tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309892.post109429977503246527..comments2023-10-24T10:39:00.843+01:00Comments on Internet Poker Pro: Words are Like LeavesBig Dave Dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08582161855630413360noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309892.post-1102043061592501902004-12-03T03:04:00.000+00:002004-12-03T03:04:00.000+00:00Hi Dave,
A while ago, someone mentioned your blog...Hi Dave,<br /><br />A while ago, someone mentioned your blog, and told me that you commented on one my my works. So, as it turns out I am about a month or three late, but anyway, here's my response.<br /><br />First of all, thanks for calling me "one of the favourites" - I don't get compliments that often. :) Now, as to the KKxx hand in question. The only time I have written about this hand, was not in an article, but in the "What's Happening" section on my site. You are 100% correct that in the situation described here (deep money / multiway pot) going all-in with kings single-suited is a very marginal decision. In fact, if you read some of my older PLO articles I have more than once shown the dangers of moving in with KK. And in this case the situation was even more dangerous: not just was I up against three players, my kings were very crappy, so even if my reads on my three opponents were excellent, then I would still be ahead by just a fairly slight margin. In fact, no player that I know would have made the final (massive) raise with a hand this weak, because they would have reasoned "with so much action, someone must have aces"- they would either have called or folded. So, I was proud that I had the courage to trust my read and be correct, being a clear favorite against the person with the second-largest stack, who had QQ22 double-suited, while if I remember correctly one other player had JJ22 and another QQxx - meaning that for a large side pot I was in fact an (unexpected) large favorite, and for the main pot I was in good shape as well, no one even holding a single ace or king (!). More than all this, if you read my piece, you will notice the word "fortunately" on more than one occasion, because I *had* been very fortunate. But I had also made a daring but correct decision to not just flatcall to see a flop, but to come back over the top of not just one, not two, but THREE raises with nothing more than crappy kings, and I was obviously proud of that decision. Wouldn't you be proud if you trust your read so much, that you know that if your read is right, you will probably be ahead by just a slight margin, but if it's wrong you will be a massive dog - now, if you still trust your read in a difficult situation like this and you turn out to be right, wouldn't *you* be proud?<br /><br />I will discuss this entire night of poker into depth in one of my upcoming CardPlayer articles, including this final hand. I have sent over the article already and I cannot make any changes now, so I'll just hope that indeed I have acknowledged how lucky I had been! :) Anyway, Dave, just thought I'd send you a reply, also to compliment you on your blog: it is well-written and contains some excellent info. Keep up the good work, man.<br /><br />Rolf Slotboom<br />www.acespeaks.cjb.net (soon to be transformed into www.rolfslotboom.com)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309892.post-1095451167652460892004-09-17T20:59:00.000+01:002004-09-17T20:59:00.000+01:00I surrender.
He writes as well as he plays.
:-)
...I surrender.<br /><br />He writes as well as he plays.<br /><br />:-)<br /><br />DaveBig Dave Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08582161855630413360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309892.post-1095431636186222382004-09-17T15:33:00.000+01:002004-09-17T15:33:00.000+01:00This field is nothing if not fast-moving. We may ...This field is nothing if not fast-moving. We may have yet another new winner :<br /><br />http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14247Andy_Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11236371144139905784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309892.post-1094971701893141792004-09-12T07:48:00.000+01:002004-09-12T07:48:00.000+01:00Oh god...just found this one on Poker in Europe:
...Oh god...just found this one on Poker in Europe:<br /><br />"Domination of an opponents cards is only part of the equation. Odds will always overcome domination. Thats why the Morton's Theory. The more players the harder it will be to win the hand."<br /><br />Ye Gods! I think we have a winner :-(<br /><br />DaveBig Dave Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08582161855630413360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309892.post-1094576781415680822004-09-07T18:06:00.000+01:002004-09-07T18:06:00.000+01:00Totally agree with what you say.
Phil Hellmuth is...Totally agree with what you say.<br /><br />Phil Hellmuth is amusing - someone mentioned on another forum <br />"The man can rationalize absolutely any situation to pretend he played perfectly and whoever beat him screwed up"<br /><br />Rolf Slotboom's pieces for CardPlayer are embarrasing in the extreme, on a par with Samuels'. Do they pay him for this ???<br /><br />Oh, and Mark Strahan has a book for sale on Amazon. <br /><br />What is the world coming to ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309892.post-1094543412961310622004-09-07T08:50:00.000+01:002004-09-07T08:50:00.000+01:00I liked Jesse's book very much, but find his WSOP ...I liked Jesse's book very much, but find his WSOP reporting variable. Some not so good, but his report on the WPT $25K final (DeKnijff) was excellent.<br /><br />In general, I think you should apply higher standards to writing that's paid for and posted on websites (such as Pokerpages) than blogs or forum posts. After all, in the website case, someone must have said "yes, that's fine, here's the money". It beggars belief in the case of our hero PS, however he's by no means the only one. A lot of the writing on Pokerpages is very poor indeed.<br /><br />Andy.Andy_Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11236371144139905784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309892.post-1094492126455085752004-09-06T18:35:00.000+01:002004-09-06T18:35:00.000+01:00DY,
I said no soft targets :-) Jesse's biggest p...DY,<br /><br />I said no soft targets :-) Jesse's biggest problem is that he seems almost clueless on Poker and has an overinflated opinion of short term results, especially around those he cronies around. The only decent thing he wrote was that the hardest thing was managing the luck, not the skill. He also wrote some good stuff on what is the point of the commericalisation of Poker, which appeared on rgp.<br /><br />Good to see u around, DY<br /><br />DaveBig Dave Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08582161855630413360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309892.post-1094488571053611982004-09-06T17:36:00.000+01:002004-09-06T17:36:00.000+01:00All good points, Dave, but have you seen this:
ht...All good points, Dave, but have you seen this:<br /><br />http://www.thegoodgamblingguide.co.uk/columns/jessemay/latest.htm<br /><br />I find it excruciating. The Zen nonsense is dreadful.<br /><br />David YoungAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com