More poker commentary from the same guy

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

It is surely POSSIBLE his advice here is joking :
Stage #412059418 Tourney ID 5811531 Holdem Multi Normal Tournament No
> Limit 800 - 2010-10-26 02:43:09 (ET)
> Table: 11 (Real Money) Seat #8 is the dealer
> Seat 1 - THE_SORCERER (12,170 in chips)
> Seat 2 - DOLFANZZZ13 (2,030 in chips)
> Seat 3 - AVR42NV (9,696 in chips)
> Seat 5 - BASSETT_R_US (375 in chips)
> Seat 6 - KAROLZALESKI (8,802 in chips)
> Seat 7 - EMINEMZ9899 (14,130 in chips)
> Seat 8 - BIGBWIN (19,488 in chips)
> Seat 9 - LEJCI (8,198 in chips)
> THE_SORCERER - Ante 100
> DOLFANZZZ13 - Ante 100
> AVR42NV - Ante 100
> BASSETT_R_US - Ante 100
> KAROLZALESKI - Ante 100
> EMINEMZ9899 - Ante 100
> BIGBWIN - Ante 100
> LEJCI - Ante 100
> LEJCI - Posts small blind 400
> THE_SORCERER - Posts big blind 800
> *** POCKET CARDS ***
> Dealt to THE_SORCERER [4c 4h]
> DOLFANZZZ13 - Folds
> AVR42NV - Folds
> BASSETT_R_US - Folds
> KAROLZALESKI - Calls 800
> EMINEMZ9899 - Folds
> BIGBWIN - Folds
> LEJCI - Folds
> THE_SORCERER - Checks
> *** FLOP *** [4s 4d Ah]
> THE_SORCERER - Checks
> KAROLZALESKI - Checks
> *** TURN *** [4s 4d Ah] [6c]
> THE_SORCERER - Checks
> KAROLZALESKI - Checks
> *** RIVER *** [4s 4d Ah 6c] [Kh]
> THE_SORCERER - Bets 800
> KAROLZALESKI - All-In(Raise) 7,902 to 7,902
> THE_SORCERER - Calls 7,102
> *** SHOW DOWN ***
> KAROLZALESKI - Shows [7h 8s] (One pair, fours)
> THE_SORCERER - Shows [4c 4h] (Four of a kind, fours)
> THE_SORCERER Collects 18,604 from main pot
> *** SUMMARY ***
> Total Pot(18,604)
> Board [4s 4d Ah 6c Kh]
> Seat 1: THE_SORCERER (big blind) won Total (18,604) HI:(18,604) with
> Four of a kind, fours [4c 4h - B:4s,P:4h,B:4d,P:4c,B:Ah]
> Seat 2: DOLFANZZZ13 Folded on the POCKET CARDS
> Seat 3: AVR42NV Folded on the POCKET CARDS
> Seat 5: BASSETT_R_US Folded on the POCKET CARDS
> Seat 6: KAROLZALESKI HI:lost with One pair, fours [7h 8s -
> B:4s,B:4d,B:Ah,B:Kh,P:8s]
> Seat 7: EMINEMZ9899 Folded on the POCKET CARDS
> Seat 8: BIGBWIN (dealer) Folded on the POCKET CARDS
> Seat 9: LEJCI (small blind) Folded on the POCKET CARDS
>
>
bet the flop, bet the turn :p it's unlikely you get any value at all
from someone who doesn't have an ace either way :p


****
No sane person bets the flop for the obvious reason that someone needs an
ace to play, and wasting quads is annoying
A bet on the turn MIGHT be valid, as it may look like someone valuebetting a
6, hence the question
Minbetting the river is an option. Checking is also an option, though I
suspect the guy doesn't shove without a chance the bigger pot a bet
produces. I could be wrong there, of course

And since I'm beating him up, here's the same guy's sage advice

> Full Tilt Poker Game #25926127561: $2 + $0.20 Rebuy (200962955), Table
> 27 - 120/240 Ante 25 - No Limit Hold'em - 01:34:32 ET - 2010/11/28
> Seat 1: coolhandhuey (20,265)
> Seat 2: colemanE (37,203)
> Seat 3: comebackkid15 (2,195)
> Seat 4: The_Sorcerer (5,720)
> Seat 5: Ardie1949 (5,870)
> Seat 6: Stacay (16,050)
> Seat 7: davbrwn91 (4,375)
> Seat 8: sticks05 (4,955)
> Seat 9: YE88 (9,090)
> coolhandhuey antes 25
> colemanE antes 25
> comebackkid15 antes 25
> The_Sorcerer antes 25
> Ardie1949 antes 25
> Stacay antes 25
> davbrwn91 antes 25
> sticks05 antes 25
> YE88 antes 25
> The_Sorcerer posts the small blind of 120
> Ardie1949 posts the big blind of 240
> The button is in seat #3
> *** HOLE CARDS ***
> Dealt to The_Sorcerer [4h Kh]
> Stacay folds
> davbrwn91 folds
> sticks05 folds
> YE88 calls 240
> coolhandhuey folds
> colemanE calls 240
> comebackkid15 has 15 seconds left to act
> comebackkid15 folds
> The_Sorcerer calls 120
> Ardie1949 checks
> *** FLOP *** [Kc 6h 9h]
> The_Sorcerer checks
> Ardie1949 checks
> YE88 has 15 seconds left to act
> YE88 bets 720
> colemanE folds
> The_Sorcerer calls 720
> Ardie1949 folds
> *** TURN *** [Kc 6h 9h] [7c]
> The_Sorcerer checks
> YE88 has 15 seconds left to act
> YE88 bets 2,160
> The_Sorcerer calls 2,160
> *** RIVER *** [Kc 6h 9h 7c] [5h]
> The_Sorcerer bets 2,575, and is all in
> YE88 calls 2,575
> *** SHOW DOWN ***
> The_Sorcerer shows [4h Kh] a flush, King high
> YE88 mucks
> The_Sorcerer wins the pot (12,095) with a flush, King high
> *** SUMMARY ***
> Total pot 12,095 | Rake 0
> Board: [Kc 6h 9h 7c 5h]
> Seat 1: coolhandhuey folded before the Flop
> Seat 2: colemanE folded on the Flop
> Seat 3: comebackkid15 (button) folded before the Flop
> Seat 4: The_Sorcerer (small blind) showed [4h Kh] and won (12,095) with
> a flush, King high
> Seat 5: Ardie1949 (big blind) folded on the Flop
> Seat 6: Stacay folded before the Flop
> Seat 7: davbrwn91 folded before the Flop
> Seat 8: sticks05 folded before the Flop
> Seat 9: YE88 mucked [Ac Ad] - a pair of Aces
i fold pre, i check-shove the flop. if you call the flop you obviously
can't call the turn since you don't get the odds for it.


***
Now that may be the least intelligent poker advice ever given by anyone, to
anyone.

Preflop :
Pot is laying 9-1 almost, with nobody raising.
Fold?
with more than 40x the call amount behind?
On what fucking planet should I fold there?
Flop :
You can argue for betting out
You can argue for checkraising some reasonable amount
Why the HELL would you blast someone out of the pot?
Nobody who beats you will fold.
Somebody with TT, JJ, or possibly even 88 who limped surely bets there.
Someone with TJh,QJh, or QTh surely bets there, as do most crappy flush
draws (who are drawing nearly dead.
YES the guy happens to have AA. It's a line check. You evaluate the play
against the probable hands... not AA because there's a chance he might have
it.
Checkraising frightens out all the hands drawing almost dead, and gets calls
from hands that are racing.... oh boy

Turn : Against AA, I obviously have the implied odds to call. I'm about a
3-1 dog against them. MAYBE he doesn't pay off if a K hits the river, but
given a flush draw was obvious, and he called the river shove anyway, that's
doubtful.

And how likely is it that I'm ahead here?
Nobody ever pots it with second pair or better, putting me on a flush draw?
Nobody pots it with a flush draw, particularly one with the 8h in it?
87h would cum in his pants there, counting outs

This wasn't "commenting on play" that was "Busting chops because the guy had
AA" and he failed on the math

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> It is surely POSSIBLE his advice here is joking :
> Stage #412059418 Tourney ID 5811531 Holdem Multi Normal Tournament

What are the odds that you will get any constructive feedback from any
of these posts? Zero? Slightly higher?

What's the chance that its because you have permanently poisoned the
well with your childishness?

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Dutch wrote:
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> It is surely POSSIBLE his advice here is joking :
>> Stage #412059418 Tourney ID 5811531 Holdem Multi Normal Tournament
>
> What are the odds that you will get any constructive feedback from any
> of these posts? Zero? Slightly higher?

Given the lack of poker discussion, slim

>
> What's the chance that its because you have permanently poisoned the
> well with your childishness?

Slim.
Slamming me is still fun for some people.

Of course they'd need to think about poker to do so, which may well be the
point of the exercise

[halfpastdead]

yep fuck him .. back in the killfile .. let me know if Coleman starts
threatening him again. for THAT , I will take him out


*****************************************

I saw a bumper sticker about six months ago. It said: "Don't Mex with
Tejas".

---------------------------------------------------------------

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>> It is surely POSSIBLE his advice here is joking :
>>> Stage #412059418 Tourney ID 5811531 Holdem Multi Normal Tournament
>>
>> What are the odds that you will get any constructive feedback from any
>> of these posts? Zero? Slightly higher?
> Given the lack of poker discussion, slim

That won't be the reason. Its because you usually open a discussion then
launch immediately into name calling when someone disagrees with you.
Your reputation precedes you.

>> What's the chance that its because you have permanently poisoned the
>> well with your childishness?
>
> Slim.
> Slamming me is still fun for some people.

For the vast majority it is not worth the effort.

> Of course they'd need to think about poker to do so, which may well be the
> point of the exercise

I'd like to discuss and learn more about poker but your disrespectful
tone makes it intolerable to have a discussion about it with you. It is
unfortunate because it seems that you have a very good grasp of poker
principles and could be a valuable source of information.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Dutch wrote:
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>>> It is surely POSSIBLE his advice here is joking :
>>>> Stage #412059418 Tourney ID 5811531 Holdem Multi Normal
>>>> Tournament
>>>
>>> What are the odds that you will get any constructive feedback from
>>> any of these posts? Zero? Slightly higher?
>> Given the lack of poker discussion, slim
>
> That won't be the reason. Its because you usually open a discussion
> then launch immediately into name calling when someone disagrees with
> you. Your reputation precedes you.

I *NEVER* call anyone names for disagreeing with me

I call them names for being profoundly stupid

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>>>> It is surely POSSIBLE his advice here is joking :
>>>>> Stage #412059418 Tourney ID 5811531 Holdem Multi Normal
>>>>> Tournament
>>>>
>>>> What are the odds that you will get any constructive feedback from
>>>> any of these posts? Zero? Slightly higher?
>>> Given the lack of poker discussion, slim
>>
>> That won't be the reason. Its because you usually open a discussion
>> then launch immediately into name calling when someone disagrees with
>> you. Your reputation precedes you.
> I *NEVER* call anyone names for disagreeing with me
>
> I call them names for being profoundly stupid

So apparently disagreeing with you automatically makes one profoundly
stupid..

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Dutch wrote:
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>>>>> It is surely POSSIBLE his advice here is joking :
>>>>>> Stage #412059418 Tourney ID 5811531 Holdem Multi Normal
>>>>>> Tournament
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the odds that you will get any constructive feedback from
>>>>> any of these posts? Zero? Slightly higher?
>>>> Given the lack of poker discussion, slim
>>>
>>> That won't be the reason. Its because you usually open a discussion
>>> then launch immediately into name calling when someone disagrees
>>> with you. Your reputation precedes you.
>> I *NEVER* call anyone names for disagreeing with me
>>
>> I call them names for being profoundly stupid
>
> So apparently disagreeing with you automatically makes one profoundly
> stupid..

If you think that's what I wrote, you're a shithead

Will in NH disagrees with me on a number of things.
Since he generally has a thoughtful reason WHY he disagrees, he ISN'T being
profoundly stupid.

As opposed to the idiot under discussion, who thinks checkraising worse
hands drawing slim out of a pot makes good poker sense

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:7gurt.222494$VE2.1...@fed14.iad...

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>>>>>> It is surely POSSIBLE his advice here is joking :
>>>>>>> Stage #412059418 Tourney ID 5811531 Holdem Multi Normal
>>>>>>> Tournament
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are the odds that you will get any constructive feedback from
>>>>>> any of these posts? Zero? Slightly higher?
>>>>> Given the lack of poker discussion, slim
>>>>
>>>> That won't be the reason. Its because you usually open a discussion
>>>> then launch immediately into name calling when someone disagrees
>>>> with you. Your reputation precedes you.
>>> I *NEVER* call anyone names for disagreeing with me
>>>
>>> I call them names for being profoundly stupid
>>
>> So apparently disagreeing with you automatically makes one profoundly
>> stupid..
> If you think that's what I wrote, you're a shithead

Well, I don't think you think that, but I do.

