>> No one in the world is going to agree with you on this. The fabrications >> of "600 in the pot" are yours alone. The wise thing to do would be to >> bow >> out of the conversation before you look any more retarded and admit that >> you were wrong. Then, you can even point to this when people (rightly) >> say that you've never admitted error, just link them here where you do.
>> Odds of Beldin taking this advice? 3 to 1? Or 4 to 1? (hehe)
> He'll never admit he's wrong. He never has, he never will. He's a class > A, certified, card-carrying moron, and you could give 1,000,000 to 1 odds > and I would never take the bet because he'll never, ever admit that he's > just clueless.
I'll take that bet, for anything you'd care to wager.
Then cite a post where I said I was wrong. The thread where I apologized to Willie leaps to mind, moron.
> >>> If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is > >>> the > >>> pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL > >>> game?
> >> You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the > >> pot.
> > Sorry Raider ... I did not know this was a Beldin fight.
> > "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You check, > > guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 + > > 150 = 450 all day long."
> > There is indeed 450 in the pot.
> Christ almighty, Pickel. > Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. > It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. > If you can't see that, quit the game now.
If you are still thinking about protecting the chips in the pot, quit the game five years ago. *** Naw. Some people actually are smart enough to fold.
> >> > If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is > >> > the > >> > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL > >> > game?
> >> You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the > >> pot.
> > That's it. If there's 450 in the pot, there's 450 in the pot. Somebody > > here contends that there's 600 in the pot when considering a raise. > > Somehow the 150 mysteriously moves from his stack to the pot before he > > acts.
> > I'm guessing he's thinking about what is allowed for a raise in a pot > > limit game. The fact of the matter is the pot size is the pot size. > > Period.
> Shithead, we aren't talking about the pot before I act.
> If I'm moving in, and you're commenting on the pot size that I'm moving in > to claim, the size is what it would be if I called.
> If you can't see that, quit the game now.
This is both a stupid semantic argument and an imbecilic poker concept. An amazing double. *** No, it's not semantics, in terms of my decision. It's idiotic in terms of his lack of understanding of the whole decision process.
>> "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You check, >> guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 + >> 150 = 450 all day long."
>> There is indeed 450 in the pot.
> Christ almighty, Pickel. > Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. > It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. > If you can't see that, quit the game now.
I would not want to quit now ... let us try this out as a 1/2 NL game.
SB 1, BB2, one limper 2, SB another 1. Pot equals $6. Flop comes, you check, guy bets $150, other guy folds and it is 150 to you.
How much are you "protecting" by your push? The pot is $156 and you are in for $2. You really think that there is 306 in the pot, Beldin? really?
> > >>> If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is > > >>> the > > >>> pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL > > >>> game?
> > >> You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the > > >> pot.
> > > Sorry Raider ... I did not know this was a Beldin fight.
> > > "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You check, > > > guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 + > > > 150 = 450 all day long."
> > > There is indeed 450 in the pot.
> > Christ almighty, Pickel. > > Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. > > It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. > > If you can't see that, quit the game now.
> If you are still thinking about protecting the chips in the pot, quit > the game five years ago. > *** > Naw. > Some people actually are smart enough to fold.
If folding is smart, you don't want him to fold. If you make calling an error, you want to be called. I know you play tournaments and a result here and a result there has warped your thinking about long- term profitability Even though busting out of a tournament makes you cry like a Helllmuth, long-term profitable in chips is almost always very close to long-term profitable in tournament equity.
Of course, I don't play tournaments much because they turn people into whiny bitches.
On Nov 7 2009 10:15 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> If I call, the pot is 600. > Even you two fucking morons can't argue that's wrong. > If I move in, shit for brains, the pot I'm trying to protect by moving in is > STILL 600.
Hey Scarecrow, no one is arguing that "IF" you call, it's a 600 chip pot. Since you haven't, it's a fucking 450 chip pot. What's 2+2?
Follow :)
_______________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
> >> "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You check, > >> guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 + > >> 150 = 450 all day long."
> >> There is indeed 450 in the pot.
> > Christ almighty, Pickel. > > Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. > > It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. > > If you can't see that, quit the game now.
> I would not want to quit now ... let us try this out as a 1/2 NL game.
