out. They are not separate issues.
Also telling is the way you praise Chino Rheem but his play from what I saw
is just as reckless and he survived by spiking narrow outs on the river. He
may be a solid pro at 10-20 in California, but you've got to be kidding the
way you brush aside his donkey play as spots where he just got lucky.
> As far as her being under a microscope, that's probably true. But my
> guess is that she probably did a lot to encourage that. If her website
> and other assorted info is to be believed, she's an LA aspiring actor (and
> apparently "singer/songwriter") turned poker 'pro'.
>
> So now I will make some stereotypical and gender-based comments. There
> appears to be a very particular breed of female poker 'pro'. Most of them
> tend to be younger (or pretend to be young, like Jennifer Tilly) and they
> see poker as a way to jumpstart their movie/TV career. They tend to be
> horrible players and tend to be very obnoxious and manipulative bordering
> on and sometimes crossing over into "bitchy". Tiffany seems to be one of
> them. She certainly fits the profile.
That seems like a gratuitous attack. From I have seen of the WSOP coverage
on ESPN, her behavior at the table is more professional than 90% of the
idiots in the field. She made a bad move on the last hand she played, but
she is the one who bet it. Ran into AA. BFD, who hasn't done that?
James L. Hankins
"BeaForoni" <BeaF...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2aaddfb3-8e99-4893...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 29, 1:29 pm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
.
>
> So now I will make some stereotypical and gender-based comments...
I would expect nothing more.
Dude, quit masquerading as a woman. Just stop it.
Wayne Vinson
> I would expect nothing more.
You seem to be interested only in the most soundbyte-oriented discussion
of this. Any particular reason?
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
--------
![Mark B [Diputsur]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjW1ukZesLHTvLryryGaLhoUTsW-4I5_N8bKNVoFKGU5T0OxggP6=s40-c)
Mark B [Diputsur]
>
> "Wayne Vinson" <a7a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1mtmt5x...@recgroups.com...
>
>
>> I didn't say anything else about anyone else NOT being rude. I'm quite
>> certain that lots of people out of a 7k field did objectionable things.
>> I
>> just pointed out that she WAS rude. Separate issues.
>
>
> Not really. You chose to comment on her rudeness, but didn't on the
> rudeness of others that was worse. It's unclear why you chose to do that
> and he was pointing that out.
Do you think maybe it had something to do with this thread's
subject heading?!?
James L. Hankins
"Mark B [Diputsur]" <dipu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:geaic8$t5k$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
No. Why would I?
Wayne Vinson
>
>
> Not really. You chose to comment on her rudeness, but didn't on the
> rudeness of others that was worse. It's unclear why you chose to do that
> and he was pointing that out.
Really? In a thread titled "Tiffany Michelle = douchebag" which player
you YOU expect me to be commenting on?
> Also telling is the way you praise Chino Rheem but his play from what I saw
> is just as reckless and he survived by spiking narrow outs on the river. He
> may be a solid pro at 10-20 in California, but you've got to be kidding the
> way you brush aside his donkey play as spots where he just got lucky.
His play was quite solid - the exact opposite of hers. There are
situations in NL where it's correct to risk getting all in on the
semi-bluff (when you believe there's a high chance your opponent will fold
and hand that beats you, and if not you have good outs) and times where
it's dumb (when you don't expect anyone to fold a hand that beats you, and
your have few/bad outs). Rheem did it at the right time, she did it at
the wrong time. His play was correct, hers was not.
> > As far as her being under a microscope, that's probably true. But my
> > guess is that she probably did a lot to encourage that. If her website
> > and other assorted info is to be believed, she's an LA aspiring actor (and
> > apparently "singer/songwriter") turned poker 'pro'.
> >
> > So now I will make some stereotypical and gender-based comments. There
> > appears to be a very particular breed of female poker 'pro'. Most of them
> > tend to be younger (or pretend to be young, like Jennifer Tilly) and they
> > see poker as a way to jumpstart their movie/TV career. They tend to be
> > horrible players and tend to be very obnoxious and manipulative bordering
> > on and sometimes crossing over into "bitchy". Tiffany seems to be one of
> > them. She certainly fits the profile.
>
>
> That seems like a gratuitous attack. From I have seen of the WSOP coverage
> on ESPN, her behavior at the table is more professional than 90% of the
> idiots in the field. She made a bad move on the last hand she played, but
> she is the one who bet it. Ran into AA. BFD, who hasn't done that?
There was way more that that. She was making horrible bets in nearly
every hand she was in. And she pulled the biggest douchebag move I
personally saw from anyone.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_______________________________________________________________________
BeaForoni
> "BeaForoni" <BeaFor...@msn.com> wrote in message
GF, you act like your testies are just for show.
Irish Mike
> news:1mtmt5x...@recgroups.com...
>
>
>> I didn't say anything else about anyone else NOT being rude. I'm quite
>> certain that lots of people out of a 7k field did objectionable things.
>> I
>> just pointed out that she WAS rude. Separate issues.
>
>
> Not really. You chose to comment on her rudeness, but didn't on the
> rudeness of others that was worse. It's unclear why you chose to do that
> and he was pointing that out. They are not separate issues.
>
> Also telling is the way you praise Chino Rheem but his play from what I
> saw is just as reckless and he survived by spiking narrow outs on the
> river. He may be a solid pro at 10-20 in California, but you've got to be
> kidding the way you brush aside his donkey play as spots where he just got
> lucky.
Newsflash bucko, every one of those remaining nine players got lucky. If
they didn't none of them would be at the final table. There is no way you
make it through 7,000 players in a NL tournament with out getting lucky.
That said, I also was less than impressed with Chino Rheem's play. As for
Tiffany Michelle - I say cut the lass some slack. She's 24 years old,
relatively new to poker, on national television playing for the WSOP
championship and $9,000,000.00. Any one might get a little stressed.
Besides, eating french fries with your fingers and calling a clock on
another player is pretty mild compared to some of the idiotic stuff we've
seen at the WSOP.
Irish Mike
igotskillz com
> I noticed she also wasn't particularly good. She had a bad habit of
> betting in situations where she's unlikely to get a better hand to fold or
> a worse hand to call. Eventually it caught up with her.
>
that is the key to poker,IMO
_______________________________________________________________________
Wayne Vinson
> On Oct 29 2008 11:39 AM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
>
> > I noticed she also wasn't particularly good. She had a bad habit of
> > betting in situations where she's unlikely to get a better hand to fold or
> > a worse hand to call. Eventually it caught up with her.