> Will in NH disagrees with me on a number of things.
> Since he generally has a thoughtful reason WHY he disagrees, he ISN'T being
> profoundly stupid.

Most people who disagree with you provide thoughtful reasons. I think
you are in awe of certain people so you behave yourself around them.

>
> As opposed to the idiot under discussion, who thinks checkraising worse
> hands drawing slim out of a pot makes good poker sense

If he's profoundly stupid then you shouldn't be abusive towards him, you
should take pity on him and try to educate him.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Most people do NOT provide thoughtful reasons.
If it's politics, they provide trite platittudes they PRETEND are reasons.
If it's poker, mostly they misapply limit theory to a no limit game
There are very few arguments anywhere about limit, particularly low limit
holdem. Long term fights about the relative value of JTs vs KTs
notwithstanding

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Dutch wrote:
>>> As opposed to the idiot under discussion, who thinks checkraising
>> worse hands drawing slim out of a pot makes good poker sense
>
> If he's profoundly stupid then you shouldn't be abusive towards him,
> you should take pity on him and try to educate him.

Missed this part.
His tone of post made it clear he thought he was right. I would smack him
silly to get him to entertain the thought that he was wrong, and why, But I
wasn't allowed to be there, and a kind, polite person was stuck. To be
honest, he expected SOMEONE else to ask, for instance, why the dweeb in
question wanted to drive out everyone drawing extremely slim with a
checkraise, for instance, but nobody did.
Made him wonder if anyone was actually thinking about poker, or merely
developing a mindless rote strategy for general application

There is a myth that you get better at poker if you avoid marginal
situations where you will have hard decisions. The fact is you only get
better if you EMBRACE these situations and learn to ferret out the correct
decision. You MAY get better RESULTS if you avoid those situations,
especially in the beginning, because it is NOT easy to know what to do in
them. But your poker knowledge doesn't expand. And there are opponents who
are so good at confusing you that you may HAVE to avoid those situations
with THEM.

[MarkDoubt]

I think Dutch is spot on with his "respect certain people so no abuse" comment but aside from that, your reply on the avoiding and learning to gain knowledge and improve is nothing more than your opinion and falls in with the political discussion about Zimmerman that Dutch has been arguing and name calling with Truth about lately, you two are peas in a pod!! You both can and do offer interesting discussion, could be fun, active RGP members that most want to engage with but you choose to have a fake persona or be young and obnoxious and alienate others. Discussion can be interesting and you "winning" in your own mind isn't regardless of who you call names as the chat moves along!!!I know this will do no good and fall on deaf ears but if the seed even takes root a little.....

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

MarkDoubt wrote:
> I think Dutch is spot on with his "respect certain people so no
> abuse" comment but aside from that, your reply on the avoiding and
> learning to gain knowledge and improve is nothing more than your
> opinion and falls in with the political discussion about Zimmerman

False twice.

Good to start off consistent.

Poker knowledge is understanding of the situations of the game.
Being better in marginal situations pays dividents. How large depends on how
often you are in them, and failing to make those decisions well, but it is
an OBVIOUS fact that if you can make every decision correctly in every
situation, you will do better in ANY activity.

> that Dutch has been arguing and name calling with Truth about lately,
> you two are peas in a pod!! You both can and do offer interesting
> discussion, could be fun, active RGP members that most want to engage
> with but you choose to have a fake persona or be young and obnoxious
> and alienate others. Discussion can be interesting and you "winning"
> in your own mind isn't regardless of who you call names as the chat
> moves along!!!I know this will do no good and fall on deaf ears but
> if the seed even takes root a little.....

Insulting people often prompts them to explain what's REALLY going on.
It's a tool, like so many things are.
It can cause trolls to show they're trolling, or prejudiced people to reveal
their biases.

I win if people actually think about their positions.

If they simply argue by rote, which happens when people are polite and don't
really pay attention to each other, nothing is actually learned


Let's take Pickle and politics.

I LIKE pickle... I really do.
But he has a number of biases, most of which can be attributed to his age.
If I stay polite to him, he wraps those biases in legalese and avoidance,
and he goes on never questioning why he thinks it perfectly ok to bar a
civil right from a class of people, for instance.

If I rip him up a little, it at least sticks in his craw. He addresses it,
or people see he won't, and that can raise awareness

I have been nice to everyone in this group on any number of occasions.
People don't always pay attention'

[MarkDoubt]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 8:21:08 AM UTC-5, Beldin The Sorcerer wrote:
> MarkDoubt wrote:
>

> > I think Dutch is spot on with his "respect certain people so nn

> > abuse" comment but aside from that, your reply on the avoiding and
> > learning to gain knowledge and improve is nothing more than your
> > opinion and falls in with the political discussion about Zimmerman
>
> False twice.
> Good to start off consistent.
>
>

Thanks for what was a very non-offensive reply over all and definitely not the norm in the past.

I only left the start of your reply so as to confirm my point to you earlier, it's all opinion!! You telling me "false twice" is just wrong when I've started with "I think.....", it's my opinion and while it may not be true to you, it is for me, not false, not true, just opinion. Over and over on here you've alienated people by stating "your" poker theory as fact, not opinion, and then when disagreed with, the name calling comes out and everything devolves from all sides. I know you fall back on the "persona reason" but how about having Chris discuss in the rational, non-offensive manner you claim he is AND as this reply to me seemed to follow. I would guess this reply was more Chris and less Beldin if truth be told but that's just my opinion.... ;)

So many A holes on RGP, what's one more can be your attitude or you could shift gears and try to contribute, I for one don't agree with or even think you're getting the results with your Pickle point, you may feel that way but again, I could be wrong, just opinion. Emulating Clave, Mo, Jerry, BillB, Dutch, Risky just isn't very effective in my opinion but falling back on "it's usenet" can be a convenient excuse when you really are just a dick!!

[fffurken]

On 5 June, 15:48, MarkDoubt <texas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 8:21:08 AM UTC-5, Beldin The Sorcerer wrote:
> > MarkDoubt wrote:
>
> > > I think Dutch is spot on with his "respect certain people so nn
> > > abuse" comment but aside from that, your reply on the avoiding and
> > > learning to gain knowledge and improve is nothing more than your
> > > opinion and falls in with the political discussion about Zimmerman
>
> > False twice.
> > Good to start off consistent.
>
> Thanks for what was a very non-offensive reply over all and definitely not the norm in the past.

I've found Beldumb's whole contribution in this thread quite offensive
to be honest.

Allow me to take the opportunity to remind you a little about Beldin ;

Forties.
Stupid.
Uneducated.
Shelf stocker.
Endlessly argumentative.
Delusional.
Lives in a barn with an unattractive woman he calls his "wife" who he
isn't married to.
Occasionally plays online poker for insignificant amounts of money.

And that's the guy who says other people are "profoundly stupid" and
"can't think" if they don't agree with him on any number of subjects.

Actually, I change my mind, it wasn't offensive, it was hilarious!

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

MarkDoubt wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 8:21:08 AM UTC-5, Beldin The Sorcerer
> wrote:
>> MarkDoubt wrote:
>>
>>> I think Dutch is spot on with his "respect certain people so nn
>>> abuse" comment but aside from that, your reply on the avoiding and
>>> learning to gain knowledge and improve is nothing more than your
>>> opinion and falls in with the political discussion about Zimmerman
>>
>> False twice.
>> Good to start off consistent.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for what was a very non-offensive reply over all and
> definitely not the norm in the past.
>
> I only left the start of your reply so as to confirm my point to you
> earlier, it's all opinion!! You telling me "false twice" is just
> wrong when I've started with "I think.....", it's my opinion and
> while it may not be true to you, it is for me, not false, not true,
> just opinion.

My motives are not an opinion.
I know why I do things, so your guess may be your opinion, but it is wrong.
And my statements about why I do things aren't opinions, either (while I
grant they could be lies, they clearly are not political views, they are
based in fact)

Over and over on here you've alienated people by
> stating "your" poker theory as fact, not opinion, and then when
> disagreed with, the name calling comes out and everything devolves
> from all sides.

No, I defend the math

You can argue about what your opponent was thinking.
You can argue about the best way to play something.
If you say a valid way to play something is bad, you're being stupid.

If you say a line that is mathematically a losing proposition is good play,
well you're an idiot. Likewise, if someone played it well using implied
odds, saying its poor play is also stupid.

If it were played 10000 times, does it show a profit or not?
If yes, good play, if no bad play.

The BEST way might be subject to debate, and surely is subjective to whom is
playing the hands

I know you fall back on the "persona reason" but how
> about having Chris discuss in the rational, non-offensive manner you
> claim he is AND as this reply to me seemed to follow. I would guess
> this reply was more Chris and less Beldin if truth be told but that's
> just my opinion.... ;)

Naw. Chris doesn't post here

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

fffurken wrote:
> On 5 June, 15:48, MarkDoubt <texas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 8:21:08 AM UTC-5, Beldin The Sorcerer
>> wrote:
>>> MarkDoubt wrote:
>>
>>>> I think Dutch is spot on with his "respect certain people so nn
>>>> abuse" comment but aside from that, your reply on the avoiding and
>>>> learning to gain knowledge and improve is nothing more than your
>>>> opinion and falls in with the political discussion about Zimmerman
>>
>>> False twice.
>>> Good to start off consistent.
>>
>> Thanks for what was a very non-offensive reply over all and
>> definitely not the norm in the past.
>
> I've found Beldumb's whole contribution in this thread quite offensive
> to be honest.
>
> Allow me to take the opportunity to remind you a little about Beldin ;
>
> Forties.
> Stupid.
> Uneducated.
> Shelf stocker.
> Endlessly argumentative.
> Delusional.

One correct!

That's better than normal for you, asshat

> Lives in a barn with an unattractive woman he calls his "wife" who he
> isn't married to.
> Occasionally plays online poker for insignificant amounts of money.

Still only one correct from this mess

How drunk are you, sheepfucker?

[fffurken]

On 5 June, 16:38, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net> wrote:
> fffurken wrote:
> > On 5 June, 15:48, MarkDoubt <texas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 8:21:08 AM UTC-5, Beldin The Sorcerer
> >> wrote:
> >>> MarkDoubt wrote:
>
> >>>> I think Dutch is spot on with his "respect certain people so nn
> >>>> abuse" comment but aside from that, your reply on the avoiding and
> >>>> learning to gain knowledge and improve is nothing more than your
> >>>> opinion and falls in with the political discussion about Zimmerman
>
> >>> False twice.
> >>> Good to start off consistent.
>
> >> Thanks for what was a very non-offensive reply over all and
> >> definitely not the norm in the past.
>
> > I've found Beldumb's whole contribution in this thread quite offensive
> > to be honest.
>
> > Allow me to take the opportunity to remind you a little about Beldin ;
>
> > Forties.
> > Stupid.
> > Uneducated.
> > Shelf stocker.
> > Endlessly argumentative.
> > Delusional.
>
> One correct!

I beg your pardon? One?

OK, I'll make the following amendments ;

Uneducated -> High School Diploma.
Shelf Stocker -> Senior Shelf Stocker.

Now do you see six?

[MarkDoubt]

> I know you fall back on the "persona reason" but how
> > about having Chris discuss in the rational, non-offensive manner you
> > claim he is AND as this reply to me seemed to follow. I would guess
> > this reply was more Chris and less Beldin if truth be told but that's
> > just my opinion.... ;)
>
> Naw. Chris doesn't post here

No problem, you win as usual!! No reason to bash my head against the brick wall that is Beldin more than once or twice a year!! Good luck to you and being perfect, right and Beldin throughout life!! I'll just watch the train wreck from the sidelines.....

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> Chris doesn't post here

Yes he does. Every time you refer to "Beldin" in the third person that
is Chris talking.

[popinjay999]

On Jun 5, 7:48 am, MarkDoubt <texas...@gmail.com> wrote:

> but falling back on "it's usenet" can be a convenient excuse when you >really are just a dick!!

You call me a troll, yet give Beldin a pass.

[MarkDoubt]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:36:32 PM UTC-5, popinjay999 wrote:

> On Jun 5, 7:48 am, MarkDoubt wrote:
>
> > but falling back on "it's usenet" can be a convenient excuse when you >really >are just a dick!!
>
> You call me a troll, yet give Beldin a pass.

So sorry CLKD, troll comment was inappropriate but I did change it to CLKD pretty quick...... is that better??

And just as an FYI, I never gave Beldin a pass, just tried to pass along that Chris "could" be accepted here without referencing the "persona" too much.

[popinjay999]

On Jun 5, 11:55 am, MarkDoubt <markdo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> So sorry CLKD, troll comment was inappropriate but I did change it to CLKD pretty quick...... is that better??
>

I don't think you fully appreciate how important my role here is. Do
you think the title of Senior Coordinator just fell into my lap?

[popinjay999]

On Jun 5, 11:55 am, MarkDoubt <markdo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> And just as an FYI, I never gave Beldin a pass, just tried to pass along that Chris "could" be accepted here without referencing the "persona" too much.