> SB 1, BB2, one limper 2, SB another 1. Pot equals $6. Flop comes, you > check, guy bets $150, other guy folds and it is 150 to you.
> How much are you "protecting" by your push? The pot is $156 and you are in > for $2. You really think that there is 306 in the pot, Beldin? really?
LOL. We must both be stupid Pickle. That's why I had two questions in the OP. He's totally wrong, but he'll never admit it. It's fun to watch these last word never wrong idiots dig themselves deeper and deeper.
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
____________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
> >> "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You check, > >> guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 + > >> 150 = 450 all day long."
> >> There is indeed 450 in the pot.
> > Christ almighty, Pickel. > > Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. > > It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. > > If you can't see that, quit the game now.
> I would not want to quit now ... let us try this out as a 1/2 NL game.
> SB 1, BB2, one limper 2, SB another 1. Pot equals $6. Flop comes, you > check, guy bets $150, other guy folds and it is 150 to you.
> How much are you "protecting" by your push? The pot is $156 and you are in > for $2. You really think that there is 306 in the pot, Beldin? really?
The pot is 156 but how much of it came from him is not relevant. If the money in the pot came out of the ceiling or you put all of it in, the decision is the same. It isn't your money anymore. In a tournament <spitting noise> how much put in affects how much you have _left_ which does matter but that's a separate issue.
> On Nov 7 2009 10:15 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> > If I call, the pot is 600. > > Even you two fucking morons can't argue that's wrong. > > If I move in, shit for brains, the pot I'm trying to protect by moving in is > > STILL 600.
> Hey Scarecrow, no one is arguing that "IF" you call, it's a 600 chip pot. > Since you haven't, it's a fucking 450 chip pot. What's 2+2?
6 Obviously.
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
_____________________________________________________________________ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> On Nov 7, 12:46 pm, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote: > > "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> > >> "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You check, > > >> guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 + > > >> 150 = 450 all day long."
> > >> There is indeed 450 in the pot.
> > > Christ almighty, Pickel. > > > Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. > > > It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. > > > If you can't see that, quit the game now.
> > I would not want to quit now ... let us try this out as a 1/2 NL game.
> > SB 1, BB2, one limper 2, SB another 1. Pot equals $6. Flop comes, you > > check, guy bets $150, other guy folds and it is 150 to you.
> > How much are you "protecting" by your push? The pot is $156 and you are in > > for $2. You really think that there is 306 in the pot, Beldin? really?
> The pot is 156 but how much of it came from him is not relevant. If > the money in the pot came out of the ceiling or you put all of it in, > the decision is the same. It isn't your money anymore. In a tournament > <spitting noise> how much put in affects how much you have _left_ > which does matter but that's a separate issue.
Regardless, the pot is 156. Beldin argues differently.
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
------ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> > > If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is the > > > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL game?
> > You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the pot.
> That's it. If there's 450 in the pot, there's 450 in the pot. Somebody > here contends that there's 600 in the pot when considering a raise. > Somehow the 150 mysteriously moves from his stack to the pot before he > acts.
> I'm guessing he's thinking about what is allowed for a raise in a pot > limit game. The fact of the matter is the pot size is the pot size. > Period.
> "This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a > fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
One is 3x and the other is a little over 1x the call to you. Then you could also evaluate what the pot might become afterward and whether that would make you over or under before you decide to call on this round. But I don't know much about poker or probabilities.
------ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is the > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL game?
> If there's 4,450 chips in the pot and the bet is 4,150 to you, how big is > the pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL > game?
There is no answer. The question only has meaning in the context of how the answer will be used. In a NL game all I can think of then is pot odds issues, in which the pot size is 4450.
If you're computing pot size to compute rake then pot size is 300 until you've acted.
On Nov 7, 8:06 pm, "garycarson" <garycar...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> On Nov 7 2009 10:22 AM, Raider Fan wrote:
> > If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is the > > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL game?
> > If there's 4,450 chips in the pot and the bet is 4,150 to you, how big is > > the pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL > > game?
> There is no answer. The question only has meaning in the context of how > the answer will be used. In a NL game all I can think of then is pot odds > issues, in which the pot size is 4450.
> If you're computing pot size to compute rake then pot size is 300 until > you've acted.