> >
>
> that is the key to poker,IMO
You know, it's funny because I've only seen one poker author ever
explicitly state that bets that don't work as value bets OR bluffs are a
sinkhole with no bottom. It was Harrington in one of the HoH books. But
I think it's far and away the most important concept in big bet poker and
one what so many people don't get. It's not bluffing with unpaired crap
that kills you. It's betting AJ when the A pairs and you're not sure if
you're value betting AXs or QQ or bluffing AQ/AK that ruins your day.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
----
XaQ Morphy
> All the more reason to do it, no?
Sure, if you're a fucking douchebag, no problems.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
_______________________________________________________________________
James L. Hankins
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Oct 29 2008 3:17 PM, James L. Hankins wrote:
>
>> All the more reason to do it, no?
>
> Sure, if you're a fucking douchebag, no problems.
Does get check-raised hurt your feelings, too?
XaQ Morphy
> Does get check-raised hurt your feelings, too?
You know, if you're going to post retarded shit like this why not fuck off
and go to the political threads. Ok? Thanks.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
____________________________________________________________________
igotskillz com
> On Oct 29 2008 4:27 PM, igotskillz com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29 2008 11:39 AM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> >
> > > I noticed she also wasn't particularly good. She had a bad habit of
> > > betting in situations where she's unlikely to get a better hand to fold
or
> > > a worse hand to call. Eventually it caught up with her.
> > >
> >
> > that is the key to poker,IMO
>
> You know, it's funny because I've only seen one poker author ever
> explicitly state that bets that don't work as value bets OR bluffs are a
> sinkhole with no bottom. It was Harrington in one of the HoH books. But
> I think it's far and away the most important concept in big bet poker and
> one what so many people don't get. It's not bluffing with unpaired crap
> that kills you. It's betting AJ when the A pairs and you're not sure if
> you're value betting AXs or QQ or bluffing AQ/AK that ruins your day.
please dont tell too many people this.
i would have to say that it is the largest of all %'s in poker is betting
on the river with a soso hand.
i can see a smallish bet if you are out of position in order to keep the
button at bay but when everyone is all done betting and the last guy to
act bets, who is he/she fooling but himself ?
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_______________________________________________________________________
brewmaster
> On Oct 29 2008 3:17 PM, James L. Hankins wrote:
>
> > All the more reason to do it, no?
>
> Sure, if you're a fucking douchebag, no problems.
I have no problem with it. I've done similar myself. One time we were at
10 players, 9 was the final table. A short stack moved all in and another
player was considering the call but looked to be leaning toward folding.
The short stack said "I have a pair, if you don't have a pair, you
probably shouldn't call." I called the floor and the floor gave the guy a
15 minute penalty for telling his hand during the hand (lying is of course
ok, but he really had a pair). He got blinded off during the penalty.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> "SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
________________________________________________________________________
Wayne Vinson
> On Oct 29 2008 3:26 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29 2008 3:17 PM, James L. Hankins wrote:
> >
> > > All the more reason to do it, no?
> >
> > Sure, if you're a fucking douchebag, no problems.
>
> I have no problem with it. I've done similar myself. One time we were at
> 10 players, 9 was the final table. A short stack moved all in and another
> player was considering the call but looked to be leaning toward folding.
> The short stack said "I have a pair, if you don't have a pair, you
> probably shouldn't call." I called the floor and the floor gave the guy a
> 15 minute penalty for telling his hand during the hand (lying is of course
> ok, but he really had a pair). He got blinded off during the penalty.
>
This post is a prime example of what a retard-fest modern tournaments are.
Both you and the TD should be lined up against the wall and shot. I'd
happily pull the trigger, and I'm not joking.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
----
brewmaster
> On Oct 29 2008 10:52 PM, brewmaster wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29 2008 3:26 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> >
> > > On Oct 29 2008 3:17 PM, James L. Hankins wrote:
> > >
> > > > All the more reason to do it, no?
> > >
> > > Sure, if you're a fucking douchebag, no problems.
> >
> > I have no problem with it. I've done similar myself. One time we were at
> > 10 players, 9 was the final table. A short stack moved all in and another
> > player was considering the call but looked to be leaning toward folding.
> > The short stack said "I have a pair, if you don't have a pair, you
> > probably shouldn't call." I called the floor and the floor gave the guy a
> > 15 minute penalty for telling his hand during the hand (lying is of course
> > ok, but he really had a pair). He got blinded off during the penalty.
> >
>
> This post is a prime example of what a retard-fest modern tournaments are.
> Both you and the TD should be lined up against the wall and shot. I'd
> happily pull the trigger, and I'm not joking.
It's a rule, and I had it enforced. He's the head TD at Hollywood Park in
L.A. (actually, he just retired but he still plays a lot so he's easy to
find). Take it up with him.
If I can use a written rule to enhance my chances of winning, I will.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
______________________________________________________________________
Wayne Vinson
> L.A. (actually, he just retired but he still plays a lot so he's easy to
> find). Take it up with him.
>
> If I can use a written rule to enhance my chances of winning, I will.
"It's a rule" is third grade playground thinking. Adults should be able
to think about what the purpose of a rule is and whether it's a good idea
or not. In this case, the rule serves no constructive purpose whatsoever,
and indeed only serves to help angleshooters such as yourself.
I wasn't kidding about putting you out of your misery.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_____________________________________________________________________
brewmaster
> > It's a rule, and I had it enforced. He's the head TD at Hollywood Park in
> > L.A. (actually, he just retired but he still plays a lot so he's easy to
> > find). Take it up with him.
> >
> > If I can use a written rule to enhance my chances of winning, I will.
>
> "It's a rule" is third grade playground thinking. Adults should be able
> to think about what the purpose of a rule is and whether it's a good idea
> or not. In this case, the rule serves no constructive purpose whatsoever,
> and indeed only serves to help angleshooters such as yourself.
>
> I wasn't kidding about putting you out of your misery.
Excuse me? In my anecdote the other player broke an explicit rule to
influence the other player. This rule is written for the express purpose
of not influencing other players, because, as we all know, everybody in a
tournament has a vested interest in every hand. This player broke a rule
and broke it in the exact way the rule was written to prevent.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
-----
Wayne Vinson
> influence the other player. This rule is written for the express purpose
> of not influencing other players, because, as we all know, everybody in a
> tournament has a vested interest in every hand. This player broke a rule
> and broke it in the exact way the rule was written to prevent.
Jumping up and down and yelling "it's a rule!" isn't going to change your
playground image here.