Do you actually think Chris could refrain from being endlessly
argumentative like Beldin is? Once he is met with something he
disagrees with, which is all the time, how would he not be Beldin?

It's like the old paradigm, the irresistible dickhead and the
immovable asshole.

[Will in New Haven]

Not at all. He should stop talking about poker with him and play him
and take his money. There is no reason to try to improve the play of
anyone against whom one plays.

--
Will in New Haven

[Will in New Haven]

I didn't know the British class system had extended so much into Irish
life. Even if he _were_ a shelf stocker, why would it matter. His
arguments, dumb as they may be, stand on their own merit or lack of
it.

You think paying an attractive young girl to pretend to enjoy sex with
you gets you superior sex to staying with a woman you married after
she gets a little older and heavier.

So you are clearly a moron while Beldin is in the "not proven"
category.

[Will in New Haven]

Troll is much more polite than deluded asshole, yet you object.

[fffurken]

On Jun 5, 10:21 pm, Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > I've found Beldumb's whole contribution in this thread quite offensive
> > > > to be honest.
>
> > > > Allow me to take the opportunity to remind you a little about Beldin ;
>
> > > > Forties.
> > > > Stupid.
> > > > Uneducated.
> > > > Shelf stocker.
> > > > Endlessly argumentative.
> > > > Delusional.
>
> > > One correct!
>
> > I beg your pardon? One?
>
> > OK, I'll make the following amendments ;
>
> > Uneducated -> High School Diploma.
> > Shelf Stocker -> Senior Shelf Stocker.
>
> I didn't know the British class system had extended so much into Irish
> life. Even if he _were_ a shelf stocker, why would it matter. His
> arguments, dumb as they may be, stand on their own merit or lack of
> it.

In case you haven't noticed, Beldin purports to be almost Godlike in
his wisdom on anything he talks about. Maybe you have a valid point
though, after all, Jesus was only a simple shepherd.

> You think paying an attractive young girl to pretend to enjoy sex with
> you gets you superior sex to staying with a woman you married after
> she gets a little older and heavier.

I've never paid or requested any attractive young woman to pretend to
enjoy sex with me. If she made it out like she was having the worst
time of her life I might be inclined to say she was being
unprofessional.

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:438eea25-1ded-4bd3...@bz1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 5, 10:21 pm, Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > > > I've found Beldumb's whole contribution in this thread quite
>> > > > offensive
>> > > > to be honest.
>>
>> > > > Allow me to take the opportunity to remind you a little about
>> > > > Beldin ;
>>
>> > > > Forties.
>> > > > Stupid.
>> > > > Uneducated.
>> > > > Shelf stocker.
>> > > > Endlessly argumentative.
>> > > > Delusional.
>>
>> > > One correct!
>>
>> > I beg your pardon? One?
>>
>> > OK, I'll make the following amendments ;
>>
>> > Uneducated -> High School Diploma.
>> > Shelf Stocker -> Senior Shelf Stocker.
>>
>> I didn't know the British class system had extended so much into Irish
>> life. Even if he _were_ a shelf stocker, why would it matter. His
>> arguments, dumb as they may be, stand on their own merit or lack of
>> it.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, Beldin purports to be almost Godlike in
> his wisdom on anything he talks about. Maybe you have a valid point
> though, after all, Jesus was only a simple shepherd.

Carpenter, but anyway...

[fffurken]

On Jun 5, 8:14 pm, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 11:55 am, MarkDoubt <markdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And just as an FYI, I never gave Beldin a pass, just tried to pass along that Chris "could" be accepted here without referencing the "persona" too much.
>
> Do you actually think Chris could refrain from being endlessly
> argumentative like Beldin is?  Once he is met with something he
> disagrees with, which is all the time, how would he not be Beldin?

I think basically the way Chris (through Beldin) has put it on RGP, is
that in real life he sort of "forgives" the profoundly stupid for
being profoundly stupid, you know what I mean? He keeps schtum about
their profound stupidity so as to bestow an act of kindness/pity upon
them.

Whereas Beldin on RGP is more blatant about being an endlessly
argumentative asshole.

[fffurken]

On Jun 5, 10:40 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

> >> I didn't know the British class system had extended so much into Irish
> >> life. Even if he _were_ a shelf stocker, why would it matter. His
> >> arguments, dumb as they may be, stand on their own merit or lack of
> >> it.
>
> > In case you haven't noticed, Beldin purports to be almost Godlike in
> > his wisdom on anything he talks about. Maybe you have a valid point
> > though, after all, Jesus was only a simple shepherd.
>
> Carpenter, but anyway...

Goddammit!

I knew I was getting something wrong.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Did you actually THINK when you posted, or were you completely fucking drunk
at the time?

Your posits are, well, the posits of a fucked in the ass retard.
They are without merit, without possibility, and show a complete lack of
thought

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Will in New Haven wrote:
>> If he's profoundly stupid then you shouldn't be abusive towards him,
>> you should take pity on him and try to educate him.
>
> Not at all. He should stop talking about poker with him and play him
> and take his money. There is no reason to try to improve the play of
> anyone against whom one plays.

Then why do you discuss poker here?
Why does anyone?
I will ADMIT to playing differently against RGPers in on line homegames
because of what I have gleamed about them here.
But the purpose of ANY poker discussion group is to discuss poker open and
honestly in the (admittedly unlikely) goal of getting everyone to understand
the game a little better.
The problem with most theory proffered by anyone is that it is rooted in
limit cash game theory. In limit. implied odds are slight modifiers, not
giant decision makers, and bet-sizing isn't allowed to be a factor.
There's a reason harrington goes into stack depth as a modifier in his cash
game books... it relates to his general rules on estimating implied odds.
What he doesn't do is map that back into tournaments, where the sheer lack
of time forces people to go with marginal hands, so you are far more likely
to get them to play a big pot with a weakish hand, and so will pay you off
(when they very likely shouldn't)

[Dutch]

I agree, I have a better theory. The relative anonymity and safety of a
usenet persona allows a person to drop his or her inhibitions and
display his true nature. In the real world you could never get away with
being the endlessly argumentative ass that you really are, the one we
all know and despise called Beldin. Beldin is the real you, Chris is the
mask.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

popinjay999 wrote:
> On Jun 5, 11:55 am, MarkDoubt <markdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> And just as an FYI, I never gave Beldin a pass, just tried to pass
>> along that Chris "could" be accepted here without referencing the
>> "persona" too much.
>
>
> Do you actually think Chris could refrain from being endlessly
> argumentative like Beldin is? Once he is met with something he
> disagrees with, which is all the time, how would he not be Beldin?
>

Chris doesn't argue with his friends at all, Peepee

He disagrees with any number of them on a myriad of issues.

> It's like the old paradigm, the irresistible dickhead and the
> immovable asshole.

Both of whom fuck you in the ass, and leave you for dead at the side of the
road?

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

No, you sat in Willie's lap to get it

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

You get your ass kicked, yet fail to admit it and throw up a smoke screen

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

No, sometimes I discuss myself in the third person, because you are easily
confused.

When I talk about Chris and Beldin not agreeing sometimes, and I have, who
the fuck is talking then? George, some uber personality that satisfies your
sense of grammar?

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

I never claimed to be perfect or right all the time

There are HORDES of topics I don't post on AT ALL

Why does Beldin exist?
It should be obvious, if you really think abou it
Here's a hint " What kind of a game is poker?"

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>>> If he's profoundly stupid then you shouldn't be abusive towards him,
>>> you should take pity on him and try to educate him.
>>
>> Not at all. He should stop talking about poker with him and play him
>> and take his money. There is no reason to try to improve the play of
>> anyone against whom one plays.
> Then why do you discuss poker here?
> Why does anyone?
> I will ADMIT to playing differently against RGPers in on line homegames
> because of what I have gleamed about them here.

Isn't that a standard rule, always consider everything you know about a
person while playing poker against him? Why would anyone do otherwise?

> But the purpose of ANY poker discussion group is to discuss poker open and
> honestly in the (admittedly unlikely) goal of getting everyone to understand
> the game a little better.

I thought it was to learn more, get better, and thereby win more money.
I don't want anyone else to get better. Its certainly not a goal I have.

> The problem with most theory proffered by anyone is that it is rooted in
> limit cash game theory. In limit. implied odds are slight modifiers, not
> giant decision makers, and bet-sizing isn't allowed to be a factor.
> There's a reason harrington goes into stack depth as a modifier in his cash
> game books... it relates to his general rules on estimating implied odds.
> What he doesn't do is map that back into tournaments, where the sheer lack
> of time forces people to go with marginal hands, so you are far more likely
> to get them to play a big pot with a weakish hand, and so will pay you off
> (when they very likely shouldn't)

As usual, your advice on poker sounds to me like rambling nonsense.
Admittedly I'm no poker expert, but in my somewhat limited reading I
have never encountered strategy that made as little sense as yours does.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Incorrect. Not that I don't have one, of course I do.

> Shelf Stocker -> Senior Shelf Stocker.

Also incorrect. That ain't my job title, and it certainly isn't a
representation of my tasks

>
> Now do you see six?

Still one, shithead
But you're a fucked in the ass , sheep fucking drunk, after all

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>> Chris doesn't post here
>>
>> Yes he does. Every time you refer to "Beldin" in the third person that
>> is Chris talking.
> No, sometimes I discuss myself in the third person

No you don't, you're lying.

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> MarkDoubt wrote:
>>> I know you fall back on the "persona reason" but how
>>>> about having Chris discuss in the rational, non-offensive manner you
>>>> claim he is AND as this reply to me seemed to follow. I would guess
>>>> this reply was more Chris and less Beldin if truth be told but
>>>> that's just my opinion.... ;)
>>>
>>> Naw. Chris doesn't post here
>>
>> No problem, you win as usual!! No reason to bash my head against the
>> brick wall that is Beldin more than once or twice a year!! Good luck
>> to you and being perfect, right and Beldin throughout life!! I'll
>> just watch the train wreck from the sidelines.....
>
> I never claimed to be perfect or right all the time

Of course you don't CLAIM that, you only act as if it were true.

> There are HORDES of topics I don't post on AT ALL

Right, you're only an annoying know-it-all on topics that you post on

> Why does Beldin exist?

As an outlet for the real Chris, the endlessly argumentative asshole.

> It should be obvious, if you really think abou it
> Here's a hint " What kind of a game is poker?"

That's not believable, but say its true, that means all the poker theory
you expound on this forum is bullshit designed to mislead the other
group members. I find that partially plausible, the bullshit part.

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> Still one, shithead
> But you're a fucked in the ass , sheep fucking drunk, after all

In a perfect world a remark that devoid of class or creativity would
result in a one week suspension.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Dutch wrote:
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> MarkDoubt wrote:
>>>> I know you fall back on the "persona reason" but how
>>>>> about having Chris discuss in the rational, non-offensive manner
>>>>> you claim he is AND as this reply to me seemed to follow. I would
>>>>> guess this reply was more Chris and less Beldin if truth be told
>>>>> but that's just my opinion.... ;)
>>>>
>>>> Naw. Chris doesn't post here
>>>
>>> No problem, you win as usual!! No reason to bash my head against the
>>> brick wall that is Beldin more than once or twice a year!! Good luck
>>> to you and being perfect, right and Beldin throughout life!! I'll
>>> just watch the train wreck from the sidelines.....
>>
>> I never claimed to be perfect or right all the time
>
> Of course you don't CLAIM that, you only act as if it were true.

Hell no.
Look at all the the threads I'm not involved in At All

>
>> There are HORDES of topics I don't post on AT ALL
>
> Right, you're only an annoying know-it-all on topics that you post on

No, I only post when it's highly likely I'm right OR I don't claim to know
the answer

>
>> Why does Beldin exist?
>
> As an outlet for the real Chris, the endlessly argumentative asshole.
>

Drunk? Or just profoundly stupid?

>> It should be obvious, if you really think abou it
>> Here's a hint " What kind of a game is poker?"
>
> That's not believable, but say its true, that means all the poker
> theory you expound on this forum is bullshit designed to mislead the
> other group members. I find that partially plausible, the bullshit
> part.

Yeah, you're drunk
The theory is valid.
You totally missed the correct answer, which is generally true of you here

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

I gave you an example

You failed, you got your ass kicked, and now you're BSing to hide that fact

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Dutch wrote:
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> Will in New Haven wrote:
>>>> If he's profoundly stupid then you shouldn't be abusive towards
>>>> him, you should take pity on him and try to educate him.
>>>
>>> Not at all. He should stop talking about poker with him and play him
>>> and take his money. There is no reason to try to improve the play of
>>> anyone against whom one plays.
>> Then why do you discuss poker here?
>> Why does anyone?
>> I will ADMIT to playing differently against RGPers in on line
>> homegames because of what I have gleamed about them here.
>
> Isn't that a standard rule, always consider everything you know about
> a person while playing poker against him? Why would anyone do
> otherwise?

Because some people learn rote strategies and apply them uniformly.
Indeed a lot of people advocate that style, particularly in online
tournaments
I don't, of course

>
>> But the purpose of ANY poker discussion group is to discuss poker
>> open and honestly in the (admittedly unlikely) goal of getting
>> everyone to understand the game a little better.
>
> I thought it was to learn more, get better, and thereby win more
> money. I don't want anyone else to get better. Its certainly not a
> goal I have.