I hadn't even thought of the rake issue. However, you seem certain that the original description was that the pot was 300 and someone bet 150 into it, which makes the pot 450 for your purposes (while it remains 300 for purposes of rake) but the original post seemed open to the interpretation that there had been a 150 bet into a 450 pot, which would make the pot 600 (although 450 for purposes of rake)
I guess it just hadn't occured to me that someone could be arguing that his own "call" could be figured into the size of the pot before he had acted.
> On Nov 7 2009 10:15 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> If I call, the pot is 600. >> Even you two fucking morons can't argue that's wrong. >> If I move in, shit for brains, the pot I'm trying to protect by moving in >> is >> STILL 600.
> Hey Scarecrow, no one is arguing that "IF" you call, it's a 600 chip pot.
Yes, actually Raider is.
His initial comment, you shithead, was about me moving in to take down a 450 chip pot.
IF I know I have the best hand, and my choice is between raising and calling, it's a 600 chip pot.
IF you're too stupid to actually get that, then quit playing.
I'll make it more obvious. If I call on the flop, a blank comes off on the turn, and I move in, how big is the pot I'm protecting by moving in? If you're actually bright enough to understand that it's 600 chips there, explain what the fundamental difference is between the two plays... and DON'T be a retard and say "You hadn't called yet", because if the choice is raising or calling, then yes, shithead, I called already when making the decision.
>> >> "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You >> >> check, >> >> guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + >> >> 150 + >> >> 150 = 450 all day long."
>> >> There is indeed 450 in the pot.
>> > Christ almighty, Pickel. >> > Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. >> > It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. >> > If you can't see that, quit the game now.
>> I would not want to quit now ... let us try this out as a 1/2 NL game.
>> SB 1, BB2, one limper 2, SB another 1. Pot equals $6. Flop comes, you >> check, guy bets $150, other guy folds and it is 150 to you.
>> How much are you "protecting" by your push? The pot is $156 and you are >> in >> for $2. You really think that there is 306 in the pot, Beldin? really?
IF, Pickel, I have the best hand (and you included no hand information at all) and I'm at LEAST calling, but debating raising to take the pot then, then YES, Pickel, the pot size I'm protecting IS 306.
IF it's say 762, 2 hearts, and I know the guy betting is nuts enough to do it with a flush draw, and I have 77, then YES, for purposes of the decision to shove or play further, the pot size is 306. I call and leave 'my' 306 sitting there, or shove and try and price out the draw.
I'm not calling behind to try and improve. I''m putting chips in first because I have to, then raising to protect MY pot.
> LOL. We must both be stupid Pickle. That's why I had two questions in > the OP. He's totally wrong, but he'll never admit it. It's fun to watch > these last word never wrong idiots dig themselves deeper and deeper.
All I'm watching is idiots who can't think correctly show it, over and over again.
Raider can't read, and can't understand the concept of "IF you're going to call for sure, but are also contemplating a raise, your 'call' portion is part of the pot when determining how much to raise to protect that pot"
> >> "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You check, > >> guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 > >> + > >> 150 = 450 all day long."
> >> There is indeed 450 in the pot.
> > Christ almighty, Pickel. > > Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. > > It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. > > If you can't see that, quit the game now.
> I would not want to quit now ... let us try this out as a 1/2 NL game.
> SB 1, BB2, one limper 2, SB another 1. Pot equals $6. Flop comes, you > check, guy bets $150, other guy folds and it is 150 to you.
> How much are you "protecting" by your push? The pot is $156 and you are in > for $2. You really think that there is 306 in the pot, Beldin? really?
The pot is 156 but how much of it came from him is not relevant. If the money in the pot came out of the ceiling or you put all of it in, the decision is the same. It isn't your money anymore. In a tournament <spitting noise> how much put in affects how much you have _left_ which does matter but that's a separate issue.
*** The initial question (or statement) was about the pot I moved in on. Now if you're moving in with air, you're trying to steal 156. You're never calling. If you have the best hand, and you're going to call no matter what, the pot's 306 when you're deciding whether to raise or not.
Christ, I feel like Snyder did when everyone was trying to 'correct' him about M in tournaments
> > On Nov 7 2009 10:15 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> >> If I call, the pot is 600. > >> Even you two fucking morons can't argue that's wrong. > >> If I move in, shit for brains, the pot I'm trying to protect by moving in > >> is > >> STILL 600.