I don't know why I bother, but explain in your own words what dastardly
poker play this "rule" is supposed to prevent. Go into details. Make it
look like you're thinking above a gradeschool level.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
----
brewmaster
> > Excuse me? In my anecdote the other player broke an explicit rule to
> > influence the other player. This rule is written for the express purpose
> > of not influencing other players, because, as we all know, everybody in a
> > tournament has a vested interest in every hand. This player broke a rule
> > and broke it in the exact way the rule was written to prevent.
>
> Jumping up and down and yelling "it's a rule!" isn't going to change your
> playground image here.
>
> I don't know why I bother, but explain in your own words what dastardly
> poker play this "rule" is supposed to prevent. Go into details. Make it
> look like you're thinking above a gradeschool level.
He doesn't say anything, he gets called, he gets knocked out, we go to
final table. He says something, he doesn't get called, he survives hand,
somebody else gets knocked out. Get it?
Oh, by the way, the entire point of lawsuits, arrests, trials, etc are
RULES ARE RULES.
I don't know why I bother.
If I ever play a tournament with you I'm calling the clock on every single
hand.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
_______________________________________________________________________
Wayne Vinson
> final table. He says something, he doesn't get called, he survives hand,
> somebody else gets knocked out. Get it?
Uh oh, now I know why you didn't want to explain your thinking - because
it's obviously and painfully wrong.
For starters, there's no reason to believe that talking will produce fewer
calls than not talking.
Care to re-organize your thinking to reflect reality and try to explain
the situation again?
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
------
brewmaster
> > He doesn't say anything, he gets called, he gets knocked out, we go to
> > final table. He says something, he doesn't get called, he survives hand,
> > somebody else gets knocked out. Get it?
>
> Uh oh, now I know why you didn't want to explain your thinking - because
> it's obviously and painfully wrong.
>
> For starters, there's no reason to believe that talking will produce fewer
> calls than not talking.
>
> Care to re-organize your thinking to reflect reality and try to explain
> the situation again?
Ok then, please explain to me why the TDA chose to write a rule that
states that revealing your hand, or truthfully stating your hand, in an
effort to affect action, will result in a penalty, but will not result in
a killed hand.
Please, explain why it is a rule.
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
____________________________________________________________________
brewmaster
> > He doesn't say anything, he gets called, he gets knocked out, we go to
> > final table. He says something, he doesn't get called, he survives hand,
> > somebody else gets knocked out. Get it?
>
> Uh oh, now I know why you didn't want to explain your thinking - because
> it's obviously and painfully wrong.
>
> For starters, there's no reason to believe that talking will produce fewer
> calls than not talking.
>
> Care to re-organize your thinking to reflect reality and try to explain
> the situation again?
Corrollary to my last post where I ask you to explain why it is a rule.
In many places revealing your hand during tournament play WILL kill your
hand.
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
-----
igotskillz com
> On Oct 29 2008 9:43 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
>
> > > Excuse me? In my anecdote the other player broke an explicit rule to
> > > influence the other player. This rule is written for the express purpose
> > > of not influencing other players, because, as we all know, everybody in a
> > > tournament has a vested interest in every hand. This player broke a rule
> > > and broke it in the exact way the rule was written to prevent.
> >
> > Jumping up and down and yelling "it's a rule!" isn't going to change your
> > playground image here.
> >
> > I don't know why I bother, but explain in your own words what dastardly
> > poker play this "rule" is supposed to prevent. Go into details. Make it
> > look like you're thinking above a gradeschool level.
>
> He doesn't say anything, he gets called, he gets knocked out, we go to
> final table. He says something, he doesn't get called, he survives hand,
> somebody else gets knocked out. Get it?
>
> Oh, by the way, the entire point of lawsuits, arrests, trials, etc are
> RULES ARE RULES.
>
> I don't know why I bother.
>
> If I ever play a tournament with you I'm calling the clock on every single
> hand.
lol
>
> >
> > Wayne Vinson
> > http://cardsharp.org/
> > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
>
> Brew
> --
> Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
________________________________________________________________________
Wayne Vinson
> In many places revealing your hand during tournament play WILL kill your
> hand.
Another absurd rule. There's no reason for that one any more than there
is for the absurd rule about stating your hand.
A player is already penalized by revealing their hand with action to come.
No additional penalty is needed.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_____________________________________________________________________
Wayne Vinson
> states that revealing your hand, or truthfully stating your hand, in an
> effort to affect action, will result in a penalty, but will not result in
> a killed hand.
>
> Please, explain why it is a rule.
Don't look at me - I'm the one saying it's a pointless "rule" with no
justification or purpose.
You have to remember - the TDA is a sort of poker backwater devoid of
people who understand the game. They make up "rules" more or less at
random, and dumb people follow them thinking there must be some reason.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_______________________________________________________________________
brewmaster
> > Ok then, please explain to me why the TDA chose to write a rule that
> > states that revealing your hand, or truthfully stating your hand, in an
> > effort to affect action, will result in a penalty, but will not result in
> > a killed hand.
> >
> > Please, explain why it is a rule.
>
> Don't look at me - I'm the one saying it's a pointless "rule" with no
> justification or purpose.
>
> You have to remember - the TDA is a sort of poker backwater devoid of
> people who understand the game. They make up "rules" more or less at
> random, and dumb people follow them thinking there must be some reason.
Ok, here's a situation. 10 people left, I am at table 1, and I have 1
chip left, and the blinds are coming next hand. At table 2 all fold to
the small blind who pushes, and action is on the big blind who looks down
and sees KK. He has exactly the same number of chips as the guy who
pushed. Well, in almost every tournament I've ever played (no, make that
every one) he calls. Luckily for me, 1 of those guys gets knocked out,
and I make the FT with my one chip and cash. Oh wait, the SB shows his AA
after he pushes, and the BB folds his KK, and guess what, I am the next
one out.
There, you have a situation where exposing your hand hurt somebody else
who would not have been hurt had you not done that.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
-----
Wayne Vinson
> chip left, and the blinds are coming next hand. At table 2 all fold to
> the small blind who pushes, and action is on the big blind who looks down
> and sees KK. He has exactly the same number of chips as the guy who
> pushed. Well, in almost every tournament I've ever played (no, make that
> every one) he calls. Luckily for me, 1 of those guys gets knocked out,
> and I make the FT with my one chip and cash. Oh wait, the SB shows his AA
> after he pushes, and the BB folds his KK, and guess what, I am the next
> one out.
>
> There, you have a situation where exposing your hand hurt somebody else
> who would not have been hurt had you not done that.
What? This isn't even a vaguely plausible situation. And if it actually
did occur in some bizarro world, the guy who showed AA to discourage a
call (WTF???) would already have been punished by losing said very
profitable call.