So you lie to everyone here when you offer advice?

>
>> The problem with most theory proffered by anyone is that it is
>> rooted in limit cash game theory. In limit. implied odds are slight
>> modifiers, not giant decision makers, and bet-sizing isn't allowed
>> to be a factor. There's a reason harrington goes into stack depth as a
>> modifier in
>> his cash game books... it relates to his general rules on estimating
>> implied odds. What he doesn't do is map that back into tournaments,
>> where the sheer lack of time forces people to go with marginal
>> hands, so you are far more likely to get them to play a big pot with
>> a weakish hand, and so will pay you off (when they very likely
>> shouldn't)
>
> As usual, your advice on poker sounds to me like rambling nonsense.

That's because you suck at the game

Limit poker is, largely, a math problem.
No limit is much more a psychological problem

> Admittedly I'm no poker expert, but in my somewhat limited reading I
> have never encountered strategy that made as little sense as yours
> does.

Dude, no theory makes sense to you
You fail utterly to understand implied odds, for instance

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>> MarkDoubt wrote:
>>>>> I know you fall back on the "persona reason" but how
>>>>>> about having Chris discuss in the rational, non-offensive manner
>>>>>> you claim he is AND as this reply to me seemed to follow. I would
>>>>>> guess this reply was more Chris and less Beldin if truth be told
>>>>>> but that's just my opinion.... ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Naw. Chris doesn't post here
>>>>
>>>> No problem, you win as usual!! No reason to bash my head against the
>>>> brick wall that is Beldin more than once or twice a year!! Good luck
>>>> to you and being perfect, right and Beldin throughout life!! I'll
>>>> just watch the train wreck from the sidelines.....
>>>
>>> I never claimed to be perfect or right all the time
>>
>> Of course you don't CLAIM that, you only act as if it were true.
>
> Hell no.
> Look at all the the threads I'm not involved in At All

The number of threads you aren't involved in is immaterial.

>
>>
>>> There are HORDES of topics I don't post on AT ALL
>>
>> Right, you're only an annoying know-it-all on topics that you post on
> No, I only post when it's highly likely I'm right OR I don't claim to know
> the answer

You always think you're right.

>
>>
>>> Why does Beldin exist?
>>
>> As an outlet for the real Chris, the endlessly argumentative asshole.
>>
>
> Drunk? Or just profoundly stupid?

I don't know, which are you? You tell me.

>
>>> It should be obvious, if you really think abou it
>>> Here's a hint " What kind of a game is poker?"
>>
>> That's not believable, but say its true, that means all the poker
>> theory you expound on this forum is bullshit designed to mislead the
>> other group members. I find that partially plausible, the bullshit
>> part.
>
> Yeah, you're drunk
> The theory is valid.
> You totally missed the correct answer, which is generally true of you here

I grant you that there could be some instrumental value in pretending to
be a boring, unimaginative, ill-mannered dork, but in order to prove its
an act you'd have to show you can act differently, and you can't.

The obvious is generally true, and that is that you are incapable of not
being boring, or unimaginative, or a dork, and being ill-mannered is too
therapeutic for Chris to give up.

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>>>> Chris doesn't post here
>>>>
>>>> Yes he does. Every time you refer to "Beldin" in the third person
>>>> that is Chris talking.
>>> No, sometimes I discuss myself in the third person
>>
>> No you don't, you're lying.
> I gave you an example

No you didn't, you lied again.

> You failed, you got your ass kicked, and now you're BSing to hide that fact

No, you got caught, and now you just keep lying.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Fail as usual, Dutch

You seriously have no capacity for thinking, do you

What kind of a game is poker, Dutch?

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

There's plenty of creativity there

The level of class reflects his initial post

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>> Will in New Haven wrote:
>>>>> If he's profoundly stupid then you shouldn't be abusive towards
>>>>> him, you should take pity on him and try to educate him.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. He should stop talking about poker with him and play him
>>>> and take his money. There is no reason to try to improve the play of
>>>> anyone against whom one plays.
>>> Then why do you discuss poker here?
>>> Why does anyone?
>>> I will ADMIT to playing differently against RGPers in on line
>>> homegames because of what I have gleamed about them here.
>>
>> Isn't that a standard rule, always consider everything you know about
>> a person while playing poker against him? Why would anyone do
>> otherwise?
> Because some people learn rote strategies and apply them uniformly.
> Indeed a lot of people advocate that style, particularly in online
> tournaments
> I don't, of course

That was a non answer.

>
>>
>>> But the purpose of ANY poker discussion group is to discuss poker
>>> open and honestly in the (admittedly unlikely) goal of getting
>>> everyone to understand the game a little better.
>>
>> I thought it was to learn more, get better, and thereby win more
>> money. I don't want anyone else to get better. Its certainly not a
>> goal I have.
> So you lie to everyone here when you offer advice?

I don't offer advice on poker here, I wouldn't presume. When I put out
an idea or opinion it is with the hope that someone will either correct
me or confirm I'm right. The goal is always to learn and improve, not
educate.

>>> The problem with most theory proffered by anyone is that it is
>>> rooted in limit cash game theory. In limit. implied odds are slight
>>> modifiers, not giant decision makers, and bet-sizing isn't allowed
>>> to be a factor. There's a reason harrington goes into stack depth as a
>>> modifier in
>>> his cash game books... it relates to his general rules on estimating
>>> implied odds. What he doesn't do is map that back into tournaments,
>>> where the sheer lack of time forces people to go with marginal
>>> hands, so you are far more likely to get them to play a big pot with
>>> a weakish hand, and so will pay you off (when they very likely
>>> shouldn't)
>>
>> As usual, your advice on poker sounds to me like rambling nonsense.
> That's because you suck at the game

I've read quite a bit of poker theory in books and discussions online,
none of it sounded like rambling nonsense. Did I NOT suck when I was
reading that? Maybe your way of communicating is vague, convoluted and
difficult to grasp. Maybe you need to learn to articulate better.

>
> Limit poker is, largely, a math problem.
> No limit is much more a psychological problem

That well may be, that was clearly stated.

You play no-limit mainly right? Then why are most of your diatribes
about hands all about math and odds?

>> Admittedly I'm no poker expert, but in my somewhat limited reading I
>> have never encountered strategy that made as little sense as yours
>> does.
> Dude, no theory makes sense to you

That's clearly not true, and you know it.

> You fail utterly to understand implied odds, for instance

Really? That's a bold statement, demonstrate, quiz me. Maybe you're right.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Dutch wrote:
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>>> MarkDoubt wrote:
>>>>>> I know you fall back on the "persona reason" but how
>>>>>>> about having Chris discuss in the rational, non-offensive manner
>>>>>>> you claim he is AND as this reply to me seemed to follow. I
>>>>>>> would guess this reply was more Chris and less Beldin if truth
>>>>>>> be told but that's just my opinion.... ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Naw. Chris doesn't post here
>>>>>
>>>>> No problem, you win as usual!! No reason to bash my head against
>>>>> the brick wall that is Beldin more than once or twice a year!!
>>>>> Good luck to you and being perfect, right and Beldin throughout
>>>>> life!! I'll just watch the train wreck from the sidelines.....
>>>>
>>>> I never claimed to be perfect or right all the time
>>>
>>> Of course you don't CLAIM that, you only act as if it were true.
>>
>> Hell no.
>> Look at all the the threads I'm not involved in At All
>
> The number of threads you aren't involved in is immaterial.

It is entirely relevent to your fraudulent claim

>
>>
>>>
>>>> There are HORDES of topics I don't post on AT ALL
>>>
>>> Right, you're only an annoying know-it-all on topics that you post
>>> on
>> No, I only post when it's highly likely I'm right OR I don't claim
>> to know the answer
>
> You always think you're right.

that's false
As I just demonstrated. If I always thought I was right, I'd be in every
thread

>
>>
>>>
>>>> Why does Beldin exist?
>>>
>>> As an outlet for the real Chris, the endlessly argumentative
>>> asshole.
>>
>> Drunk? Or just profoundly stupid?
>
> I don't know, which are you? You tell me.
>

Dutch, stop demonstrating your lack of capacity to think

>>
>>>> It should be obvious, if you really think abou it
>>>> Here's a hint " What kind of a game is poker?"
>>>
>>> That's not believable, but say its true, that means all the poker
>>> theory you expound on this forum is bullshit designed to mislead the
>>> other group members. I find that partially plausible, the bullshit
>>> part.
>>
>> Yeah, you're drunk
>> The theory is valid.
>> You totally missed the correct answer, which is generally true of
>> you here
>
> I grant you that there could be some instrumental value in pretending
> to be a boring, unimaginative, ill-mannered dork, but in order to
> prove its an act you'd have to show you can act differently, and you
> can't.

I did already
Chris discussed poker with you in E-mail
He went so far as to send you his hand histories from that tournament

So senility set in, or did lying just feel right to you there?

>
> The obvious is generally true, and that is that you are incapable of
> not being boring, or unimaginative, or a dork, and being ill-mannered
> is too therapeutic for Chris to give up.

Your lack of thinking is painful to read
Why does the concept of thinking about the question and even TRYING to
answer it daunt you so?

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Dutch wrote:
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>>>>> Chris doesn't post here
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes he does. Every time you refer to "Beldin" in the third person
>>>>> that is Chris talking.
>>>> No, sometimes I discuss myself in the third person
>>>
>>> No you don't, you're lying.
>> I gave you an example
>
> No you didn't, you lied again.

No, I told the truth again, and you got caught looking stupid, so you are
now lying about it.
You FAIL because you're looking for some BS to justify your false conclusion

>
>> You failed, you got your ass kicked, and now you're BSing to hide
>> that fact
>
> No, you got caught, and now you just keep lying.

Dutch, you're boring the shit out of me.
I talk about people in the third person to avoid confusing people.
When Chris posts here, it is generally labeled as such

Your idiotic claims notwithstanding, I don't use "I" in threads about the
two of them *see, yet again referring to the two of them while using an I,
so am i george again?* when I think someone might be confused

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Dutch wrote:
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>>> Will in New Haven wrote:
>>>>>> If he's profoundly stupid then you shouldn't be abusive towards
>>>>>> him, you should take pity on him and try to educate him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. He should stop talking about poker with him and play
>>>>> him and take his money. There is no reason to try to improve the
>>>>> play of anyone against whom one plays.
>>>> Then why do you discuss poker here?
>>>> Why does anyone?
>>>> I will ADMIT to playing differently against RGPers in on line
>>>> homegames because of what I have gleamed about them here.
>>>
>>> Isn't that a standard rule, always consider everything you know
>>> about a person while playing poker against him? Why would anyone do
>>> otherwise?
>> Because some people learn rote strategies and apply them uniformly.
>> Indeed a lot of people advocate that style, particularly in online
>> tournaments
>> I don't, of course
>
> That was a non answer.

No, it was a direct answer.
Do you not UNDERSTAND that answer?
Do you not know what a rote strategy IS, Dutch?

>>
>>>
>>>> But the purpose of ANY poker discussion group is to discuss poker
>>>> open and honestly in the (admittedly unlikely) goal of getting
>>>> everyone to understand the game a little better.
>>>
>>> I thought it was to learn more, get better, and thereby win more
>>> money. I don't want anyone else to get better. Its certainly not a
>>> goal I have.
>> So you lie to everyone here when you offer advice?
>
> I don't offer advice on poker here, I wouldn't presume. When I put out
> an idea or opinion it is with the hope that someone will either
> correct me or confirm I'm right. The goal is always to learn and
> improve, not educate.

IF you accept that (which you shouldn't) why should you trust what anyone
says?
If they all have the same goal, why help you?

>
>>>> The problem with most theory proffered by anyone is that it is
>>>> rooted in limit cash game theory. In limit. implied odds are slight
>>>> modifiers, not giant decision makers, and bet-sizing isn't allowed
>>>> to be a factor. There's a reason harrington goes into stack depth
>>>> as a modifier in
>>>> his cash game books... it relates to his general rules on
>>>> estimating implied odds. What he doesn't do is map that back into
>>>> tournaments, where the sheer lack of time forces people to go with
>>>> marginal hands, so you are far more likely to get them to play a big
>>>> pot
>>>> with a weakish hand, and so will pay you off (when they very likely
>>>> shouldn't)
>>>
>>> As usual, your advice on poker sounds to me like rambling nonsense.
>> That's because you suck at the game
>
> I've read quite a bit of poker theory in books and discussions online,
> none of it sounded like rambling nonsense. Did I NOT suck when I was
> reading that? Maybe your way of communicating is vague, convoluted and
> difficult to grasp. Maybe you need to learn to articulate better.

Maybe you need to think.
If you don't know what a rote strategy is, you surely ought to accept its
your ignorance at work

>
>>
>> Limit poker is, largely, a math problem.
>> No limit is much more a psychological problem
>
> That well may be, that was clearly stated.
>
> You play no-limit mainly right? Then why are most of your diatribes
> about hands all about math and odds?

