Re: BAHH-If this group is still about poker

On Dec 28 2007 8:43 AM, Travel wrote:


I'm having trouble posting from liveaction.com

Maybe you should stop posting from that site if you are having problems
with it.

and I'm posting from a
newsreader where the latest post hasn't appeared yet, so I'll reply from
memory.
1.) If you read back, you'll find that Pattie Beadles included in her
description of loose games in L.A., the fact that there's capped
betting. That told me that she was referring to loose/aggressive games.
So, I'll repeat that loose/aggressive games are a real crapshoot and
should be avoided. It's gambling, not poker. If you want to gamble,
fine. Also, reread my replies where I was clear that I was replying
about "loose/aggressive" games, in that particular case.

You are entitled to your own opinion on the issue.

2.) With the JJ discussion, the fact that Pattie Beadles is
"overlooking" something, as you put it, is the entire point. It was MY
point; it doesn't mean that there isn't more to say on the point. I've
explained my comments about the O.P.s play in some detail. Your little
addition doesn't supersede. Pattie Beattles and Foldum are clueless and
you don't quite "get it" altogether, either. So, what was point of your
supposedly "corrective" comment?

To actually back up your point with a valid argument, rather than relying
on your baseless statements?

Also, I stated that pairs don't "USUALLY" win. Why are you going into
this hard to read thing about pairs winning 20% of the time and a kicker
could matter in these situations as a one of your "qualified"
agreements? DUH! well, of course, if the table folds around and you do
find yourself in a situation where a pair wins against a couple of
opponents, (sometimes no one hits their draw), but it's coincidental to
the the general strategy. You don't play your pre flop pairs with going
to the river with a pair in mind. You play your pre flop pairs with the
strategy of improving on the flop or folding.

You play your small pairs that way. You play big pairs differently (QQ+).

I find this contradictory on your part, given the fact that you agree
with playing Ax. The reason for playing Ax (NOTE: no kicker with an Ax)
is for a big hand on the flop, not out kicking an opponent at the rivr.

A big hand to me is bottom trips top kicker, two pair, or a wheel. That
is why I play Ax for one bet.


I get this creepy feeling with your above replies. You're agreeing with
me on these points (because I have the substantive points) and then
doing some kind of "qualfying" spin where you're trying to say that my
points where actually your points. WTF is that? I stated them, remember?
And you had the advantage of reading them.

lol... so I'm stalking you and want to fellate you by agreeing with you?
Or is it that I am trying to appear smarter by agreeing with a poster that
is roundly criticized by nearly the entire group? You can feel creeped
out as you wish, might be a psychological problem called paranoia. Your
arguments make no sense, I was simply trying to add to the discussion that
you began.

3) In the past, I never saw you post word one about loose game strategy
until after I had been posting in great detail about my loose game
strategy for some time. All of a sudden, you start posting about how "I
do that too, but I..."
You've already been caught in self aggrandizing, once, (at least) but
you're not going to pull it again at my expense.

LOL. A quick Google search shows that you have been posting since early
2003. I started in late 2004. I did not have any real knowledge that I
was able to share (though I did try), until at least mid 2005, and even
that was mostly only for very high ante stud games (a thing that few
people have much experience with). My cash game Limit Holdem strategies
have only formed in the last year, when I was exposed to live card rooms
on a regular basis. I assure you that I came up with it based on my own
experiences and play, not because I have any need or desire to impress you
or others by comparing myself to you.

DaveL was the only regular on this group who responded in a civilized
manner with agreement and some legitimate comments. There were some
comments from random posters who reacted favorably. You could tell, they
actually played in loose, real casino games.

Heh. Random posters who happened to agree with you are valid opinions
simply because they agree with you. Good logic there.

If you agree, just fucking agree, without the "I knew that all the time"
bull***.

*** you and your self-righteous bull***. This has nothing to do with
you.

Funny, you didn't say anything about loose game strategy until
after I was commenting. In fact, it was you who was one of those who
flamed the most at the beginning.

Prove it.

You must have talked to someone who knows what they're doing and they
told you that my reasoning on loose games is sound. That would account
for your flip-flopping and subsequent co-opting attempts.

No, it's called personal experience. You know, the thing that is
supposedly the reason why random posters agree with you?

Well, at least Pattie Beattlles, DeadMoron Walking, Foldum (My name is
Peter, I go to BARGEs and everyone should give a ***) got blown out of
the water on this. So, you did some good, afterall.

I was simply trying to provoke some discussion on this group on a good
subject, not to do you any favours.

Fell

------- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com


.