Seriously, if you can't do WAY better than that you've got nothing.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_______________________________________________________________________
brewmaster
> > Ok, here's a situation. 10 people left, I am at table 1, and I have 1
> > chip left, and the blinds are coming next hand. At table 2 all fold to
> > the small blind who pushes, and action is on the big blind who looks down
> > and sees KK. He has exactly the same number of chips as the guy who
> > pushed. Well, in almost every tournament I've ever played (no, make that
> > every one) he calls. Luckily for me, 1 of those guys gets knocked out,
> > and I make the FT with my one chip and cash. Oh wait, the SB shows his AA
> > after he pushes, and the BB folds his KK, and guess what, I am the next
> > one out.
> >
> > There, you have a situation where exposing your hand hurt somebody else
> > who would not have been hurt had you not done that.
>
> What? This isn't even a vaguely plausible situation. And if it actually
> did occur in some bizarro world, the guy who showed AA to discourage a
> call (WTF???) would already have been punished by losing said very
> profitable call.
>
Not even strange I've seen it a number of times. The point of the rule is
to prevent harm to others. Cash game? Knock yourself out. Tournament?
STFU.
> Seriously, if you can't do WAY better than that you've got nothing.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
______________________________________________________________________
Joe Long
> Rude? Didn't I see one case of a player slow roll another? Didn't I
> see one player talk about his hand while there were others yet to act?
> Tiffany is under a microscope, yet there were other players who got
> no camera time, the only time I saw them was maybe when they were
> standing up to exit. Climb out of your own head and at least consider
> that it could be a sex thing.
C'mon now. One player's bad behavior does not excuse another's.
I started out rooting for her. I knew from posts here that she didn't
make the final table, but I wanted her to last as long as possible and
was disappointed that she wasn't going to be one of the final nine. But
the more I saw of her the more disenchanted I became. Running across
the room every time another female player was all-in to see if they'd
bust out, for one thing -- not classy. Her behavior after they got down
to 27 seemed to get worse, and by that time I wanted her to bust out.
She was well positioned to make the final table but in her case it
wasn't bad beats that took her out, it was her own misplays.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
Joe Long
> "Wayne Vinson" <a7a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1mtmt5x...@recgroups.com...
>> I didn't say anything else about anyone else NOT being rude. I'm quite
>> certain that lots of people out of a 7k field did objectionable things. I
>> just pointed out that she WAS rude. Separate issues.
> Not really. You chose to comment on her rudeness, but didn't on the
> rudeness of others that was worse. It's unclear why you chose to do that
> and he was pointing that out. They are not separate issues.
I commented on it in this thread because this thread is about her. I
don't see any other names in the subject line.
Legs Akimbo
> "It's a rule" is third grade playground thinking. Adults should be able
> to think about what the purpose of a rule is and whether it's a good idea
> or not. In this case, the rule serves no constructive purpose whatsoever,
> and indeed only serves to help angleshooters such as yourself.
I once won a pool tournament because the other player did not call the 8
ball on a very obvious shot. The TD did not notice until I pointed it
out. Was that wrong?
Peg Smith
John_Brian_K
Sorry Brew I am with Wayne on this one. The main reason is because of
what I just did last night. Note the table talk:
*********** # 18 **************
PokerStars Game #21605127074: Tournament #117240519, $4.00+$0.40 Hold'em
No Limit - Level X (300/600) - 2008/10/29 21:03:55 ET
Table '117240519 5' 9-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: WoWaGiroj (27037 in chips)
Seat 2: Afrikaaner (49787 in chips)
Seat 3: Carlevero (31281 in chips)
Seat 6: John_Brian_K (23457 in chips)
Seat 8: JimmyP3428 (20607 in chips)
Seat 9: Arcturus (25380 in chips)
WoWaGiroj: posts the ante 50
Afrikaaner: posts the ante 50
Carlevero: posts the ante 50
John_Brian_K: posts the ante 50
JimmyP3428: posts the ante 50
Arcturus: posts the ante 50
JimmyP3428: posts small blind 300
Arcturus: posts big blind 600
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to John_Brian_K [Jc Ac]
WoWaGiroj said, "omg"
WoWaGiroj: raises 2400 to 3000
Afrikaaner: folds
Carlevero: folds
John_Brian_K: calls 3000
JimmyP3428: folds
Arcturus: folds
*** FLOP *** [Js 5h 8h]
WoWaGiroj: bets 4800
John_Brian_K said, "I have AJ"
WoWaGiroj said, "call"
Carlevero said, "ship"
WoWaGiroj said, "call"
Carlevero said, "all in"
WoWaGiroj said, "have KJ"
Afrikaaner said, "fold"
JimmyP3428 said, "Shut up Carla"
John_Brian_K: folds
Uncalled bet (4800) returned to WoWaGiroj
WoWaGiroj collected 7200 from pot
WoWaGiroj: shows [Ad As] (a pair of Aces)
Carlevero said, "why"
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 7200 | Rake 0
Board [Js 5h 8h]
Seat 1: WoWaGiroj collected (7200)
Seat 2: Afrikaaner folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: Carlevero folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: John_Brian_K (button) folded on the Flop
Seat 8: JimmyP3428 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 9: Arcturus (big blind) folded before Flop
PS: this guy just lost a hand with AA the previous hand.
TIGERS World Series- 35, 45, 68, 84
RED WINGS Stanley Cups- 36, 37, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 97, 98, 02, 08
PISTONS Championships- 44, 45, 89, 90, 05
LIONS Superbowls- lol
BOOM byae
John
------
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Wayne Vinson" <a7a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> Corrollary to my last post where I ask you to explain why it is a rule.
>> In many places revealing your hand during tournament play WILL kill your
>> hand.
>
> Another absurd rule. There's no reason for that one any more than there
> is for the absurd rule about stating your hand.
>
> A player is already penalized by revealing their hand with action to come.
> No additional penalty is needed.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
In a tournament, ALL other players are hurt if someone ends up aiding
someone else in making the 'correct' decision.
Wayne Vinson
> to prevent harm to others. Cash game? Knock yourself out. Tournament?
> STFU.
Wait, you've seen the situation described "numerous times"? I'm calling
bullshit. I've played my fair share of tournaments, and I've never seen
someone move in with aces and then flip them to discourage a call.
And as I already stated, eve if it did happen (which I rather doubt) the
guy with aces has already been punished to the tune of well over half his
stack in chips on average.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
------
Wayne Vinson
Wayne Vinson
>
> In a tournament, ALL other players are hurt if someone ends up aiding
> someone else in making the 'correct' decision.