Because they are about drawing and calling all in.
Those ARE math issues
OR fails at reading opponents, of course, but that's presuming bad play

>
>>> Admittedly I'm no poker expert, but in my somewhat limited reading I
>>> have never encountered strategy that made as little sense as yours
>>> does.
>> Dude, no theory makes sense to you
>
> That's clearly not true, and you know it.

No, I tried discussing things with you and you fail to listen

>
>> You fail utterly to understand implied odds, for instance
>
> Really? That's a bold statement, demonstrate, quiz me. Maybe you're
> right.

Your opponent bets the pot on the flop. You have a flush draw.
What info do you need to call?

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>>>> MarkDoubt wrote:
>>>>>>> I know you fall back on the "persona reason" but how
>>>>>>>> about having Chris discuss in the rational, non-offensive manner
>>>>>>>> you claim he is AND as this reply to me seemed to follow. I
>>>>>>>> would guess this reply was more Chris and less Beldin if truth
>>>>>>>> be told but that's just my opinion.... ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Naw. Chris doesn't post here
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No problem, you win as usual!! No reason to bash my head against
>>>>>> the brick wall that is Beldin more than once or twice a year!!
>>>>>> Good luck to you and being perfect, right and Beldin throughout
>>>>>> life!! I'll just watch the train wreck from the sidelines.....
>>>>>
>>>>> I never claimed to be perfect or right all the time
>>>>
>>>> Of course you don't CLAIM that, you only act as if it were true.
>>>
>>> Hell no.
>>> Look at all the the threads I'm not involved in At All
>>
>> The number of threads you aren't involved in is immaterial.
> It is entirely relevent to your fraudulent claim

Nonsense, I never said that you enter every discussion, or any
particular percentage of them.

>>>>> There are HORDES of topics I don't post on AT ALL
>>>>
>>>> Right, you're only an annoying know-it-all on topics that you post
>>>> on
>>> No, I only post when it's highly likely I'm right OR I don't claim
>>> to know the answer
>>
>> You always think you're right.
> that's false
> As I just demonstrated. If I always thought I was right, I'd be in every
> thread

That's patently false, there's no reason for anyone to be in every thread.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Why does Beldin exist?
>>>>
>>>> As an outlet for the real Chris, the endlessly argumentative
>>>> asshole.
>>>
>>> Drunk? Or just profoundly stupid?
>>
>> I don't know, which are you? You tell me.
>>
> Dutch, stop demonstrating your lack of capacity to think

I am demonstrating the exact opposite, and you know it.

>
>>>
>>>>> It should be obvious, if you really think abou it
>>>>> Here's a hint " What kind of a game is poker?"
>>>>
>>>> That's not believable, but say its true, that means all the poker
>>>> theory you expound on this forum is bullshit designed to mislead the
>>>> other group members. I find that partially plausible, the bullshit
>>>> part.
>>>
>>> Yeah, you're drunk
>>> The theory is valid.
>>> You totally missed the correct answer, which is generally true of
>>> you here
>>
>> I grant you that there could be some instrumental value in pretending
>> to be a boring, unimaginative, ill-mannered dork, but in order to
>> prove its an act you'd have to show you can act differently, and you
>> can't.
> I did already
> Chris discussed poker with you in E-mail
> He went so far as to send you his hand histories from that tournament
>
> So senility set in, or did lying just feel right to you there?

Lying about what? You were boring then too, just like you're being now.

NOBODY is boring and unimaginative on purpose. Ill-mannered you can
control, you just don't want to.

>
>>
>> The obvious is generally true, and that is that you are incapable of
>> not being boring, or unimaginative, or a dork, and being ill-mannered
>> is too therapeutic for Chris to give up.
> Your lack of thinking is painful to read

I believe what I am telling you is painful all right, the truth can be
that way.

> Why does the concept of thinking about the question and even TRYING to
> answer it daunt you so?

You asked a question?

[Dutch]

You're not fooling anyone. If I referred to "Dutch" I would be doing so
as myself. PERIOD

You got caught, you lost, squirm away.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

So what?
You said I thought I knew everything and was always right
That means pontificating on everything, which I obviously do NOT do

>>>>>> There are HORDES of topics I don't post on AT ALL
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, you're only an annoying know-it-all on topics that you post
>>>>> on
>>>> No, I only post when it's highly likely I'm right OR I don't claim
>>>> to know the answer
>>>
>>> You always think you're right.
>> that's false
>> As I just demonstrated. If I always thought I was right, I'd be in
>> every thread
>
> That's patently false, there's no reason for anyone to be in every
> thread.

Yes, Dutch there is.
IF they think they are ALWAYS right, they WILL be in every thread

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why does Beldin exist?
>>>>>
>>>>> As an outlet for the real Chris, the endlessly argumentative
>>>>> asshole.
>>>>
>>>> Drunk? Or just profoundly stupid?
>>>
>>> I don't know, which are you? You tell me.
>>>
>> Dutch, stop demonstrating your lack of capacity to think
>
> I am demonstrating the exact opposite, and you know it.

I know you're looking like an imbecile

>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It should be obvious, if you really think abou it
>>>>>> Here's a hint " What kind of a game is poker?"
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not believable, but say its true, that means all the poker
>>>>> theory you expound on this forum is bullshit designed to mislead
>>>>> the other group members. I find that partially plausible, the
>>>>> bullshit part.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, you're drunk
>>>> The theory is valid.
>>>> You totally missed the correct answer, which is generally true of
>>>> you here
>>>
>>> I grant you that there could be some instrumental value in
>>> pretending to be a boring, unimaginative, ill-mannered dork, but in
>>> order to prove its an act you'd have to show you can act
>>> differently, and you can't.
>> I did already
>> Chris discussed poker with you in E-mail
>> He went so far as to send you his hand histories from that tournament
>>
>> So senility set in, or did lying just feel right to you there?
>
> Lying about what? You were boring then too, just like you're being
> now.

Oh please
Your lack of comprehension is not my fault

>
> NOBODY is boring and unimaginative on purpose. Ill-mannered you can
> control, you just don't want to.

Dude, I am neither boring nor unimaginative
Your lack of understanding is the issue
It likely always will be.

>
>>
>>>
>>> The obvious is generally true, and that is that you are incapable of
>>> not being boring, or unimaginative, or a dork, and being
>>> ill-mannered is too therapeutic for Chris to give up.
>> Your lack of thinking is painful to read
>
> I believe what I am telling you is painful all right, the truth can be
> that way.

No, I abhor profound stupidity.
Your thinking needs a laxative

>
>> Why does the concept of thinking about the question and even TRYING
>> to answer it daunt you so?
>
> You asked a question?

repeatedly

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Of course you are, Dutch.
We don't discuss the man behind it here, though
And it would be inappropriate for me to use that name here, too.

>
> You got caught, you lost, squirm away.

No, Dutch, you look like a retard.
It is quite often correct to refer to oneself in the third person for
clarity

Now shove your head back up your ass. You obviously can't think tonight

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>>>>> Will in New Haven wrote:
>>>>>>> If he's profoundly stupid then you shouldn't be abusive towards
>>>>>>> him, you should take pity on him and try to educate him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. He should stop talking about poker with him and play
>>>>>> him and take his money. There is no reason to try to improve the
>>>>>> play of anyone against whom one plays.
>>>>> Then why do you discuss poker here?
>>>>> Why does anyone?
>>>>> I will ADMIT to playing differently against RGPers in on line
>>>>> homegames because of what I have gleamed about them here.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that a standard rule, always consider everything you know
>>>> about a person while playing poker against him? Why would anyone do
>>>> otherwise?
>>> Because some people learn rote strategies and apply them uniformly.
>>> Indeed a lot of people advocate that style, particularly in online
>>> tournaments
>>> I don't, of course
>>
>> That was a non answer.
> No, it was a direct answer.

To s different question maybe.

> Do you not UNDERSTAND that answer?
> Do you not know what a rote strategy IS, Dutch?

I understand it, it wasn't what I asked. You're exhibiting comprehension
problems.

>>>>> But the purpose of ANY poker discussion group is to discuss poker
>>>>> open and honestly in the (admittedly unlikely) goal of getting
>>>>> everyone to understand the game a little better.
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was to learn more, get better, and thereby win more
>>>> money. I don't want anyone else to get better. Its certainly not a
>>>> goal I have.
>>> So you lie to everyone here when you offer advice?
>>
>> I don't offer advice on poker here, I wouldn't presume. When I put out
>> an idea or opinion it is with the hope that someone will either
>> correct me or confirm I'm right. The goal is always to learn and
>> improve, not educate.
> IF you accept that (which you shouldn't) why should you trust what anyone
> says?
> If they all have the same goal, why help you?

Because they're doing the same thing, putting out their theories to see
if they fly. Explaining helps thinking and allows for constructive
feedback, something you always tend to reject because you have an ego
the size of the Grand Canyon.

>
>>
>>>>> The problem with most theory proffered by anyone is that it is
>>>>> rooted in limit cash game theory. In limit. implied odds are slight
>>>>> modifiers, not giant decision makers, and bet-sizing isn't allowed
>>>>> to be a factor. There's a reason harrington goes into stack depth
>>>>> as a modifier in
>>>>> his cash game books... it relates to his general rules on
>>>>> estimating implied odds. What he doesn't do is map that back into
>>>>> tournaments, where the sheer lack of time forces people to go with
>>>>> marginal hands, so you are far more likely to get them to play a big
>>>>> pot
>>>>> with a weakish hand, and so will pay you off (when they very likely
>>>>> shouldn't)
>>>>
>>>> As usual, your advice on poker sounds to me like rambling nonsense.
>>> That's because you suck at the game
>>
>> I've read quite a bit of poker theory in books and discussions online,
>> none of it sounded like rambling nonsense. Did I NOT suck when I was
>> reading that? Maybe your way of communicating is vague, convoluted and
>> difficult to grasp. Maybe you need to learn to articulate better.
> Maybe you need to think.

You're not paying the least bit of attention to this discussion. Your
responses are not making sense. I'll repeat, I UNDERSTAND other people,
but NOT YOU.

> If you don't know what a rote strategy is, you surely ought to accept its
> your ignorance at work

Of course I know that that is. I just don't know why you felt you needed
to mention it. Whenever you don't like the question you just throw some
shit out there.

>
>>
>>>
>>> Limit poker is, largely, a math problem.
>>> No limit is much more a psychological problem
>>
>> That well may be, that was clearly stated.
>>
>> You play no-limit mainly right? Then why are most of your diatribes
>> about hands all about math and odds?
> Because they are about drawing and calling all in.
> Those ARE math issues
> OR fails at reading opponents, of course, but that's presuming bad play

whoooosh

>
>>
>>>> Admittedly I'm no poker expert, but in my somewhat limited reading I
>>>> have never encountered strategy that made as little sense as yours
>>>> does.
>>> Dude, no theory makes sense to you
>>
>> That's clearly not true, and you know it.
> No, I tried discussing things with you and you fail to listen

You mean like you're doing right now? The problem is, you're NOT
ARTICULATE. That's probably a reason for all the childish insults,
you're frustrated with your inability to communicate.

>
>>
>>> You fail utterly to understand implied odds, for instance
>>
>> Really? That's a bold statement, demonstrate, quiz me. Maybe you're
>> right.
>
> Your opponent bets the pot on the flop. You have a flush draw.
> What info do you need to call?

I need a lot more info about the situation than you provided. Generally
speaking I would calculate the pot odds then take into consideration the
cards as they lie, what I think my opponent has, anything else I might
know about my opponent, his and my stack size, and the stage of the
tournament.

[Dutch]

It does NOT mean commenting on every thread, acting as if you are always
right refers to the discussions in which you participate. It has nothing
to do with those you don't.

>
>>>>>>> There are HORDES of topics I don't post on AT ALL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, you're only an annoying know-it-all on topics that you post
>>>>>> on
>>>>> No, I only post when it's highly likely I'm right OR I don't claim
>>>>> to know the answer
>>>>
>>>> You always think you're right.
>>> that's false
>>> As I just demonstrated. If I always thought I was right, I'd be in
>>> every thread
>>
>> That's patently false, there's no reason for anyone to be in every
>> thread.
> Yes, Dutch there is.
> IF they think they are ALWAYS right, they WILL be in every thread

That doesn't follow ffs. People don't have time for nor the interest in
every thread. In the threads in which you participate you not only
refuse to concede a point, you become abusive the moment you are challenged.

>>>>>>> Why does Beldin exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an outlet for the real Chris, the endlessly argumentative
>>>>>> asshole.
>>>>>
>>>>> Drunk? Or just profoundly stupid?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, which are you? You tell me.
>>>>
>>> Dutch, stop demonstrating your lack of capacity to think
>>
>> I am demonstrating the exact opposite, and you know it.
> I know you're looking like an imbecile

Of course you would say that. I am challenging you and you don't like it.