> > Hey Scarecrow, no one is arguing that "IF" you call, it's a 600 chip pot.
> Yes, actually Raider is.
> His initial comment, you shithead, was about me moving in to take down a 450 > chip pot.
> IF I know I have the best hand, and my choice is between raising and > calling, it's a 600 chip pot.
> IF you're too stupid to actually get that, then quit playing.
> I'll make it more obvious. > If I call on the flop, a blank comes off on the turn, and I move in, how big > is the pot I'm protecting by moving in? > If you're actually bright enough to understand that it's 600 chips there, > explain what the fundamental difference is between the two plays... and > DON'T be a retard and say "You hadn't called yet", because if the choice is > raising or calling, then yes, shithead, I called already when making the > decision.
Excuse me from interrupting the stupid abuse but this _is_ simply a semantic difference. And it is far better that poker players who are going to discuss hands agree on how they express things.
Before anyone bet on this round, there was 300 in the pot. The guy bet 150 into the pot. When it reached you, there was 450 in the pot. We can all agree on that. We can even agree that the pot would be 300 for purposes of rake if you fold. So it is 150 to you and the pot is 450. Since you don't intend to fold, you "see" six hundred in the pot when you are deciding whether to raise. Pot-limit rules seem to agree with you, because your "call" is considered part of the pot when figuring out your maximum raise.
Obviously, however, there has to be a basis for poker discussion. When discussing the situation that faced you, it is simpler and better to use the standard meanings for the terms.
When the decision gets to you, the pot is 450. What happens after you decide to at least call happens in your head. It is not a factor for someone else thinking about what _he_ would do.
Since everyone else on the planet would say there was 450 in the pot, you are wrong.
> > >>> If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big > > >>> is > > >>> the > > >>> pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL > > >>> game?
> > >> You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the > > >> pot.
> > > Sorry Raider ... I did not know this was a Beldin fight.
> > > "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You > > > check, > > > guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 > > > + > > > 150 = 450 all day long."
> > > There is indeed 450 in the pot.
> > Christ almighty, Pickel. > > Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. > > It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. > > If you can't see that, quit the game now.
> If you are still thinking about protecting the chips in the pot, quit > the game five years ago. > *** > Naw. > Some people actually are smart enough to fold.
If folding is smart, you don't want him to fold.
*** True. I want him dumb enough to call. BUT if he's smart, he may be smart enough to fold. ***
If you make calling an error, you want to be called. I know you play tournaments and a result here and a result there has warped your thinking about long- term profitability Even though busting out of a tournament makes you cry like a Helllmuth, long-term profitable in chips is almost always very close to long-term profitable in tournament equity.
*** There's a difference, yes. In the situation under discussion, knowing I had the best hand on the flop did not equate to having much of a read on my opponent beyond "some kinda weak assed draw" Too many cards could come off on the turn leaving me well-confused as to whether I was ahead or behind.
***
Of course, I don't play tournaments much because they turn people into whiny bitches. *** You say that like it's a bad thing
>>> "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You >>> check, >>> guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 >>> + >>> 150 = 450 all day long."
>>> There is indeed 450 in the pot.
>> Christ almighty, Pickel. >> Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. >> It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. >> If you can't see that, quit the game now.
> I would not want to quit now ... let us try this out as a 1/2 NL game.
> SB 1, BB2, one limper 2, SB another 1. Pot equals $6. Flop comes, you > check, guy bets $150, other guy folds and it is 150 to you.
> How much are you "protecting" by your push? The pot is $156 and you are > in for $2. You really think that there is 306 in the pot, Beldin? > really?
If I have a hand strong enough to CALL there, I think it's the best hand. If I think he's drawing (and I gave you an example in my response to Raider) and I want to price out his draw, then absolutely. Of course, your hypothetical is insane. Short of the guy being drunk, the bet makes no sense at all.
> Excuse me from interrupting the stupid abuse but this _is_ simply a > semantic difference. And it is far better that poker players who are > going to discuss hands agree on how they express things.
> Before anyone bet on this round, there was 300 in the pot. > The guy bet 150 into the pot. > When it reached you, there was 450 in the pot. > We can all agree on that. We can even agree that the pot would be 300 > for purposes of rake if you fold. > So it is 150 to you and the pot is 450. > Since you don't intend to fold, you "see" six hundred in the pot when > you are deciding whether to raise. Pot-limit rules seem to agree with > you, because your "call" is considered part of the pot when figuring > out your maximum raise.