That isn't even close to true.
First off, I've been asking for an example, and so far all we've got is a
totally implausible mess that would never happen.
Second, while other action does have a tiny effect on your tournament
equity, it's no guarantee that exposing a hand will hurt your equity - it
could help depending on what decisions are made as a result.
Third, there's no promise in tournaments that other people's actions won't
hurt you. Expecting one is absurd and leads to an ever more absurd string
of rules. What's next, people aren't allowed to fold when there's a short
player at another table?
Fourth, if the absurd mess in brew's example did happen in some bizarre
world, the guy with AA has already been punished by losing the expected
chips he would get from running AA vs. KK.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
----
brewmaster
> > Please, explain why it is a rule.
>
> Sorry Brew I am with Wayne on this one. The main reason is because of
> what I just did last night. Note the table talk:
You're with Wayne on this one even though you all were blatantly breaking
the rule, and the breaking of the rule saved your ass and the other guy's
ass? Huh?
Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
-------
John_Brian_K
> the rule, and the breaking of the rule saved your ass and the other guy's
> ass? Huh?
I am not totally with him. He has gone off the deep end and sounds a bit
crazy right now, but it happened to go perfectly with a BIG hand for me
yesterday.
Am I a douche because I said my hand?
It helped me. When he said he had KQ I KNEW that was bullshit and he
wanted me to call. I placed him on KK at that moment. I discounted AA
because he JUST had AA the previous hand. I know how stars works when you
are getting cards, you are getting cards.
TIGERS World Series- 35, 45, 68, 84
RED WINGS Stanley Cups- 36, 37, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 97, 98, 02, 08
PISTONS Championships- 44, 45, 89, 90, 05
LIONS Superbowls- lol
BOOM byae
John
_____________________________________________________________________
brewmaster
> > You're with Wayne on this one even though you all were blatantly breaking
> > the rule, and the breaking of the rule saved your ass and the other guy's
> > ass? Huh?
>
> I am not totally with him. He has gone off the deep end and sounds a bit
> crazy right now, but it happened to go perfectly with a BIG hand for me
> yesterday.
>
> Am I a douche because I said my hand?
YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY YOUR HAND DURING PLAY. What is so hard to
understand about that? Why do you think that Stars disables chat late in
a tourney? So that people don't discuss the hand. It is particularly bad
(or it used to be) during satellites where people would openly conspire to
knock out shortstacks and would discuss their hands openly. If I were at
a tourney table with you and the others giving their hands I would
immediately report it to support. In fact I do that all the time. I also
report anybody talking at the table in a foreign language.
>
> It helped me. When he said he had KQ I KNEW that was bullshit and he
> wanted me to call. I placed him on KK at that moment. I discounted AA
> because he JUST had AA the previous hand. I know how stars works when you
> are getting cards, you are getting cards.
>
> TIGERS World Series- 35, 45, 68, 84
> RED WINGS Stanley Cups- 36, 37, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 97, 98, 02, 08
> PISTONS Championships- 44, 45, 89, 90, 05
> LIONS Superbowls- lol
>
> BOOM byae
> John
Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
-------
John_Brian_K
> understand about that? Why do you think that Stars disables chat late in
> a tourney? So that people don't discuss the hand. It is particularly bad
> (or it used to be) during satellites where people would openly conspire to
> knock out shortstacks and would discuss their hands openly. If I were at
> a tourney table with you and the others giving their hands I would
> immediately report it to support. In fact I do that all the time. I also
> report anybody talking at the table in a foreign language.
>
I know man stop yellin! lol
Right after I typed it I thought 'man that was a douche move', but it
helped me. He actually gave a false hand so he was ok, but I said exactly
what I had.
Don't report me Brew.
TIGERS World Series- 35, 45, 68, 84
RED WINGS Stanley Cups- 36, 37, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 97, 98, 02, 08
PISTONS Championships- 44, 45, 89, 90, 05
LIONS Superbowls- lol
BOOM byae
John
-----
Wayne Vinson
> understand about that?
What's so hard to understand is why anyone would support a rule when they
can't explain what it's purpose is in a coherent manner.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
-------
Recordweb
> "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:cbukt5x...@recgroups.com...
>
> > That is all.
>
> Personally, I've never really understood why players flip out when someone
> calls a clock. They take it like a personal insult every time I've seen it
> done, *especially* when the player calling for the clock is not in the hand.
>
> I've never had anyone call for a clock on me, but if someone did I don't
> think it would bother me. TM had a good point. She's playing for a large
> amount of money and under pressure also. Why should she give a shit if she
> hurts some player's feelings because he has to make a decision sooner than
> he would like?
She called the clock a little fast. Someone is in a big hand. Give the
guy a few minutes. If she had little or no chips, I'd understand but
50 bb's and a fast call was rude.
brewmaster
We have no idea how fast it was. It was edited for tv. It could have
been 10 minutes already for all we know.
Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
________________________________________________________________________
BeaForoni
I was playing a tournament at the poker club closest to my home. At
one point it was my turn to act. I picked up all my chips and started
counting out the ones I wanted to bet. Someone claimed this was an all-
in move. The FP agreed and I was forced to have all my chips all-in.
They explained the rule to me. Intresting I thought as I vowed never
to go back. That was three years ago. They can suck my left tit for
all I care.
Wayne Vinson
> been 10 minutes already for all we know.
Nice try. The other players commented on how it was way too fast.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
____________________________________________________________________
brewmaster
> > We have no idea how fast it was. It was edited for tv. It could have
> > been 10 minutes already for all we know.
>
> Nice try. The other players commented on how it was way too fast.
Boy you are in serious dick mode this week. It was a short clip on tv.
We know nothing more about it. The other guy could have been the biggest
asshole at the table and she called the clock cause she was tired of it.
Who knows? I think she called it too quick too, but it was within the
rules.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
------
Wayne Vinson
> We know nothing more about it.
We know a lot more about it than that - we have the other player's
comments. If she'd waited a respectable time before calling the clock,
it's unlikely anyone else would have said anything. Good old Bayesian
reasoning leads us to the obvious conclusion from there.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
________________________________________________________________________
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Wayne Vinson" <a7a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> Wayne, you keep getting shit wrong.
>>
>> In a tournament, ALL other players are hurt if someone ends up aiding
>> someone else in making the 'correct' decision.
>
> That isn't even close to true.
Every player eliminated helps EVERYONE ELSE get further up the prize ladder.
>
> First off, I've been asking for an example, and so far all we've got is a
> totally implausible mess that would never happen.
>
Bullshit.