I guarantee nobody here agrees with you. They also don't care but that's
another issue.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It should be obvious, if you really think abou it
>>>>>>> Here's a hint " What kind of a game is poker?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not believable, but say its true, that means all the poker
>>>>>> theory you expound on this forum is bullshit designed to mislead
>>>>>> the other group members. I find that partially plausible, the
>>>>>> bullshit part.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, you're drunk
>>>>> The theory is valid.
>>>>> You totally missed the correct answer, which is generally true of
>>>>> you here
>>>>
>>>> I grant you that there could be some instrumental value in
>>>> pretending to be a boring, unimaginative, ill-mannered dork, but in
>>>> order to prove its an act you'd have to show you can act
>>>> differently, and you can't.
>>> I did already
>>> Chris discussed poker with you in E-mail
>>> He went so far as to send you his hand histories from that tournament
>>>
>>> So senility set in, or did lying just feel right to you there?
>>
>> Lying about what? You were boring then too, just like you're being
>> now.
> Oh please
> Your lack of comprehension is not my fault

You've lapsed into your standard denial and chuck insult mode.

>> NOBODY is boring and unimaginative on purpose. Ill-mannered you can
>> control, you just don't want to.
> Dude, I am neither boring nor unimaginative

No, of course not.

> Your lack of understanding is the issue

I proved it isn't. I've never read poker theory I didn't understand. I
didn't retain it all, but I always understood it at the time I read it.

Your explanations are so muddled that they're impossible to follow.

> It likely always will be.

Well, I won't be so harsh, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I
believe you could write clearly if you cared enough or took the time.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The obvious is generally true, and that is that you are incapable of
>>>> not being boring, or unimaginative, or a dork, and being
>>>> ill-mannered is too therapeutic for Chris to give up.
>>> Your lack of thinking is painful to read
>>
>> I believe what I am telling you is painful all right, the truth can be
>> that way.
> No, I abhor profound stupidity.

Self loathing is not helpful.

> Your thinking needs a laxative

Don't shoot the messenger

>
>>
>>> Why does the concept of thinking about the question and even TRYING
>>> to answer it daunt you so?
>>
>> You asked a question?
> repeatedly
> "What kind of a game is poker"

When did you ask that? Anyway, I'm more interested in getting you to
come to grips with your delusional behavior than answering your questions?

[Dutch]

What? At lUse the right tense if you're going

> We don't discuss the man behind it here, though
> And it would be inappropriate for me to use that name here, too.

It wouldn't be relevant.

>> You got caught, you lost, squirm away.
> No, Dutch, you look like a retard.
> It is quite often correct to refer to oneself in the third person for
> clarity

Never, it is a comical affectation, at best, like some Seinfeld character.

> Now shove your head back up your ass. You obviously can't think tonight

Don't take it so hard, Beldin needs a good ass kickin' once in a while.
He'll be the better for it.

[Dutch]

Dutch wrote:

> What? At lUse the right tense if you're going

hiccup

At least* use the right tense when you bullshit me.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

No, to the question asked

>
>> Do you not UNDERSTAND that answer?
>> Do you not know what a rote strategy IS, Dutch?
>
> I understand it, it wasn't what I asked. You're exhibiting
> comprehension problems.
>

No, idiot.
My answer DID answer your question
You are clearly a retard
It EXACTLY answered your question. You are merely too damn dumb to
understand the answer

>>>>>> But the purpose of ANY poker discussion group is to discuss poker
>>>>>> open and honestly in the (admittedly unlikely) goal of getting
>>>>>> everyone to understand the game a little better.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it was to learn more, get better, and thereby win more
>>>>> money. I don't want anyone else to get better. Its certainly not a
>>>>> goal I have.
>>>> So you lie to everyone here when you offer advice?
>>>
>>> I don't offer advice on poker here, I wouldn't presume. When I put
>>> out an idea or opinion it is with the hope that someone will either
>>> correct me or confirm I'm right. The goal is always to learn and
>>> improve, not educate.
>> IF you accept that (which you shouldn't) why should you trust what
>> anyone says?
>> If they all have the same goal, why help you?
>
> Because they're doing the same thing, putting out their theories to
> see if they fly. Explaining helps thinking and allows for constructive
> feedback, something you always tend to reject because you have an ego
> the size of the Grand Canyon.
>

Wow you're an idiot.
People discussing poker to see if they have a good understanding, and
listening, but nobody is trying to help anyone?
You REALLY demented enough to think that's even POSSIBLE?
See what a fucking idiot you are, though?
The question is about how the HELL you could hope to get help if you weren't
trying to give it, and couldn't trust the answers, and you, being the
fucking idiot you are, act like I'm claiming to be king of info

>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> The problem with most theory proffered by anyone is that it is
>>>>>> rooted in limit cash game theory. In limit. implied odds are
>>>>>> slight modifiers, not giant decision makers, and bet-sizing
>>>>>> isn't allowed to be a factor. There's a reason harrington goes
>>>>>> into stack depth as a modifier in
>>>>>> his cash game books... it relates to his general rules on
>>>>>> estimating implied odds. What he doesn't do is map that back into
>>>>>> tournaments, where the sheer lack of time forces people to go
>>>>>> with marginal hands, so you are far more likely to get them to
>>>>>> play a big pot
>>>>>> with a weakish hand, and so will pay you off (when they very
>>>>>> likely shouldn't)
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual, your advice on poker sounds to me like rambling
>>>>> nonsense.
>>>> That's because you suck at the game
>>>
>>> I've read quite a bit of poker theory in books and discussions
>>> online, none of it sounded like rambling nonsense. Did I NOT suck
>>> when I was reading that? Maybe your way of communicating is vague,
>>> convoluted and difficult to grasp. Maybe you need to learn to
>>> articulate better.
>> Maybe you need to think.
>
> You're not paying the least bit of attention to this discussion. Your
> responses are not making sense. I'll repeat, I UNDERSTAND other
> people, but NOT YOU.

Shithead, you don't THINK
You DON'T understand others which is why you say things like "take control
of a hand" when you mean "Idiotically donk bet"

>
>> If you don't know what a rote strategy is, you surely ought to
>> accept its your ignorance at work
>
> Of course I know that that is. I just don't know why you felt you
> needed to mention it. Whenever you don't like the question you just
> throw some shit out there.

Asshole, go reread your question and my answer
It SHOWS why I mentioned it

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Limit poker is, largely, a math problem.
>>>> No limit is much more a psychological problem
>>>
>>> That well may be, that was clearly stated.
>>>
>>> You play no-limit mainly right? Then why are most of your diatribes
>>> about hands all about math and odds?
>> Because they are about drawing and calling all in.
>> Those ARE math issues
>> OR fails at reading opponents, of course, but that's presuming bad
>> play
>
> whoooosh

Yeah, I thought you'd be too stupid to understand that
WHY you are too stupid to understand and yet still play, I dunno

>
>>
>>>
>>>>> Admittedly I'm no poker expert, but in my somewhat limited
>>>>> reading I have never encountered strategy that made as little
>>>>> sense as yours does.
>>>> Dude, no theory makes sense to you
>>>
>>> That's clearly not true, and you know it.
>> No, I tried discussing things with you and you fail to listen
>
> You mean like you're doing right now? The problem is, you're NOT
> ARTICULATE. That's probably a reason for all the childish insults,
> you're frustrated with your inability to communicate.
>

Dutch, I WAS OBVIOUSLY articulate
You have no grasp of ANYTHING

>>
>>>
>>>> You fail utterly to understand implied odds, for instance
>>>
>>> Really? That's a bold statement, demonstrate, quiz me. Maybe you're
>>> right.
>>
>> Your opponent bets the pot on the flop. You have a flush draw.
>> What info do you need to call?
>
> I need a lot more info about the situation than you provided.
> Generally speaking I would calculate the pot odds then take into
> consideration the cards as they lie, what I think my opponent has,
> anything else I might know about my opponent, his and my stack size,
> and the stage of the tournament.

You need to know whether he'll fold if you raise, (which means you don't
call, you raise) and how much he pays off if you hit.
It doesn't matter how big his stack is if he never pays off. His stack can
be 500x the pot, if he's afraid of flushes, you can't call
If his bet puts you all in, you CAN call, and should in a cash game. In a
tournament, it depends on factors outside the hand

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Go look up the word "Always"
I'll wait

>
>>
>>>>>>>> There are HORDES of topics I don't post on AT ALL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, you're only an annoying know-it-all on topics that you
>>>>>>> post on
>>>>>> No, I only post when it's highly likely I'm right OR I don't
>>>>>> claim to know the answer
>>>>>
>>>>> You always think you're right.
>>>> that's false
>>>> As I just demonstrated. If I always thought I was right, I'd be in
>>>> every thread
>>>
>>> That's patently false, there's no reason for anyone to be in every
>>> thread.
>> Yes, Dutch there is.
>> IF they think they are ALWAYS right, they WILL be in every thread
>
> That doesn't follow ffs. People don't have time for nor the interest
> in every thread. In the threads in which you participate you not only
> refuse to concede a point, you become abusive the moment you are
> challenged.

Bullshit
I beat you up for posting stupid

>
>
>>>>>>>> Why does Beldin exist?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As an outlet for the real Chris, the endlessly argumentative
>>>>>>> asshole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Drunk? Or just profoundly stupid?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know, which are you? You tell me.
>>>>>
>>>> Dutch, stop demonstrating your lack of capacity to think
>>>
>>> I am demonstrating the exact opposite, and you know it.
>> I know you're looking like an imbecile
>
> Of course you would say that. I am challenging you and you don't like
> it.

No, you're posting like a retard

> I guarantee nobody here agrees with you. They also don't care but
> that's another issue.
>>

It's not a matter of opinion, dutch
You are posting like a retard

>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It should be obvious, if you really think abou it
>>>>>>>> Here's a hint " What kind of a game is poker?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not believable, but say its true, that means all the
>>>>>>> poker theory you expound on this forum is bullshit designed to
>>>>>>> mislead the other group members. I find that partially
>>>>>>> plausible, the bullshit part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, you're drunk
>>>>>> The theory is valid.
>>>>>> You totally missed the correct answer, which is generally true of
>>>>>> you here
>>>>>
>>>>> I grant you that there could be some instrumental value in
>>>>> pretending to be a boring, unimaginative, ill-mannered dork, but
>>>>> in order to prove its an act you'd have to show you can act
>>>>> differently, and you can't.
>>>> I did already
>>>> Chris discussed poker with you in E-mail
>>>> He went so far as to send you his hand histories from that
>>>> tournament So senility set in, or did lying just feel right to you
>>>> there?
>>>
>>> Lying about what? You were boring then too, just like you're being
>>> now.
>> Oh please
>> Your lack of comprehension is not my fault
>
> You've lapsed into your standard denial and chuck insult mode.

No, I have lapsed into my standard "continue kicking the idiot while he's
down" mode

>
>>> NOBODY is boring and unimaginative on purpose. Ill-mannered you can
>>> control, you just don't want to.
>> Dude, I am neither boring nor unimaginative
>
> No, of course not.
>
>> Your lack of understanding is the issue
>
> I proved it isn't. I've never read poker theory I didn't understand. I
> didn't retain it all, but I always understood it at the time I read
> it.

You keep telling yourself that

> Your explanations are so muddled that they're impossible to follow.

No, they're direct
You simply refuse to think

>
>> It likely always will be.
>
> Well, I won't be so harsh, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I
> believe you could write clearly if you cared enough or took the time.

I'm very clear most of the time
You just don't even TRY to grasp concepts

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The obvious is generally true, and that is that you are incapable
>>>>> of not being boring, or unimaginative, or a dork, and being
>>>>> ill-mannered is too therapeutic for Chris to give up.
>>>> Your lack of thinking is painful to read
>>>
>>> I believe what I am telling you is painful all right, the truth can
>>> be that way.
>> No, I abhor profound stupidity.
>
> Self loathing is not helpful.

I love me
It's shitheads like you that are offensive

>
>> Your thinking needs a laxative
>
> Don't shoot the messenger

I don't.
I tell the idiot who's got constipated thinking to get his head out of his
ass.
Why don't you listen?

>>
>>>
>>>> Why does the concept of thinking about the question and even TRYING
>>>> to answer it daunt you so?
>>>
>>> You asked a question?
>> repeatedly
>> "What kind of a game is poker"
>
> When did you ask that?

A long time ago

Your inability to REMEMBER speaks volumes

Anyway, I'm more interested in getting you to
> come to grips with your delusional behavior than answering your
> questions?

You're retarded nature is the problem
I am not remotely delusional

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

One more time in english?

>
>> We don't discuss the man behind it here, though
>> And it would be inappropriate for me to use that name here, too.
>
> It wouldn't be relevant.
>

No more relevent than anything else you discuss, no

>>> You got caught, you lost, squirm away.
>> No, Dutch, you look like a retard.
>> It is quite often correct to refer to oneself in the third person for
>> clarity
>
> Never, it is a comical affectation, at best, like some Seinfeld
> character.