> Obviously, however, there has to be a basis for poker discussion. When > discussing the situation that faced you, it is simpler and better to > use the standard meanings for the terms.
> When the decision gets to you, the pot is 450. What happens after you > decide to at least call happens in your head. It is not a factor for > someone else thinking about what _he_ would do.
> Since everyone else on the planet would say there was 450 in the pot, > you are wrong.
> -- > Will in New Haven
I don't think it is semantics. I think what happened is that Beldin made a mistake in his calculation and rather than admit the (very) minor blunder, he prefers to backwardsly define his "reasoning" for saying it rather than accept the error. His original post which sparked all this made the statement very clearly a miscalculation. I can only imagine the cold chill that ran down his spine when he realized he repeatedly called Raider a moron for an error he made himself, not Raider.
However, even if the semantic argument is true and he really is defining things in a "different" manner than everyone else in the world who discusses these things, he is still wrong, like you said.
Follow :)
------ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> > On Nov 7 2009 10:15 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> >> If I call, the pot is 600. > >> Even you two fucking morons can't argue that's wrong. > >> If I move in, shit for brains, the pot I'm trying to protect by moving > >> in > >> is > >> STILL 600.
> > Hey Scarecrow, no one is arguing that "IF" you call, it's a 600 chip > > pot.
> Yes, actually Raider is.
> His initial comment, you shithead, was about me moving in to take down a > 450 > chip pot.
> IF I know I have the best hand, and my choice is between raising and > calling, it's a 600 chip pot.
> IF you're too stupid to actually get that, then quit playing.
> I'll make it more obvious. > If I call on the flop, a blank comes off on the turn, and I move in, how > big > is the pot I'm protecting by moving in? > If you're actually bright enough to understand that it's 600 chips there, > explain what the fundamental difference is between the two plays... and > DON'T be a retard and say "You hadn't called yet", because if the choice > is > raising or calling, then yes, shithead, I called already when making the > decision.
Excuse me from interrupting the stupid abuse but this _is_ simply a semantic difference.
*** No, it affected my decision to shove a little. And it should. There are times when thinking about it wrong will get you to shove when you can't protect the pot by shoving. *** And it is far better that poker players who are going to discuss hands agree on how they express things.
Before anyone bet on this round, there was 300 in the pot. *** Well, you walked into this in the middle. Pot was 150, one guy potted, another guy called. I moved in to shut out the draws. *** The guy bet 150 into the pot. When it reached you, there was 450 in the pot. We can all agree on that. We can even agree that the pot would be 300 for purposes of rake if you fold. *** It's a tournament, so no rake. *** So it is 150 to you and the pot is 450. Since you don't intend to fold, you "see" six hundred in the pot when you are deciding whether to raise. Pot-limit rules seem to agree with you, because your "call" is considered part of the pot when figuring out your maximum raise.
*** Obviously, however, there has to be a basis for poker discussion. When discussing the situation that faced you, it is simpler and better to use the standard meanings for the terms. *** No, it's BETTER to use terms that are meaningful and correct. ***
When the decision gets to you, the pot is 450. What happens after you decide to at least call happens in your head. It is not a factor for someone else thinking about what _he_ would do. *** Yes, it is. And I can show it mathematically. And since it can be shown mathematically, it means that those idiots incapable of grasping it are wrong. It ISN'T semantics. It's math. Since your assumption is wrong, your conclusion is also wrong.
Say my stack was 1200 there rather than almost 3000
By Raider idiot-logic, I'm raising 750 into a 450 pot. Clearly not laying odds for someone to call with a 2-1 draw Anyone calling, of course, only has to call 600 more and will CORRECTLY call with a 2-1 draw. My stack is too short to protect the pot, and that's an important part of the decision.
I'm moving in to protect a 600 chip pot. Period. Anyone thinking differently is wrong, period. The math doesn't lie.
> On Nov 7 2009 11:57 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 12:46 pm, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>> > >> "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You > check, >> > >> guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + >> > >> 150 > + >> > >> 150 = 450 all day long."
>> > >> There is indeed 450 in the pot.
>> > > Christ almighty, Pickel. >> > > Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. >> > > It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. >> > > If you can't see that, quit the game now.