Any situation where two big stacks clash and a short stack survives because
the guy calls way behind will do, of course.
> Second, while other action does have a tiny effect on your tournament
> equity, it's no guarantee that exposing a hand will hurt your equity - it
> could help depending on what decisions are made as a result.
Doesn't matter. The possibility makes the rule important.
>
> Third, there's no promise in tournaments that other people's actions won't
> hurt you. Expecting one is absurd and leads to an ever more absurd string
> of rules. What's next, people aren't allowed to fold when there's a short
> player at another table?
>
People aren't allowed to do that with information.
> Fourth, if the absurd mess in brew's example did happen in some bizarre
> world, the guy with AA has already been punished by losing the expected
> chips he would get from running AA vs. KK.
That's HIS problem.
Why should "I" get punished because he's a moron?
Wayne Vinson
> >> someone else in making the 'correct' decision.
> >
> > That isn't even close to true.
> Yeah, it is.
> Every player eliminated helps EVERYONE ELSE get further up the prize ladder.
Uh oh - now you're moving the goalposts. You're right that eliminations
help you and that lack of eliminations hurt you. But that wasn't what
your original claim was - you said that opponents making 'correct'
decisions hurt you. But it doesn't follow that 'correct' decisions lead
to eliminations. You've got horribly faulty logic here.
> >
> > First off, I've been asking for an example, and so far all we've got is a
> > totally implausible mess that would never happen.
> >
> Bullshit.
>
> Any situation where two big stacks clash and a short stack survives because
> the guy calls way behind will do, of course.
What? Now you're talking about something totally different. The topic we
were discussing was calling your hand and/or exposing cards. Try to stay
on topic.
> > Second, while other action does have a tiny effect on your tournament
> > equity, it's no guarantee that exposing a hand will hurt your equity - it
> > could help depending on what decisions are made as a result.
>
> Doesn't matter. The possibility makes the rule important.
So it doesn't matter that the rule doesn't do anything like what it's
proponents claim it does? We should have it "just because"?
> >
> > Third, there's no promise in tournaments that other people's actions won't
> > hurt you. Expecting one is absurd and leads to an ever more absurd string
> > of rules. What's next, people aren't allowed to fold when there's a short
> > player at another table?
> >
> People aren't allowed to do that with information.
Now you're just posting incoherent sentences that don't address the point
at hand. Are you a bot? Because I've seen Turring test bots do a better
job of grasping what the topic of conversation is.
> > Fourth, if the absurd mess in brew's example did happen in some bizarre
> > world, the guy with AA has already been punished by losing the expected
> > chips he would get from running AA vs. KK.
> That's HIS problem.
> Why should "I" get punished because he's a moron?
There's no guarantee you will be punished. That's what you've failed to
show this far.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
----
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Wayne Vinson" <a7a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> >> In a tournament, ALL other players are hurt if someone ends up aiding
>> >> someone else in making the 'correct' decision.
>> >
>> > That isn't even close to true.
>> Yeah, it is.
>> Every player eliminated helps EVERYONE ELSE get further up the prize
>> ladder.
>
> Uh oh - now you're moving the goalposts.
No, Wayne, I'm not.
I'm following the logic chain. The one you're trying to ignore.
You're right that eliminations
> help you and that lack of eliminations hurt you. But that wasn't what
> your original claim was - you said that opponents making 'correct'
> decisions hurt you. But it doesn't follow that 'correct' decisions lead
> to eliminations. You've got horribly faulty logic here.
No, it's crystal clear that anyone correctly folding because of an exposed
hand that would have called has greatly reduced their likelihood of
elimination.... and futher reduced the likelihood of the short stack ceasing
to be the short stack by the hand not being lost by SOMEONE.
>
>> >
>> > First off, I've been asking for an example, and so far all we've got is
>> > a
>> > totally implausible mess that would never happen.
>> >
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Any situation where two big stacks clash and a short stack survives
>> because
>> the guy calls way behind will do, of course.
>
> What? Now you're talking about something totally different.
No, I'm not.
It's STILL the same thing, Wayne.
Why bullshit?
The topic we
> were discussing was calling your hand and/or exposing cards. Try to stay
> on topic.
I am, retard.
You show your hand, another bigstack that would have called with KK (or AK
or whatever) folds instead.
It's basic, it's obvious, it's non-trivial, so shut the fuck up.
>
>> > Second, while other action does have a tiny effect on your tournament
>> > equity, it's no guarantee that exposing a hand will hurt your equity -
>> > it
>> > could help depending on what decisions are made as a result.
>>
>> Doesn't matter. The possibility makes the rule important.
>
> So it doesn't matter that the rule doesn't do anything like what it's
> proponents claim it does? We should have it "just because"?
It does EXACTLY what it claims it does.
It doesn't matter if applying the rule won't ALWAYS help your equity. MOST
of the time it will.
>
>> >
>> > Third, there's no promise in tournaments that other people's actions
>> > won't
>> > hurt you. Expecting one is absurd and leads to an ever more absurd
>> > string
>> > of rules. What's next, people aren't allowed to fold when there's a
>> > short
>> > player at another table?
>> >
>> People aren't allowed to do that with information.
>
> Now you're just posting incoherent sentences that don't address the point
> at hand. Are you a bot? Because I've seen Turring test bots do a better
> job of grasping what the topic of conversation is.
Wayne, you're running for retard of the century.
You're a pure shithead. You've posted on other topics, and you were only a
marginal shithead.
You can't GIVE INFORMATION to someone so they fold, making the short stack
more likely to be eliminated.
The first sentence was shorter, but NON-shitheads figure it out without the
fuller explanation.
>
>> > Fourth, if the absurd mess in brew's example did happen in some bizarre
>> > world, the guy with AA has already been punished by losing the expected
>> > chips he would get from running AA vs. KK.
>> That's HIS problem.
>> Why should "I" get punished because he's a moron?
>
> There's no guarantee you will be punished. That's what you've failed to
> show this far.
You're a FUCKING shithead.
the short stack that directly benefits from ONE of them going out or being
crippled is automatically punished.
"I" was in quotes for that reason.
Go have someone correct the botched lobotomy.
Joe Long
>> Wayne, you keep getting shit wrong.
>>
>> In a tournament, ALL other players are hurt if someone ends up aiding
>> someone else in making the 'correct' decision.
>
> That isn't even close to true.
>
> First off, I've been asking for an example, and so far all we've got is a
> totally implausible mess that would never happen.
>
> Second, while other action does have a tiny effect on your tournament
> equity, it's no guarantee that exposing a hand will hurt your equity - it
> could help depending on what decisions are made as a result.