You fail again. Must be that poor canadian education system

>> Now shove your head back up your ass. You obviously can't think
>> tonight
>
> Don't take it so hard, Beldin needs a good ass kickin' once in a
> while. He'll be the better for it.

Dude, you haven't even made a respectable showing in any of our bouts
You always get the shit kicked out of you

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

The tense was correct
Your comprehension is nil

[fffurken]

On 6 June, 05:41, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> Do you actually think Chris could refrain from being endlessly
> >> argumentative like Beldin is? Once he is met with something he
> >> disagrees with, which is all the time, how would he not be Beldin?
>
> > I think basically the way Chris (through Beldin) has put it on RGP, is
> > that in real life he sort of "forgives" the profoundly stupid for
> > being profoundly stupid, you know what I mean? He keeps schtum about
> > their profound stupidity so as to bestow an act of kindness/pity upon
> > them.
>
> > Whereas Beldin on RGP is more blatant about being an endlessly
> > argumentative asshole.
>
> Did you actually THINK when you posted, or were you completely fucking drunk
> at the time?
>
> Your posits are, well, the posits of a fucked in the ass retard.
> They are without merit, without possibility, and show a complete lack of

> thought- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Based on what you've written on RGP in the past, I didn't say anything
inaccurate.

Which is probably why you didn't try to refute it.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Of course you did.
But nothing you quoted above is from anything YOU wrote

> Which is probably why you didn't try to refute it.

Except that I did.
Booze addled and dumb, ffurkin
Go with your strength

[fffurken]

Oh really? Here is your response again in it's entirety. Please point
out where you made a refutation of what I said -

"Did you actually THINK when you posted, or were you completely
fucking drunk at the time?

Your posits are, well, the posits of a fucked in the ass retard.
They are without merit, without possibility, and show a complete lack

of thought".

> Booze addled and dumb, ffurkin

> Go with your strength- Hide quoted text -

[Will in New Haven]

On Jun 5, 5:35 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 10:21 pm, Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > I've found Beldumb's whole contribution in this thread quite offensive
> > > > > to be honest.
>
> > > > > Allow me to take the opportunity to remind you a little about Beldin ;
>
> > > > > Forties.
> > > > > Stupid.
> > > > > Uneducated.
> > > > > Shelf stocker.
> > > > > Endlessly argumentative.
> > > > > Delusional.
>
> > > > One correct!
>
> > > I beg your pardon? One?
>
> > > OK, I'll make the following amendments ;
>
> > > Uneducated -> High School Diploma.
> > > Shelf Stocker -> Senior Shelf Stocker.
>
> > I didn't know the British class system had extended so much into Irish
> > life. Even if he _were_ a shelf stocker, why would it matter. His
> > arguments, dumb as they may be, stand on their own merit or lack of
> > it.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, Beldin purports to be almost Godlike in
> his wisdom on anything he talks about. Maybe you have a valid point
> though, after all, Jesus was only a simple shepherd.

A carpenter.

>
> > You think paying an attractive young girl to pretend to enjoy sex with
> > you gets you superior sex to staying with a woman you married after
> > she gets a little older and heavier.
>
> I've never paid or requested any attractive young woman to pretend to
> enjoy sex with me. If she made it out like she was having the worst
> time of her life I might be inclined to say she was being
> unprofessional

And you would be correct. My comment was a bit low, although the idea
that an overweight woman is somehow beneath you is still an infantile
attitude.

--
Will in New Haven

[Will in New Haven]

On Jun 6, 12:50 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:

> Will in New Haven wrote:>> If he's profoundly stupid then you shouldn't be abusive towards him,
> >> you should take pity on him and try to educate him.
>
> > Not at all. He should stop talking about poker with him and play him
> > and take his money. There is no reason to try to improve the play of
> > anyone against whom one plays.
>
> Then why do you discuss poker here?

Because I don't play against (most of) you people (very often)

> Why does anyone?
> I will ADMIT to playing differently against RGPers in on line homegames
> because of what I have gleamed about them here.

> But the purpose of ANY poker discussion group is to discuss poker open and
> honestly in the (admittedly unlikely) goal of getting everyone to understand
> the game a little better.

True enough but I don't have poker discussions with people I play
against (except some relatives and very close friends and the rare
exception when I run into an RPGer at the table.

> The problem with most theory proffered by anyone is that it is rooted in
> limit cash game theory.

Being rooted in cash games isn't a problem and the idea that people
think in limit terms is outdated. In fact, many competent players
today are, or would be, suckers in cash games due to lack of
experience.

In limit. implied odds are slight modifiers, not
> giant decision makers, and bet-sizing isn't allowed to be a factor.
> There's a reason harrington goes into stack depth as a modifier in his cash
> game books... it relates to his general rules on estimating implied odds.
> What he doesn't do is map that back into tournaments, where the sheer lack
> of time forces people to go with marginal hands, so you are far more likely
> to get them to play a big pot with a weakish hand, and so will pay you off
> (when they very likely shouldn't)

Stack depth is a huge clue to proper play in cash games or
tournaments.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Will in New Haven wrote:

>> And you would be correct. My comment was a bit low, although the idea
> that an overweight woman is somehow beneath you is still an infantile
> attitude.

He doesn't have the stanima to let one be on top

[mo_ntresor]

On Jun 5 2013 11:04 PM, Dutch wrote:

> As usual, your advice on poker sounds to me like rambling nonsense.

> Admittedly I'm no poker expert, but in my somewhat limited reading I
> have never encountered strategy that made as little sense as yours does.

LOFL

please, just shut the fuck up. you're not fit to shine beldin's shoes.

mo_ntresor

[fffurken]

On 6 June, 08:33, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>> I never claimed to be perfect or right all the time
>
> >>>>>> Of course you don't CLAIM that, you only act as if it were true.
>
> >>>>> Hell no.
> >>>>> Look at all the the threads I'm not involved in At All
>
> >>>> The number of threads you aren't involved in is immaterial.
> >>> It is entirely relevent to your fraudulent claim
>
> >> Nonsense, I never said that you enter every discussion, or any
> >> particular percentage of them.
>
> > So what?
> > You said I thought I knew everything and was always right
> > That means pontificating on everything, which I obviously do NOT do
>
> It does NOT mean commenting on every thread, acting as if you are always
> right refers to the discussions in which you participate. It has nothing
> to do with those you don't.

lol Beldumb illogic at it's finest.

I don't whether to file that under his "Stupid" or "Uneducated" trait.

[fffurken]

On 6 June, 06:40, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> Still one, shithead
> >> But you're a fucked in the ass , sheep fucking drunk, after all
>
> > In a perfect world a remark that devoid of class or creativity would
> > result in a one week suspension.
>
> There's plenty of creativity there

This one gets filed under "Delusional".

[Will in New Haven]

On Jun 6, 3:03 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> > Dutch wrote:

Tryiing to filter out the personalities by snipping.

>
> > Your opponent bets the pot on the flop. You have a flush draw.
> > What info do you need to call?
>
> I need a lot more info about the situation than you provided. Generally
> speaking I would calculate the pot odds then take into consideration the
> cards as they lie, what I think my opponent has, anything else I might
> know about my opponent, his and my stack size, and the stage of the
> tournament

One thing that impacts all of this is position. If you are acting
after he is, you can play some hands you otherwise couldn't.

Well, if he bets exactly the pot headsup, we are getting exactly 2 to
1. So those are the pot odds. However, he will _probably_ bet the turn
also, so we aren't getting two cards for those odds. And two to one
inadequate odds for one card, not even so great for two. And
increasing our stack by 2N, in a tournament setting, will rarely be
more impactful than decreasing it by N.

However, we have two more questions "How much can we get out of him if
we hit?" which is implied odds. We said that he would bet the turn but
what if he is very aware of that third flush card and checks the turn.
Will he call bets on the turn and river, just on the river (after a
deceptive check behind on the turn) or no bets at all? And, of course,
there is "what if we hit and lose."

Another question is "how much chance is there that he will fold if I
raise?" That makes for an entirely different set of calculations.

[Dutch]

Then it was a piss poor one.

>
>>
>>> Do you not UNDERSTAND that answer?
>>> Do you not know what a rote strategy IS, Dutch?
>>
>> I understand it, it wasn't what I asked. You're exhibiting
>> comprehension problems.
>>
> No, idiot.
> My answer DID answer your question
> You are clearly a retard
> It EXACTLY answered your question. You are merely too damn dumb to
> understand the answer

For one thing, the answer contained neither a yes nor a no which would
be required. Secondly it begins with "because" which implies that my
question was a "why" question, which it wasn't. So, maybe *in your mind*
you answered the question, but not to the reader.

Its easy to tell when you're losing an argument, your language gets
progressively more abusive.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with most theory proffered by anyone is that it is
>>>>>>> rooted in limit cash game theory. In limit. implied odds are
>>>>>>> slight modifiers, not giant decision makers, and bet-sizing
>>>>>>> isn't allowed to be a factor. There's a reason harrington goes
>>>>>>> into stack depth as a modifier in
>>>>>>> his cash game books... it relates to his general rules on
>>>>>>> estimating implied odds. What he doesn't do is map that back into
>>>>>>> tournaments, where the sheer lack of time forces people to go
>>>>>>> with marginal hands, so you are far more likely to get them to
>>>>>>> play a big pot
>>>>>>> with a weakish hand, and so will pay you off (when they very
>>>>>>> likely shouldn't)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As usual, your advice on poker sounds to me like rambling
>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>> That's because you suck at the game
>>>>
>>>> I've read quite a bit of poker theory in books and discussions
>>>> online, none of it sounded like rambling nonsense. Did I NOT suck
>>>> when I was reading that? Maybe your way of communicating is vague,
>>>> convoluted and difficult to grasp. Maybe you need to learn to
>>>> articulate better.
>>> Maybe you need to think.

You totally missed the point. If an average person is able to grasp 99%
of all written poker theory from various expert sources but only can
grasp 10% of yours, that leads to an obvious conclusion.

>> You're not paying the least bit of attention to this discussion. Your
>> responses are not making sense. I'll repeat, I UNDERSTAND other
>> people, but NOT YOU.
>
> Shithead, you don't THINK
> You DON'T understand others which is why you say things like "take control
> of a hand" when you mean "Idiotically donk bet"

Now you're trying to divert the conversation, I wonder why that is?

My understanding is that donk betting is not necessarily a poor play,
and I don't think it was a poor play in the case you're referring to. I
wanted to avoid giving up a free draw and hopefully take down the pot. I
know YOU wanted a free draw. Secondly having the first opportunity to
bet at a pot and doing so is taking control of the hand.

If you disagree with that reasoning and want to convince anyone you're
right then you need to take the time to explain calmly and clearly, not
become frustrated and go off on a tirade of abuse.

>
>>
>>> If you don't know what a rote strategy is, you surely ought to
>>> accept its your ignorance at work
>>
>> Of course I know that that is. I just don't know why you felt you
>> needed to mention it. Whenever you don't like the question you just
>> throw some shit out there.
> Asshole, go reread your question and my answer
> It SHOWS why I mentioned it

All I can conclude is that you failed to understand my original question.

>>>>> Limit poker is, largely, a math problem.
>>>>> No limit is much more a psychological problem
>>>>
>>>> That well may be, that was clearly stated.
>>>>
>>>> You play no-limit mainly right? Then why are most of your diatribes
>>>> about hands all about math and odds?
>>> Because they are about drawing and calling all in.
>>> Those ARE math issues
>>> OR fails at reading opponents, of course, but that's presuming bad
>>> play
>>
>> whoooosh
> Yeah, I thought you'd be too stupid to understand that
> WHY you are too stupid to understand and yet still play, I dunno

You're covering up your shortcomings by hurling abuse.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Admittedly I'm no poker expert, but in my somewhat limited
>>>>>> reading I have never encountered strategy that made as little
>>>>>> sense as yours does.
>>>>> Dude, no theory makes sense to you
>>>>
>>>> That's clearly not true, and you know it.
>>> No, I tried discussing things with you and you fail to listen
>>
>> You mean like you're doing right now? The problem is, you're NOT
>> ARTICULATE. That's probably a reason for all the childish insults,
>> you're frustrated with your inability to communicate.
>>
> Dutch, I WAS OBVIOUSLY articulate

To who, to yourself?

> You have no grasp of ANYTHING

YOU need to pay attention to questions and answer them directly and
succinctly, not just launch into a monologue.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You fail utterly to understand implied odds, for instance
>>>>
>>>> Really? That's a bold statement, demonstrate, quiz me. Maybe you're
>>>> right.
>>>
>>> Your opponent bets the pot on the flop. You have a flush draw.
>>> What info do you need to call?
>>
>> I need a lot more info about the situation than you provided.
>> Generally speaking I would calculate the pot odds then take into
>> consideration the cards as they lie, what I think my opponent has,
>> anything else I might know about my opponent, his and my stack size,
>> and the stage of the tournament.
> You need to know whether he'll fold if you raise, (which means you don't
> call, you raise) and how much he pays off if you hit.

There's no way to know either of those things, but having a partial read
on him would help.

> It doesn't matter how big his stack is if he never pays off.