>> > I would not want to quit now ... let us try this out as a 1/2 NL game.
>> > SB 1, BB2, one limper 2, SB another 1. Pot equals $6. Flop comes, you >> > check, guy bets $150, other guy folds and it is 150 to you.
>> > How much are you "protecting" by your push? The pot is $156 and you are >> > in >> > for $2. You really think that there is 306 in the pot, Beldin? really?
>> The pot is 156 but how much of it came from him is not relevant. If >> the money in the pot came out of the ceiling or you put all of it in, >> the decision is the same. It isn't your money anymore. In a tournament >> <spitting noise> how much put in affects how much you have _left_ >> which does matter but that's a separate issue.
> Regardless, the pot is 156. Beldin argues differently.
No, raider, I say it's different if you're deciding between calling and raising. How often did you fail math?
>> Excuse me from interrupting the stupid abuse but this _is_ simply a >> semantic difference. And it is far better that poker players who are >> going to discuss hands agree on how they express things.
>> Before anyone bet on this round, there was 300 in the pot. >> The guy bet 150 into the pot. >> When it reached you, there was 450 in the pot. >> We can all agree on that. We can even agree that the pot would be 300 >> for purposes of rake if you fold. >> So it is 150 to you and the pot is 450. >> Since you don't intend to fold, you "see" six hundred in the pot when >> you are deciding whether to raise. Pot-limit rules seem to agree with >> you, because your "call" is considered part of the pot when figuring >> out your maximum raise.
>> Obviously, however, there has to be a basis for poker discussion. When >> discussing the situation that faced you, it is simpler and better to >> use the standard meanings for the terms.
>> When the decision gets to you, the pot is 450. What happens after you >> decide to at least call happens in your head. It is not a factor for >> someone else thinking about what _he_ would do.
>> Since everyone else on the planet would say there was 450 in the pot, >> you are wrong.
>> -- >> Will in New Haven
> I don't think it is semantics.
You don't think period.
I think what happened is that Beldin made
> a mistake in his calculation and rather than admit the (very) minor > blunder, he prefers to backwardsly define his "reasoning" for saying it > rather than accept the error.
Nope, what happened is you're an incredible shithead. I knew exactly how many chips were in the pot at every decision. The problem is that you and raider are too stupid to see what those decisions are, and how they impact the other player's decisions.
His original post which sparked all this
> made the statement very clearly a miscalculation.
No, fuckhead. My initial post made it very clear that there was a 600 chip pot to protect.
You, being an imbecile, couldn't understand the math.
I can only imagine the
> cold chill that ran down his spine when he realized he repeatedly called > Raider a moron for an error he made himself, not Raider.
You'd have to imagine it, shit for brains, because in reality it didn't happen.
> However, even if the semantic argument is true and he really is defining > things in a "different" manner than everyone else in the world who > discusses these things, he is still wrong, like you said.
No, shithead. I'm right. The math proves it. Semantics lose to math, moron.
> No, fuckhead. > My initial post made it very clear that there was a 600 chip pot to protect.
Beldin Said:
"Raising all in way ahead into a 600 chip pot is a fine play.
When you can count the pot correctly, let me know. "
Follow:
Into a "600 chip pot" does not use the term "protect" anywhere in it. Not to say that the term "protect" would make your idiotic assertions any more correct. I just want to show that you did not use the term "protect" until you got called out for being wrong and decided to start using that term.
In short, you're a dumb fuck.
Follow :)
---- RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
> On Nov 7 2009 8:16 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> No, fuckhead. >> My initial post made it very clear that there was a 600 chip pot to >> protect.
> Beldin Said:
> "Raising all in way ahead into a 600 chip pot is a fine play.
> When you can count the pot correctly, let me know. "
> Follow:
> Into a "600 chip pot" does not use the term "protect" anywhere in it. Not > to say that the term "protect" would make your idiotic assertions any more > correct. I just want to show that you did not use the term "protect" > until you got called out for being wrong and decided to start using that > term.
Fuckhead, quote the whole message. We KNOW you're too stupid to read; don't make it obvious.
It IS a 600 chip pot when I raise. It's obviously to protect the pot.
> In short, you're a dumb fuck.
No, in short, you're too stupid to see how big an idiot you are
|