You just destroyed your own argument. If an illegal action helps you,
then it hurt other players.
> Third, there's no promise in tournaments that other people's actions won't
> hurt you. Expecting one is absurd and leads to an ever more absurd string
> of rules. What's next, people aren't allowed to fold when there's a short
> player at another table?
Collusion is wrong in poker, including tournaments. Intentionally
revealing information about your hand to influence action is a form of
collusion.
If other players' legal actions hurt you, tough, that's part of the game
-- it is a competition. That is no reason to allow implicit collusion
or angle-shooting. There are plenty of legal ways for players to
increase their chances of winning at the expense of the rest of the
field's chances of winning.
> Fourth, if the absurd mess in brew's example did happen in some bizarre
> world, the guy with AA has already been punished by losing the expected
> chips he would get from running AA vs. KK.
Even if that was true, it would be irrelevant. No matter if he hurt or
helped himself in that instance, his actions harmed the other players in
the tournament. That's why the rule exists, and that's why it needs to
be enforced.
This is the crucial difference about tournaments that you don't seem to
understand. Due to the fixed pool of chips in play, and the inability
to reload, the actions of every player affect all of the other players
in the tournament. So those actions which are part of poker are fine:
check-raising, bet or raise sizes, even acting (trying to give false
tells). What is not OK is to expose your hand.
Peg Smith
>> Fourth, if the absurd mess in brew's example did happen in some bizarre
>> world, the guy with AA has already been punished by losing the expected
>> chips he would get from running AA vs. KK.
>
>Even if that was true, it would be irrelevant. No matter if he hurt or
>helped himself in that instance, his actions harmed the other players in
>the tournament. That's why the rule exists, and that's why it needs to
>be enforced.
I don't think Wayne is realizing that brew's "absurd situation"
wouldn't be absurd if the two players with AA and KK are buddies. The
one with AA may show in order to protect his friend from being knocked
out of the tournament. That's the point of the rule. Whether or not
the rule is effective in helping to prevent collusion is another
discussion, but that *is* the reason the TDA came up with it.
Peg
Joe Long
>> YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY YOUR HAND DURING PLAY. What is so hard to
>> understand about that?
>
> What's so hard to understand is why anyone would support a rule when they
> can't explain what it's purpose is in a coherent manner.
The purpose of the rule is to prevent collusion. You don't have to be
partners to collude, and you don't have to agree in advance to collude.
When you reveal your hand to a live player you are colluding. What is
not coherent about that?
Joe Long
> Uh oh - now you're moving the goalposts. You're right that eliminations
> help you and that lack of eliminations hurt you. But that wasn't what
> your original claim was - you said that opponents making 'correct'
> decisions hurt you. But it doesn't follow that 'correct' decisions lead
> to eliminations. You've got horribly faulty logic here.
You're trying awfully hard to avoid admitting the obvious here. It
doesn't take elimination. In a tournament every player is competing for
the same prizes with a fixed pool of chips. Anything that helps one
player harms other players.
We don't allow players to consult with friends, or with one another, on
how to play their hand, in poker it's one player to a hand. Revealing
your cards to another player to influence his action, being a form of
collusion, is not allowed.
Wayne Vinson
> wouldn't be absurd if the two players with AA and KK are buddies.
Oh, I realize that. Part of the point of my asking was to figure out how
deeply brewmaster had considered the situation, and the answer was "not
deeply at all". I responded to what brewmaster actually said, not what he
would have said if he were slightly smarter.
> The
> one with AA may show in order to protect his friend from being knocked
> out of the tournament. That's the point of the rule. Whether or not
> the rule is effective in helping to prevent collusion is another
> discussion, but that *is* the reason the TDA came up with it.
Ah, and there's the rub. If we change the scenario to make the two
partners, then it becomes "plausible" but the TDA rule is still retarded
because any pair of partners with IQ above room temperature can work out a
set of signals, vocal or otherwise, that doesn't violate the rules. So
the TDA rule is just as ineffective against partners as it is unnecessary
when there aren't partners. No matter how you slice it, the TDA rule is
wrong. Not that that's a surprise - we're talking about the TDA after all.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_______________________________________________________________________
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Wayne Vinson" <a7a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> I don't think Wayne is realizing that brew's "absurd situation"
>> wouldn't be absurd if the two players with AA and KK are buddies.
>
> Oh, I realize that. Part of the point of my asking was to figure out how
> deeply brewmaster had considered the situation, and the answer was "not
> deeply at all". I responded to what brewmaster actually said, not what he
> would have said if he were slightly smarter.
>
>> The
>> one with AA may show in order to protect his friend from being knocked
>> out of the tournament. That's the point of the rule. Whether or not
>> the rule is effective in helping to prevent collusion is another
>> discussion, but that *is* the reason the TDA came up with it.
>
> Ah, and there's the rub. If we change the scenario to make the two
> partners, then it becomes "plausible" but the TDA rule is still retarded
> because any pair of partners with IQ above room temperature can work out a
> set of signals, vocal or otherwise, that doesn't violate the rules. So
> the TDA rule is just as ineffective against partners as it is unnecessary
> when there aren't partners. No matter how you slice it, the TDA rule is
> wrong. Not that that's a surprise - we're talking about the TDA after
> all.
>
No, the rule is right, and you're an idiot.
It's harmful, it's been shown as such, and you wanna pretend otherwise.
Wayne Vinson
> doesn't take elimination. In a tournament every player is competing for
> the same prizes with a fixed pool of chips. Anything that helps one
> player harms other players.
Uh oh, now you've done it.
All you non-linear value of chips whiners, come explain to Joe just how
wrong he is!
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_____________________________________________________________________
Wayne Vinson
>
> I'm following the logic chain. The one you're trying to ignore.
I'm not following your "logical chain" because it's full of errors &
misconceptions. That's why I'm making you work your logic out in detail -
because every time you do you fuck it up, and it's hilarious to watch you
fail.
> No, it's crystal clear that anyone correctly folding because of an exposed
> hand that would have called has greatly reduced their likelihood of
> elimination....
Uh oh, another logical error. You've assumed that the inevitable result
of an exposed card/hand is that the correct play is to fold. This is
obviously false in many cases if the exposed hand is less than best hand
plus best draw.
Care to try your argument again with assumptions that aren't contrary to
the facts?
> It's basic, it's obvious, it's non-trivial, so shut the fuck up.
Wait, after making a massive mistake every time you attempt logic, YOU'RE
the one who's pissed. I should be billing you for all the wear you've put
on my keyboard explaining patiently and clearly why you're wrong.