He is more likely to call with a bigger stack if he is a weak player.

His stack can
> be 500x the pot, if he's afraid of flushes, you can't call
> If his bet puts you all in, you CAN call, and should in a cash game. In a
> tournament, it depends on factors outside the hand

Those may well be valid points, but again, they're not explained.

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> I am not remotely delusional

LOL!

[Dutch]

Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> Dude, you haven't even made a respectable showing in any of our bouts
> You always get the shit kicked out of you

And somehow, by virtue of delusion and ego, no matter how childish and
incoherent you have been, you think you win simply by proclaiming that.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:%Q3st.1$Vs...@fed01.iad...

> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>> I am not remotely delusional
>
> LOL!

It's true -- there's nothing remote about it.

Jim

[Dutch]

Will in New Haven wrote:

So if you think he is a player who is unlikely to pay off more if the
flush hits then the implied odds are not greater than the pot odds,
therefore I should probably fold?

> Another question is "how much chance is there that he will fold if I
> raise?" That makes for an entirely different set of calculations.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
>

Now THAT was a clear explanation. tyvm You should write a book.

[Will in New Haven]

Well, that relates to the next, more complex question about semi-
bluffing.

>
> > Another question is "how much chance is there that he will fold if I
> > raise?" That makes for an entirely different set of calculations.

> Now THAT was a clear explanation. tyvm You should write a book

I always think fold/raise/call in those situations but I go through
all three choices before I make my decision. In limit, late in the
hand, the thinking can get to be call/fold/raise because you are
getting such good pot odds. On the river at times, in limit, you call
in case your opponent dies before he can table his hand. And that is
why early thinking at limit should be raise/fold/call.

[Dutch]

I've never played limit. I used play 5 card stud back in the day, but
since the new poker craze a few years back when I picked up the game
I've only played NLHE.

[da pickle]

On 6/5/2013 12:14 PM, MarkDoubt wrote:
>
>> I know you fall back on the "persona reason" but how
>>> about having Chris discuss in the rational, non-offensive manner you
>>> claim he is AND as this reply to me seemed to follow. I would guess
>>> this reply was more Chris and less Beldin if truth be told but that's
>>> just my opinion.... ;)
>>
>> Naw. Chris doesn't post here
>
> No problem, you win as usual!! No reason to bash my head against the brick wall that is Beldin more than once or twice a year!! Good luck to you and being perfect, right and Beldin throughout life!! I'll just watch the train wreck from the sidelines.....

You are pretty much doomed when you start this with Beldin.

I did what I thought was my best for quite some time.

Total ignore might be the best for everyone.

[MarkDoubt]

You are 100% correct, I know and knew before trying...... again!!! The tone when he started was better, the first reply was reasonable but if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, well you know...... I'm still intrigued by how someone like a Jerry or Beldins mind works, the Clave's, Mo's or BillB's are easier to understand than the J or B's!!! Truly mind boggling.

[mo_ntresor]

On Jun 7 2013 6:36 AM, MarkDoubt wrote:

> You are 100% correct, I know and knew before trying...... again!!! The tone
when he started was
> better, the first reply was reasonable but if it walks like a duck, swims
like a duck, well you
> know...... I'm still intrigued by how someone like a Jerry or Beldins mind
works, the Clave's, Mo's
> or BillB's are easier to understand than the J or B's!!! Truly mind boggling.

how dare you lump me in with those marginal intellects!

mo_ntresor

[da pickle]

Lumping you with Clave and BillB must be an editing error.

BillB [RIP] might be as smart and as smartassed as me ... but no good
comes from claving at all.

[MarkDoubt]

LOL!! Come on, reading comprehension!! Two fold reason to lump you in..... easy to understand each of your posting styles AND I don't want to be accused of just using the left as examples, you are my rightie in this example!!

[mo_ntresor]

On Jun 7 2013 7:12 AM, da pickle wrote:

> Lumping you with Clave and BillB must be an editing error.
>
> BillB [RIP] might be as smart and as smartassed as me ... but no good
> comes from claving at all.

paul can't get enough of the clam. he's enabling quota.

mo_ntresor

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

You were insulting and condescending,

What kind of response did you think you would get?

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Keeps my morning brief when you post sophistry, at least

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

No. I know I win by out-thinking you

The fact that you can't grasp it is more an indication of your senility

[Will in New Haven]

On Jun 7, 9:45 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:

> Keeps my morning brief when you post sophistry, at least-

Note how the poker content of this thread disintegrated. Note how the
reason it disintegrated was the fucking personalities, the "I won that
argument," "no you got hammered" bullshit. Now there are several
people posting who _only_ exist to do the personality tango but you
claim that you want to talk about poker.

Start walking the walk. Not only should you let go of your Beldin
persona when talking about poker; let go of your insistance on being
personal. No Beldin, no Chris, just poker. When people make
provocative remarks, don't get provoked.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Your lack of comprehension is not my fault

>>>
>>>> Do you not UNDERSTAND that answer?
>>>> Do you not know what a rote strategy IS, Dutch?
>>>
>>> I understand it, it wasn't what I asked. You're exhibiting
>>> comprehension problems.
>>>
>> No, idiot.
>> My answer DID answer your question
>> You are clearly a retard
>> It EXACTLY answered your question. You are merely too damn dumb to
>> understand the answer
>
> For one thing, the answer contained neither a yes nor a no which would
> be required. Secondly it begins with "because" which implies that my
> question was a "why" question, which it wasn't. So, maybe *in your
> mind* you answered the question, but not to the reader.

Um, dumbass...
You did NOT ask a yes or no question.
Christ alfucking mighty.
It's IN the text of your message.
Oh fuck it, let's embarrass Dutch some more :

Why would anyone do otherwise?

That;s your question, dumbass.
How is "Yes" or "No" a meaningful answer?

No, that's a tell that I'm destroying you and growing bored.
You can't even remember your question, or read it in the post

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem with most theory proffered by anyone is that it is
>>>>>>>> rooted in limit cash game theory. In limit. implied odds are
>>>>>>>> slight modifiers, not giant decision makers, and bet-sizing
>>>>>>>> isn't allowed to be a factor. There's a reason harrington goes
>>>>>>>> into stack depth as a modifier in
>>>>>>>> his cash game books... it relates to his general rules on
>>>>>>>> estimating implied odds. What he doesn't do is map that back
>>>>>>>> into tournaments, where the sheer lack of time forces people
>>>>>>>> to go with marginal hands, so you are far more likely to get
>>>>>>>> them to play a big pot
>>>>>>>> with a weakish hand, and so will pay you off (when they very
>>>>>>>> likely shouldn't)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As usual, your advice on poker sounds to me like rambling
>>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>> That's because you suck at the game
>>>>>
>>>>> I've read quite a bit of poker theory in books and discussions
>>>>> online, none of it sounded like rambling nonsense. Did I NOT suck
>>>>> when I was reading that? Maybe your way of communicating is vague,
>>>>> convoluted and difficult to grasp. Maybe you need to learn to
>>>>> articulate better.
>>>> Maybe you need to think.
>
> You totally missed the point. If an average person is able to grasp
> 99% of all written poker theory from various expert sources but only
> can grasp 10% of yours, that leads to an obvious conclusion.
>

You can't grasp 99% of all written poker theory
Hell, you likely can't tell crap from entry level and advanced theory.
How many poker books you got? 5? 10?

>
>>> You're not paying the least bit of attention to this discussion.
>>> Your responses are not making sense. I'll repeat, I UNDERSTAND other
>>> people, but NOT YOU.
>>
>> Shithead, you don't THINK
>> You DON'T understand others which is why you say things like "take
>> control of a hand" when you mean "Idiotically donk bet"
>
> Now you're trying to divert the conversation, I wonder why that is?

Boredom
Already demonstrated you can't think.
You can't remember YOUR OWN QUESTION and its CITED in YOUR post

>
> My understanding is that donk betting is not necessarily a poor play,
> and I don't think it was a poor play in the case you're referring to.
> I wanted to avoid giving up a free draw and hopefully take down the
> pot. I know YOU wanted a free draw. Secondly having the first
> opportunity to bet at a pot and doing so is taking control of the
> hand.

And yet, if you check raise the pot, you take it down because I can't call
and trav folds behind me.

But instead you bet too small on the flop, and get two callers

>
> If you disagree with that reasoning and want to convince anyone you're
> right then you need to take the time to explain calmly and clearly,
> not become frustrated and go off on a tirade of abuse.

I explained it clearly and calmly 5 times

Go reread it

You don't grasp implied odds.
It's not a complex poker point, and its vital, so no, you don't understand

99% of all written poker theory

>
>>
>>>

>>>> If you don't know what a rote strategy is, you surely ought to
>>>> accept its your ignorance at work
>>>
>>> Of course I know that that is. I just don't know why you felt you
>>> needed to mention it. Whenever you don't like the question you just
>>> throw some shit out there.

You can't even remember your question

>> Asshole, go reread your question and my answer
>> It SHOWS why I mentioned it
>
> All I can conclude is that you failed to understand my original
> question.

No, we demonstrated you couldn't remember it.
I cited it, and it is clearly NOT the yes or no question you thought it was

>>>>>> Limit poker is, largely, a math problem.
>>>>>> No limit is much more a psychological problem
>>>>>
>>>>> That well may be, that was clearly stated.
>>>>>
>>>>> You play no-limit mainly right? Then why are most of your
>>>>> diatribes about hands all about math and odds?
>>>> Because they are about drawing and calling all in.
>>>> Those ARE math issues
>>>> OR fails at reading opponents, of course, but that's presuming bad
>>>> play
>>>
>>> whoooosh
>> Yeah, I thought you'd be too stupid to understand that
>> WHY you are too stupid to understand and yet still play, I dunno
>
> You're covering up your shortcomings by hurling abuse.

No, I'm fending off boredom.

All ins are math questions. There's no implied odds.

Computing the implied odds are a combination of math and psychology.

Determining the right bet against your opponent is more psych than math

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Admittedly I'm no poker expert, but in my somewhat limited
>>>>>>> reading I have never encountered strategy that made as little
>>>>>>> sense as yours does.
>>>>>> Dude, no theory makes sense to you
>>>>>
>>>>> That's clearly not true, and you know it.
>>>> No, I tried discussing things with you and you fail to listen
>>>
>>> You mean like you're doing right now? The problem is, you're NOT
>>> ARTICULATE. That's probably a reason for all the childish insults,
>>> you're frustrated with your inability to communicate.
>>>
>> Dutch, I WAS OBVIOUSLY articulate
>
> To who, to yourself?
>
>> You have no grasp of ANYTHING
>
> YOU need to pay attention to questions and answer them directly and
> succinctly, not just launch into a monologue.

You can't even REMEMBER your question

>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You fail utterly to understand implied odds, for instance
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? That's a bold statement, demonstrate, quiz me. Maybe
>>>>> you're right.
>>>>
>>>> Your opponent bets the pot on the flop. You have a flush draw.
>>>> What info do you need to call?
>>>
>>> I need a lot more info about the situation than you provided.
>>> Generally speaking I would calculate the pot odds then take into
>>> consideration the cards as they lie, what I think my opponent has,
>>> anything else I might know about my opponent, his and my stack size,
>>> and the stage of the tournament.
>> You need to know whether he'll fold if you raise, (which means you
>> don't call, you raise) and how much he pays off if you hit.
>
> There's no way to know either of those things, but having a partial
> read on him would help.

There's LOTS of ways to know these things
If he NEVER pays off a flush draw hitting, for instance, you know you have
to fold.
If he always hero-calls, just look at his stack and see if its large enough
If he only calls with a set or the ace of that suit with AA, claim his
stack, then adjust for the approximate losing rate (of your entire stack
when he calls and sucks out)

>
>> It doesn't matter how big his stack is if he never pays off.
>
> He is more likely to call with a bigger stack if he is a weak player.

Define weak.
If weak = timid, not so at all

>
> His stack can
>> be 500x the pot, if he's afraid of flushes, you can't call
>> If his bet puts you all in, you CAN call, and should in a cash game.
>> In a tournament, it depends on factors outside the hand
>
> Those may well be valid points, but again, they're not explained.

they're obvious points

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Yeah, you're certainly that

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Shithead, you clearly do not know what "know it all" means, either
How fucked in the ass stupid ARE you?

[fffurken]

> How fucked in the ass stupid ARE you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So a "know it all" would comment in every thread (respond to every
post too?) on RGP and if it doesn't, it's not a "Know it all".

Is that what you're saying Maggot?

[popinjay999]

On Jun 7, 6:55 am, Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Note how the poker content of this thread disintegrated. Note how the
> reason it disintegrated was the fucking personalities, the "I won that
> argument," "no you got hammered" bullshit. Now there are several
> people posting who _only_ exist to do the personality tango but you
> claim that you want to talk about poker.
>
> Start walking the walk. Not only should you let go of your Beldin
> persona when talking about poker; let go of your insistance on being
> personal. No Beldin, no Chris, just poker. When people make
> provocative remarks, don't get provoked.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven

Stay out of it, shithead.