The aggrieved moron act suits you to a T, but won't get you anywhere.
> >
> >> > Second, while other action does have a tiny effect on your tournament
> >> > equity, it's no guarantee that exposing a hand will hurt your equity -
> >> > it
> >> > could help depending on what decisions are made as a result.
> >>
> >> Doesn't matter. The possibility makes the rule important.
> >
> > So it doesn't matter that the rule doesn't do anything like what it's
> > proponents claim it does? We should have it "just because"?
> It does EXACTLY what it claims it does.
> It doesn't matter if applying the rule won't ALWAYS help your equity. MOST
> of the time it will.
Really, most of the time? How frequently? How much equity? How do you
know this?
Dazzle me with your grasp of the situation at hand.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
---
Wayne Vinson
>
>
> It's harmful, it's been shown as such, and you wanna pretend otherwise.
No, you've utterly failed to show it, and now you're running away from
that thread and your repeated logical failings to post over here.
As I said, watching you fail is entertaining.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
-----
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Wayne Vinson" <a7a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> No, the rule is right, and you're an idiot.
>>
>>
>> It's harmful, it's been shown as such, and you wanna pretend otherwise.
>
> No, you've utterly failed to show it, and now you're running away from
> that thread and your repeated logical failings to post over here.
>
disgusted with you.
Now keep shitting your pants, so you have something to wave around.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Wayne Vinson" <a7a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> No, Wayne, I'm not.
>>
>> I'm following the logic chain. The one you're trying to ignore.
>
> I'm not following your "logical chain" because it's full of errors &
> misconceptions. That's why I'm making you work your logic out in detail -
> because every time you do you fuck it up, and it's hilarious to watch you
> fail.
doesn't mean the rest of the group is that dumb.
They see it, and they see you, sucking your own cock because noone else
will, while looking like an idiot.
>
>
>> No, it's crystal clear that anyone correctly folding because of an
>> exposed
>> hand that would have called has greatly reduced their likelihood of
>> elimination....
>
> Uh oh, another logical error. You've assumed that the inevitable result
> of an exposed card/hand is that the correct play is to fold. This is
> obviously false in many cases if the exposed hand is less than best hand
> plus best draw.
No, idiot boy. With a short stack ready to go out on the bubble, going broke
there is clearly stupid, and a strong likelihood of that is often enough to
cause a fold.
Top two against any set is an easy example of a hand played to the death
without information.
>
> Care to try your argument again with assumptions that aren't contrary to
> the facts?
>
>> It's basic, it's obvious, it's non-trivial, so shut the fuck up.
>
> Wait, after making a massive mistake every time you attempt logic, YOU'RE
> the one who's pissed. I should be billing you for all the wear you've put
> on my keyboard explaining patiently and clearly why you're wrong.
Wayne, you're too stupid to even read my words. What fifth grader is reading
them to you?
>
> The aggrieved moron act suits you to a T, but won't get you anywhere.
You're the only moron in this thread.
>
>> >
>> >> > Second, while other action does have a tiny effect on your
>> >> > tournament
>> >> > equity, it's no guarantee that exposing a hand will hurt your
>> >> > equity -
>> >> > it
>> >> > could help depending on what decisions are made as a result.
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't matter. The possibility makes the rule important.
>> >
>> > So it doesn't matter that the rule doesn't do anything like what it's
>> > proponents claim it does? We should have it "just because"?
>> It does EXACTLY what it claims it does.
>> It doesn't matter if applying the rule won't ALWAYS help your equity.
>> MOST
>> of the time it will.
>
> Really, most of the time? How frequently? How much equity? How do you
> know this?
>
Most of the time, if the guy NEEDS to see the other hand to decide, he was
going to call, you imbecile.
Christ. what a shithead you are.
Joe Long
> "Wayne Vinson" <a7a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> ... No matter how you slice it, the TDA rule is
>> wrong. Not that that's a surprise - we're talking about the TDA after
>> all.
>>
>
> No, the rule is right, ...
>
>
> It's harmful, it's been shown as such, and you wanna pretend otherwise.
Wayne appears to be one of those people who, once they've stated
something on the Internet, can't admit that they were wrong no matter
that everyone else on the thread has explained it to them. It's an ego
thing.
Joe Long
>> You're trying awfully hard to avoid admitting the obvious here. It
>> doesn't take elimination. In a tournament every player is competing for
>> the same prizes with a fixed pool of chips. Anything that helps one
>> player harms other players.
>
> Uh oh, now you've done it.
>
> All you non-linear value of chips whiners, come explain to Joe just how
> wrong he is!
The non-linear value of chips does not refute the fact that what helps
one player in a tournament harms other players.
I notice that this time, at least, you didn't try to defend the
indefensible, that what two heads-up players do in a hand has no effect
on anyone except themselves.
XaQ Morphy
> That is all.
Today I started reading an epic thread on 2+2 started by Ms. Douchebag
herself.
She's a UB pro. She supports the site whose owners stole millions of
dollars from their own players, then lied about it and tried to cover it
up.
Any questions as to whether this person is a douchebag or not?
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
________________________________________________________________________
Irish Mike
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:njj1u5x...@recgroups.com...
> On Oct 28 2008 8:28 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
>> That is all.
>
> Today I started reading an epic thread on 2+2 started by Ms. Douchebag
> herself.
>
> She's a UB pro. She supports the site whose owners stole millions of
> dollars from their own players, then lied about it and tried to cover it
> up.
>
> Any questions as to whether this person is a douchebag or not?
Yeah, how much of those "millions" did she personally get? And, since Phil
Helmuth is UB's lead spokesperson, what does that make him?
Irish Mike
brewmaster
> On Oct 28 2008 8:28 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
> > That is all.
>
> Today I started reading an epic thread on 2+2 started by Ms. Douchebag
> herself.
>
> She's a UB pro. She supports the site whose owners stole millions of
> dollars from their own players, then lied about it and tried to cover it
> up.
>
> Any questions as to whether this person is a douchebag or not?
This oughta clear up that question:
http://tonyg.pokerworks.com/2008/07/the-integrity-of-poker.html
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> "SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio
Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
-------
Dutch
"Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:2bednaWFQJKncJDU...@giganews.com...
That describes Beldin perfectly.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
<a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>This oughta clear up that question:
>http://tonyg.pokerworks.com/2008/07/the-integrity-of-poker.html
He doesn't need to sue her. She's now a known contract breaker and a
shill for a bunch of scumbags who stole from their own players. Anyone
tempted to sign her up for an endorsement deal knows she can't be
trusted.
At best she's another Brandi Hawbaker.